Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Bow-and-arrow killings in Norway seen as an ‘act of terror’

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    Sure we can try to understand them and even get them treatment if it helps, But, we should not release them back into society. And they don't deserve to be coddled in a luxury cell that looks like a hotel room. And calling someone who is a serial killer "evil" is not being too simplistic.
    I know it's too "simplistic", but I think that everybody who is introduced to our State or Federal prison system should be given a choice...

    A) do you wish to be a "model citizen", living in our minimum security realm where you will be treated like a human being?
    2) do you wish to dwell in the "general population" where you can try to game the system, cause mayhem and destruction, and be treated like a thug?

    Any person who choses A) and violates that opportunity goes to 2).
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Sparko View Post

      Sure we can try to understand them and even get them treatment if it helps, But, we should not release them back into society.
      I do not think many would wish to see such people back in society.

      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      And they don't deserve to be coddled in a luxury cell that looks like a hotel room.
      How do you rehabilitate someone by treating them unkindly and without compassion?

      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      And calling someone who is a serial killer "evil" is not being too simplistic.
      Simple answers to complex issues are invariably wrong - to grossly paraphrase Mencken.

      "It ain't necessarily so
      The things that you're liable
      To read in the Bible
      It ain't necessarily so
      ."

      Sportin' Life
      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
        How do you rehabilitate someone by treating them unkindly and without compassion?
        I think the first step is to determine if they have any desire to rehabilitate. In my experience, many simply do not.

        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

          I think the first step is to determine if they have any desire to rehabilitate. In my experience, many simply do not.
          That can only be attempted by trained professionals. However, I suspect that incarcerating the offender in "a dank prison cell" would be unlikely to assist in any possible rehabilitation.
          "It ain't necessarily so
          The things that you're liable
          To read in the Bible
          It ain't necessarily so
          ."

          Sportin' Life
          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
            That can only be attempted by trained professionals.
            No foolin'.

            However, I suspect that incarcerating the offender in "a dank prison cell" would be unlikely to assist in any possible rehabilitation.
            Again, if a person demonstrates no desire to rehabilitate, that's his/her own choice.




            ETA: Actually, ANYTHING can be "attempted" by ANYBODY, whether they be trained professionals or not.
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

              No foolin'.
              No. It really does require trained professionals.

              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              Again, if a person demonstrates no desire to rehabilitate, that's his/her own choice.
              Which is once again a rather over-simplistic suggestion.
              "It ain't necessarily so
              The things that you're liable
              To read in the Bible
              It ain't necessarily so
              ."

              Sportin' Life
              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                Yeah, I hate our prison system - it just seems to be a breeding ground for making people worse than when they came in.
                Yep. And so wasteful too. Wr dump enormous loads of money into it and in return don't get productive citizens out the other end most of the time but instead a 60 to 70 percent recidivism rate.
                "So when you actually get the virus, you're going to start producing antibodies against multiple pieces of the virus. So, your antibodies are probably better at that point than the vaccination."
                - Pfizer Scientist Chris Croce

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                  Wow...
                  A) You're not going to get rid of all the guns in the US
                  2) You're not going to keep guns out of then hands of the people who want to do evil
                  C) If somebody is determined to kill multiple people, there are other options available

                  Your analogy stinks on so many levels.
                  A) I agree?
                  2) Do you think background checks are in any way effective?
                  C) Why do you think spree shooters don't use bombs or drive into pedestrians instead if it can be just as deadly if not moreso?

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post

                    A) I agree?
                    2) Do you think background checks are in any way effective?
                    Not really. If a criminal is going to get a gun they're not usually going to go through a background check to get it when they know their past record will disqualify them. And I'll note that many spree shooters who got their guns legally did so via passing the background checks.

                    Universal background checks are an absurd pipe dream
                    "So when you actually get the virus, you're going to start producing antibodies against multiple pieces of the virus. So, your antibodies are probably better at that point than the vaccination."
                    - Pfizer Scientist Chris Croce

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post

                      A) I agree?
                      At this point, kinda hard not to

                      2) Do you think background checks are in any way effective?
                      I think they, in some cases, are way too incomplete -- when a school district knows full well that they have a problem student, and don't report that for any background check to find, it's crazy.

                      C) Why do you think spree shooters don't use bombs or drive into pedestrians instead if it can be just as deadly if not moreso?
                      First of all, if they used bombs or vehicles, they couldn't be called "spree shooters".

                      Secondly, almost all mass killings are about the big V - vendetta. They will use whatever means is the most effective for their own situation.
                      And they will go after soft targets first.
                      If they can get a gun - by hook or by crook - they'll get one, or several, or multiple.

                      Do you think "gun free zones" really work?
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
                        Not really. If a criminal is going to get a gun they're not usually going to go through a background check to get it when they know their past record will disqualify them. And I'll note that many spree shooters who got their guns legally did so via passing the background checks.

