Should the police be armed?

[Herr Lipp]

As the whole country seems to behaving this debate why not bring it to Blamo! Your thoughts? I'm gonna hold back for now, I do have an opinion on it though.

While you're at it why not comment on the recent notion that the death penalty should be brought back for cop-killers, or just in general really.

P.S. Yes, Americans, our police are unarmed but for a baton and CS gel.

[Smith Comma John]

all the cops i have seen have had guns. i certaintly don't see why they shouldn't be armed, after all they have to deal with some dangerous people. as for the death penalty issue, i think it's wrong to put anybody to death, even cop-killers. it doesn't make sense to me, to kill someone for killing someone to scare other people from killing people. life in prison is a much worse punishment than fatal injection or the chair.

Originally posted by Walter Sopchak
CS gel.

wait, is that lube? :lol: hmmmm...

[Six Ways]

Originally posted by flutter
wait, is that lube? :lol: hmmmm...

Put it on your arsehole and find out. Make sure you video your face for the reaction though, I'm not gonna have an opportunity like that wasted.

Seriously though....I'm not sure. I think there are 3 main things to consider: 1) Police do need to be a) able to defend themselves, b) able to defend innocents and c) be intimidating enough at the right times to prevent crimes from happening.
However, point 2) is that I don't trust an authority which is trying to get both the power to lock you up for 3 months without any real evidence or anything AND wanting to be able to point a gun at you. I don't want the police to become like the SS or something, with pretty much total discretionary power. Corrupt cops with guns and lots of powers is a scary thought indeed. Thirdly, it could easily cause a rise in gun crime, since criminals might see the 'need' to arm themselves against such an opponent.

I think a lot of these things trying to get pushed through are reactionary and ill-thought out. I'm unconvinced that anything along these lines will have the same effect as changing the way kids are brought up.

Flutter, I agree with you that life inprisonment is worse than the death penalty, but I don't see why it doesn't make sense to kill someone for killing someone. I don't agree with it on practical grounds, but why would it not make sense to kill a killer?

[DrHibbert]

I think I'm one of the few people who actually does think that the death penalty is viable as a deterrent. The social stigma, disgrace to the family, press coverage, and intensity of the sentence get magnified to a degree of which I think some criminals are aware.

[Fab]

I think I'm only for the death penalty in absolutely extreme cases, like mass murderers who aren't actually insane, if they exist.

I don't think the police should have guns, because like Luke said, criminals would start packing heat more often, too, but they need something.

[Smith Comma John]

Originally posted by Six Ways
Flutter, I agree with you that life inprisonment is worse than the death penalty, but I don't see why it doesn't make sense to kill someone for killing someone. I don't agree with it on practical grounds, but why would it not make sense to kill a killer?

well first of all it is somewhat hypocritical, to punish a killer by killing him. it's like hitting someone and saying "hey, quit hitting people." second, i see the death penalty as a form of sick revenge, and revenge definitely brings out the worst in people. it's sort of hard for me to explain, but all in all i feel that capital punishment lowers us to the level of the criminals we dislike.

i read somewhere else that a criminal sentenced to death often doesn't live long enough to fulfill his penalty because of all the appeals processes. so the death penalty often times becomes an expensive life sentence in prison.

[DrHibbert]

There are usually severe circumstances in capital punishment cases.

Consider: A guy is convicted of raping 7 women and murdering 5 of them, one of them in front of her two children. The state then gives him warm meals and a bed for 10 years and then finally leads him into a chamber and onto a comfy, padded chair, where he dies a painless death.

He is, of course, allowed to say his last words and say goodbye to those he loves if he chooses. This is hardly hypocritical.

[Fab]

a big part of the problem I have with it is that after 10 or 20 years knowing you're going to die, you're not going to be the same person at the end of it. I don't think there's a solution to this, because if you got rid of the death penalty then they wouldn't have that extreme situation to come to terms with, so it's a bit wank really.

[Smith Comma John]

Originally posted by DrHibbert
There are usually severe circumstances in capital punishment cases.

Consider: A guy is convicted of raping 7 women and murdering 5 of them, one of them in front of her two children. The state then gives him warm meals and a bed for 10 years and then finally leads him into a chamber and onto a comfy, padded chair, where he dies a painless death.

He is, of course, allowed to say his last words and say goodbye to those he loves if he chooses. This is hardly hypocritical.

i agree people like this are very sick people, but do you actually think he is happy sitting in a concrete cell, surrounded by guards, other guys who want to plug his butt day and night, and without personal rights? no way. a life like that would be a hundred times more horrendous dying a "painless death," and that's what those nuts need.

[DrHibbert]

Death row is not a place for butt pluggers, they keep it under tight watch. Yes, it wouldn't be a good way to go. But objectively, they are allowed to talk to their families, read books, make a will, apologize for their mistakes, smoke an occasional cigarette, the list goes on. Even people in prison do take joy in things, it is human nature. It's not a good life, but it's better than being tormented and humiliated, killed at the very least, without any warning at all.

People who are murdered don't have any opportunity to talk to people for a last time - they have no idea that their life is about to end, and everything is left untied. Prison is not a good thing, whether or not you're going to get killed there. But it's not as bad as an innocent person being brutally executed by surprise, and it is not hypocritical for the state to kill people humanely.

[Smith Comma John]

Originally posted by DrHibbert
Death row is not a place for butt pluggers, they keep it under tight watch. Yes, it wouldn't be a good way to go. But objectively, they are allowed to talk to their families, read books, make a will, apologize for their mistakes, smoke an occasional cigarette, the list goes on. Even people in prison do take joy in things, it is human nature. It's not a good life, but it's better than being tormented and humiliated, killed at the very least, without any warning at all.

