1
   

To END VIOLENT CRIME ( almost )

 
 
najmelliw
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jun, 2007 03:53 pm
Ullo David.

1) Catch recidivists? The measures you suggest would heavily impign on the civil rights of America's citizens, imho. But, ok, you pull it off. In doing so, you catch every scumbag you can find, and then ship them off to some other country (who, along with the rest of the world, will think you treat them like trash and resent you for it, but hey, who's keeping count?)So after we have done this, on to point two.

2) Next, you repeal all gun control laws. Essentially, encouraging all leftover americans (who should all be nice and decent people, according to 1) to wear guns. Great. Now, first off, you need to hermetically shut the borders of your country. No illegal aliens allowed inside your country anymore, by virtue of not knowing their background, and the stipulations set forth by you in point 1. But suppose, someone looses his assets due to an accident or unfortunate investment in no way related to drug abuse.
Now, (s)he is desperate and has a weapon. (S)he needs food and drinks urgently, so, (s)he needs money. Now, it seems to me we have the ingredients for a robbery right here. How is the police going to arrest individuals like these? (Who have guns, and probably are desperate?)

3) Next, you wish to abolish all antidrug law. All Americans should be free
to eat whatever they want. Most won't start on drugs anyways. But, as long as there is no way for citizens to obtain the drugs they need legally and reasonably prized, the drug lords WON't disappear. Becuase they will still be the ONLY supplier in town, they'll have a MONOPOLY as well. Current drug users will have to continue to pay high prizes for inferior products until there is competition that comes cheaper.
And criminals facing competition have very aggrssive business ethics, which undoubtedly fall under your precious point 1), commencing a rehash of my points so far.

Don't expect my vote anytime soon.

Naj.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jun, 2007 06:19 pm
aidan wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
aidan wrote:
I have a question- How are you David? Laughing
And a comment: always happy to see you- and I hope you are well.

Hi, how r things in England ?
I feel better.

On summer vacation now ?

David


Quote:
Hey David:
Things in England are good- though our beautiful, dry, sunny, summerlike weather
of April turned into the wettest May they've had apparently in quite a while.
And June weather has been pretty indecisive so far, each day can't quite decide
how it's going to be- so there's no telling what the predominant weather
will turn out to be.

England has a reputation
for foggy wet weather, right ?



Quote:
Anyway, I'll be here another six weeks to the end of July-
working right to the end- no summer vacations where I work
-
What happened to summer vacations ?



Quote:
then two weeks in Greece
,
Take in the history ?
Remember: don't look at Medusa.



Quote:
and then back to the US for good mid August- upstate NY-
I'll let you know when we get there and then maybe I can meet you at
that restaurant with the Aaron Burr connection you told me about and we
can compare American to British beef Wellington.

Good !
I 'll look forward to it.


Quote:
I'm glad you're feeling better. Take care- Rebecca

Thank u.
Have a wonderful time.
David
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2007 12:19 am
Quote:
England has a reputation
for foggy wet weather, right ?

Yes, that's its reputation and I guess deservedly so, in terms of the rain if not the fog, but that abundance of rain is what makes it such a green and pleasant land- which is, at least in my neck of the woods, the first thing I noticed and fell in love with about England.

But my father was describing what he loved about England to me when we'd found out I was coming, but before I'd ever been and he said, "A perfect summer day in England is more perfect than anywhere else in the world." I've come to agree with him. There's just this wonderful indescribable "somethingness" about it that makes it extra special- I think birdsong plays into it somehow - at least for me.

*Here's something weird as I know you're a spelling afficianado- I just did the opposite of phonetic spelling and automatically added a "k" to the beginning of "neck". I had to look at it three times before I realized what was wrong...I know I don't spell neck all that often, but that's kind of weird. ..

Quote:
What happened to summer vacations ?

People still have them, but not people who are incarcerated- although they did get the Queen's birthday set aside as a special day of inactivity.

Where I work David, the opportunity to leave one's cell for education is seen as a relief from the routine of lock down and being banged up in the cell- a chance to get out- so what you and I would call a vacation- is the opposite to them. I can only guess what your response to that would be Laughing - unless you make a response- and then I'll know for sure, but it brings me to an interesting question which is somewhat on topic- what is your feeling about education for offenders who have been imprisoned? Do you think they deserve it? Would you provide it in your program of banishment? Why or why not?

Quote:
Quote:
then two weeks in Greece
,
Take in the history ?
Remember: don't look at Medusa.

