| BREAKING NEWS: V-TECH KILLER SENDS PACKAGE TO NBC | |
|
CuZzA - Student  |
NBC has just recieved a package from The V-Tech mass murderer (Cho Seung-Hui). The package was believed to have been sent during the 2 and a half hour time gap between the first 2 killings and the other 30+.
Click Here _______________ - Even if Carlsberg made "w*nkers", Christiano Ronaldo would still be the biggest "w*nker" in the world |
| < Recent Comments | Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |
| Comments |
|
Hardwired - Retired 
|
Adding to what Jaiko stated.
If you are in doubt that a statement or comment is in rule violation. You are more than welcome to e-mail me said statement and I will look at it. And as previously stated. Keep the gloves on for this debate. The thread remains alive as long as the comments remain clean. - HW _______________ ::Nothing wrong with a little shooting.....as long as the right people get shot:: |
|
Jaiko D'Kana - Student 
|
As long as you guys are happy to continue talking im obviously not going to stand in the way of debate. However, could i make a friendly request that we steer clear of personal jeers and such as it detracts from the benifits of such an opportunity to freely discuss views through character assasination rather than effective counter argument.
If you believe something is truley offensive or out of line your more than capable of seeking mysef, or more specifically the two man community liason (crime-fighting) Bat-virtue and rob-kaelis-in (sorry for the analogy chaps). Common, we're not here to fight after all....we have better things to do, right? If you feel upset by something written, take a time out before returning.... Have a great time guys lets just make sure no one gets hurt -JaikoD'Kana- p.s This post is not intended at any indvidual(s) or group(s) of people, but rather a generic message to remind members not take these debates out of context. If you feel you are being singled out at all, it is simply not my intent....so sorry  _______________ The greatest discovery of my generation is that a human being can alter his life by altering his attitudes of mind. William James (1842 - 1910) This comment was edited by Jaiko D'Kana on Apr 27 2007 12:29am. |
|
Buzz - Student 
|
Believing that someone living in singapore would not have the same concepts or freedom and liberty as that which exist in the United States and other nations, is no more bigoted than a woman believing a man can't understand the pain of a period or childbirth. There is no malice hatred or intolerance behind it. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
planK - Jedi Council 
|
Quote:
Quote:
And everyone thought Adolf shot himself in 45.
 Yes because believing in liberty and the rights of the individuals is obviously what Hitler believed in didn't he mike? You disgust me with your ignorance. It was more of a reference to how much of an uncultured bigot you are. 
Anyway, my 2 dollars are thrown in (because everyone else is cheap with their cents, booo!)!11 |
|
Buzz - Student
|
Quote: And everyone thought Adolf shot himself in 45.
Yes because believing in liberty and the rights of the individuals is obviously what Hitler believed in didn't he mike? You disgust me with your ignorance. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Buzz - Student 
|
Quote: your fond of your statistics, let me provide you with some more that actually contain some figures:
- Semi-automatic pistols result in 15 per cent more wounded people than those involving revolvers - In 1996, after a gunman in Tasmania killed 35 people, semi-automatic and pump –action shotguns were banned. - In the 18 years prior to 1996, there were 13 mass shootings; in the past decade, none. A link would be good. Having it come from a peer reviewed journal would be even better. You know like the one that says the gun ban has had no effect on gun crime in Australia. And that still doesn't repeat the trend. Gun ownership isn't increasing there. As others have stated their belief that more guns would cause an increase in murders and crimes. In the US we are getting more guns and that supposed increase just isn't happening. Quote: Mental illness is just as much an illness as physical illness. I think ill people should receive treatment. If that means chemotherapy then they have chemotherapy, if it means locking them up so they can be supervised to make sure theyre recieving treatment and taking their medication, then they get locked up.
Thank you for bringing up other illnesses and treatments. You do know that you are allowed to refuse treatment right? Even if they can cure you, you are not required to seek treatment. In fact if you don't want treatment and they do it anyways they're in trouble. This is the whole reason behind DNR. If a person is incapacitated in such a way that they can't make the decision then the hospital needs to seek consent from a relative. Quote: I thought the concept of treatment included that it continued until the illness was cured or the symptoms (which may or may not include massacring fellow students) are relieved.
And once the symptoms go away because of the medicine they become sane and as such are released and given their medication to take on their own. Which is where this statement comes into it: Quote: But they aren't able to go and make sure that people are taking their meds.’
The whole point of a mental section is for the nurses etc to check that medication is being properly administrated. That supervision ends once they are released from the facility. Once they are released the nurses can no longer make sure the medication is being properly adminstered. Quote: No-one is claiming that gun-restriction laws are enforced perfectly, but that doesn’t mean they should be abandoned completely. If you want to take that line – why bother try and preventing Iran enriching uranium which is probably for manufacturing nuclear weapons – they’ll just get them anyway on a black market.