People who are murdered don't have any opportunity to talk to people for a last time - they have no idea that their life is about to end, and everything is left untied. Prison is not a good thing, whether or not you're going to get killed there. But it's not as bad as an innocent person being brutally executed by surprise, and it is not hypocritical for the state to kill people humanely.

you can't control what is going to happen to the victims out there because there always will be murder victims, but you can control the lives of those at fault. and what is there to take joy in when you're in prison, on death row? oh yay, a new magazine, or oh yay, the fourteenth of every month my wife visits me. that's it. the least a society can do is take the high road in these situations with killers, rapists, etc. and serve as a decent example by being rational and civil, otherwise the chain of violence will continue, and violence in all forms is bad. it is a basic emotional instinct to want to inflict pain on somebody who hurts us or one of us, and i have nothing against instincts and emotional whims, but they do not belong in the justice system.

[ramblingrose]

I'm against the police being armed. One of my friends was almost shot in an incident where one of his colleagues was killed and he's against the police being armed.
And as a pale weak pacifist, I'm totally opposed to the death penalty. It's clearly no deterrent either, look at the crime statistics.

[Spaced]

The UK police should be armed. Have always been suprised they aren't. Besides, can't think of another police force in the world who isn't.

[Kris Klam]

Originally posted by Walter Sopchak
As the whole country seems to behaving this debate why not bring it to Blamo! Your thoughts? I'm gonna hold back for now, I do have an opinion on it though.

While you're at it why not comment on the recent notion that the death penalty should be brought back for cop-killers, or just in general really.

P.S. Yes, Americans, our police are unarmed but for a baton and CS gel.

Of course cops should be armed! The job is dangerous, and the police officer could be out numbered.

I'm for the death penalty, but only if it is used in cases where there's absolute proof of a crime, such as videos and things like that.

[Jackal]

I think the death penalty should be highly feared and un-humane. I truly think crime would decrease if the killer got what he dished out.

You rape and then stab a woman to death, you get the same. Who dishes out the punishment--the wacko's who enjoy that sort of thing. That way they get their thrills out on people who deserve it, thus saving the innocent.

[Six Ways]

Originally posted by Jackal
I think the death penalty should be highly feared and un-humane. I truly think crime would decrease if the killer got what he dished out.

You rape and then stab a woman to death, you get the same. Who dishes out the punishment--the wacko's who enjoy that sort of thing. That way they get their thrills out on people who deserve it, thus saving the innocent.

This is pretty much my viewpoint...except the frankly disturbing bit at the very bottom. Why do the wacko's who enjoy it get to do it? For one thing, they're hardly going to do exactly as you tell them. Secondly, by having someone enjoy the punishment you pretty much undo the good of the punishment, since you a) encourage it for wackos and b)encourage vigilantism in general. You cannot have someone enjoy the punishment or it really IS a case of being no better than the criminal. The thing that separates our act from the criminal's is that our act is performed to redress the balance, and inflict the suffering of the victim upon the perpetrator. If the punisher enjoys the punishment, they're pretty much committing the crime.

Apart from that, great...I am very much for an eye for an eye, and I have yet to come across a good moral argument against it. There are obvious practical issues, e.g. the above (who punishes (the solution is building a machine (which raises practical problems of it's own (time for a breath)))) and many others, and I acknowledge that, but morally all counterarguments boil down to 'That makes us as bad as them' and 'My mum told me so when I was young'.

It's like the old maxim of violence never being the answer. Bollocks.

But back to the point: My view is, and always will be, as many people on the philosophy board know -
Rights you take from another person are not rights you subsequently deserve. Why should you have the right to not being raped, having wilfully removed that right from another innocent person?

But yeah, punishment should always be cruel and unusual, or what kind of detterent is it? Having said that, I mean by modern standards. If it became the norm to have 'an eye for an eye' punishment that would not be unusual etc which is fine, cos everyone knows where they stand.

[ramblingrose]

But how can you say it's wrong to do something and then punish someone for doing something by doing the same thing to them? That's my problem with capital punishment. And I once did a survey on it and there was huge support for "hanging child killers and people who kill policemen", which I don't get because to my mind killing me is pretty fucking unfair and no better than killing a child or a policeman.

[Six Ways]

I'd also like to note that (btw I'm against the death penalty for practical reasons) I do not believe the death penalty is a deterrent as it stands. I am 99% sure however that if used in conjunction with a true, steadfast eye-for-an-eye system, it would be a large deterrent, simply because people know that what they do will come back to them, whether that be good or bad. If it's just with the death penalty people feel they have wriggling room, loopholes to find etc.

I'll explain:
If you nearly killed someone (and meant to) under the current system you would probably escape the death sentence and get something very, very different (like 20 years). If you have an eye for an eye, you would escape the death sentence, but you'd still know you were in for nearly getting killed. In the current system it's all or nothing; from a perp's point of view, you get death or you get off scott free, since relative to death, 15-20 years is a huge relief. If you have something which is very, very nearly as bad, people don't fuck with loopholes. They watch what they do.

[ramblingrose]

Originally posted by Six Ways


I'll explain:
If you nearly killed someone (and meant to) under the current system you would probably escape the death sentence and get something very, very different (like 20 years). If you have an eye for an eye, you would escape the death sentence, but you'd still know you were in for nearly getting killed.

I'm a bit confused, what exactly do you mean? On a vaguely related tangent, I think "attempted" murder is a cop out, if I cut your throat and you didn't die I deserve the same punishment as if you did because my intention was the same.

ps I have no desire to cut anyone's throat. Apart from maybe my own for being dense.

[Six Ways]

Originally posted by ramblingrose
But how can you say it's wrong to do something and then punish someone for doing something by doing the same thing to them? That's my problem with capital punishment. And I once did a survey on it and there was huge support for "hanging child killers and people who kill policemen", which I don't get because to my mind killing me is pretty fucking unfair and no better than killing a child or a policeman.

This is exactly the mentality I'm talking about. Think about it like this:

I kill someone. The world is up by one murder.
If I get punished, supposedly I have repaid my debt to society, and the world is no longer one murder up.
This is bullshit.
If I get killed, the balance is truly redressed. It's a negative crime, numerically speaking. It cancels the original
crime, it doesn't add to it.

