imported post
Eeyore wrote:
Nope, that's the whole thing. If I had a plan, I would have posted it. The fact that I didn't/don't have a plan is implicit in the question I posed for the sake of discussion. Furthermore, I never said or intended to imply that guns do not have beneficial effects--in this forum, I think we can take that as a given. My question was intended onlyto examine possible ways to minimize their negative effects. I would never advocate banning airplanes because they sometimes crash, but I would never prohibit someone from examining possible ways to make them safer.
Gentleman Ranker recognized all the above, and followed the implications. (Bravo, sir.) He restated the dilemma better than I did: "...the antis can argue that some number of Bad Things do and will happen if guns are around. We can't deny this, and we look foolish if we try." So what can we do instead?
The point is, that I respectfully believe you're missing, personal responsibility should take the place of government regulation. This is the proper application of the "then let's ban rocks, swimming pools, and donkeys" argument for gun ownership. Yes, there are accidents and crimes committed with guns... but damages are also created with other instruments. A stupid person will still be a stupid person no matter how many classes you make him take. A while ago I brought up the issue of NDs that cause injuries, and how they're generally caused by bad decisions rather than a lack of training: in order for the bullet to hit a person, the gun generally has to be pointed at that person. And that's not going to be due to a training error. And as for criminals, they will find ways to commit crimes, and will do so just as readily as when they don't have guns. Criminals in the UK seem to be doing quite well for themselves.
So ultimately, we need to look at how it is the responsibility of each person not to misuse guns. Yes, innocent people are injured and killed by people using guns... but are also injured and killed by people using knives, and baseball bats, and cars, and even shoves from high places.
Eeyore also wrote:
I agree 100% that all evil should be met with justice. As for prison terms, I believe the
swiftness and
surety of punishmentare more effective deterrents than the duration. If your dog wizzes on the carpet right after you leave the house for work, and you punish him when you get home 8 hours later, the dog learns nothing. Likewise, when a BG gets arrested, then immediately released on bail, is free to run around for a year while awaiting trial, eventually gets tried and convicted, then waits a few more months for sentencing before he ever sees the inside of a prison, the deterrent effect is lost. The effect has been too far separated from the cause. (And that assumes he's convicted at all, instead of getting off on a technicality or getting some weak suspended sentence or time served. :X )
If it were up to me, I'd bring back stocks in the public square. Nothing like a little public humiliation to get someone's attention, and the sales of rotten fruit and vegetables will stimulate the economy.
The problem is that punishment comes
after the crime has already been committed. My question was oriented towards
prevention.
Two issues.
First, we need to get rid of the punishment notion in the prison system. Yes, punishment may work for the first few years of a child's life... but there comes a point where it is no longer effective. Barring
malum prohibitum "crimes", there generally must be something wrong with a person that prevents them from applying logical thought to committing a crime. Robbing a convenience store? The criminal might be desperate for money... in which case they either need rehab, or perhaps remedial education so that he can enter the work force. He's not going to be considering the punishment, as he
really needs the money. Or the criminal might just want money, and doesn't have qualms about threatening force in order to get it. In the former example, prison as punishment will not deter future acts, will most likely put the person in a worse financial position once he gets out, and will teach the criminal how to commit crimes even better in the future. Here, rehabilitation is necessary. In the latter case, the person is dangerous to society, and punishment will just make him more sociopathic and will certainly not prevent future crimes. In this case, life imprisonment might be appropriate, or perhaps psychological assistance in dealing with the deficiencies giving him such a "criminal" mindset. I could even understand the application of the death penalty here, in order to more efficiently remove this person from peaceful society, but I'll get to why that's a bad idea after the next, short paragraph.
Sure, such a "pansy lib'ral" approach might not satisfy a desire for vengeance. But what's more important: feeling good about someone else's demise, or giving the criminal the chance to live a life where he doesn't cause more crime to happen? The need to stop looking at prison as punishment isn't so much for the sake of the criminals, but for the sake of society as a whole.
Second, I believe there's a misunderstanding of the ideal American Criminal Justice system. The point is to force the government to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a person is guilty of the crime with which he is being charged. That's why there's bail: the person "running around for a year" while awaiting trial is presumed to be innocent. So long as there's some reassurance from the person that he will appear in court and not run away (that is, reasonable bail), there's no reason to lock up an innocent person. As for "getting off on a technicality", those "technicalities" are there for a reason: to prevent the oppression of overzealous government. Let's take the
Miranda warning... while we tend to be well-aquainted with the law around here on OCDO, many people in America may not know that they have the right to a free attorney during questioning, or the right to not answer questionsl. Also presuming that the person taken into custody is innocent, there should be no question that he deserves a fair shot at retaining that status. At any rate, the key term is presumption of innocence.
Sure, it might be nice to watch a cop show on TV and see the police kick down the door of a child rapist, shoot his pet dog, and beat him into a bloody pulp before bringing him back to the police station for questioning... at which point he is deprived of food and water until he confesses. But since this person is presumed to be innocent... what happens when the police mistake you for the child molester?
I'd think that those openly carry their gun(s) should be especially attuned to wrongful accusation and arrest and other acts of overzealous policing.