Who's calling for abandoning gun laws? I'm fine with laws that require background checks to get firearms. I don't want the laws abandoned, I want the ones we have enforced. As for Iran, they are violating laws and treaties they are signatories to. They're breaking the law, they need to be stopped. Oh and staying "stop" is working so well with them, why its working about as well as asking an armed criminal to stop when you aren't armed, and unwilling to actually do something to stop them. 'Diplomacy is saying "nice doggie" until you find a rock.' Quote: When you are so concerned about rights how do you find it acceptable for you to have the ultimate power of life and death over anyone you meet? Whether you are a rational citizen who would not exercise that right until absolutely necessary is irrelevant – you still have that power to decide the fate of another citizen’s life which should be, according to you, an serious infringement of their rights.
That power of life and death is already in my hands. I do not need a gun to have that. I don't even need a tool to have that. Also I am innocent until proven guilty so you'll need to prove that I am guilty of infringing on another persons rights. And simply owning a gun doesn't do that, especially since owning a gun is a right. Quote: I feel sorry for you that you are so afraid of the government that you and you fellow law abiding citizen, (whom you asserted that you have the utmost trust for, even extending to possessing a gun and therefore having the power of life and death over you) democratically voted into power.
I don't fear the government. However, I don't trust the government. And why should I? The number of people I have some say-so in electing to the federal government is 4. Two Senators, a Representative, and the President. The number that my vote directly counts to is only 3. The number of things they say they believe in that I also may believe in is of a pretty wide range. The likelihood of them acting in a manner that is completely opposite of what they claimed to have in common with me is also pretty good. And those are the people that I vote for. And when I vote I'm not guarranteed that the person I voted for will be elected. And that's only 3 people out of 535 who are making the decisions. So exactly why should I trust the government? "Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. This comment was edited by Buzz on Apr 26 2007 11:23pm. |
|
planK - Jedi Council 
|
And everyone thought Adolf shot himself in 45. |
|
Buzz - Student
|
Quote:
Quote:
the illusion of safety was chosen above liberty
We are talking about a person who had done many things wrong and had been detained but clearly not for long enough. He stalked women took photos up their skirts and wrote literature so obscene that he was taught alone because other students feared for their safety. Are you seriously saying that detaining such a person is wrong? OMG WE'REINFRINGING HIS HUMAN RIGHT TO BE A PERV AND COMPLETE PSYCHO. Well good. I think here we have the illusion of liberty. These students had the right to study without getting shot at. You'd be more correct if any of those girls had pressed charges against him. Unfortunately they just found him annoying. Accusation can't be the foundation to dismiss someone from getting a gun. And he was obviously a disturbed individual. Problem is that the people you want deciding to lock him up because he's a danger to society decided that he wasn't a danger to society. If any of those issues you bring up had gone to court there would be justification in taking away some of his rights. Because of circumstances that didn't happen. Quote:
Quote:
You apparently believe that once you give someone a gun they become a criminal and that's just not true. Of course coming from singapore, your views really aren't that surprising.
That's a little prejudicial don't you think? Not much. I don't find your views on gun control all that surprising because you're from the UK. I don't find Xanatos's views on it surprising either because he is from Australia. Why should I find a person from singapore, which is essentially a police state, where the punishment for graffitti is a caning, would have different views on freedom and liberty than I do? He's calling everyone a potential criminal, essentially placing guilt on people who have done nothing wrong. Coming from a place like singapore, that view doesn't shock me. It may be a little bit prejudicial, but can you tell me how deciding that no one can responsibly handle a gun is less prejudicial? _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Lirael - Jedi Council 
|
‘Have you ever wondered why mass murders occur in gun-free zones?’
