Gun Control Laws

[mimartin]

Of course, if applied to most criminals that use violence, I guess there'd be no point in a parole board hearing for most of these types of perps (ie violent offenders).

If we are talking a violent offenders that harmed children then I would tend to agree. If I’m going to error I believe we should error on the side of protecting the innocent and those that cannot protect themselves, children and the elderly.

 

I could care less about the numbers. One child dying needlessly due to the ignorance of a grown up is too many. That a 181 we never grow up to have the option of having their own little rug rat is a national tragedy. Heck one of them could have been the next George Bush.

[Totenkopf]

I agree that it's a tragedy, but still only a personal one. I'd think that you'd believe George Bush ending up in that category would be an aversion of a natioanl tragedy. Also, agree with your first point as well.

[Web Rider]

If we are talking a violent offenders that harmed children then I would tend to agree. If I’m going to error I believe we should error on the side of protecting the innocent and those that cannot protect themselves, children and the elderly.

 

I'm going to have to take issue with "elderly". Who are these "elderly" who cannot defend themselves? Granted there are a lot of older folks in nursing homes, but there are just as many, if not more, who do not. Many of these folks are the force behind powerful groups like AARP, one of the most powerful lobbying groups in America.

 

Futhermore, I am aware of many adults who are 60+ who are healthy and can defend themselves from attackers and many of the more rural kind are quite fond of their weapons.

 

Now, while children are on average not capable of this kind self-defense, that's not to say that there aren't some kids who can kick my butt with their bare fists.

 

But, I would have to say that on average, a good deal of the elderly, either through legal means or their own abilities, are quite capable of defending themselves.

 

 

Of course, the most logical way to "defend" the elderly is to kill them after their reach a certain level of incapablility, to spare them from the ravaging effects of old age, the pains of dying slowly and breaking down, or being taken advantage of by the stronger. Additionally, it is very healthy for a society to not have, as we do now, am upside-down support system, where more money is being paid out to the retired and elderly due to them living longer and a smaller generation of working folks providing into the system for them.

 

 

but we don't want to go down that road...

[mimartin]

I'm going to have to take issue with "elderly". Who are these "elderly" who cannot defend themselves? Granted there are a lot of older folks in nursing homes, but there are just as many, if not more, who do not. Many of these folks are the force behind powerful groups like AARP, one of the most powerful lobbying groups in America.

Normally I’d ignore your rant, thinking you’ve just not had enough life experience or been very fortunate (or unfortunate) enough never see someone within your family unable to defend themselves due to that ravages of age. However, after having to get up to go over to my parents’ house last night at 4:30 am to pick my 75-year-old stepfather off the floor I am going to say while you are correct about some (I have a 90 great uncle that I would not want to mess with), the majority of the elderly are not going to be able to defend themselves from a brutal attack from a healthy person in their prime. Time has a way of reducing our capability both physically and mentally, add to that diseases common to the elderly such as arthritis, diabetes, hypertension and at least in my family cancer and you get a pretty defenseless human being. Don’t even get me started on the thieves, pretending to be legitimate business, that prey on the elderly mentally trying to separate them from their life savings. Not every elderly person falls for these scams, but enough do to keep this thieves’ in business. So while not every elderly person needs protection, the same can be said for some children. However, anyone one the preys on those that cannot defend themselves is the scum of the earth.

 

Of course, the most logical way to "defend" the elderly is to kill them after their reach a certain level of incapablility, to spare them from the ravaging effects of old age, the pains of dying slowly and breaking down, or being taken advantage of by the stronger. Additionally, it is very healthy for a society to not have, as we do now, am upside-down support system, where more money is being paid out to the retired and elderly due to them living longer and a smaller generation of working folks providing into the system for them.

