yeah, the NRA had an informercial on TV about how some UK/GBR competition shooters couldn't practice in their own country cause it was illegal for them to even be in that sort of thing...so they had to come over here to the states to shoot guns.

They made it sound like it was some horrible tragedy though which was sad.

I mean, I'd be pissed if it was illegal to collector "explict magazines", but man, I wouldn't go crying about it at 3 am.

when i said its illegal to own a gun in australia besides a manual rifle

i wasnt complaining about it
most people in aus dont give a shit about guns
in our opinion the Right people have guns (cops, mentally stable people etc)

they person that came up with the phrase "guns dont kill people, people kill people", was living in a world of complete denial

ever since the new legislation to ban all semi auto rifles in '97 (after port arthur killings [17 shot dead]) there has been like only 8 deaths in aus in gun related incedents, and three of those were cops shooting armed and dangerous individauls

I don't believe the person that came up with the phrase "guns dont kill people, people kill people", was living in a world of complete denial at all. They were trying to assign the responsibility to the people that pull the trigger. To me, denial is blaming the gun more than the individual.

Your example of the gun ban is interesting, but one would have to see total stats to see if more up close and personal ways of dealing with conflict didn't go up since the easy way is gone. People just don't care or respect others anymore. You see it in the forums, you see it on the roads. The lack of individual responsibility is far worse than guns being available. It would be nice if you could make them all go away, but then it would be back to long knives and swords again.

Actually, the NRA has used the stats to (try to) show that this gun ban was a bad idea. What they didn't show, was that there was an underlying law enforcement issue/problem, which doesn't exist here in the USA, because of the "three strike" law (three similar criminal offenses will land you in prison, regardless). Of course this assumes that a prison sentence is a deterrant, which is arguable, but in the case of the UK farmer, who was robbed by 3 guys who had been convicted of robbery in excess of 50 times EACH, I think that there is an issue where the UK system of justice has a failing in dealing with repeat offenders. It certainly isn't related to the gun ban, at least not directly.

Maybe we can get a UK viewpoint on this?

and so we (will) return to your capital punishment question Ben

a strange society that can 'afford' the luxury of letting thieves do their thing
(because they have rights under the law per SCompRacer - which indicates the ethical bankruptcy of such)
and at the same time deny medical services to the have-nots
-> and we will ignore the 10s of millions of children worldwide without education

Heinlen had some good thoughts
a moderate public flogging for the first offense (the wakeup call)
death for the second (can you say goodbye ?)

and Ben
I really do not care what the 'needs' of a thief are,
NOR do I accept supporting them while in prison
(mind you, these comments are related to theft and violence - only)

Glad to see you're feeling better!

Right now, every society has its flaws. Is it fair that a prisoner gets to watch TV, while forty thousand children die each day? Of course not, but you need to isolate the world for what it is: a collection of 180+ countries, each separate and with their own problems. (Sad but true).

I did read some of Heinlein's work. Very well written. The social models that he advances in his stories are definitely interesting. This 1 offense/flog 2/death idea though, you have to admit, is rather barbaric.

Back to capital punishment.

In my opinion, there is no justification for a society to kill its own people. It's a very old concept, and I can only qualify it as barbaric. That being said, I will give you that using lethal force can be acceptable, but only from a personal/individual perspective, under the right circumstances (present threat of death), but not that of a society.

The only reason a society would/should get involved, is for the purpose of applying a solution to try to remedy the cause that started it all. Why did the robber rob? As an individual, we don't care, and rightfully so, but as a member of a society, we must care. To ignore the issue is to deny being part of a society, and any way you look at it, it's a delusion. Denying our social membership is exactly what causes the thieves to keep thieving.

the group of 180 that you refer to, I call the conspiracy of tyrants
each is free to abuse their chattel so long as they don't inspire other's to revolt or interfere

fu*k that system

when I was a child I collected stamps and the USA had a series called "Champions of Liberty": Simon Bolivar, etc.
then
I watched the abortive Hungarian Revolution on TV and was stupefied - we did nothing at all !
what did all these words mean ?
and I came to an understanding (later somewhat validated by Ayn Rand) that government, any government,
and ALL governments, are the enemies of all free men
because governments serve themselves first

(I know, anarchy is no better as all must be rational - and all are not)

but I at least do not accept this 'social contract' swill
governments buy time so they may have their turn at the trough

I find nothing "barbaric" with the concept of accountability
on the contrary, I find it sadistic that victims and non-victims alike should have to pay (for) the victimizers
what misguided fool thought that one up ? why ? for whose benefit ?
-> and the social ‘GOOD’ performed by a prison is ? ? ? ?
you familiar with Churchill’s comment about prisons ?

such a notion 'flies' only due to fuzzy/non-thinkers being unable and unwilling to 'bite the bullet'
do you know from whence that expression came ?

if you want to make things grow, fertilizer is used
and so we have social scientists, clergy, and other collected idiots promoting violence by failing to address its cessation

a handgun, approprially used of course, can deliver accountability

EDIT: (for those with training wheels)
- Winston Churchill said (paraphrased I believe) "To see the worst elements of our society, visit a prison - and look at the wardens."
- "bite the bullet" was a technique used when operating without anesthetic

You hit the nail on the head, sort of.