& ‘I believe gun ownership has increased, and the murder rate has gone down. That's not a trend that's being repeated in the rest of the world.’ Since your fond of your statistics, let me provide you with some more that actually contain some figures: - Semi-automatic pistols result in 15 per cent more wounded people than those involving revolvers - In 1996, after a gunman in Tasmania killed 35 people, semi-automatic and pump –action shotguns were banned. - In the 18 years prior to 1996, there were 13 mass shootings; in the past decade, none. ‘You are advocating locking up a person who has done nothing wrong other than be sick.’ & ‘And locking up a person guilty of no crime is not protecting society. Its an erosion of rights, and that causes society to decline.’ Mental illness is just as much an illness as physical illness. I think ill people should receive treatment. If that means chemotherapy then they have chemotherapy, if it means locking them up so they can be supervised to make sure theyre recieving treatment and taking their medication, then they get locked up. ‘You can send them to a facility for treatment, but they can't hold them there indefinitely.’ I thought the concept of treatment included that it continued until the illness was cured or the symptoms (which may or may not include massacring fellow students) are relieved. ‘But they aren't able to go and make sure that people are taking their meds.’ The whole point of a mental section is for the nurses etc to check that medication is being properly administrated. ‘Ok guns are bad they should be banned so that no one can buy them. Here's what you do. Stop all gun manufacturers. Then have China, North Korea, all Southeast asian nations disarm. Have India and Pakistan disarm. Have the African Continent Disarm. Have every muslim middle east country disarm. Get South America to disarm. Get Europe to disarm. Get Canada to disarm. Get Mexico to disarm.’ No-one is claiming that gun-restriction laws are enforced perfectly, but that doesn’t mean they should be abandoned completely. If you want to take that line – why bother try and preventing Iran enriching uranium which is probably for manufacturing nuclear weapons – they’ll just get them anyway on a black market. ‘That choice to have a gun should be mine to make, and not have someone else decide what is best for me.’ When you are so concerned about rights how do you find it acceptable for you to have the ultimate power of life and death over anyone you meet? Whether you are a rational citizen who would not exercise that right until absolutely necessary is irrelevant – you still have that power to decide the fate of another citizen’s life which should be, according to you, an serious infringement of their rights. ‘I feel safer in a society where the government isn't the only group in control of guns.’ I feel sorry for you that you are so afraid of the government that you and you fellow law abiding citizen, (whom you asserted that you have the utmost trust for, even extending to possessing a gun and therefore having the power of life and death over you) democratically voted into power. _______________ I can write my name with my sparkler. My sparkler > your lightsabre This comment was edited by Lirael on Apr 26 2007 06:41pm. |
|
Menaxia - Student 
|
Quote: the illusion of safety was chosen above liberty
We are talking about a person who had done many things wrong and had been detained but clearly not for long enough. He stalked women took photos up their skirts and wrote literature so obscene that he was taught alone because other students feared for their safety. Are you seriously saying that detaining such a person is wrong? OMG WE'REINFRINGING HIS HUMAN RIGHT TO BE A PERV AND COMPLETE PSYCHO. Well good. I think here we have the illusion of liberty. These students had the right to study without getting shot at. Quote: You apparently believe that once you give someone a gun they become a criminal and that's just not true. Of course coming from singapore, your views really aren't that surprising.
That's a little prejudicial don't you think? _______________ This is not the place to look for me |
|
Buzz - Student
|
Quote:
Quote:
So is locking up people who are not guilty of any crime. But its something you think must be done
It is not ok to let people who are mentally ill with a propensity to violence walk around with hand guns. Agreed. I don't want mentally ill people walking around with guns. That's why I am all for background checks that includes information that the person going to get the gun is nuts. I don't want crazy people having guns either. But you don't need to lock them up to prevent that. The difference is in a matter of degree. Quote: It's about as safe as shoving a ticking time-bomb down yr pants. If your next door neighbour had a ticking time-bomb shoved down his pants you would hope he would be detained (deprived of liberty) before it dettonated wouldn't you?
If he's got a ticking time bomb he's a danger to society, and a danger to other peoples rights. He needs to be stopped. But here's the thing, say he made his ticking timebomb with wires fertilizer and a digital clock. Should those items then be banned for purchase from now on? If you buy wires fertilizer and a clock, should you then be considered a danger to society because of one nut? Or did you just need a new clock, are rewiring your home, and trying to make your garden grow? Quote: I don't see how the protection of liberty for one clearly dangerous person should come above the personal safetey and in this case the LIVES of many other people.
As I've said, he should not have been allowed to get a gun. The law needs to be corrected so his status as being a danger to himself shows up in background checks would have prevented him from getting a gun. That's a much smaller thing to do and it won't punish people who have done nothing wrong because of the actions of one individual. The personal safety of those people diminished when the school decided to tell them they weren't allowed to defend themselves. If liberty was protected then someone might have been able to stop it. Instead the illusion of safety was chosen above liberty and that illusion was shattered. Quote: However you look at it, allowing the possession of a dangerous weapon such as a gun can only elevate potential danger to society as a whole and increase the chances of gun crimes being committed.
Not when the guns are in the hands of people who abide by the law. You apparently believe that once you give someone a gun they become a criminal and that's just not true. Of course coming from singapore, your views really aren't that surprising. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Ventrel - Student 
|
Quote:
Quote:
Yes I do realize what I typed. Making guns illegal will CERTAINLY deter potential offenders/reduce the number of guns in circulation. I'm not talking about guns stopping people like the VT killer out of fear of being arrested, that was an extreme case. I'm talking about keeping guns out of hands of "law abiding citizens" and criminals. Yes there is almost no way to stop people from acquiring a gun if they are focussed on getting one, but banning guns will deter "law abiding citizens" from becoming criminals themselves, and reduce the number of gun crimes.
