Forget the spoons, keep an eye on your SUV. They are totally irresponsible and will run into other cars. pedestrians, etc with no provocation.
Do Liberals Really Want To Prevent Mass Killings?
- Thread starter AAAintheBeltway
- Start date
Forget the spoons, keep an eye on your SUV. They are totally irresponsible and will run into other cars. pedestrians, etc with no provocation.
In the matter of gun control, or effectively the lack of it despite hundreds of gun laws, stare decisis has already made moot what might otherwise have been effective control.
We should move on to other more productive debates. There may be little choice other than to learn to live with a relatively high gun crimes rate. In any case, it is the rate of crimes committed using guns that should concern us more than the violent gun deaths rate.
We should move on to other more productive debates. There may be little choice other than to learn to live with a relatively high gun crimes rate. In any case, it is the rate of crimes committed using guns that should concern us more than the violent gun deaths rate.
Twenty Two THOUSAND gun laws in the US alone, actually
I'm as pro 2nd amendment as probably anyone here and I don't think for a minute we necessarily have to just live with high gun crime rates.
Instead of declaring a never can be won war on drugs how about a nationwide war on gangs?
How about we stop treating minority (African) offenders with kid gloves?
How about we enforce the many many laws we already have and vigorously prosecute the offenders?
How about we stop wasting a decade or more of time and tax payers money on absurd appeals and start executing these violent offenders the first time, post haste?
How about we allow productive law abiding citizens to justifiably defend themselves without fear of politically motivated prosecution?
If any of you think the liberals want to prevent mass killings, you're smoking crack. What they want is a massive government. Mass killings are their beloved excuse to strip YOU of rights. They LOVE mass shootings. These sick events are what they hope for, which in it's own is SICK!
Wake up!!!! These evil bastards basically want what we left hundreds of years ago... They want NO guns. NO real freedom, etc., They want serfdom, and you all know it. They're the truest form of enemy America has EVER encountered, bar none! IMO, they should either be locked away or exterminated so that we can TRULY be free.
Wake up!!!! These evil bastards basically want what we left hundreds of years ago... They want NO guns. NO real freedom, etc., They want serfdom, and you all know it. They're the truest form of enemy America has EVER encountered, bar none! IMO, they should either be locked away or exterminated so that we can TRULY be free.
I can't disagree with the sentiment you express, but I see some practical problems. One lies in the natural imperfection of courts and juries. For example, in Illinois, when dna testing became available, of the death row inmates for which evidence could be tested, 30% were discovered to be innocent of the crimes that sent them to death row. These "imperfections" are, of course, why the appeals process, cumbersome though it may be, exists.
Prosecutors are oftentimes accused of being too vigorous in their prosecution -- this, more often then we would like to admit, takes the form of suppressing exonerating evidence known only to the prosecution. And there are many other kinds of prosecution "misbehavior." At present, for example, a new trial is being granted to New Orleans police convicted of murder during the Katrina debacle because of one of the prosecutor's misconduct. Vigorous prosecution is good, but politically motivated and dishonest is not.
We have always stood on the principle that it is better to let a guilty person go free than trample the rights of the innocent. Would you want to reverse that and accept say a one-third conviction rate of the innocent to assure a very high conviction rate of the guilty?
To be sure, I would rather fight gangs than drugs. Neither war can be 100% successful, but the win rate battling gangs will be certainly better than the near zero success record of the war on drugs.
There my be some anecdotal evidence that offenders among our minority population are "treated with kid gloves." The make-up of our prison population, however, says otherwise, unless you meant these offenders should be drawn and quartered rather than imprisoned.
Even though the threat of going to prison may be quite effective in reducing crime among the country club set, it is an ineffective deterrent among ghetto dwellers judging by their high incarceration rate. One would think that if the chance of going to prison were an effective crime deterrent, the U.S. would not have the highest incarceration rate in the world, but instead, both low crime and incarceration rates.
Apparently the theory that imprisonment deters crime is a case where theory predicts and practice contradicts. Judging by our U.S. experience, imprisonment has virtually no deterrent value at all. What then is its value, other than of course to prison corporation share holders? It seems the only value is the satisfaction that comes from retribution. Retribution is looking very expensive these days!
I agree, we can reduce the crime rate. So let's get on with it. But we are not going to accomplish anything with the standard politician's populist law and order platform. That has got us to where we are.
Is it time to stop doing the same thing while expecting different results? I would think so! We had better re-think this entire tough on crime business. Our brand of tough is not working.
Why as a society are we not insisting these prosecutors be stripped of their position charged and prosecuted like the poor bastards they screwed over?
In many regards we already have the reverse. In law abiding citizens having their rights and freedoms trampled because of a few. Gun control just as an example.
probably more because they commit a disproportionate number of the crimes to begin with.
True, which is 1) why thousands of gun laws do nothing to stop gun violence and 2) I'm not advocating incarceration. I'm advocating mass executions.
I've already all but stopped voting for my previous "team". Have you?
I'm a registered republican, but am absolutely put out by them (John McCain, Lindsey graham, etc.,), and am libertarian, and looking for more like me to vote for. It's funny. No matter how badly the dems destroy our country, their supporters stand by them, and like nutcases, try to splain the nonsense. Says a lot about just who's the smarter group of people... Hint: not the democrats, and their apologists!
Prison has three traditional purposes. One, is deterrence, another is retribution or punishment. The third, not mentioned by pie, is to remove dangerous people from society. Incarceration clearly does accomplish that goal, so it is not a total waste.
The second goal, punishment, is not trivial. It is society's way of demonstrating to victims that their interests are not being ignored. An ancillary benefit is to remove the impetus for revenge or vigilante justice.
The second goal, punishment, is not trivial. It is society's way of demonstrating to victims that their interests are not being ignored. An ancillary benefit is to remove the impetus for revenge or vigilante justice.
Terrorists Kill 75 In Suicide Bombing at Christian Church in Pakistan
See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ter...hristian-church-pakistan#sthash.G2oaG5wt.dpuf
On the upside at least they didn't use one of those scary assault rifles with a high capacity magazine.
See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ter...hristian-church-pakistan#sthash.G2oaG5wt.dpuf
On the upside at least they didn't use one of those scary assault rifles with a high capacity magazine.