Turid
New Arrival
Posts: 3
|
Post by Turid on May 5, 2005 12:20:14 GMT -5
I understood that was what you meant. My point is though - that there is no way of separating those from the bad people - beforehand.
Agree. But you can't know that beforehand.
Sometimes you can tell who has that mental capacity from the rest. Other times, you cannot. However, by relying on such an "evaluation" (for the lack of a better word), you're taking a dangerous risk. There have been many instances in which a family father has shot his entrire family because of bankrupcy, because he got insane, and for other reasons. We've seen examples that a child got a hold of a deadly weapon and shot a friend, (example taken from a very promient pro-death penalty activist), there have been examples where weapons have been stolen from private homes, and you may say that people are being stupid when they keep a deadly weapon and ammunition at the same place, which is an argument I never understood.
Firstly: If you want to have a weapon for your own protection, the weapon is not going to help you if you keep the gun unloaded and the ammunition at another place. (what you've got to do in such an incident, was to hope that the burglar actually thought the gun was loaded).
So it would make no sense to keep a gun and play it safe by keeping the ammo at another place. Do we agree this far?
Secondly: If you DO keep the weapon and the ammo at the same place, you are creating a situation children would be extremely curious about. I can't mention ALL the cases I've heard about, but I'll mention one: A child found a loaded weapon. He didn't think it was in fact loaded, so he aimed at a friend, which resulted in the death of an innocent child.
It was said that not keeping the weapon apart from the ammo was reckless behavor, but then again: What do you do if you need it for self-defense?
SO - we are not talking about burglars and other criminals all the time. Accidents happen and it happens a lot! Of course - you may give me a bunch of ideas as to how weapons can be kept away from children, but you know - I really don't believe that when the population of an entire nation has the right to own a gun - that it will be actually be kept away from children. That's not how it works in real life, because sad as it is - not all parents are supervising their kids. Not all parents do handle their kids carefully. There are even people who teach their children how to use guns.....
And I'm not trying to tell you these people are "good people" either. Quite the contrary. No - you're absolutely NOT making this more complicated than what you have to. Actually, the matter of the facts are actually A WHOLE LOT more complicated than what you suggest.
Turid
|
|
Turid
New Arrival
Posts: 3
|
Post by Turid on May 5, 2005 12:25:13 GMT -5
And I've also heard the same. As long as there are not rigid procedures regulating the hygiene in kitchens, there is no way they can avoid, roaches, rats, maggots, etc. in the food. Ideally, the best insurance to avoid such, is to serve steaming hot food. With temperatures so high that there is no way it's infected by bacteria, etc. I can imagine the Polunsky kitchen is rat-heaven...... Love, Turid
|
|
|
Post by truth1 on May 5, 2005 12:48:38 GMT -5
Well, in the example you gave, the parents are clearly at fault. Think about all the people that have guns in the US. A large number of those people have children. I have not heard of an epidemic of accidental shootings involving children that have found their parents guns, have you? You see, it all falls on the responsibility of the parents. If you want to take that approach, why not ban chef knives of baseball bats (recently in the US, a boy in Little League took a bat and beat a teammate to death because he was mad at him).
|
|
|
Post by CCADP on May 5, 2005 12:55:30 GMT -5
For Truth :
The Libertarian Case Against the Death Penalty
By Brian Carnell
Monday, May 24, 1999
It happened again. Last week another prisoner on Illinois' death row was exonerated after new evidence (DNA tests in this case) proved someone else committed the crime. This is getting to be a habit in Illinois. Since 1987, an average of one death row inmate every year has been cleared of the crime for which they were sentenced to die in Illinois.
In the current case Ronald Jones, 49, had been sentenced to death for the brutal rape and murder of Debra Smith, 28, in March of 1985. Blood tests introduced during Jones' trial demonstrated he might have been the killer, but what really cooked Jones' goose was a confession he gave police admitting he raped and murdered Smith.
During his trial and numerous times during his 12 years of incarceration, Jones maintained he signed the confession only to stop the beating he received from the police assigned to interrogate him. Of course now that this "confession" has been proved to be false, Illinois prosecutors quickly announced they weren't going to bother to investigate Jones' charges that he was assaulted by police officers.
In fact, even though Cook County prosecutors announced on May 18, 1999 that they wold drop all charges against Jones and not retry him, the test results on sperm taken from Smith that proved someone other than Jones raped her was completed in 1997. Prosecutors kept Jones sitting in an Illinois jail for two years while "investigating" whether or not they wanted to retry Jones for Smith's murder after the Illinois Supreme Court threw out the conviction in July 1997.
There's nothing like speedy justice.
Jones is certainly no choir boy. Rather than being released from prison, he will be extradited to Tennessee where in 1980 he walked off a prison work release program while serving a sentence for armed robbery. But at the same time neither was he a murderer, and without innovations in DNA testing and the numerous delays in carrying out capital sentences that law and order types despise so much, he almost certainly would have died for a crime he didn't commit.
This outcome should be no surprise to libertarians -- the state is just as inefficient at ensuring the people it sends to their deaths are truly guilty as it is in delivering any other good or service. In other words, barely one step above what well trained chimpanzees could do. Should it really come as any surprise that the same government that can't provide decent schools for children or properly maintain roads can't be bothered to make sure people on death row are really guilty?
