h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Taking away the right to bear arms AND ending capital punishment would start a wave of voilent crimes the likes of which have never been seen before, because capital punishment puts the fear of the police into the criminal, and they WILL find a way to get guns no matter what you do.

Capital punishment does *not* put the fear of the police into the criminal. So far as I know (and please correct me on this if I'm wrong), there is no obvious difference in numbers of violent crimes in states with capital punishment as opposed to those without it.

Also, I'd love to know how taking away the right to bear arms would start more crime? If the general population doesn't have access to weaponry, how can they do some of those things? Granted, people who want guns will get guns, same as abortions (to get back on topic for a second). We can't stop them if they want one badly enough. But having a law against them is likely to squelch a lot of accidents in the very least. To be honest, I personally see the "right to bear arms" as an archaic thing put into place by the people who began this country in order to protect themselves from the British soldiars who might attempt to hurt them - IN COLONIAL TIMES. Not hunting. There is absolutely no reason that the typical modern American should need access to a gun. A number of the rights on the Bill of Rights were put into place because of conditions that existed during the formation of the country and have little or no relevence presently, and I feel that's one of them.

Now my real question is: how the heck did we get onto that topic?

Well.....
I was here: http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/dxanalysis.html

And then it all sort of fell apart....

Wooo! For topic drift.

Eeek, it was just a comment that seemed appropriate at the time.. away...

Yes I do know the topic and I have been lurking here,

"So soldiers are the good murderers"

I'm sorry. I cannot reply without getting moderation on me, and not just because of the ban on talking about the war. (though that's part of it)

....or in other words

or even

Not what that was in reference to... Hmmm...

that was a simulpost! i shall add a too

"So, soldiers are the good murderers"

Congratulations Sat, you just managed to do what very few people ever achieve- make me *really* f****d off.

Ditto.

I was previously surprised & dissapointed at seeing
Not very many being offended at that statement.
*somewhat relieved*

*applauds herself*

Carry on then.

For pissing off two very thoughtful and insightful researchers, Sat? C'mon gal! I have my disagreements with a lot of people here, but one thing I value is people who think, especially when they come to different conclusions than I do, and people who respect others.

Soldiers are not murderers because murder is (a) personal and (b) outside the context of war or armed struggle. There are other reasons, but I don't have the energy to construct a decent and logical argument at the moment.

The more interesting question is 'are terrorists murderers, or are their victims collateral damage in an armed struggle which has been legitimacised in the eyes of one side but not the other?'

B

Wanna try and defend the statement?

Err, that was addressed to Sat, sorry Ben

Well. Being that people are so opposed to the statement, how about yous guys explain why you don't like it (like Ben did) and perhaps I might!