There is indeed no accountability to anyone, as far as the 180+ government (in various forms) are concerned. The closest thing that exists today, is the United Nations, and the Human Rights advocates, but they have little power. In that light, one starts to realize that our society is not as advanced as it can (should?) be.
Is it something to gripe about, or is it just the reality of our world as it is today?

Where is it said that the government is "by the people, for the people"? Is the US democratic system good, or does it have its failings? Can it be improved, or is it doomed to failure in a hundred years or so, as has been predicted?

I missed the Hungarian revolution (a failing on my part?), but have seen many cases in the world of human rights abuses. If by "we did nothing at all !" you mean that the USA did not intervene, I've got a few thoughts on that.

It's been pointed out earlier that the European/Canadian mentality differs from the USA. Maybe it should be looked at, from the other side: why do Americans think differently than the rest of the (so called) civilized world?

It's only when you look at the USA as the youngest of the civilized nations, and use a family unit analogy, where the USA is the young-but-tough brother, that one can see perhaps a little bit more clearly, what is behind some of its actions. This "big bully" that the USA has been accused of being, is quite real. The wise man would take the time to ponder the question, to come up with the appropriate course of action, but the USA is in a hurry to squash Saddam Hussein, because it's more important that no further harm is done, rather than making sure that any of this never, ever happens again, in a consolidated effort. Why? Is it best this way? If the end result is pretty much the same, why would we even care?

Accountability is most definitely essential. It is only recently recognized that the victims of a crime extend even beyond the immediate victim, to friends and relatives. There is much to be done there too.

As for the good of prisons, I see one major flaw: a prisoner is bound to be respected fully as the constitution dictates, just like any citizen. I will advance the idea that a criminal has, in fact, abandonned some of his constitutional rights, and the medical/scientific fields should be able to experiment with behavior modification therapy on those prisoners, for the purpose of creating a proper rehabilitation process, which is the essence of what a prison is really meant to be. It certainly has a more powerful effect, as a deterrent. If you act against a society, then you forego some of your rights as a citizen. That's the problem with wardens, IMO: they are powerless to act, and they have no mandate.

Some governments have seen fit to use this idea, and use torture methods. That's not what I mean.

This is the essence of human nature and "control" though, eh? Not limited to governments; corporations are exactly the same. Just replace "votes" with "market share". I guess you could extend it to drug dealers as well; replace "market share" with "crack whores" or something....

This is the very essence of the difference between America and (most of) the rest of the world. Society is nothing more than a collection of individuals , holding neither more rights nor more responsibilities than the individuals that comprise it. This is a bit of dissonance that has permeated collectivist societies throughout time.

More of the same! Why should I care that the person threatening my life or my property didn't have a happy childhood, or wet his bed, or was picked-on in school? Why is that my responsibilty? I didn't have a storybook childhood (who has?), and I don't go out robbing and killing people. It seems that the hallmark of our age is the flight from responsibility. From socialized medicine to welfare (the dole, unemployment insurance, Minimum wage, etc.), most cringe at the thought of having to own up to reality, and earn our way thru life.

Ay Carumba!

You did NOT get that from Ayn Rand! Read "The Role of Government" in "Capitalism:The Unknown Ideal".

It is because all men are not rational that governments are necessary. If they are utilized consistent with the rights of the individuals they serve, they are not enemies, but benefactors of free men.

Please do not equate governments, who put a gun to your head to ensure your compliance, with businesses who can only ask for your business. If you wish to use examples where business has gotten into bed with government to ensure their success (a la utilities, etc.), the problem is with the government which allowed such a thing to happen.

Bob

fuzzy wuzzy wuzza bear, . . . . .

come on Ben, address THE issue, in real time
it is:
the initiation of force against another (on an immediate personal level in this thread)

deal with it; no twaddle about 'when you grow up you'll understand/know better'
(I went to school in Europe, this is a very old line to suppress thinking and questioning)

please, none of your fantasies about what you think a prison 'should be'
deal with the reality of TODAY: prisons are parking garages for the violent,
and certain classes of competitors of the government's defined monopolies (drugs, fraud, etc)

due deliberation, measured response, Queensbury Rules, deterrence, rehabilitation
-> those are sops for YOUR conscience

earlier you (?) mentioned insurance, as if such were a mitigating factor in the loss incurred
(insurance against rape, murder, disablement ? godamn what logic)
my same question again: why should the victims and non-victims have to make installment payments on a disaster ?
(gee, could the ins. co.s be a part of this skimming scam ?)

the Fat Burghers of Europe have spoken clearly, many times -
from the Romans with the advancing Goths and Huns, onward to today
as I recall the words were "Peace in Our Time"

why do you think that the Moslem fanatics consider ‘us’ weak, corrupt, and morally bankrupt ?
while Saddam is respected because he does that which is necessary to further his intentions

do you recall Mao’s words ? - “Power comes out of the barrel of a gun”
all the rest is window dressing; such is our world

ahh utabintarbo
a 'quote' out of context ? (I know, std technique)
did I not say in the very next line:
"(I know, anarchy is no better as all must be rational - and all are not)"
but I'm cheered to see that Rand is still quoted

But YOUR out-of-context quote conveyed the impression that Rand's opinion was that governments were necessarily the enemy of free men. With your following statement (quoted above), you make no attribution to Rand. It therefore appears that your opinion (quoted above) is in contravention to Rand's. Was this your intent?