If a person is a law abiding citizen then they are already deterred from committing crimes. You don't need to deter them anymore. If having posession of a gun is what causes people to become criminals then almost 1/3 of the US population would be criminals, because there are 80 million gun owners. You're declaring all people guilty before they've even comitted a crime. No, im not declaring anyone guilty where did that come from? Either way criminals are not born, they are made so if you're talking about safety, all people must be looked at as potential offenders. " If a person is a law abiding citizen then they are already deterred from committing crimes." This does not make sense. However you look at it, allowing the possession of a dangerous weapon such as a gun can only elevate potential danger to society as a whole and increase the chances of gun crimes being committed. |
|
Menaxia - Student 
|
Quote: So is locking up people who are not guilty of any crime. But its something you think must be done
It is not ok to let people who are mentally ill with a propensity to violence walk around with hand guns. It's about as safe as shoving a ticking time-bomb down yr pants. If your next door neighbour had a ticking time-bomb shoved down his pants you would hope he would be detained (deprived of liberty) before it dettonated wouldn't you? I don't see how the protection of liberty for one clearly dangerous person should come above the personal safetey and in this case the LIVES of many other people. _______________ This is not the place to look for me |
|
planK - Jedi Council
|
*Steals Buzz's jack boots!* |
|
Buzz - Student
|
Quote: No-one said anything about it being a crime to be mentally ill. I never said keep ALL mentally ill people detained. Not even close. The ones that are deemed a threat to society, and since you can't keep them detained indefinitely, at least keep a closer eye on them
The virginia tech killer was not found to be a danger to society. He was a danger to himself but not to society according to the people who would be evaluating others. Quote: That tirade about the KKK, Nazis and Muslims? You're absolutely right, it was completely stupid and not just a horrible direction to take, but an unnecessary one.
So is locking up people who are not guilty of any crime. But its something you think must be done. Quote: Oh and btw, even sarcastically putting Muslims on the same boat as mentally ill people, the KKK and Nazis, especially in this day and age? Nice haha
I also included the japanese. You know a group that the government actually did decide were a threat to society and were detained. Its a demonstration of the slippery slope. And whether you like it or not there are muslims in the united states who have committed acts of terrorism. They have been found guilty of plots to commit terrorism. And there is an Imam calling for the death of a former muslim in the united states. http://pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/rss/print_503977.html Quote: She has been identified as one who has defamed the faith. If you come into the faith, you must abide by the laws, and when you decide to defame it deliberately, the sentence is death," said ElBayly, who came to the U.S. from Egypt in 1976.
This is the point, when you decide one group should be locked up for the protection of society you open up the door to justify doing the same to other groups. And one day the people who get to make that decision might decide that you are the type that is dangerous to society. And that is wrong. Quote: Even when you know that person is a threat to society?
How do you know they are a threat to society? Threats to society are people who break the law. Not just insane people are threats to society. You know which group seems to be a threat to society? Inner city black males. In fact that demographic seems to make up a disporportionate number of gun crimes in the US. Shall we start locking them up? Hell we don't even need to stop there. Almost every person can become a threat to society. Sorry but unless you can prove that they are actually a criminal you have no justification to lock them up. You violate innocent until proven guilty. All because you believe that it would be better for society. Quote: Uhh... the reason I mentioned that was because I wanted you to argue for what you actually believed in. Of course we know the US court system doesn't agree with that, that's the whole reason we're arguing. Me thinking your system sucks (it's so fun, you're right). Of course we know there's nothing we can do about it. That's why we're arguing over the net.
Its from a simple statement why I will oppose the issue in this way. "I may not like what you say, but I will defend your right to say it." When fringe groups and minorities rights are protected then the rights of the mainstream and majority are also protected. I think mental patients should be supervised, and I also think the kkk and nazi's shouldn't be allowed to hold rallies and spout their hatred. But because they are I know that my rights and liberties are also secured. And I'm arguing because you're telling me how I should attend to my personal safety. And because you think locking up innocent people is a good thing. Quote: Our gun laws are next to useless? I guess that's why we've had so many shootings and Columbine-like events lately. All those dead people at unis, all those guns blazing....
Oh right. We haven't had that problem. You didn't have that problem before. Since you didn't have the problem before your gun ban, and you don't have it now, your laws aren't the reason you don't have those events. http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/buyback-has-no-effect-on-murder-rate/2006/10/23/1161455665717.html Those who are willing to give up liberty for temporary safety deserve niether. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
xAnAtOs - Student |
Points:
- No-one said anything about it being a crime to be mentally ill. I never said keep ALL mentally ill people detained. Not even close. The ones that are deemed a threat to society, and since you can't keep them detained indefinitely, at least keep a closer eye on them. Make sure they take their pills, make sure they eat right and sleep right, make sure they don't do stuff like buy guns. That tirade about the KKK, Nazis and Muslims? You're absolutely right, it was completely stupid and not just a horrible direction to take, but an unnecessary one. Oh and btw, even sarcastically putting Muslims on the same boat as mentally ill people, the KKK and Nazis, especially in this day and age? Nice haha - Locking up a person who has committed no crime is an erosion of rights and causes society to decline? Even when you know that person is a threat to society? So you'd sleep better at night knowing that you allowed one [insane] man some freedom. I guess I'd feel a little stupid the next morning when I find out half my english class is dead. Boy, what an incline in society we have now. Yet another example of weighing up the best interests of the individual against the best interests of society. Quote: Hey imagine that. I might have a disagreement with the law, but I have enough of an understanding to know that there is nothing I can do to change that.