Certainly most people who consider themselves libertarians wouldn't hesitate to point out the abuses of the police power that the modern Leviathan state makes all but inevitable. The drug war tends to create and reinforce racial stereotypes among police as well as alienate officers from the people they are supposed to protect, creating a strong us vs. them culture in many jurisdictions. Police officers and chiefs often turn around and become the primary advocates for banning all sorts of consensual activities from pushing for stronger drug legislation and more resources to go after drug users to strong opposition to citizens arming themselves with concealed weapons. It is no secret that significant numbers of police officers see themselves as above the very law they enforce.
But would simply eliminating the corrupt laws, police officers, prosecutors and judges be enough to prevent miscarriages of justice as almost happened with Robert Jones? Perhaps if we lived in a libertarian paradise where government was minimal, billions of dollars wasn't wasted on the drug war, and the state respected people's Constitutional rights, the justice system would get it right and the odds of an innocent person going to jail would be almost nil.
Perhaps. And perhaps in this world of minimal government things would also be so wonderful that nobody would really need to own a handgun for personal protection, thereby making gun control a viable proposition (since the state is minimal, after all, what harm can it do to the gun owner or innocent man?)
Just as most libertarians would object to the claim that a truly just government would obviate the need for gun ownership, so they should reject the notion that the state should have the right to kill its citizens as an officially sanctioned penalty for crimes such as murder.
This should not be taken to mean that the right of individuals or agents of individuals, including the state, lack a right to defend themselves against an imminent danger. People certainly have the right to kill other people who pose a direct and immediate threat to their own safety, but once a criminal, even a murderer, is in custody and placed on trial he or she rarely poses such a direct and immediate threat. Killing him or there, therefore, is more akin to cold blooded murder than an act of self-defense.
Similarly, this should not be taken as a call for the sort of coddling of serious criminals advocated by some misguided activists (usually of Leftist persuasions). A prison system that wasn't bogged down with the overwhelming number of drug and other consensual crimes could easily handle the permanent, lifetime incarceration of those who intentionally commit murder. Those falsely accused of such crimes could be released and compensated by the state when the error is brought to light -- an option unavailable to those killed by the state.
The historical record of the 20<sup>th</sup> century is quite clear that giving any group of people the power to kill those who don't pose an immediate and direct threat inevitably leads that group to apply its power against the innocent, whether intentionally or not. The power to kill those who don't pose a direct and immediate threat should be one firmly opposed by libertarians.
Printer Friendly Version | Reply to this Article (Replies: 1) | View Replies
|
|
Turid
New Arrival
Posts: 3
|
Post by Turid on May 5, 2005 13:24:53 GMT -5
|
|
Turid
New Arrival
Posts: 3
|
Post by Turid on May 5, 2005 13:58:10 GMT -5
Truth,
Which one of these subjects would you consider as most important to keep in mind while discussing firearms?
1) That firearm accident rates have risen in the past years, between 20-25 percent for adolescent white children and a whopping 300 percent for adolescent black children
or:
2) Your Second Amendment right to the Constitution, which reads that the American people are permitted to bear and keep arms.
What matters the most to you?
Turid
|
|
|
Post by truth1 on May 6, 2005 7:35:59 GMT -5
I know those statistics seem compelling, however they can be deceiving. For instance, according to Gary Kleck, author of "Stopping Power", 70 million people own firearms. So, keeping that number in mind, consider some statistics put the number of accidental shootings (children) at a few hundred a year. So, let's say 300 children die per year due to accidental shootings. Now, we cannot assume that all 70 million have children, so lets say that half of them do (the actual number is probably closer to 75%). That would be 0.00086% of the families with children being directly affected by accidental shootings. Now, if you consider an increase of 300%, that would result in 0.0026% being affected by accidental shootings. I know an increase of 300% sounds compelling, but, just remember, when you take all things into consideration, the increase is not really that great. I have always been a critic of statistics because they can be manipulated to support an argument. And you are right, it does fall on the responsibility of the parents. As far as the Second Amendment is concerned, people often read the part that says "...right to keep and bear arms..." and ignore the rest. It is a full sentence and should be read that way. The part they leave out (especially the NRA) is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In other words, the only people given the "right" to bear arms are those of a "well organised Militia"--meaning the Army and police. They are the people obligated (especially the military) to protect the security of a free state. Otherwise, for the average citizen, being able to have a gun is a privilege. I have long been a critic of certain passages in the constitution. Some of them are outdated and are no longer relevant.
|
|
|
Post by CCADP on May 6, 2005 7:39:07 GMT -5
beginning new thread - please continue this discussion there; as its gone way way off food at polunsky thats fine, its a good discussion; but lets switch it to new thread : Guns and Gun Control (relating to DP)
|
|
Turid
New Arrival
Posts: 3
|
Post by Turid on May 6, 2005 9:52:03 GMT -5
beginning new thread - please continue this discussion there; as its gone way way off food at polunsky thats fine, its a good discussion; but lets switch it to new thread : Guns and Gun Control (relating to DP) I am truly sorry, Tracy & Dave. Actually, I was thinking about it. I should have started a new thread once I saw truth and I were getting side tracked. I'll make sure it won't happen again. Thank you for your patience! Love, Turid
|
|
|
Post by CCADP on May 6, 2005 10:01:51 GMT -5
its not a problem guys! I just don't want people to not see the conversation!
|
|