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

It is shown that once someone goes into the prison system they are unlikely to get back to the "straight and narrow."
The problem is that once they, as a newboy (or girl) to the criminal fraternity, have access to the real professionals the level of education in criminal activity far outstrips the positive opportunities provided for equipping them to live a crime free life.

Tchah. Everybody knows that "prison works" - that's why the UK's crime rate escalated so quickly once we reached the top of the league for prison population per capita - just as Michael "Creature of the Night" Howard.

It would be great if schools and colleges worked the same way.

Judge "I find you guilty of learning something worthwhile so I am going to sentence you to three years in a place of education."
Defence Barrister "But m'lud, please be lenient! You know that it would cost the state loads of money to keep him there and he'd be rubbing shoulders with other known, hardline "students". Excuse my language m'lud! But he might get into some good habits and then get a well paid job."
Judge "Ah yes, I'd forgotten. Alright then, it's the dole for you my boy! You shall be taken from this place to another place where you will be placed in a queue without hope and be asked the same questions over and over again until you die of boredom. And may the Lord have mercy on your soul!"

You could sterilize everyone you send to one of those islands. I think it should be co-ed, simply because if it isn't, you're being harsher on the heterosexual inmates than the homosexual inmates.

So, if you don't have a gun to take out the offensive neighbor, you can tape a firecracker to a couple of bic lighters and have a fire-grenade which'll send him up in flames. Cheaper than a gun, all materials readily available, and more effective than a firearm- simply because (as the saying goes) "close counts in horseshoes and hand-grenades"....

Put the device on an arrow-shaft, and you've got a long-distance weapon as effective as many rocket-launchers.

A hunting slingshot will serve as adequately...

If you want to get really fancy, you can take the contact explosive out of a few of the "poppers" that kids like to throw around, with the innards of a firecracker, and you've got a device which'll only explode upon impact with your target. And again, you only have to get close.

I don't think getting rid of guns will stymie people who really have an itch to take someone out. Guns are just tools- like arrows, knives, whatever. You can use tools to build, or provide for yourself (and for a certain percentage of the rural population, hunting does, indeed, put the only meat on the table- I went to school with a guy who had to hunt for meat, because his family was poor), or you can use tools to destroy.

It's the values you put into your society which determines wheather the tools are used as they should be used, or wheather they are used in violent, anti-social ways. And I think, once again, that the "wartime" mentality put onto our streets by the "drug war" is the basis of the rise of violent gun-related crimes in the U.S..

Bugger what Reagan said...

Certainly you're never going to stop the truelly deranged & determined nutter - but the need to go away & build a weapon of choice would certainly allow a normally rational person to cool down & realise what they were doing.

Also, if the weapon had to be constructed before use surely, the huge number of victims of firearm accidents would be drastically reduced - unless of course, you plan to keep a home made grenade under your bed for 'protection' so that the kids can find it & play with it.

I'd have to agree on the drug war part though.


;^)#

Bruce: I wasn't talking about taking revenge on someone. That's a whole other ball of wax. I was talking about stopping someone from killing/maiming/enslaving you- when there was no other way out except to either to submit to the fate they intend for you, or deliver the same to them- i.e. in a situation where the other is trying to use some sort of DEADLY FORCE against you, not when he's gone home and left you alone, or when he's been nullified by incarceration.

There is a time when someone can be a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER, and a time when there is no such justification for use of deadly force. I think anyone confronted with deadly force has a right to defend themselves- with the best tools they have to do such.

If our hypothetical jew had killed a nazi who was going to take him away to a concentration camp to be killed, he is defending himself- whereas the hypothetical nazi is the agressor, coming to take someone who was NO THREAT to his life, property, of his family away to be killed.

In my view, this justifies the jew doing whatever he had to do- whereas the nazi had no rhyme or reason to invade the jew's house to cart him off to be killed.

The jew had commited no crime, had displayed no intent to harm anyone around him- while the nazi's sole intent was to pillage and kill and rape these individuals who were just trying to live their lives and find meaning, prosperity, and happiness.

You sound much like Chamberlan (sp?), who wanted peace at all costs with the nazis. Peace is good, it is better than jumping off to war at the drop of a hat- agreed. Many wars have been fought for no reason other than the money of the rich. However, when confronted with direct agression of another nation- what choice do you have? Would you rather be living in the National Socialist Britan Hitler wanted to set-up, or in the relatively free Britan which exists now because Churchill put the spurs to the people and stood up to the facsists and FOUGHT them with the deadly force they brought against the rest of the world?

If you bow down to the tyrant, are you not guilty of the tyrants sins? Have you not washed your hands of responsability in the matter in the blood of the condemned?