It boils down to this:
There is no act which is intrinsically evil/wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right, but not all 'wrongs' are in fact wrongs. In the right circumstances, wrongs can be rights,and therefore cancel out wrongs.

e.g. anyone seen Swordfish? You know the bit where Travolta asks Jackman whether he'd kill a single girl to cure all world hunger forever? Jackman says no, since no-one has that right.
But who says it's the wrong thing to do? To be honest, I'd probably do it. I'd probably shoot myself afterwards, but for the sake of the millions of people you'd save now, and incalculable numbers of people in the future, it seems worth it. Not doing it is the easy, sitting on the fence option. You can feel good about yourself because you've followed your easy, obvious, immediate morality and condemned millions to death by inaction.

But again, if you take someone's right to life, why in the blue fuck do you have that right proected by the morons down at Amnesty International?

[ramblingrose]

I would kill the ten year old Hitler or whatever with the benefit of hindsight, but that's my personal decision and nothing to do with punishment. I'm sorry, but I can't think of anything but "an eye for an eye until the whole world is blind". I'm not a total bleeding heart liberal or anything but I really don't think vengeance is necessarily the way.

[Six Ways]

Originally posted by ramblingrose
I'm a bit confused, what exactly do you mean? On a vaguely related tangent, I think "attempted" murder is a cop out, if I cut your throat and you didn't die I deserve the same punishment as if you did because my intention was the same.

That's one of the practical difficulties with the system. Do you judge it by intention, action or outcome? Hard to say.

But to explain, I mean...well, look at this.

no punishment-------------20years--------life-------------------------------------------------------- death

What I'm trying to get across there is that there's a huge perceived difference between any other sentence and death. All sentences except death involve you living. Because of that, when the option of death is presented, getting given anything other than that feels like the hugest relief you will ever have.

If you have other things in between like bleeding to nearly being dead or whatever, it's much, much closer to death than 20 years is, and therefore feels like it's not so much better than death. So, not so much relief, and no thinking like 'Well I'll only get 20years if I'm careful and play with loopholes'.

[ramblingrose]

This is making my head hurt so I just pm'd you about it cos I'm rubbish. I do see what you're saying but given the choice between lethal injection and life imprisonment without parole, death seems the more attractive of the two.

[Smith Comma John]

Originally posted by Six Ways
If you have other things in between like bleeding to nearly being dead or whatever, it's much, much closer to death than 20 years is, and therefore feels like it's not so much better than death. So, not so much relief, and no thinking like 'Well I'll only get 20years if I'm careful and play with loopholes'.

the thing is, if you (i don't mean you specifically) commit murder the chances that you'll receive twenty years in prison is pretty small. there aren't many homicidal maniacs who get out of prison after a couple of decades and are free to roam the streets. more times than not, a murderer will get life in prison, no parole, no questions asked... unless he's given a death sentence.

[Six Ways]

Originally posted by ramblingrose
I would kill the ten year old Hitler or whatever with the benefit of hindsight, but that's my personal decision and nothing to do with punishment. I'm sorry, but I can't think of anything but "an eye for an eye until the whole world is blind". I'm not a total bleeding heart liberal or anything but I really don't think vengeance is necessarily the way.

Believe me when I say that is quite possibly my most hated cliche. It is brainless. Think about it - what well thought out rational reasoning does it have behind it? None. It's something pumped into us as children so we don't stab our siblings when they trip us up by accident, since we have no sense of proportion when it comes to right and wrong. It's just a moronic play on words that relies on it's apparent cleverness (in the pun) and doesn't want you to scratch the surface to discover what an empty husk of a proverb it is.

Why would it leave the whole world blind? Ok, yeah, if we encourage going out and getting revenge on people, that's insane. If we do it in a carefully controlled state-sanctioned manner and make it clear that if you try it yourself you will get the exact same happening to you, then why would it be seen as a bad influence? It would just be seen as the way things are - you don't do bad things because they'll happen to you. If you let children grow up on this, why would they offend?

Plus it leaves a lot less room for unfair punishments - what you give is what you get, no more, no less. No arbitrary judgement of death, or 20 years, or 25 years, or 12 years down to 8 with good behaviour, or a fine and 10 years - what you see is what you get.

[Six Ways]

Originally posted by flutter
the thing is, if you (i don't mean you specifically) commit murder the chances that you'll receive twenty years in prison is pretty small. there aren't many homicidal maniacs who get out of prison after a couple of decades and are free to roam the streets. more times than not, a murderer will get life in prison, no parole, no questions asked... unless he's given a death sentence.

Still probably at the time feels like a relief. No deterrent.

Unless of course people know that prison is the most awful place on earth (which it should be) where you have no TV, no carpets, minimal lighting, heating, the same food every single fucking day, no blankets etc.

I personally think the worst thing there is the same food every single day. That would destroy your soul. As it is, prison is relatively cushty. OK, it's no great shakes, but it's not nearly bad enough.

I'm not saying that people who take a bottle of coke from the corner shop and resist arrest should get that kinda place, but violent crimes etc definitely should earn you a place there.

[ramblingrose]

I think you're as much of an idealist as I am. We're just coming at it from different angles. You'll probably get really cross now, I'm sorry, it wasn't meant to sound patronising. I'm just digging my own grave here.

[Smith Comma John]

Originally posted by Six Ways
I personally think the worst thing there is the same food every single day. That would destroy your soul. As it is, prison is relatively cushty. OK, it's no great shakes, but it's not nearly bad enough.

it probably depends where you're sent to prison, and your social class. martha stewart... her prison was probably nicer than where i live. for everybody else...prison sucks.

[Six Ways]

Originally posted by ramblingrose
I think you're as much of an idealist as I am. We're just coming at it from different angles. You'll probably get really cross now, I'm sorry, it wasn't meant to sound patronising. I'm just digging my own grave here.

I'm not gonna get cross, I don't over these things, I just get 'excited'. Seriously, I don't hate you. All I'm going to do is ask, from what basis do your ideals stem? I've explained mine fairly thoroughly I think...I just don't like being argued against with points that have nothing to back them up and can be traced back to what are in fact baseless arbitrary beliefs which you've just never thought to question. I'm not saying your beliefs are baseless or any of what I just said, but I do ask that you prove to me otherwise.