Uhh... the reason I mentioned that was because I wanted you to argue for what you actually believed in. Of course we know the US court system doesn't agree with that, that's the whole reason we're arguing. Me thinking your system sucks (it's so fun, you're right). Of course we know there's nothing we can do about it. That's why we're arguing over the net. Our gun laws are next to useless? I guess that's why we've had so many shootings and Columbine-like events lately. All those dead people at unis, all those guns blazing.... Oh right. We haven't had that problem. EDIT: This is eating up way too much of my time and I'm beginning to argue in a really half-arsed and sarcastic way. Someone else please take over. _______________ Brother to Luke Skywalker and (SKX) Dark Blade 
Lag Brother to Acey Spadey 
Jools is my best friend.
<Henkes> nebody feeling like abusing me with a lightsaber?|+Smilykrazy grabs Gradius, beats the living CRAP out of him, then throws him into a huge vat of ACID This comment was edited by xAnAtOs on Apr 26 2007 05:04am. |
|
Buzz - Student
|
No they are not. Unless you believe that being mentally ill is a criminal offense. I've tried to clarify that first statement several times as referring to mentally ill people. You cannot hold a mentally ill person against their will. It violates their civil rights. Where you see that "someone" in the statement, replace it with mentally ill individual.
If someone is mentally ill then yes they should get sent to treatment. In fact a judge can order them to mental facility for evaluation. They'll be sent to the facility evaluated, treated there if necessary and given medication to get better and be sent home. But they aren't able to go and make sure that people are taking their meds. They can't keep them in the nut house indefinitely. Eventually they will have to be released. And no one would have any way of knowing if they went off their meds until it could be too late. And locking up a person guilty of no crime is not protecting society. Its an erosion of rights, and that causes society to decline. Quote: So there is obviously a connection. Mentally ill people have not committed a crime but are a danger to society, therefore our gov. has every right to detain them. I don't know why you agreed to that without even understanding it. That, or you have a conflict between your personal beliefs and what the 'court system of the United States' says.
Hey imagine that. I might have a disagreement with the law, but I have enough of an understanding to know that there is nothing I can do to change that. Also you are again advocating the detention of people who have done nothing wrong but be sick. That again is removal of someone's civil rights, and you just can't do that, even if you think that they might be a danger. The police can't do anything if you have no evidence of their intent to commit a crime. The can only react after the fact. But hey the Japanese were decided to be a danger to society and the government had every right to detain them, to protect society. There are muslims who haven't committed any crimes but there are a few in this country who have shown themselves to be a danger to society, so the government should start detaining them. Hey the Nazi's and the KKK are pretty nasty groups full of hate, we should go round all of their members up because someone has decided that they are a danger to society. Nevermind that none of these people have done anything wrong. You're thinking that's completely stupid and a horrible direction to take it right? It is but most mentally ill people aren't going to be a danger to society, and yet you are advocating doing to them exactly what you would probably think is stupid for other groups of people that have done nothing wrong other than be in some group with a bunch of other pricks. Quote: 'Protect and Serve'
...society. And you are right the police will go and round up criminals and people involved in domestic violence. That's obvious though. To do that preserves the fabric of society. If you break the law you go to jail, just like the people before you who have broken the law, so be a good person and don't do it. You become an example to society. This is why the cops will go after someone who does harm to an individual, but they're not doing it for your individual protection. Quote: Oh and btw, I'm not telling you how to be safe. Your government should be doing that. I'm just telling you that I think your gun laws suck ass
The government isn't my babysitter. I stopped needing one of those around 11-12. And your gun laws are next to useless, gee its so fun to throw out stuff like that isn't it? Your gun crime rate was already on the decline before your gun ban went into effect. Crime rates in much of the US are dropping and that's despite the number of states that have passed concealed carry laws since the 90's. I believe gun ownership has increased, and the murder rate has gone down. That's not a trend that's being repeated in the rest of the world. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
xAnAtOs - Student |
Come on, I keep having to repeat myself because we're going round in circles now. I can't not respond though, I'm a sucker that way. Here goes -
They do contradict and they ARE connected. Look at these two statements: Quote: Its a violation of civil rights to keep someone against their will.
Quote: The police legally are not required to do anything to protect you. Their job is the protection of society.
Can't you see how trying to uphold one man's rights infringes on those of the rest of society? The second statement negates the principle behind the first because as you keep saying, society should be protected. So I'll rephrase that using the words of the quote: By suspending YOUR civil rights and keeping you against your will, they are protecting society. I wasn't referring to just criminals either, but mentally ill people. In fact you agree to this yourself after you quoted Lirael: Quote: Quote:
Yes, it would be, if they were mentally sound. A mentally ill person however, is not responsible for their actions or decisions. They do not have the ability to make rational decisions. As such, if they are a threat to society, a mentally ill person person does not have the right to refuse treatment. I agree with you. Here's the problem. The court system of the United States doesn't. So there is obviously a connection. Mentally ill people have not committed a crime but are a danger to society, therefore our gov. has every right to detain them. I don't know why you agreed to that without even understanding it. That, or you have a conflict between your personal beliefs and what the 'court system of the United States' says. Quote: And the police aren't legally responsible in either case. Let's say you get robbed, you can't sue the cops for not stopping the crime. If a wife is beaten by her husband she can't sue the cops for not having stopped him. They aren't the legally responsible group. Of course most cops aren't going to be that heartless, but that doesn't change the fact that they aren't your personal security force or body guards.