How would you react to someone invading your house and threatening your life, and the lives of your family? Would you sheepishly let them do as they will with you? What would be gained by not only you, but the rest of the world by this act? What about the next family the intruder kills? Do you not have their blood on your hands when you could have stopped him, but chose NOT to?

I hope you never have to make that choice.

Well, one would certainly have to say the guy who shot his neighbor for throwing some lawn-trimmings in his yard was definately a "nutter"- not that the man who tossed it into the yard was a yardstick for rational behavior either.

The guy in question obviously went to a lot of trouble to circumvent the laws of Britan concerning the possession of firearms, so he would obviously be the kind of guy to go that extra mile in order to have some sort of weapon. I'd hazard a guess that if he hadn't killed him with the gun, he would have taken an axe to his friendly neighbor, or something. This smacks of something which had been going on long before the rubbish incident. Because, let's face it, you just don't toss stuff into your neighbor's yard without some sort of grievance- and probably a long-standing one. I personally think this was a situation which was going to explode sooner or later anyway- despite having a gun or no.

I've owned and possesed guns all my life, and have yet to shoot anyone, or even show a gun to intimidate anyone. I've never had to do that- and I've been in some rightous rages in my time, too.

What you have is people who are so disgusted, so fed up, so HOPELESS in the face of a situation, that they don't CARE what happens to them. That's what needs to be addressed- the fact that people can be driven to the point that they just don't care what happens to THEMSELVES- much less anyone else. As long as people feel that way, they're going to act on those impulses, wheather they have guns or bows, or swords, or sticks and stones.

First of all, I would like to say that I believe we as a country have become blood thirsty and narrow minded when it comes to what we think of as justice. Many times our versions of justice are really vengence. Saying that someone "deserves to die" is not a good reason to kill that person, morally. However, this in and of itself is not a good reason to kill someone. There is one, just one, good reason to kill; if that person lived someone else would be killed. When a murder is put in prison and given no chance for parole until he is too weak in mind and body to kill again, then there is no good reason to kill him. However there are many good reasons, other than moral ones, not to kill a criminal. First of all, our legal process is based on the words, "It is better for a hundred guilty men to go free than one innocent be imprisoned." (Ben Franklin) There are checks and balances with the legal system giving every inmate right to appeal. Deathrow inmates appeal more often than most. This means that an inmate slated to die costs a huge amount more than any "life imprisoned" imate, ever if the former is dead in two years. Secondly, many people who are willing to kill would be willing to die. Many may rather die, or at least be segregated out as death row prisoners, than to circulate in a regular "prison atmosphere" for the rest of their life. Not many 25 year old killers look fondly on the idea of rooming with a large roomie who has "special tastes" or showering and "dropping the soap." Also, being locked with a few acres at the most for ever 10 years is a frightening thought. When your dead you don't have to deal with any of that.
I realize I am a little long winded, and I may not change anyones mind, but the is a difference between murder and execution. Murder is based on irrationalities; hate, anger, fear, vengence. A true and just execution is carried out only when there is no other option to protect society.

I think what you say carries weight. I think, generally the decision on whether someone else would die if this person lived is more likely to be "pre" the judicial system than be part of it. I.e. the police sharpshooter (or whoever) who has a gunman in his sight makes the decision - not the court.

I know it doesn't always happen but people who are stil deemed a risk to society should not be let go freely into the community. Who makes _that_ decision has a huge burden to carry.

Which is why we must be so careful of who it is that we allow to make those decisions:
The DA running for governor
The Home Secretary who's got an eye for the PM's job
The 70yr old judge who still calls black people fuzzy wuzzys

Who should make the decision?

Another multiple murder in the US.
The murderer shot himself - so the death penalty or prison was no deterrent.
How about taking the guns away?
Or should we start arming people in church now?
Could this be continued in a new thread?

Seen/heard during TV report of above
"We dived for the ground said one young girl, just like we were taught to in college....."

Sort of sums up the problem really.


;^)#

It's certainly fascinating to listen to all the really really convincing reasons why mass murders have nothing to do with widespread availability of guns, and it's just a bizarre coincidence that countries where guns are well controlled (note: not banned) have far lower levels of such crimes.

This forum is very serious and doesn'ty belong to me. Could we get a new thread? Please? Downloading is very long.

Gee, talking with you here is nowhere near as much fun as over in the smoking advertising one.


;^)#

Me no understand. You want to restart somewhere else? Fine. Do it and post a link.

Perhaps I should propose a ban on gun advertising?

LOL - yep that could do it.


;^)#

But only, of course, where the gun is shown smoking