[Six Ways]

Originally posted by flutter
it probably depends where you're sent to prison, and your social class. martha stewart... her prison was probably nicer than where i live. for everybody else...prison sucks.

It doesn't suck as much as it should. It shouldn't depend upon class or anything, just the crime.

Plus, I think you should probably spend most of your time in solitary, that'd fuck you up good. And if people knew they were gonna spend 22 hours a day for the next 20 years with no-one but the voices in their head, they might think a bit more. People think they can get by in prison. Which in many cases they can. It should be horrific.

[Six Ways]

Ummm...sorry Ciona, only read your PM after posting that. So ignore it at your leisure, reply tomorrow, whatever! :)

[ramblingrose]

Okay, I'll try and explain myself but just to be clear about one thing, I'M QUITE STUPID AND NOT VERY ARTICULATE. So don't shoot me down in flames or I won't let you cover Moon Police. Promise you'll be...not nice, but at least not mean? Ooh, I'm being all needy. Seriously, I haven't got the energy to pull off a decent account of myself unless you're going to critique it. Have you got time, I'm a fast typer?

[ramblingrose]

Originally posted by Six Ways
Ummm...sorry Ciona, only read your PM after posting that. So ignore it at your leisure, reply tomorrow, whatever! :)
GAH! Only read your post blah blah whatever. Have you got ten minutes, anyway?

[Six Ways]

Go for it! I wont be mean.

EDIT: Especially because then we couldn't cover Moon Police! I have no idea how we will..... but 'twill be fun!

By the way, speaking of which, everyone reading this thread go to the link on my sig! You know you want to!

I SAID DO IT!

[ramblingrose]

Thanks, bear with me for a sec while I vomit words...

[ramblingrose]

Originally posted by Six Ways
I'm not gonna get cross, I don't over these things, I just get 'excited'. Seriously, I don't hate you. All I'm going to do is ask, from what basis do your ideals stem? I've explained mine fairly thoroughly I think...I just don't like being argued against with points that have nothing to back them up and can be traced back to what are in fact baseless arbitrary beliefs which you've just never thought to question. I'm not saying your beliefs are baseless or any of what I just said, but I do ask that you prove to me otherwise.

Okay. Well, I've spent a LOT of time thinking about things like this, I've been fascinated by "crime" since I was a kid and I've wasted more hours staring out of windows than I care to remember.
My "pacifist" point of view is mainly based on personal experience. Not to go for any sort of sympathy vote, but a fair few unpleasant things have been done to me in my life, and I can only react to those really. I have got a horrible mean streak and the potential of that scares me, though so far I've only taken it out on myself. plus I have a fascination with the dark side of human nature and how/why bad things happen. And I am an idealist, which I think is genetic to be honest. I should probably explain at this point that I was adopted as a baby and I have always had much more liberal views than my parents (by "parents" I mean the ones who brought me up), they tease me and call me a communist and have done since I was little. I'm just going to post this before it kicks me out and then I'll get to the point.

[DrHibbert]

Originally posted by ramblingrose
But how can you say it's wrong to do something and then punish someone for doing something by doing the same thing to them?

Capital punishment in response to a murder isn't saying it's "wrong to kill someone." There are many justified homicides - we kill people in wars, in self defense, in accidents, when their brain is a vegetable, etc. There are debates and even movies about all of these types of killings. But it's different from first degree murder, where someone is purposely killed for convoluted reasons.

[ramblingrose]

Anyway, I believe that people are intrinsically good. Gitta Serengy's point of view on the Mary Bell/James Bulger cases is pretty close to mine for clarification purposes. I am not an apologist for those who do horrendous things, I believe in personal responsibility, but things I've seen in my life and my work lead me to believe sincerely that you can only hope to change people for the better by trying to understand them.
For example, I'm a bit obsessed with the Yorkshire Ripper (ask Frank about the compliment slip), and while I don't think that Sutcliffe deserves anything other than pain and suffering for what he did (for what it's worth I think he'll get it eventually, which does not square with my lack of religious beliefs, but still) I think it's important to try and understand what might have lead to his actions in order to prevent similar awfulness. I only did philosophy for a term at uni so I don't really know what the fuck I'm on about, but I'm one of those "greatest good for the greatest number" types. I don't think that hypocrisy (I am totally not calling you a hypocrite but I think saying "Don't kill" and then killing people for killing is slightly dear pot yours sincerely kettle) solves anything, or violence, or hate, and I know that life's not like that but I wish it was.

[ramblingrose]

Basically (oh how I hate that word!) I genuinely believe that love and understanding would solve a lot of the problems in this world and it makes me very sad when people do random mean things to other people, whatever form that takes, be it murder or just plain not caring about someone else's feelings.
Sorry Luke, my argument's bollocks, but it's what I believe and I've never been very good at explaining myself in writing. Rip her (me) to shreds. I'm better in defence than attack (pacifist pussy that I am). No wonder people call me a stupid hippy.

[Six Ways]

Ummmm....that all seems very fuzzy to me which is probably cos I'm a bit tired now. I'm not copping out, it's just you took longer than I thought! Can I continue tomorrow or something? Cool beans.

[ramblingrose]

You surely can, I'm half dead myself. Of course it's fuzzy, I'm unclever and uneducated!

[DrHibbert]

Originally posted by ramblingrose
I am totally not calling you a hypocrite but I think saying "Don't kill" and then killing people for killing is slightly dear pot yours sincerely kettle But no one is saying "don't kill." The state is not saying that. It's saying "Don't MURDER." I don't think I put that into words very well last time, but there is a huge difference between killing someone for a valid reason and murder. It's not hypocrisy because the state isn't Murdering people. I know it's semantics, but it's a huge difference. It would only be hypocritical if the state was shooting people on the street for no valid purpose, just executing people, and then started telling people that murder is wrong.