Bob

btw: I'm cheered that you're cheered!

in THE activity that Objectivists most revel in, we will dissect

"If they are utilized consistent with the rights of the individuals they serve, they are not enemies, but benefactors of free men."

so:
if they are NOT consistent . . .
then:
they ARE enemies

ok now ?

as a Libertarian (not in a political activist sense), I tend to always view the government as the great trampler
unless of course one has lots of money, and 'connections' help, in which case one has all the rights imaginable - literally

my comment re anarchy is quite similar to your quote of Rand's, but stated so to preclude the 'anarchy is a good system' discussion
(anarchy is a good system but only in a rational society where differences are negotiated - not the case here where might-makes-right)

if one has a very vivid imagination and can conceive of a society consisting only of rational individuals, then there is no need for any form of government

We are not so far apart. I tend to agree with your view of government as it exists today. However, to be consistent in a reality where men are not always rational, a limited government is necessary. While it is well nigh impossible to insure complete individual rationality, it is much easier to regulate organizational rationality. Organizations of any size tend to leave big footprints when they leave the path of "righteousness", thereby making them harder to turn against their core mission - protecting individual rights in the case of government. It is in the but only's that we have any contention.

"Can't we all just get along" - Rodney King

The big fallacy of the anti-capital punishment crowd is that the government is doing something just as evil as the murderer when they execute them. This is sheer and utter BS. In killing an innocent member of that society, that murderer gave up their rights to life. When the government executes a known murderer, they are not doing the same thing because they are not killing an innocent. By removing the life from that killer, they are doing society the greatest favor they can by removing that killer FOREVER from free circulation, and ensuring that I, as a taxpayer, am not paying for his stay at the Hilton Penitentiary. A person who kills an innocent does not deserve to live for they willingly, and knowingly gave up those rights (who doesn't know that there is a death penalty?).

On the other hand, somebody that kills in defense is justified in doing so. If somebody breaks into your house, you don't know if they have a weapon, you don't know if they have friends, and you don't know what their motivations are. I'd rather look back in hindsight and say "Well, the poor bugger just wanted to take my TV and eat my dog, maybe that wasn't so bad, but he shouldn't have picked my house" than to say, "Gee, I wish I would have shot that bastard before he raped my wife and daughter, killed my sons out of perverse glee, and stole my new water block #Rotor shipped me." You see, if you're in your own home and on the right side of the law, and that intruder has no legal business in your home, it is wise to assume that since he is in violation of the law, he's probably a bad guy, and it is best to take the ultimate step in protecting yourself. It is because of the "IFs" in the situation that you should kill first and ask questions later.

At any rate, when I was younger I found a box of shotgun shells in the woods during hunting season. I thought about it a while, and build a simple zip gun out of lead pipe and fittings, a drill, a nail, a slingshot, and a carved length of 2x4. Though it was explicitly single shot (you had to unscrew the barrel to reload it) and it was difficult to fire (a chunk of metal was attached to the slingshot strap and it had to be pulled back pretty far to fire it), it was quite an effective gun. I blasted through the entire box of shells knocking apart old rotten stumps and bottles, and then dismantled the thing and hid the homemade stock. Nobody was ever the wiser. The moral of the story is that if a smart 12 year old can make his own firearms, no amount of regulation is going to keep guns out of the hands of determined criminals with infinitely more resources than some kid out in the woods had. It has been said that if it was illegal to own guns, only criminals will have them, and it is very true. I'd rather have the law abiding public keep access to a form of self defense than turn us into a herd of sheep (though we already seen to be a land of sheeple here in the US, some of us still have some bristles left) waiting to be shorn by whatever nut job feels like it. In the western states, especially, there isn't usually time to wait until the nearest officer who is 15 miles away comes running to the rescue ... you have the imperative to defend yourself and your own. I feel sorry for those that are unable due to laws or unwilling due to cowardice or misapplied ethics to defend themselves. Hopefully you will never have the need to raise a weapon in defense of yourself or your family, but if the need ever arises, you'll probably all be dead.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a crazy "Killemall!!!!" type mofo, but I'm not crazy enough to believe that our pussified law enforcement system that has been deballed due to polical correctness and tolerance of diversity can adequately protect me. Around the nation you have political apointees running our law enforcement agencies that have no clue about how to really protect their constituents, and prevent the cops on the streets from doing anything to help anyone. God help you if you're a young white male anymore in most of the country ... you're the only one that they're allowed to pull over or question. Anything else is racism. Personally, I feel secure in knowing that if I ever hear breaking glass or a creaking door at 2AM, I'm going to have the means to take one more dirtbag off the street for good. Maybe it'll be the one that would have killed your family the next day.