Actually it is law here that all cases of domestic violence be taken seriously and investigated by the police and it IS up to them to put an end to it. Also, you're confusing legal responsibility with their duties as a police officer. They won't undergo the legal ramifications for not stopping the crime, but it is their job to TRY and do so. You're right, they're not your personal bodyguards but it is still their job to protect you if you're in danger. 'Protect and Serve' I think it was. Everyone is taught that if they're in trouble and in an emergency they should call the cops. Why? So the cops can stand you up and say that they're not legally obligated to do so? What kind of system is that? Oh and btw, I'm not telling you how to be safe. Your government should be doing that. I'm just telling you that I think your gun laws suck ass. _______________ Brother to Luke Skywalker and (SKX) Dark Blade
Lag Brother to Acey Spadey
Jools is my best friend.
<Henkes> nebody feeling like abusing me with a lightsaber?|+Smilykrazy grabs Gradius, beats the living CRAP out of him, then throws him into a huge vat of ACID |
|
Buzz - Student
|
Quote: Uh yea, that was the whole idea. I was showing you how two of your points contradicted each other. My point still stands.
They don't contradict though. Quote: Its a violation of civil rights to keep someone against their will.
This statement is in relation to people who are mentally ill. That's why it was in a paragraph about holding mentally ill people. If someone is mentally ill and doesn't want to be committed, then you can't force them because its a violation of their civil rights. Its someone guilty of no crime. Quote: Quote:
The police legally are not required to do anything to protect you. Their job is the protection of society. So you're saying the police can do nothing to stop you from harming society because it's treading on your civil rights... but their job is to protect society? So really they're protecting society by not protecting society This is dealing with criminals. As I said below, when you are guilty of violating the laws of society, the question of your rights go out the door. But even cops can't just shoot you when they are going after you. They need to be justified. And they can't just beat the crap out of you either. Quote: I didn't bother reading that publicrights.org site since it's obviously going to differ from the laws here, but what you're saying is quite frightening to say the least. The police are not required to protect the individual? So let's say a robber broke into my house and threatened me with a knife. I'm in danger but society isn't, not immediately anyway. So the police can just sit around and chow down on those donuts? Of course not. It's treated as a threat to society because the robber could break into someone else's house, and another, and so on. In protecting the individual the police are also protecting society.
The same can be said of domestic violence. The police don't really have to look into it because it's YOUR problem and no-one else's. Why would it be a problem to society? So they just leave it alone and let the wife/husband get beat down? This is where you have to make the distinction between balancing the rights of the individual with the rights of society when that choice has to be made and the rights of the individual when their own life has nothing to be measured up against but itself. The police need to protect the individual just as much as society, since these individuals ARE the society. And the police aren't legally responsible in either case. Let's say you get robbed, you can't sue the cops for not stopping the crime. If a wife is beaten by her husband she can't sue the cops for not having stopped him. They aren't the legally responsible group. Of course most cops aren't going to be that heartless, but that doesn't change the fact that they aren't your personal security force or body guards. Quote: How are you supposed to justify that he WOULD have killed you? He had a gun in his hand. So maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't. I'm not prepared to make that kind of call.
Well perhaps, I was with other people and he's already shot them. Perhaps, he's a wanted killer and I've seen his picture on television before. Perhaps he's stolen a car and is driving right at me. I'd say in all those cases the intent to kill me is obvious. Here's a kicker though with law abiding citizens and guns. For guns to be effective in the hands of citizens against criminals, they don't need to be fired at all. As you've said, you wonder how I can decide if my life is in danger when confronted by a criminal. If I have a gun, the criminal must now decide if his life is worth gambling that I might shoot him. The crook wants an easy target. A person with a gun is not an easy target and he will likely run away. In a place where he has no idea who might have a gun, he's got an even bigger risk in hoping to get someone that won't be able to find a victim. Quote: There, look at that. I fused two quotes together. I've already responded to those, though:
Of course those are addressing similar points, as opposed to what you did before where the points were not connected but you decided to do it anyways. Quote: Well I don't. I am not comfortable allowing the public access to guns as a method of checking crime. Neither of us will budge on this point. We can write up a few more essays arguing different reasons why guns should or should not be allowed but that quote sums it all up. Neither of us will change our views on gun laws.