A friend of mine has a friend who has a house on Kea- the largest island in the Cyclades. I'm going to stay a few days there, and then I'm working on a volunteer work program doing some environmental clean up and clearing of trails in one of the national parks which has some sort historical significance. I'll be flying into and out of Athens, and I'll only be a short ferry boat ride from Athens, so I'll be able to also see all the sights there pretty easily as well. I'll be sure to avoid Medusa.
Quote:


Quote:
and then back to the US for good mid August- upstate NY-
I'll let you know when we get there and then maybe I can meet you at
that restaurant with the Aaron Burr connection you told me about and we
can compare American to British beef Wellington.

Good !
I 'll look forward to it.


Okay, because I am going to hold you to that- so just be ready.

Sorry to bend your ear with all this- but you're so elusive these days-I wanted to take full advantage of an enjoyable chat while I had you here- sorry if it offended anyone elses sensibilities-but I figured as it's such a rare occurrence these days- maybe I could have a little lee-way without too much bad feeling.
But I actually do have a question on topic for you and here it is:
It hit me when I was reading the thread on kindness that I think the ability or desire to be kind is more innate in some personalities than others. I have to also say that I've come to believe, through direct experience and observation, that the ability or desire to behave criminally is more innate in some personalities than others (and not just politically liberal folks David- that's not the avenue I want to go down with this).

Do you believe that's true? If you do, had you thought of that when you came up with the list of consequences you'd impose? If you hadn't thought of that, but upon reflection do come to the conclusion it might be true, is there anything you'd change in your punishment regime, based on this particular possibility?

Nice talking to you- see ya- Rebecca
0 Replies
 
Coolwhip
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2007 12:39 am
How about you just PM each other?
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2007 01:13 am
Laughing hmm, I guess that means no lee-way, huh?

I personally don't pm anyone who doesn't pm me first- especially not males. I think it has something to do with the fact that my mother taught me it's forward and unladylike or something equally as scarily retrograde in this day in age- but some of those things- once ingrained- never leave a person. That's why I didn't pm David- but I do enjoy speaking with him- so I guess I just decided to spurn convention, and do so.

Sorry if I offended your sensibilities Coolwhip-I'll try not to do it (purposefully at least) again.
0 Replies
 
Coolwhip
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2007 01:35 am
My no, I'm not offended. It just struck me that you conversation kind of derailed the discussion.
0 Replies
 
OGIONIK
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2007 01:42 am
najmelliw wrote:
Ullo David.

1) Catch recidivists? The measures you suggest would heavily impign on the civil rights of America's citizens, imho. But, ok, you pull it off. In doing so, you catch every scumbag you can find, and then ship them off to some other country (who, along with the rest of the world, will think you treat them like trash and resent you for it, but hey, who's keeping count?)So after we have done this, on to point two.

2) Next, you repeal all gun control laws. Essentially, encouraging all leftover americans (who should all be nice and decent people, according to 1) to wear guns. Great. Now, first off, you need to hermetically shut the borders of your country. No illegal aliens allowed inside your country anymore, by virtue of not knowing their background, and the stipulations set forth by you in point 1. But suppose, someone looses his assets due to an accident or unfortunate investment in no way related to drug abuse.
Now, (s)he is desperate and has a weapon. (S)he needs food and drinks urgently, so, (s)he needs money. Now, it seems to me we have the ingredients for a robbery right here. How is the police going to arrest individuals like these? (Who have guns, and probably are desperate?)
what happens if they dont have a gun, they starve to death??? i dont see how owning a gun would change circumstances, so what happens NOW if you lose your assets and need food and drink? you simply give up and die or what?

3) Next, you wish to abolish all antidrug law. All Americans should be free
to eat whatever they want. Most won't start on drugs anyways. But, as long as there is no way for citizens to obtain the drugs they need legally and reasonably prized, the drug lords WON't disappear. Becuase they will still be the ONLY supplier in town, they'll have a MONOPOLY as well. Current drug users will have to continue to pay high prizes for inferior products until there is competition that comes cheaper.
And criminals facing competition have very aggrssive business ethics, which undoubtedly fall under your precious point 1), commencing a rehash of my points so far.

Don't expect my vote anytime soon.

Naj.
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2007 02:05 am
Coolwhip said:
Quote:
My no, I'm not offended. It just struck me that you conversation kind of derailed the discussion.


Yeah, kind of, except that I also was answering questions that the author of the thread himself asked me- although I do admit- I probably went into a little more detail than he may have expected- but I also apologized for doing that AND I added some questions that DO have to do with the topic and which to my mind, if people take them seriously, could enhance the discussion.

I'm interested- what DO people think about education for prisoners? I'm especially interested in how someone like David who has implied by his proposed treatment of people who have offended that he's against any sort of extras for prisoners, would view education. Is it an extra? Or is it something that is absolutely and fundamentally necessary if these people who choose criminality are ever to find the resources to choose something different?