Do you see what I'm saying? It's apples and oranges. Here's another way of looking at it: It would be hypocritical if there were civilian vigilantes, people who walked the street and were killing other civilians for doing very hideous things, and then the state decided to convict and execute these self-proclaimed vigilantes. That would be very hypocritical, because they would be justifiably killing people because justifiably killing people is wrong.

Either way works - it's hypocritical to murder people for murdering people or to justifiably execute people for justifiably executing people. But it's not hypocritical to justifiably execute people because they are brutally murdering innocent people.

[XenonDreams]

Of course the cops shoudl have guns! So should the citizens! Everybody wins!!




No seriously. Matt, wait, before you speak, the murder rate is higher because the US is so heterogeneous, socially, ethnically, politically, religiously, culturaly. NO, it's not because people are killing each over race and god, but becasue we don't have the sort of cohesive social structures to stop teh killing. Actually I'm sure that only half explains it, the truth is I'd rather have an armed populace and a higher murder rate. Just trust me, and now we must never speak of this again.

[vordabois]

Originally posted by XenonDreams
No seriously. Matt, wait, before you speak, the murder rate is higher because the US is so heterogeneous, socially, ethnically, politically, religiously, culturaly. NO, it's not because people are killing each over race and god, but becasue we don't have the sort of cohesive social structures to stop teh killing. Actually I'm sure that only half explains it, the truth is I'd rather have an armed populace and a higher murder rate.

Me Matt?

Cuz you might be surprised... I totally agree. We must have the right to bear arms. And not just for hunting. I do indeed believe that old cheesy bumper-sticker saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". You're right, the sort of cohesive social structures to prevent the killing are just a fantasy.

But more, to take it to an extreme, if the power of our vote is somehow subverted by some demogogue (a la Palpatine :-p ), we will still have that one power over it all.

Simplistic, I know.... But there it is.

[Narcissistic Nihilist]

No. Our coppers dont have guns, and thats one of the best things about this shithole country. Cops getting shot are so rare, and the criminals are often caught without resorting to armed response units.

See? We HAVE the guns if necessary, we just dont NEED them all the time. So no, your average coppers should NOT be armed. On the rare occassion he comes across gunfire, he calls in armed response. Easy, simple, and not letting armed criminals win.


However, Im all for the death penalty. But only on economic grounds. We need a reduction in both general and prison population, and thats a damn good way to do it. They are being kept away form society, to benefit society by having them seperated. Why not benefit society even further and reduce the costs and space of them being inside altogether? Best thing all round.

[Herr Lipp]

Matt, Americans don;t need guns :rolleyes: If you're worried about burglars invest in some deadbolts or something!

And to you people that think prison is a worse fate than the death penalty, you've all led very sheltered lives indeed! I think I would take a 10 stretch with a single room, playstation, TV, books, Games room, Gym over a Hanging anytime.

[vordabois]

Originally posted by Walter Sopchak
Matt, Americans don;t need guns :rolleyes: If you're worried about burglars invest in some deadbolts or something!

No, I think there's a bigger point... It's not that we need guns, it's that we need the right to own guns.

[Herr Lipp]

same difference :)

[Herr Lipp]

I can still vaguely remember when guns were legal. I've still never seen a gun in real life (other than on coppers and this one time when I was with this group of 4 lads on the run for like an hour - hiding out in a caravan) let alone fired one. An old codger like Danny must remember them well.

[Narcissistic Nihilist]

Originally posted by vordabois
it's that we need the right to own guns.
that is the last thing on the planet we need.

only those who require a firearm for their profession should be given the right to own one.

No one else should have the right, thats like given everyone the right to murder, its ridiiculous.

[Narcissistic Nihilist]

Originally posted by Walter Sopchak
I can still vaguely remember when guns were legal.
:wtf:

...and when the hell was that?!

[Herr Lipp]

They (handguns) were only made illegal shortly after teh Dunblane massacre. So.....early 90's was it?

Don;t you remember teh Armistice where they asked everyone to take their guns to the copshops and closed down all the handgun clubs.

[Fab]

Guns are sort of legal in the UK, farmers and stuff have them and I often hear people round me clay pidgeon shooting, they may have tightened the laws after Dunblane though. It's more complicated than in America where virtually anyone can have one if they have a licence.

[Herr Lipp]

Only Hunting Rifles and Regular Shotguns are legal in the UK. YOu need to be with a Shooting CLub or a registered Hunter. You can;t get either licence unless you have a clean criminal record, and a secure gun cabinet and all that shit.

Handguns, Pump Action Shotguns, Machine Guns and SMGs are all illegal to the general public.

[Fab]

but there you go, if you can have a gun legally then guns aren't illegal.

[Herr Lipp]

look at the post again

They (handguns)

[Herr Lipp]

I've got a semi-gangster in my family (honestly I'm not just showing off), was married to my cousin, now I asked my cousin's sister if Big Henry had any shotguns (he's an avid bird shooter so has a small armoury of weapons) with the barrels sawn off, and he did! That's a blatant admission to criminal activity, there's no way you can hunt anything with a sawnoff.

[Fab]

I missed that, I was just going by your earlier post when you said you remember when guns were legal.

you could always hunt postal service employees with a sawn off.

[Herr Lipp]

Oh I see, Winston.

My 6 year old cousin has fired a shotgun before me. That's gay! I wanna shoot some shit!

[Narcissistic Nihilist]

Originally posted by Walter Sopchak
They (handguns) were only made illegal shortly after teh Dunblane massacre. So.....early 90's was it?

Don;t you remember teh Armistice where they asked everyone to take their guns to the copshops and closed down all the handgun clubs.
They werent legal before then. You had to apply for a tough license and reason to get one. If you were a member of a shooting club, you needed to get proper records to prove you were a decent pillar of society.

People didnt have the "right" to own one, they had to prove themselves and even then they were often knocked back.

Yes, of course the forces have firearms, but thats different. As far as those outside of their profession go, they have always been illegal.

[Herr Lipp]

Maybe so, didn't stop my mates dad shooting eggs in his garden when he was with his club.