As I said in the first post I directed towards you, I'm not seeking to change your views on gun laws. I'm only saying that the best person to choose how to keep you safe, is you, not me. I don't want to tell you how to be safe. You want to tell me though, and that's a degradation of liberty. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. This comment was edited by Buzz on Apr 26 2007 01:01am. |
|
El Vee For - Student 
|
A gun is a tool, not a living breathing entity of destruction. The user of a gun bears the responsibility of how it is used. This isn't any opnion of mine its a fact. The only real difference is that a gun really only exists to end life. There is an entertainment value to guns, I love them, but in the end that entertainment is just a practice and familiarization session prepping to eventually kill something. If I have to of course.
In the right hands it provides life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to common people around the world. In the wrongs hands it kills 32 college kids that really didn't deserve it. In my hands it reduces stress and put a smile on my face lowering my intake of Lexapro and John Stewart's show. No government should have the right or ability to deny a person of legal consenting age, that has not committed a crime, from owning a gun. While I am confident that those of you hailing from countries that already have gun bans in effect would disagree I can also guarantee that guns have played a part in protecting your right to disagree. Excellent points by all I might add, even you brits. _______________ “Arguing on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you’re still retarded.” |
|
planK - Jedi Council
|
PEANUT BUTTEH JELLEH WITH A BASEBALL BAT  |
|
xAnAtOs - Student |
Uh yea, that was the whole idea. I was showing you how two of your points contradicted each other. My point still stands. In any of these cases you have to weigh up the rights of the individual and the right of society to be protected. I never said mental illness was a crime. I did imply through those two quotes, though, that the patient could be a threat to society. Since this was the case with Cho Seung-Hui, the government over here at least has every right to detain the mentally ill person if they could massacre... oh I dunno, let's say 32 people.
Btw I could have re-quoted the entire paragraph the second time round but I just felt myself to be repetitive with the 'It's a violation of civil rights' line. As Lirael pointed out, if you were consistent in your argument you wouldn't have that problem anyway. I didn't bother reading that publicrights.org site since it's obviously going to differ from the laws here, but what you're saying is quite frightening to say the least. The police are not required to protect the individual? So let's say a robber broke into my house and threatened me with a knife. I'm in danger but society isn't, not immediately anyway. So the police can just sit around and chow down on those donuts? Of course not. It's treated as a threat to society because the robber could break into someone else's house, and another, and so on. In protecting the individual the police are also protecting society. The same can be said of domestic violence. The police don't really have to look into it because it's YOUR problem and no-one else's. Why would it be a problem to society? So they just leave it alone and let the wife/husband get beat down? This is where you have to make the distinction between balancing the rights of the individual with the rights of society when that choice has to be made and the rights of the individual when their own life has nothing to be measured up against but itself. The police need to protect the individual just as much as society, since these individuals ARE the society. Quote: Hate to tell you this, but people around them alread have the potential to break up that family in seconds...All it takes is someone with a car and intent, or a knife and someone could die in a matter of seconds.
I know, I've already agreed with you on that. Before you jump on me for not quoting the part about guns, I'll explain why. Guns do change that. Your logic is that since there are so many ways of killing someone... why not just give criminals another more accessible way to do so and we can just respond to them by shooting THEM up. This I cannot agree with and I doubt either of us will change our minds. Quote: Here's a question for you. A crook holds me up at gunpoint or knifepoint, demanding my wallet. How do I know he won't kill me after I give him my wallet? Any thoughts? If I have a gun suddenly he's not going to be worried about getting my wallet, he'll be worried about dying. And I know you're saying its just my wallet, but how do I know that he won't kill me?
Well you don't, but I guess you've already made the decision that you're willing to take his life on the CHANCE that he might take yours. I think that answers this one: Quote: And for the justified killing of a criminal I would need to prove my life was in danger to justify killing him. Are you saying that in a kill or be killed situation you would rather die than live? Please.
How are you supposed to justify that he WOULD have killed you? He had a gun in his hand. So maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't. I'm not prepared to make that kind of call. Even still, you've made your point. I probably wouldn't have just sat around while he *might have* killed me. Same for the woman being raped thing. I doubt I, personally, would have taken his life in retaliation though. Guess I just don't have it in me to take a life. Jeez, I'm such a softy. Quote: Or perhaps to keep it away from children, or because of laws about the keeping of guns, or for concern of someone breaking in to your home when you're not there.
Agreed, but I doubt what I'm saying is wrong either. Thinking that the gun is kept in a safe to delay you reaching it when you're pissed is really not that much of a stretch. In fact it's quite logical. Quote: Hate to tell you again, but I do have the power of life and death in my hands with or without a gun. I can kill with multiple household objects. A knife, a hammer, a screwdriver, my own bare hands.