And I do think this ties very well into the conversation, especially where
OGIONIK said this:

Quote:
to end crime you will need to end poverty, So one could say crime will never be extinguished.
0 Replies
 
najmelliw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2007 02:11 am
Quote:
2) Next, you repeal all gun control laws. Essentially, encouraging all leftover americans (who should all be nice and decent people, according to 1) to wear guns. Great. Now, first off, you need to hermetically shut the borders of your country. No illegal aliens allowed inside your country anymore, by virtue of not knowing their background, and the stipulations set forth by you in point 1. But suppose, someone looses his assets due to an accident or unfortunate investment in no way related to drug abuse.
Now, (s)he is desperate and has a weapon. (S)he needs food and drinks urgently, so, (s)he needs money. Now, it seems to me we have the ingredients for a robbery right here. How is the police going to arrest individuals like these? (Who have guns, and probably are desperate?)what happens if they dont have a gun, they starve to death??? i dont see how owning a gun would change circumstances, so what happens NOW if you lose your assets and need food and drink? you simply give up and die or what?


That is true. The idea of government aid would undoubtedly help this person as well, so he wouldn't need to use his gun.
But this is twisting around the point I am trying to make. Let's generalize in order to avoid more confusion. Now, in Davids scenario, if I interpret correctly, Americans are taught to use weapons in a responsible manner in grade school, and are required by law to own/carry a gun.
Now say one person, a gun owner, commits for one reason or another a crime. He is required by the government to possess the tools he needs to carry this off. The point that, if others own guns as well, such crimes are prevented due to 'calculated risk' logic on part of the would be perpetrator, doesn't wash. First off, I talk about desperation, a situation where logic rarely plays a large role. Second, in any situation, the one with the gun in his hand has the upper hand. No matter if I have five Uzi's strapped around my waist, if an old lady is pointing her Beretta nine millimetre at me, I am powerless to defend myself, since grabbing a gun takes longer then squeezing a trigger.
But, back to the desperate person. He carries a gun, has commited a crime, and doesn't want to get arrested (who does, really?) No doubt he will wind up in a firefight with the cops. So where would that lead to? Possible victims among the police, probably one dead or severly wounded suspect. And next? Deport this person as well?
And a person can/will be desperate if his/her desire for something becomes such a burning need that it pulverizes the boundaries set by the rational mind. A woman wanting a baby perhaps. A cheated on husband wanting revenge. Somene with the belief (s)he is duty/honorbound to dispose of certain groups or types of individuals. Someone identifying so much with a celebrity that (s)he wants to become one. I 'm sure more examples can be easily thought of, and all these individuals will have guns to help them pull of their depsperate act.

But there are other problems as well.


And what about irrational/delusional people? Can these be trusted with weapons? It can be quite hard to correctly identify the seriously disturbed (look at the serial killers and the amount of victims they made before someone even became suspicious). Thanks to these laws it is much easier for them to get the weapons they need.
What about those morally offended or religiously forbidden to use weapons? Should these pacifists be punished for failing to follow government orders?
What to do in a situation where a person (who has been trained in the use of a gun) uses it to kill a criminal? In essence, a person taking another persons life. A traumatic event, except perhaps for the most callous among us. How do we help these people with the psychological trauma? What if they refuse to carry guns any longer?
Next, how about sniper rifles? I can still vividly remember the teror on the streets of Washington DC with the sniper on the loose. There is NO way to protect yourself from these kinds of people. So, do we forbid sniper rifles?

Mr. David feels he has every little detail taken care off in his master plan to rid the US of A of any and all crime forever. Sorry if I beg to disagree.
0 Replies
 
najmelliw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2007 02:15 am
Quote:
I'm interested- what DO people think about education for prisoners? I'm especially interested in how someone like David who has implied by his proposed treatment of people who have offended that he's against any sort of extras for prisoners, would view education. Is it an extra? Or is it something that is absolutely and fundamentally necessary if these people who choose criminality are ever to find the resources to choose something different?


Interesting idea. I'm all in favor. The question has no meaning for David, though, since his point 1) pretty much eliminates the need for prisons. Simply use the rest of the world as the trashcan for America's unwanted.
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2007 12:08 pm
I think he's thinking very specifically of the Aleutian Islands as his receptacle or "trashcan". But I'm asking, in what way would these people be treated or served during that banishment? Even if they were not allowed to reenter society, they'd be participating in their own society and I'm wondering if any kind of growth or stabilization of personalities would be encouraged, or if anarchy would be encouraged or allowed to rule.