I read there are a plethora of guns available on teh black market now due to the collapse of Communism in the East.

[Narcissistic Nihilist]

But they arent legal. I doubt there is that many.

[Herr Lipp]

All these little wannabee gangster rudeboys in London use shitty blank firing pistol conversions that are liable to blow up in their hands. I saw a programme on Operation Trident and this Yardie tried shooting someone but ended up blowing his finger off. Excellent.

But all the serious crims, the drug barons DO have serious weaponry. Just a few months ago I read about a Liverpudlian dealer who got caught with 15kg of Heroin and a Steyr Assault Rifle. Only got 10 years.

[ramblingrose]

Originally posted by Walter Sopchak

I think I would take a 10 stretch with a single room, playstation, TV, books, Games room, Gym over a Hanging anytime.

That's not what I meant, I said life without parole. Not for every murderer because I think you can rehabilitate some of them, but most of them, and all sex offenders because as far as I'm concerned you cannot rehabilitate them.

[ramblingrose]

Originally posted by DrHibbert
But no one is saying "don't kill."

I am. I'm saying don't do it at all, ever. I'm arguing from a completely idealistic standpoint here because otherwise I'll tie myself up in knots and fundamentally I believe that killing is wrong. If this was a pub debate and we were dealing with specifics then I would be less simplistic about it, but it's still my firmly held belief that killing is wrong. Apart from assisted suicide and abortion, I just thought I'd drop that in.

[Herr Lipp]

yeah but teh world doesn;t work around your morals Ci.

I wish it did, but it doesnt! Actually I wish it worked around my morals. I need my own country....fast!

[DrHibbert]

You can think whatever you want, that's cool. I was just saying that the state isn't being hypocritical because it's not saying don't kill, it's saying don't murder.

[Herr Lipp]

We can chat fuckery all day. But like my pops said yesterday, we'll never have the death penalty again and we'll never have armed policemen. Britain is so liberal compared to some places.

[Fab]

Out of interest, what is the legal definition of murder in the US? Because in England it's murder if you intend to kill and you kill (no fancy words because it's only common law, ie it hasn't been written down in a satute), which would mean execution is murder.

Oh, and I think armed policemen are a likely prospect in the future.

[ramblingrose]

What's the dictionary definition of murder? I'm not being cunty but I always thought that murder is any premeditated non-accidental killing. Actually, the legal definition of murder is probably more relevant to this thread. And I don't know it.

[ramblingrose]

mah! Jinx, no returns.

[ramblingrose]

Originally posted by Walter Sopchak
yeah but teh world doesn;t work around your morals Ci.

I wish it did

You'd hate it Fraser, it would be all indie and people being nice to each other.

[Fab]

Aha! It doesn't have to be premeditated! I win!

Oh, and the world should work around my hippy morals.

[ramblingrose]

Peace-loving you may be, but you eat bacon.

[Fab]

shut up! i got the definition of murder right.

I'm morally against eating meat anyway, I'm just too weak willed to do anything about it, but if the world worked around my morals then I'd stop eating bacon.

[Herr Lipp]

oh you're not a veggie aswell are you Ciona? Fucking hell man.......

eah you're indie world would be pretty gay. But then again, I could commit as many crimes as I want, then your prison system would blatantly be really nice with electric blankets and crumpet machines and that

[ramblingrose]

Originally posted by Fab
shut up! i got the definition of murder right.

I'm morally against eating meat anyway, I'm just too weak willed to do anything about it, but if the world worked around my morals then I'd stop eating bacon.

Okay, fair enough. I can't always be arsed to check for gelatin and stuff, and I lost my vegan wine list in 1995. Didn't I guess the definition of murder quite well?

[ramblingrose]

Originally posted by Walter Sopchak
oh you're not a veggie aswell are you Ciona? Fucking hell man.......

eah you're indie world would be pretty gay. But then again, I could commit as many crimes as I want, then your prison system would blatantly be really nice with electric blankets and crumpet machines and that

Ah, the penal system would not necessarily be that indie. Anyway, you wouldn't need to commit crimes because you'd be too happy. There would be special places for mindless vandalism though, I've always wanted to smash a plate glass window.

[Fab]

Originally posted by Walter Sopchak
oh you're not a veggie aswell are you Ciona? Fucking hell man.......

eah you're indie world would be pretty gay. But then again, I could commit as many crimes as I want, then your prison system would blatantly be really nice with electric blankets and crumpet machines and that you couldn't commit crimes in my hippy world, you'd be physically incabable. or I'd have a Red Dwarf like thing where if you try and commit a crime then the consequences happen to you.

Your guess at the definition of murder was good yes, way to not rub it in :(.

[ramblingrose]

I'm sorry.

[Herr Lipp]

Frank: Red Dwarf - classic. You eat meat Frank, that's cool.

Ciona: I've smashed one window and one greenhouse in my life. Both accidents, but both felt good! Actually the greenhouse wasn;t an accident, we were throwing bricks at it. I'd hate it if some kid done that to my greenhouse, oh how silly we are when we're young.

[Fab]

you will be...

[DrHibbert]

I don't know what the British requirements are, but in the U.S. it requires "malice aforethought." That's why abortions aren't murder, self defense isn't murder (usually). It isn't necessarily premeditation per se, but you have to recognize what you're doing before you're doing it and it has to be malicious.

[Herr Lipp]

I feel like teh third wheel here you two love-birds.

[ramblingrose]

I'm about to start fighting with him in the other thread, don't worry.

[Herr Lipp]

DrHibbert: if it's self defence like you say, it's called Manslaughter here.

I always wondered why they gave the lesser crime the harsher sounding name

[Narcissistic Nihilist]

Originally posted by ramblingrose
Okay, fair enough. I can't always be arsed to check for gelatin and stuff, and I lost my vegan wine list in 1995.
Virtually all gelatin is synthetically made these days, anyhoo. I only found this out fairly recently, and here was me spending eons avoiding the stuff when it wasnt an animal product anyway!