                        Universal background checks are an absurd pipe dream
                        Agreed - and it's not so hard to get a gun (or several) from somebody who legally obtained it.
                        A lot of these shooters were kids --- not enough history for anything to show up on a cursory background check.
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                          At this point, kinda hard not to

                          I think they, in some cases, are way too incomplete -- when a school district knows full well that they have a problem student, and don't report that for any background check to find, it's crazy.

                          First of all, if they used bombs or vehicles, they couldn't be called "spree shooters".

                          Secondly, almost all mass killings are about the big V - vendetta. They will use whatever means is the most effective for their own situation.
                          And they will go after soft targets first.
                          If they can get a gun - by hook or by crook - they'll get one, or several, or multiple.

                          Do you think "gun free zones" really work?
                          If you think that a background check taking problem students into account would be even mildly effective, then you agree that gun control policy CAN keep guns out of the hands of those who want to do evil or at the very least make it more difficult (a stolen firearm could be reported to police and the criminal caught before the spree) or reduce the number of people killed (they have to use whatever alternative firearm they can get which may be less effective).

                          My point is that there's a reason mass murderers in the US prefer guns. They could build bombs or drive into pedestrians instead but guns are the most efficient and reliable way to kill. It's preferable that they use less effective methods. So the idea that there's no point in gun control because killers have other methods is the same as saying because we can't stop all mass killings we might as well not try to stop some of them.

                          Gun free zones don't work for a spree shooter but they might catch someone who doesn't originally intend to kill anyone but ends up doing it anyway because they got drunk, got into an argument, or were goofing off. I don't really have a strong stance, I'm not familiar with the data. I do think it's hypocritical that conservatives are generally anti-gun free zones but pro trans bathroom bills.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                            If you think that a background check taking problem students into account would be even mildly effective, then you agree that gun control policy CAN keep guns out of the hands of those who want to do evil or at the very least make it more difficult (a stolen firearm could be reported to police and the criminal caught before the spree) or reduce the number of people killed (they have to use whatever alternative firearm they can get which may be less effective).
                            No - that's REALLY a stretch.

                            My point is that there's a reason mass murderers in the US prefer guns.
                            Nobody is arguing that.

                            They could build bombs or drive into pedestrians instead but guns are the most efficient and reliable way to kill. It's preferable that they use less effective methods. So the idea that there's no point in gun control because killers have other methods is the same as saying because we can't stop all mass killings we might as well not try to stop some of them.
                            You're creating quite a few straw men, my friend -- nobody said "there's no point in gun control". It just needs to be a whole lot smarter and more targeted.
                            Liberals seem to stink at enforcing existing gun control laws because they're too focused on the grand prize - NO guns for anybody.

                            Gun free zones don't work for a spree shooter but they might catch someone who doesn't originally intend to kill anyone but ends up doing it anyway because they got drunk, got into an argument, or were goofing off. I don't really have a strong stance, I'm not familiar with the data. I do think it's hypocritical that conservatives are generally anti-gun free zones but pro trans bathroom bills.
                            Gun free zones keep the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens who may actually be able to stop somebody who is illegally using a gun. The most effective way to kill a "spree shooter" (as you call them) is with a gun.

                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Gonna take another 'stab' at this, cause there's just SO MUCH wrong with it...

                              Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                              If you think that a background check taking problem students into account
                              • "taking problem students into account" has proven to be a major failure.
                              • The schools are governed by the liberals who do NOT want "their schools" to be thought of as problematic - they will fight any attempt to share information with police (defund the police, remember?)
                              • It has been shown that many of these active shooters were KNOWN to be problems, but nobody wanted to report them.
                              would be even mildly effective,
                              • ZERO effective - until the system drastically changes
                              • ANY student can get a gun, legally or otherwise
                              then you agree that gun control policy CAN keep guns out of the hands of those who want to do evil
                              Absolutely not.

                              or at the very least make it more difficult
                              Not difficult enough for somebody who has a V motivation. They will find a way - that's been demonstrated over and over.

                              (a stolen firearm could be reported to police and the criminal caught before the spree)
                              Who's going to report it? The person who STOLE it?
                              Or you think that the owner reporting "somebody stole my gun" makes it somehow magically disappear or end up in the possession of the police?
                              How are they going to catch him? How do they know the gun he has hidden in his backpack is stolen?
                              Is somebody "more dead" if killed by a stolen gun than a legal one?

                              Seriously, you, like other anti-gun liberals, don't live in reality.