I've been very surprised by some of the personality growth and modes of interaction I"ve seen in a prison atmosphere- and not in a negative way.
Some of the behaviors I've seen that become second nature in prison (between inmates usually- not between a person in a position of authority to another, or a person in a position of authority to an inmate) are more solicitous and caring than those I've seen out and about in normal everyday society.
Banishment from society is not always a bad thing. Some people actively choose it.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2007 12:15 pm
There is a very nice resort at Dutch Harbor in the Aleutians. You can't just pick a place without investigating first. It's a long string of islands, as I recall, but the safety and livelihood of the small population ought to be enough consideration to derail that locale.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2007 12:25 pm
A couple of other suggestions....

Get rid of the "War on Drugs(TM)". That would cut crime in America down to a third of its present numbers within two years.

Get over the "Right2Life(TM)" thing. It's mainly demoKKKrats who have abortions and unwanted children generally grow up to be criminals. The 30,000,000 abortion victims since Roe/Wade which we keep hearing about, had they lived, would comprise a thirty-million-man army of crime which voted demoKKKratic. I've yet to hear a good explanation of how that would be good for the United States.

Steven Levitt is entirely right in noting that the drastic and unanticipated falloff in crime in the US going into the late 90s entirely coincided with the non-arrival of a new generation of criminals which had all been aborted.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2007 12:34 pm
Gunga truly is the most outlandish person I have ever met, either in the real or in the virtual world. I am just... amazed.
0 Replies
 
najmelliw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2007 12:44 pm
gungasnake wrote:
A couple of other suggestions....

Get rid of the "War on Drugs(TM)". That would cut crime in America down to a third of its present numbers within two years.

Get over the "Right2Life(TM)" thing. It's mainly demoKKKrats who have abortions and unwanted children generally grow up to be criminals. The 30,000,000 abortion victims since Roe/Wade which we keep hearing about, had they lived, would comprise a thirty-million-man army of crime which voted demoKKKratic. I've yet to hear a good explanation of how that would be good for the United States.

Steven Levitt is entirely right in noting that the drastic and unanticipated falloff in crime in the US going into the late 90s entirely coincided with the non-arrival of a new generation of criminals which had all been aborted.


*BOGGLE*
wow. Eheh. Democrats equal KKK? lol. Great statement by the way. 'It's mainly democrats who have abortions and unwanted children generally grow up to be criminals'
Hmm. Seems to me you really depsise... the republicans.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2007 12:53 pm
gunga and david: two great minds in tandem.
0 Replies
 
OGIONIK
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2007 08:01 pm
gungasnake wrote:
A couple of other suggestions....

Get rid of the "War on Drugs(TM)". That would cut crime in America down to a third of its present numbers within two years.

Get over the "Right2Life(TM)" thing. It's mainly demoKKKrats who have abortions and unwanted children generally grow up to be criminals. The 30,000,000 abortion victims since Roe/Wade which we keep hearing about, had they lived, would comprise a thirty-million-man army of crime which voted demoKKKratic. I've yet to hear a good explanation of how that would be good for the United States.

Steven Levitt is entirely right in noting that the drastic and unanticipated falloff in crime in the US going into the late 90s entirely coincided with the non-arrival of a new generation of criminals which had all been aborted.


Yeah the drug laws are fuckin old already, pure ignorance and easy labor for the government, so i doubt they will be repealed.

Sadly, i have to agree. I should have been aborted, my parents couldnt afford to keep me. They should have a yearly income limit for having children, for example if you make under 50,000 a year you shouldnt be able to have kids. Im dead serious.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2007 08:37 pm
OGIONIK wrote:


Sadly, i have to agree. I should have been aborted, my parents couldnt afford to keep me. They should have a yearly income limit for having children, for example if you make under 50,000 a year you shouldnt be able to have kids. Im dead serious.


Don't get me wrong on this one. I would ADVISE people not to have abortions in 90% of the cases I ever hear about. Nonetheless that other 10% contains cases so compelling that I can't picture outlawing the procedure. Of all the right-wing/Republican ideas I've ever come across, this is the one I wish I'd never heard of.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2007 10:10 pm
I should mention this for the benefit of anybody who might be experiencing any sort of a real crime wave in the hood or otherwise close to home...

Aside from guns and other mechanical things, poisons can have an excellent effect on criminals as well. For instance, no criminal worth anything at all would ever leave a bottle of expensive wine on the front seat of a car he was taking the radio out of. Rent a copy of "Arsenic and Old Lace" for the basic idea or, if arsenic is hard to come by where you live, perhaps something like diazanon.

You can put Japanese beetles in a jar of gasoline and they'll live for a minute or two but the slightest touch of liquid diazanon is like somebody just flipped off a switch.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/15/2019 at 05:33:31