[Narcissistic Nihilist]

Originally posted by Fab
a Red Dwarf like thing where if you try and commit a crime then the consequences happen to you.
JUSTICE ZONE!

We can all get those cool boots with a life of their own.


"Name?"
"Dave Lister"
"Occupation?"
"Errr..... bum!"
"Woud you describe the accused as a friend?"
"No, I'd describe him as a git"

[ramblingrose]

Originally posted by Narcissistic Nihilist
Virtually all gelatin is synthetically made these days, anyhoo. I only found this out fairly recently, and here was me spending eons avoiding the stuff when it wasnt an animal product anyway!
Really? The one that really gets on my nerves is rennet, my mother took me to Sainsbury's the other day and there was about one cheese that wasn't made with animal rennet. Why? there's no need, Morrison's do well enough without. Grrr.

[DrHibbert]

Originally posted by Walter Sopchak
DrHibbert: if it's self defence like you say, it's called Manslaughter here.

I always wondered why they gave the lesser crime the harsher sounding name That's true here, except for limited circumstances. For example, you can't claim self defense if you cap somebody when they confront you for burglarizing their house. But for the most part, the most you will get is manslaughter.

[Narcissistic Nihilist]

Originally posted by ramblingrose
Really? The one that really gets on my nerves is rennet, my mother took me to Sainsbury's the other day and there was about one cheese that wasn't made with animal rennet. Why? there's no need, Morrison's do well enough without. Grrr.
Yeah, thats a lot easier and cheaper to do without animal rennet too.

[Jackal]

Originally posted by ramblingrose
I am. I'm saying don't do it at all, ever. I'm arguing from a completely idealistic standpoint here because otherwise I'll tie myself up in knots and fundamentally I believe that killing is wrong. If this was a pub debate and we were dealing with specifics then I would be less simplistic about it, but it's still my firmly held belief that killing is wrong. Apart from assisted suicide and abortion, I just thought I'd drop that in.

So killing to make life easier is ok, but killing for punishment is bad.

I agree with abortion and assisted suicide too.

I am so into the idea of an eye for an eye because I think it would reduce crime if the laws were set in stone and very harsh.

[ramblingrose]

Originally posted by Jackal
So killing to make life easier is ok, but killing for punishment is bad.

I agree with abortion and assisted suicide too.

I am so into the idea of an eye for an eye because I think it would reduce crime if the laws were set in stone and very harsh.

I'd prefer to describe assisted suicide and abortion as "killing to alleviate suffering", but yeah. But they're a whole other show Ricki.

[Herr Lipp]

Do you know how much it costs to keep a prisoner? Hang the fucking bastards. There's no reaseons for murderers and rapists and child molesters to cost me, the taxpayer, money.

[ramblingrose]

But wouldn't reinstating the death penalty be even more expensive? Like in the US where they're on death row for years and years and they have about 700 appeals, that would cost serious money. Plus they'd have to spend money on building the apparatus and training the executioners. A lot of coin.

[Herr Lipp]

permanent solution though. also, only sentence people to death when it's absolutely certain what they did. You're only mentioning America, what about the other countries like Vietnam for example that have a much more straightforward approach.

why waste hundreds of thousands of punds per year on offenders, for them to just come back after they've been out for a short period. The re-offender percentages are astonishing. why? most likely because prison is a fucking doss.

[ramblingrose]

I can't really imagine that the UK authorities would go for the Vietnamese model, whatever that may be. It would be like America, only the boiler suits would probably be brown instead of that jaunty orange.

[Herr Lipp]

I'm sick of this fucking past 60 years and it's bullshit. Give me pre-WW2 Britain anyday.

[Fab]

Originally posted by Walter Sopchak
The re-offender percentages are astonishing. why? most likely because prison is a fucking doss. a popular theory, especially for people that went in at a relatively young age, is that ex-cons don't know how to survive in the outside world, since they can't get a job or anything, prison has to be a lot worse so people don't think of it as an option.

[Herr Lipp]

exactumundo. its this fucking human rights bullshit man.

they should make these cunts that commit these nasty crimes do fucking hard labour, for no wages. My Uncle got paid when he was in prison man, only like £30 a week but he hardly did fuck all. And I've mentioned before how my Uncle used to get high when he was banged up. Prison's a joke. Aside from teh possibility of ass rapage, I wouldnt be bothered about going to prison .

[Six Ways]

Ooooh, lots to say, lets see if I remember.

Matt, why in the fuck do we need the right to own guns? Why should that be a basic human right? You hardly need it to survive. If there's a basic human right to own guns, then I claim the right to also own hand grenades, and quite possibly fully-functional medieval torture devices with lots of very pointy bits.

Danny, I pretty much agree with what you were saying about...stuff...I forget. Sounded reasonable at the time anyway. And go Red Dwarf! I love Justice!

Ciona...ummm...damn, I'm losing the plot! Uhhh...killing...something something. I think it was like, in your perfect world no killing would ever happen anyway. If no-one kills, then no killing need be done to punish people for killing, so it's a circular argument and useless to apply to this discussion. I think that was it.

Other people...Idunno. How about, STFU I'm right. Go me.

Oh yeah, Frank, why are you morally against eating meat? I knew you were, I just don't think we ever talked about it. Against treating animals badly, sure, but not against eating them if they've been well treated.

Oh, that was what Danny was saying that I agreed with (I think it was him) about the fuzz not needing guns, and having armed response teams, and not having to use guns on the vast majority of arrests. :yes:

Alison, I agree totally that hard and fast rules would prevent people offending much more, with the eye for an eye system. The problem unfortunately comes when you consider different circumstances...like the man who murders someone because someone will kill his wife and kids if he doesn't (e.g. in Saw except he doesn't kill him). You can't really kill him. This is the practical problem with eye for an eye. So Eye for an eye is in, but hard and fast is not. I.e. if you get fully convicted, your punishment is what ypu dealt out, but you may not get convicted depending upon the circumstances etc.