                              or reduce the number of people killed (they have to use whatever alternative firearm they can get which may be less effective).
                              Are you aware that, as of 2020, there were 393 MILLION guns in the US?
                              You REALLY believe that somebody who intends to do mass carnage can't get their hands on guns?
                              Perhaps you're unaware that it takes only 2-4 seconds to "swap magazines" when you're firing a semi-automatic weapon.

                              Liberals come at this with banning "assault rifles" (mass shooters prefer handguns) or "high capacity magazines" (most active shooters used multiple standard magazines of 10-15 rounds each.

                              Seriously, when a liberal looks at "gun control", they come at it from a total FANTASY world where they think they can simply make rules and everybody cooperates.
                              That's not how it works. That's not how ANY of this works.
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                No - that's REALLY a stretch.


                                Nobody is arguing that.


                                You're creating quite a few straw men, my friend -- nobody said "there's no point in gun control". It just needs to be a whole lot smarter and more targeted.
                                Liberals seem to stink at enforcing existing gun control laws because they're too focused on the grand prize - NO guns for anybody.


                                Gun free zones keep the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens who may actually be able to stop somebody who is illegally using a gun. The most effective way to kill a "spree shooter" (as you call them) is with a gun.
                                agree.gif


                                Posted in 2019 on that

                                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                One of the biggest problems has been that the government doesn't want to enforce the laws on the books but rather keeps demanding tougher restrictions.

                                For instance take a look at background checks.

                                Since firearms dealers ask prospective buyers about prior convictions and the like even before they give them ATF Form 4473 to fill out (which starts the FBI check) and because the vast majority of those applicants who don't pass are rejected because of a prior criminal conviction, restraining order, are fugitives and the like, this actually qualifies as a federal crime -- a felony -- of submitting false information.

                                But, in one recent year of the approximately 80,000 people who were turned down as a result of a background check only 44 people were prosecuted. 44 out of 80,000.

                                In the first two years after the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was first set up the Justice Department Inspector General discovered that only 154 people out of 120,000 denials were prosecuted.

                                Why isn't the government enforcing the laws already on the books rather than wanting new ones? Now, I'm sure a significant portion of those who are rejected didn't realize that they were violating the law (perhaps they didn't realize that their conviction was for a felony or that it happened so long ago that they "forgot") but that can hardly account for such a low prosecution rate.

                                One explanation was provided by then Vice President Joe Biden when he was asked about this in 2013 while talking to representatives from the National Rifle Association during a White House gun violence task force meeting. According to Jim Baker, the NRA's Director of Federal Affairs, Biden responded, "And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don't have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately."

                                And it appears that, according to Justice Department data compiled by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University (widely regarded as one of the best researchers on federal prosecution performances and trends), federal prosecutions of firearm violations in general dropped substantially during the Obama Administration[1]. This was verified by a study conducted by the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys which found that there has been a 25% drop in the number of prosecutions of firearm violation cases by the Justice Department recommended by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATF) than the Bush Administration did.

                                So before we start passing new laws does it not seem reasonable that we actually start enforcing the laws we already have on the books and begin prosecuting those who willfully lie on federal forms trying to illegally obtain firearms?

                                As an aside I should note that the Democrats recently defeated an amendment to the proposed Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 (H.R. 8) that alert law enforcement authorities when gun buyers fail the background check. Why? Because the provision would also check to see if the person trying to obtain a firearm was an illegal immigrant and if they were inform Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) about the illegal act (it's already a violation of federal law for illegals to purchase or possess firearms). It should also be noted that the amendment was based on language introduced by two House Democrats, David Cicilline (D-R.I.) and Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who is now chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. And yet both of them voted against the amendment[2].

                                So much for the left's claim that they want to keep guns out of the wrong hands.






                                1. A similar thing happened during the Clinton Administration. After working so hard to pass the Brady Law and the the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (which prohibited firearms based on their appearance rather than functionality) in 1993 and 1994 respectively of the 23,000 cases that had been referred for prosecution by the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives only arrested 56 people. One of Janet Reno's top aides even testified that they weren't all that interested in such prosecutions (enforcing the laws just passed). They appeared more interested in passing even more laws (which they would likely not enforce either).

                                2. Later, after the amendment was rejected Republicans employed an obscure rule called "motion to recommit," which allows the minority party to submit last-minute introductions of floor amendments and re-introduced the amendment and it managed to slip through. So how did the House Democratic leadership respond upon discovering this? They are now considering whether they should amend the rules to eliminate motions to recommit.

                                I'm always still in trouble again

                                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Cow Poke, Today, 02:16 PM
                                4 responses
                                33 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Today, 05:14 AM
                                65 responses
                                344 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by NorrinRadd, Today, 02:41 AM
                                14 responses
                                81 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 11-27-2021, 03:48 PM
                                5 responses
                                58 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Gondwanaland, 11-27-2021, 01:59 PM
                                7 responses
                                65 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X