Instead of protecting the innocent and punishing those that would do them harm you come to the “most logical” thing to do is kill the elderly. How is that logical? Personally I find this logic both selfish and lazy. To me it is the job of society to protect those that cannot protect themselves. Following this logic then we should kill the children too because they are not adding to society at this time. So then this would be the final generation and we would benefit from our own work and that of the previous generation we just killed and not have to share with the next generation. Sounds perfect:(

[Web Rider]

Normally I’d ignore your rant, thinking you’ve just not had enough life experience or been very fortunate (or unfortunate) enough never see someone within your family unable to defend themselves due to that ravages of age. However, after having to get up to go over to my parents’ house last night at 4:30 am to pick my 75-year-old stepfather off the floor I am going to say while you are correct about some (I have a 90 great uncle that I would not want to mess with), the majority of the elderly are not going to be able to defend themselves from a brutal attack from a healthy person in their prime. Time has a way of reducing our capability both physically and mentally, add to that diseases common to the elderly such as arthritis, diabetes, hypertension and at least in my family cancer and you get a pretty defenseless human being. Don’t even get me started on the thieves, pretending to be legitimate business, that prey on the elderly mentally trying to separate them from their life savings. Not every elderly person falls for these scams, but enough do to keep this thieves’ in business. So while not every elderly person needs protection, the same can be said for some children. However, anyone one the preys on those that cannot defend themselves is the scum of the earth.

I do, in fact, have a grandmother in a nursing home who isn't home(mentally) for more than 20 minutes). So, kindly keep the "oh you haven't...." BS to yourself please. I am well aware of what time can do and I am well aware of how physically capable a person can remain should they choose, and not be adversly affected by disease/disorder. The best protection from con-men is awareness, so that the elderly can protect themselves. If they are not of sound mind as you seem to imply the elderly might be simply because of their age, then some other course of action must be taken. However, there is no standard that if you are over a certain age you need special "protections". Those kind of protections are equatable to a limitation of a freedom, if a person proves that they are no longer capable of taking care of themselves, then something should be done. As we did with my grandmother.

 

 

Instead of protecting the innocent and punishing those that would do them harm you come to the “most logical” thing to do is kill the elderly. How is that logical? Personally I find this logic both selfish and lazy. To me it is the job of society to protect those that cannot protect themselves. Following this logic then we should kill the children too because they are not adding to society at this time. So then this would be the final generation and we would benefit from our own work and that of the previous generation we just killed and not have to share with the next generation. Sounds perfect:(

No, in fact, since my argument is not based on their contributions to society. I said their "incapability", implying no specific age limits, contribution amount or what have you. Only a specific level of ability based on what they have shown to have. The people who are capable live, the people who are not, die, survival of the fittest.

 

And everyone knows you can't apply this same logic to children because the children have yet to reach their capabilities, the difference being that a child's body is working towards their peak, while somebody "incapable" is someone who has fallen well below any kind of peak they had before.

 

Besides, it was all an exaggeration of what might happen when going too far to "protect" people from "ravages of time".

[mimartin]

I do, in fact, have a grandmother in a nursing home who isn't home(mentally) for more than 20 minutes).[/Quote] Sorry to hear that. My prayers will be with you and your family.

So, kindly keep the "oh you haven't...." BS to yourself please.[/Quote] Well ain’t that sweet.

I am well aware of what time can do and I am well aware of how physically capable a person can remain should they choose, and not be adversly affected by disease/disorder. [/Quote] Then why are we debating this?

However, there is no standard that if you are over a certain age you need special "protections".[/Quote] And I never said there should be a standard. I said those that harmed people that who could not protect themselves.

Those kind of protections are equatable to a limitation of a freedom, if a person proves that they are no longer capable of taking care of themselves, then something should be done. [/Quote] How can what I was suggesting put any limitation of freedom on the elderly or children for that matter? I said that people who commit crimes against those that cannot protect themselves should suffer greater punishment. It only limits the freedom of the criminal and put no restriction on the child or anyone else. It is not a liberal idea, it is a family values idea.

 

Besides, it was all an exaggeration of what might happen when going too far to "protect" people from "ravages of time".

Then why bring it up? It has nothing to do with my post.

[Arcesious]

The problem is, mimartin; that wouldn't be an entirely just system of punishment. As much as I find it horrifying and saddening the things many criminals do, I beleive that everyone deserves a second chance. I doesn't matter if the civilian did or didn't have the ability to defend him/herself, there were still guns/whatever other lethal weapon/means involved.

[mimartin]

Then why is it justifiable to more severely punish someone that kills a police officer than an ordinary citizen? I agree to the second chance except when it comes to someone that harms children. Depending on what was done they may have ruined a young persons life, so their life should be ruined too IMO.

[Arcesious]

Maybe it shouldn't be; I agree with you on that.

[Totenkopf]

Then why is it justifiable to more severely punish someone that kills a police officer than an ordinary citizen? I agree to the second chance except when it comes to someone that harms children. Depending on what was done they may have ruined a young persons life, so their life should be ruined too IMO.

 

But that's really generally true about "younger" people (ie 18-25/30) anyway, given that people can live to 78+ these days. From a societal pov, killing officers means the perp has even less problem with the idea of killing "innocents" and therefore is deemed a bigger threat to everyone than the perp who doesn't. Not a perfect system, btw. Sometimes a cop may be crooked and not worthy of such "consideration". But that's material for another thread, I'd think.

[mimartin]

Maybe it shouldn't be; I agree with you on that.

You are not agreeing with me. I believe someone that kills a police officer should get more severe penalty. When the criminal can go back in time and give their victim a second chance then I will be all for second chances for people that harm children, the elderly or those whose job is to protect us. Some things in life don't have the option of a second chance and that is why we should think before we act. What I wanted to know is since that isn’t the reason the American Judicial system is the mess it is, why would punishing people more severely that prey on children or the elderly (the ones that cannot protect themselves) destroy the American Judicial system (Personally I already consider it destroyed.)

[Totenkopf]

I would agree that it shouldn't. Destroyed? Maybe. Malfunctioning? Definitely.

[Web Rider]

Sorry to hear that. My prayers will be with you and your family. Well ain’t that sweet.

my point, is simply, do not jump to assume that a person has not experienced something simply because they hold a different opinion than you.

 

Then why are we debating this?

Because you didn't seem to get what I was saying the first time.

 

And I never said there should be a standard. I said those that harmed people that who could not protect themselves.

yes, in fact, you specified the "elderly" and "children". Those are standards commonly applied to people over 60 and people under 12, respectively. How you define somebody who cannot protect themselves can be just as tricky though. And that's why it's so hard to protect them, because you don't usually know that a person cannot protect themself until after something has happened to them.

 

How can what I was suggesting put any limitation of freedom on the elderly or children for that matter?

Any attempt in protect will always impede upon one's freedom. A seatbelt protects, while limiting the ability to move around while in a car. Screening your mother's calls protects her, but limits her freedom to choose who she wants to talk to.

 

While not all such protections cause such obvious limitations as reprecussions, the paralell is more than obvious.

 

I said that people who commit crimes against those that cannot protect themselves should suffer greater punishment. It only limits the freedom of the criminal and put no restriction on the child or anyone else. It is not a liberal idea, it is a family values idea.

Family values? Oh there's a RICH idea. In any case, harsher punishment might protect future victims, but has no effect on those already made victims. As well harsher punishment can make people more lax, assuming that the harsher punishment will make preying on them harder, but their relaxing makes preying on them easier. Thus bringing you back to square one.

 

As for family values, they differ from family to family, do not think some standard can apply to even all Americans.

 

 

Then why bring it up? It has nothing to do with my post.

then you either did not read it or you failed to understand it. It was a statement about how if we always feel people need to be "protected", then pretty soon, somebody's protection is going to outweigh somebody else's life. Should not the younger generation's income be protected against overdemanding elderly who draw out more than the young put in?

 

At some point, one person's well being will have to weigh against another's, and carried far enough(which is more easily done than assumed), it will be one person's life weighed against anothers. Do we sacrifice the elderly so that the adults can have more to raise their children with? Or do we sacrifice the children(say, limiting brithrates) so that the adults can pay more to the elderly?

[mimartin]

my point, is simply, do not jump to assume that a person has not experienced something simply because they hold a different opinion than you.[/Quote] Since I never assumed a standard, the point is?

 

yes, in fact, you specified the "elderly" and "children". Those are standards commonly applied to people over 60 and people under 12, respectively. How you define somebody who cannot protect themselves can be just as tricky though. And that's why it's so hard to protect them, because you don't usually know that a person cannot protect themself until after something has happened to them.[/Quote] No I said people that cannot defend themselves and then stated two examples. Never stated any standard nor was I using a commonly applied standard. You drew your own standards and applied it to my statement.

 

 

Any attempt in protect will always impede upon one's freedom. [/Quote]Well let us get rid of all laws then in the name of freedom. I still see no impedement to anyones freedom, but the criminal.

 

 

then you either did not read it or you failed to understand it. [/Quote] I could say the same thing, but instead I will just say I'm done with this.