[Fab]

Originally posted by Six Ways
Oh yeah, Frank, why are you morally against eating meat? I knew you were, I just don't think we ever talked about it. Against treating animals badly, sure, but not against eating them if they've been well treated. Well, people often say that wild animals eat meat so it should be ok for us to, but I just think that we've evolved past it as a race and there's no need for breeding animals just to kill and eat them anymore, we can survive on all kinds of horrendous crap like tofu and lentils, which is why I'm not actually a vegitarian.

[ramblingrose]

I never eat tofu or lentils. It is perfectly possible to survive on beans on toast, rice krispies and apples for many many years and I am the living proof.

[Fab]

I'd much rather not, though. I'm dropping off your CD tomorrw btw, I'm going to see Harry Potter tomorrow afternoon so I'm going to wander round town aimlessly looking for fun in the morning.

[ramblingrose]

"Looking for fun" sounds vaguely threatening. I've just seen the biggest beard ever! It was the size of a fully grown tomcat.

[Fab]

I'll probably try and find sound control again and play with their synths until I get kicked out.

I'm going to walk into town from Cookridge and then back out to the Cottage Road, do you think I'll die?

[ramblingrose]

Nooo, you won't die. Sound Control is quite easy to find and they once gave my ex a pen for settling an argument they were having about Field of Dreams, which was a boon. I've just had an extremely crap evening and left a gig early for the first time ever. But on the upside my soup turned out great.

[Six Ways]

Originally posted by Fab
I'll probably try and find sound control again and play with their synths until I get kicked out.

Ohhhh yeeeeeeah.

Speaking of which I must check out the SC in Manchester (no, not Saddle Creek, no fucking lame-ass jokes Frank or Ciona! Or anyone else either, I got my eye on you donkey-fuckers).

[ramblingrose]

I wasn't going to try and make a lame ass joke but now I'm annoyed that I can't think of one. I told my friend the myximatosis joke and she thought it was really funny.

[Fab]

Isn't it next to the Oxford Road train station? One of the sations anyway, I saw it last time I went to Liverpool. By the way, the sound file was 4 bytes big, send again.

[ramblingrose]

Sound Control is quite fun but Maplin is no fun at all.

[XenonDreams]

Originally posted by vordabois
Me Matt?

Cuz you might be surprised... I totally agree.

you know, just as i clicked back on this thread, i'm like, ahh shit matt will prolly have agree with for once as i attempt to pre-empt him. your analogy is fabulous, i shall use it whenever i encounter a pro-gun control star wars fan.

[XenonDreams]

Originally posted by Fab
It's more complicated than in America where virtually anyone can have one if they have a licence.

It's state-to-state (and that encompasses a lot of variation), but mostly you can own rifles and shotguns without any licence at all (i think to transport them you need a hunting license or equivalent some places). hand guns are banned in some cities (i don't think any state has banned them completely). Most places you need permits for hand guns, and it IS complicated, because i think in some states you have to have them concealed, and others you have to have them visible if you take them out of your home.

The only thing i think you need an unequivocal licence for is...machine guns. You can actually own fully automatic weapons, i believe, but its very expensive and involves a lot of regulation.

[XenonDreams]

Originally posted by Narcissistic Nihilist
that is the last thing on the planet we need.

only those who require a firearm for their profession should be given the right to own one.

No one else should have the right, thats like given everyone the right to murder, its ridiiculous.

It's amazing that someone who has zero apparent faith in human nature would like to trust a monopoly of force just a very few.

[Narcissistic Nihilist]

Originally posted by ramblingrose
But wouldn't reinstating the death penalty be even more expensive? Like in the US where they're on death row for years and years and they have about 700 appeals, that would cost serious money. Plus they'd have to spend money on building the apparatus and training the executioners. A lot of coin.
Lethal injection is piss cheap, and takes no training or special bulidings. A zillion times cheaper than food, board etc for a lifetime.

So basically, no.

[Narcissistic Nihilist]

Originally posted by XenonDreams
It's amazing that someone who has zero apparent faith in human nature would like to trust a monopoly of force just a very few.
So instead of some idiots having guns, you think I would prefer ALL idiots to have guns!!?? You really dont make any sense.

Its my total lack of faith in humanity which means that only the select, trained professional few should be allowed such violent weapons.

Just cos you Yanks have fucked up your gun laws, doesnt mean we should fuck ours up too.

[Six Ways]

The problem with the death penalty practically is that because it's death, it's irreversable, so they're reluctant to commit to actually carrying out the sentence. Hence the hundreds of appeals and the huge amount of time spent on death row. The point being you have to be 100% sure they're guilty, so you can't just say 'let's kill em now' so it takes years. If it were not for that, i.e. if we could be instantly sure who did it, death would be millions of times cheaper.

[DrHibbert]

Originally posted by Six Ways
The problem with the death penalty practically is that because it's death, it's irreversable, so they're reluctant to commit to actually carrying out the sentence. Hence the hundreds of appeals and the huge amount of time spent on death row. The point being you have to be 100% sure they're guilty, so you can't just say 'let's kill em now' so it takes years. If it were not for that, i.e. if we could be instantly sure who did it, death would be millions of times cheaper. That's a good point, and is my only qualm with the death penalty. I think DNA is getting better and is a step in the right direction. If someone is a 5 billion to one match and [we can put them at the scene of the crime] or [they confessed at some point] or [they knew the victim], that's good enough for me. But it is disturbing that death row inmates from pre-DNA eras are now being exonerated.

[Six Ways]

I agree with you, except for confessions. I don't like confessions...they can far too easily be covering for someone else, or beaten out of someone, or whatever. I think they're too unreliable as far as passing the death sentence goes.

[DrHibbert]

Oh, I totally agree. But I meant confessions in conjunction with a DNA match. Confessions can be false, but DNA is objective and both to me is enough.

[Six Ways]

Oh, ok. But you did specifically use the word 'or'....hence my confusion.

[DrHibbert]

the last 3 are disjunctive with each other and conjunctive with a DNA match. I didn't use proper semicolons

[Six Ways]

Slashes instead of 'or's would have been the most clear, if perhaps less grammatically correct version.