Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 11:48:07 -0600 From: "G. Adam Stanislav" <adam@whizkidtech.net> To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: On "intelligent people" and "dangers to BSD" Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20000326114807.00a6cba0@mail85.pair.com> In-Reply-To: <20000326121505.D234@parish> References: <3.0.6.32.20000326005810.00a9dd00@mail85.pair.com> <38DCC0D3.99AB6F28@originative.co.uk> <38DB8D34.1A750C81@originative.co.uk> <Pine.BSF.4.05.10003241806320.805-100000@acp.swbell.net> <20000325104927.B234@parish> <38DCC0D3.99AB6F28@originative.co.uk> <20000325222749.D234@parish> <3.0.6.32.20000326005810.00a9dd00@mail85.pair.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 12:15 26-03-2000 +0100, Mark Ovens wrote: >IOW it would be a deterrent? Somehow I don't think so. How effective a >deterrent has the death penalty been in states that has restored it, >i.e. has capital crime fallen significantly in those states since >restoration? OK, perhaps this isn't a totally fair comparison as your >victim pulling a gun on you is much more immediate than the long, long >route to the electric chair. That's right. The immediacy of the threat makes a big difference. Criminals generally think they will never get caught, so they do not expect the chair. But if they knew everyone around them was armed, they would be less likely to commit certain crimes. Not all of them, of course, but at least some of them. For the record, I oppose the death penalty, and am for decriminalization of drugs. Much of the violent crime is drug related. If drugs were decriminalized and drug addicts treated as decent human beings, much of the violence would disappear. >> I used to be a volunteer deputy sheriff for six years. Before that, I never >> owned a firearm. > >Did you ever feel that should have had one? Presumably not otherwise >you would have gone out and bought one. No. But I did not grow up in a culture where guns were a part of its heritage. Nor do I carry a gun now that I am not a deputy anymore. >Hmm, do you not think that view is primarily because the risk to >police officers would be reduced? If the whole populace is armed they >can sort it out amongst themselves and by the time the police arrive >on the scene there's just a pile of bodies to clear up, no-one left to >shoot at the officers. No! That is not the attitude of police officers, at least not most police officers. Not in the US anyway. It is not cops against people. Most American cops are genuinely concerned about helping others, not about controlling them. In 19th Century US West everyone was carrying guns, quite openly too. They did not end up producing piles of bodies, except in spaghetti Westerns. >That pre-supposes of course that the gunman isn't well trained in the >use firearms, which would be very likely if everyone was armed, as you >propose below. The gunman, of course, would still have the advantage >in the element of surprise. Yes, of course he would. But he would not have massacred everyone inside as he did. He would have killed one or two people, then would be killed before killing the rest of them. >> Frankly, I believe the law should not try to ban firearms. It should >> require everyone except Buddhists to own and carry a firearm all the time. >> And, of course, to know how to use it properly. >> > >How do I become a Buddhist ;-) You say three times: I take refuge in the Buddha. I take refuge in the Dharma. I take refuge in the Sangha. And, of course, you have to mean it. ;-) Cheers, Adam 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?3.0.6.32.20000326114807.00a6cba0>