... If I'm tempted to kill someone I don't need to go out and get a gun. I can do it by other methods. You claimed they lock up a gun so if they want to kill someone they need to unlock and assemble it. I'm saying that if they don't have a gun, then they no longer have that time to think while going for the gun. They'll go for a closer object, like a knife. No assembly time on a knife. There, look at that. I fused two quotes together. I've already responded to those, though: Quote: I'm well aware that if they don't have a gun they can go for a knife etc, which has no 'calm-down period', if you will. Obviously you're trading in that calm down period for, let's call it, 'chance at survival'. Usually bullets to the head are unstoppable and completely lethal, whereas a knife/blunt objects/hands I can somewhat defend myself against. Even if I had 10 guys jump me with knives there's an [unlikely] chance that I can survive. Whatever, I prefer the tiniest chance at survival than no chance at all.
One last thing, and this is the essence of everything we have been arguing about thus far and in future: Quote: I feel safer in a society where the government isn't the only group in control of guns.
Well I don't. I am not comfortable allowing the public access to guns as a method of checking crime. Neither of us will budge on this point. We can write up a few more essays arguing different reasons why guns should or should not be allowed but that quote sums it all up. Neither of us will change our views on gun laws. EDIT: Dammit, other people posted before I got to finish mine _______________ Brother to Luke Skywalker and (SKX) Dark Blade
Lag Brother to Acey Spadey
Jools is my best friend.
<Henkes> nebody feeling like abusing me with a lightsaber?|+Smilykrazy grabs Gradius, beats the living CRAP out of him, then throws him into a huge vat of ACID This comment was edited by xAnAtOs on Apr 26 2007 12:06am. |
|
Buzz - Student
|
Quote: Yes, it would be, if they were mentally sound. A mentally ill person however, is not responsible for their actions or decisions. They do not have the ability to make rational decisions. As such, if they are a threat to society, a mentally ill person person does not have the right to refuse treatment.
I agree with you. Here's the problem. The court system of the United States doesn't. Quote: So what is society made up of if not individuals? Besides, if one mentally insane individual is walking the streets with a gun intent on committing a massacre, that is no longer the problem of that sole individual but the entire society that his or her actions impact upon.
From my link: "Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim." "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public." Quote: Also, to take your argument to an unneccessary extreme, I may decide that I want to do a copy-cat crime of VT but if you were to stop me, that would not be violating my human rights simply because I WANT to become a mass murdered. My mummy used to tell me ''I want' doesnt always get'
That's not as an extreme example as you might think. I give it about 10 years before another mass murderer succeeds again. That's about the difference in time between this and columbine. Of course that won't be the next time its attempted. They'll just be stopped from suceeding by people who have learned the right lesson. As the ones between this and columbine had done, no thanks to feel good BS rules that only provide an illusion of safety. also, you're deciding to commit a crime. You are no longer following the rules of society, that means you must be removed from society and placed in jail. But of course that's only if you are proven guilty of your conspiracy to commit murder. You're seeking to violate the rights of others, your own rights might end up becoming forfeit. That's why you get locked up and sent to prison, and don't get to claim that your rights are being violated because of it. That's still quite different from a mentally ill person though. You are advocating locking up a person who has done nothing wrong other than be sick. You can send them to a facility for treatment, but they can't hold them there indefinitely. You can prescribe medication to them but you can't force them to take it. Oh and simply deciding, that all the mentally ill people should be locked up doesn't mean you'll get your wish. As I said, the law is against you there. "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
planK - Jedi Council
|
I have something else to contribute, to supplement the points already made;
ITS PEANUT BUTTAH JELLEH TIIIIME, PEANUT BUTTAH JELLEHHH TIME, PEANUT BUTTAH JELLLEH, PEANUT BUTTAH JELLLEHHHH!!!1 |
|
Lirael - Jedi Council
|
If your argument is successful it must be coherent and no parts should contradict any other. But enough of my philosophical garbage and on to the picking out different parts which perhaps 'aren't meant to go together' even though they should be forming a whole coherent argument.
oh and e-quoting is too confusing for technophobes like me so you'll have to deal with the old fashioned method 'Its a violation of civil rights to commit a person to a mental institution against their will.' Yes, it would be, if they were mentally sound. A mentally ill person however, is not responsible for their actions or decisions. They do not have the ability to make rational decisions. As such, if they are a threat to society, a mentally ill person person does not have the right to refuse treatment. Also, to take your argument to an unneccessary extreme, I may decide that I want to do a copy-cat crime of VT but if you were to stop me, that would not be violating my human rights simply because I WANT to become a mass murdered. My mummy used to tell me ''I want' doesnt always get' 'Unless you're deciding that mental illness is now a crime.' No, those within the medical profession are deciding that such people need treatment. Since it is an illness, that is ridiculous as concluding that confining an XDR TB patient and treating them is also condemning them as a criminal 'The problems of society, maybe. But the problems of the individual no.' So what is society made up of if not individuals? Besides, if one mentally insane individual is walking the streets with a gun intent on committing a massacre, that is no longer the problem of that sole individual but the entire society that his or her actions impact upon. And now theres actually a decent programme on TV so i shall have to leave picking apart the rest of your argument till tomorrow hfkthnxbai! _______________ I can write my name with my sparkler. My sparkler > your lightsabre |
| < Recent Comments | Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |