Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 03:24:48 +0000 From: "Frank Pawlak" <fpawlak@execpc.com> To: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no>, Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com>, drifter@stratos.net Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Does it's true? Message-ID: <980701032448.ZM16193@darkstar.connect.com> In-Reply-To: drifter@stratos.net "Re: Does it's true?" (Jun 30, 4:34pm) References: <19980627034631.A944@stratos.net> <199806270857.CAA17321@softweyr.com> <19980627182937.40983@follo.net> <19980627211308.B392@stratos.net> <19980628172900.08399@follo.net> <19980630163405.B714@stratos.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jun 30, 4:34pm, drifter@stratos.net wrote: > Subject: Re: Does it's true? > On Sun, Jun 28, 1998 at 05:29:00PM +0200, Eivind Eklund wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 27, 1998 at 09:13:08PM -0400, drifter@stratos.net wrote: > > > This is one common-sense statement that I happen to agree with > > > gun control advocates on. Guns certainly do make it /easier/ to kill > > > people than knives do. (And bombs make it even easier than guns.) > > > But sorry, Eivind, Wes is right about personal responsibility. > > > > A society should be formed to give maximum benefit to the individuals > > in that society. Saying "That criminal was irresponsible" when a > > criminal got a gun and shot your daugther won't bring you anywhere. > > The interesting question is what is done right or wrong on the level > > of a society to bring about or deter this behaviour. Your question regarding what society had done or is doing to bring about ot to deter this behaviour is the crux of the matter. Its readily apparent that in the US, society has in general become more violent. People in general are behaving in ways that show an almost total disrespect for the other person. It has gotten to the point that the prevelent attitude is that as long as I get what I want how cares about the next person. Responsibility for one's actions is getting to be less and less of an issue with many people. Blame my problems on someone else or on how I was abused as a child or other circumstances. It is true that childhood abuse is a factor that is getting worse, or at least is getting more press. So perhaps there is a role for it to play in this problem. The has been a de-sensitization toward and increasing tolerence of violence. Why this is occuring is a matter of some speculation. Perhaps it is greater exposure to violence, but I don't know that that has been proven. However, i have some personal experience that would lead me to believe that it plays a major role. The thug and hoodlum has become more brazen during this time period. An old saying that went along the lines of: I wouldn't walk down that street or road at night, has become I wouldn't go there at any time. > > No, but when you don't have a consistent pattern of punishment > (read consequences) for such actions, it makes such people all the more > bold about there actions. If this happens unchecked, there will be the > risk of increase in crime as arrogance runs out of control. > > > > > > While I agree with the necessity for common-sense regulation > > > of firearms consistent with traditional understanding of the Second > > > Amendment, (in the U.S., at least) the old NRA adage of "Guns don't > > > kill people, people kill people" is a truth many don't want to > > > accept, even if they pay lip service to it. > > > > I'm not certain how the traditional understanding of the second > > amandement is. I've seen so many of them :-) Can you enlightenment as > > to which you consider traditional? > > Very briefly (to conserve space): the right to bear arms at all, > as opposed to the government simply saying 'You may not own or use guns > in any way, any where.' Or less restrictive, but clearly arbitrary laws > meant only to reduce the number of legal gun-ownership cases. I'm not > talking about concealed weapons laws, or laws preventing automatic weapons. > Nevertheless, the point (which I ackowledged) that it is unclear > what laws are consistant and what are not with the second amendment, because > of the poorly worded clauses in that amendment. In any case, the general > trend these days is to make laws more restrictive than they used to be. First off I am not anti gun. Here that Wes. Apparently not restrictive enough. I have no problem in general with possession of firearms. That is a right granted and protected by the US constitution. And that is as it should be. Yet, I do belive that some guns are bad ot just plain meant for massive killing power. First is the so called "saturday night special". No gun enthusiast that I know would have anything to do with them. They are junk that is cheaply made and dangerous to fire. They do blowup in the shooters hands. This stuff should have never been allowed on the market. They are just a cheap way for criminals to get their hands on some fire power. Gun sellers made a fortune on this crap. Assault rifles and similarly designed hand guns do not under any circunstances don't belong in civilian hands. The reason for this are blatantly obvious. > > > > > People kill because they are bad, not because of people like > > > Charlton Heston talking about gun rights all of the time. I am not > > > a member of the NRA, and don't even own a firearm. (The only time I > > > ever shot off one was a time I went skeet shooting -- hit the first > > > clay pigeon and then went 0 for 29!) But I am sick and tired of them > > > being blamed for crimes committed by murderers who lack decency and > > > respect for human life. > > > > This is just plain false. I'm sorry - guns kill people in a _large_ > > set of accidents. You and your family are more likely to be hurt by a > ^^^^^^^^^^ > What exactly in the above paragraph is false? Or are you just > saying the general attitude behind those remarks is wrong? I mentioned > nothing about accidents. Agreed, people do die with gun accidents. More > people die in car accidents. Should we consider making a driver's license > just as restrictive as the way some people would make gun-owner licenses? True. Gun deaths cause by accident are a small percentage of gun related deaths. These are usually caused by dimwits carelessly handling weapons or irresponsible parents that keep weapons in places that allow access by children. > > > gun you buy than the sum of other people. > > > > However, I'm not generally blaming guns in themselves - I'm stating > > that the availability of guns made for killing people make it more > > likely that a criminal will use a gun for killing people. This is > > statistically certain, and placing blame won't bring us anywhere. > > The idea is that blaming guns deflects blame where it belongs: > the people who use them. When this happens in a society over a sustained > period of time, the ability to avoid personal responsability increases > the likelihood criminals will commit crimes, because they know there > is a decreased chance they will have to face the music. This is at least > as true as "the availability of guns increases the chances that they will > be used." It is not the gun that kills, but the shooter that uses the gun that bears the responsibility. Availability of guns doesn't as a rule cause the crime, except perhaps in the crime of passion. There are cases where people that otherwise would not be disposed to commit murder do loose their temper and grab a gun or what ever else that is handy and kill the other. If a gun was not at hand they may well just a soon use something else. Although a gun makes the job a little neater > > > > > > It is only "murder" if you believe it is immoral to take the life > > > of another human being if said human being cold-bloodedly murdered someone > > > else. It /is/ a view-point held by many in this country, though not the > > > majority. > > > Remember, Eivind, this argument can be turned on its > > > head if I ask you about your government's (Norway -- unless 'yes.no' really > > > is a made-up domain name) and society's attidude towards abortion, > > > which is apparently more permissive there (very few legal restrictions) than > > > here in the United States... > > > > Yes, I am from Norway. > > > > This is depend very much on where you introduce humans and human > > worth. IMO, human worth is connected to relationships, both to other > > humans and to self. If you want to bring in 'potential' at an early > > pre-born stage, you're on a slippery slope - what about the potential > > of the kid you could have with the lady over on the right? We're > > Relationships are important, but if ol' Joe is a drunk on the > streets, with no friends, no home, and no family, he is still worth > something, whether people (including himself) realizes it or not. > Technically, I was not referring to "potential life" because there > is nothing "potential" about an unborn child -- the fetus is > alive. If you mean potential in the sense of having advanced emotions, > intellect, and communications skills, an unborn child certainly hasn't yet > gained those traits. I'm not sure though that those are the right > standards to judge "human" by. I am inclined to agree. There is mounting evidence that the unborn has greater capacities than is commonly assumed. > > > wasting potential every day, but IMO that doesn't mean we should > > attempt to have kids with everybody. > > > > However, you're still evading the interesting question: What does > > having a society murdering citizens to satisfy thirst for revenge (ie, > > to satify the bloodthirst of many members of the society) do to that > > society? It at least clearly sends the signal that use of murder for > > Some argue justice. Whether justice = revenge ultimately rests > on people's personal opinion. Others say deterrent. Statistics show > that in this country, the states with death penalties have not deterred > murder, bolstering your argument. > Yet it does act as a detterrent in other nations, like Saudi > Arabia, because people know (unlike here) that the death penalty > will most likely occur and will happen swiftly. I am not sure that a vaild comparision can be made between Saudi Arabia and the US, because of the vast cultural differences. Am not sure that the Saudi's would want to change their culture to run an experiment to verify the assumption. ;-) > Here in Ohio, we have been a death penalty state since 1976. Yet > there hasn't been an *actual* execution since 1964. Currently, there is > a murderer dubbed "The Volunteer", because he actually wants to be > executed. But the mandatory appeals > process would make him wait years before he would actually be killed. > Also, the state has tried to prove that he is not mentally competant > enough to be able to make that judgment. So much for blood thirsty Ohio :) > I think it is safe to say that the overwhelming majority of > first degree murderers are not executed. That inconsistency has largely > removed the cause and effect relationship between the two. I believe > a consistent death penalty probably would deter first degree pre- > meditated murderers, but would probably do little to deter "crimes of > passion" (which generally don't carry the punishment, anyway.) The death penality has done nothing to deter crime. IMO, it only serves as part of the de-sensitization process. When Karla Tucker was executed in Texas this spring, the people turned it into a circus. > It may surprise you to find that I have never been super > gung-ho about the death penalty, and have been more apt to favor a > deliberate appeals process rather than the "swift justice" in the > aforementioned S.A. (I have a grandmother who lived there. No way I > would choose to!) But I must admit I won't lose too much sleep over > Timmy McVeigh when his day comes, either. > > > revenge is OK in some situations, and AFAIK this increase the amount > > of violence in the society. This is not the case for allowing > > abortion. Allowing abortion may change when non-borns or babies are > > considered to get human worth, but this does not seem to add the > > problem of babies being killed. > > I'm not entirely satisfied that there has been a cause-effect > relationship demonstrated between death penalty and a greater liklihood > to kill, either. Some of these are intangibles, and cannot be as easily > quantified (or they can, but correlations do not necessary demonstrate > cause-effect). > Nevertheless, when I see video games where a fighter turns > his opponent into an infant before frying it with a fireball, or those > stories about the Amy Grossbergs who kill their baby just after it is > born (where, in some states, it would have been entirely legal to get > an abortion just moments before), it makes me think that abortion does erode > respect for human life. I would agree also. It appears that it has become all too easy to take a life in the US. There are numerous incidents that indicate that respect for life has eroded. Road rage is nothing but the latest example. Somehow a breakdown of the moral fabric of the US seems to have happened. Frank > > > > > Eivind. > > > > -- > drifter@stratos.nospam.net (remove nospam to send) > "Ever notice that in every commercial about the Internet, advertising > geniuses can't resist having a bunch of kids staring into a monitor, awe- > struck, looking at a whale jumping out of the ocean? Or is it just me?" > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message >-- End of excerpt from drifter@stratos.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?980701032448.ZM16193>