40 reasons to support gun control

[CrAz3D]

x86] link=topic=6947.msg86202#msg86202 date=1155096580]

Let's also not forget that any city, such as DC, which has upper and lower classes, but no middle class, unlike Indianapolis, which does have all three classes, is bound to have more crime anyway.

.....

How does that have any bearing on the argument?  Only the middle class should be allowed to own guns?

He says lower class people kill more people...we shouldn't let black people have rights!

[rabbit]

x86] link=topic=6947.msg86202#msg86202 date=1155096580]

Let's also not forget that any city, such as DC, which has upper and lower classes, but no middle class, unlike Indianapolis, which does have all three classes, is bound to have more crime anyway.

.....

How does that have any bearing on the argument?  Only the middle class should be allowed to own guns?

He says lower class people kill more people...we shouldn't let black people have rights!

I'm saying that there is no middle class, and a whole lot more lower class, who are more likely to commit violent crimes than middle and upper class citizens.

[CrAz3D]

I know, but does that give them an excuse to kill people?


"I'm poor, so that makes it ok for me to kill people"

[iago]

No, but it makes it a helluva lot harder to punish them. 

We're going to fine you.  Oh, no money?
Fine, we'll put you in jail.  It's better than your current life?
Fine, we'll execute you.  Take away your life of pain?

How do you take away something from somebody who has nothing?

[CrAz3D]

No, but it makes it a helluva lot harder to punish them. 

We're going to fine you.  Oh, no money?
Fine, we'll put you in jail.  It's better than your current life?
Fine, we'll execute you.  Take away your life of pain?

How do you take away something from somebody who has nothing?

maybe we're punishing murders wrong then....maybe you just made a good case for execution ;)
not having life at all would probably suck

[Sidoh]

No, but it makes it a helluva lot harder to punish them. 

We're going to fine you.  Oh, no money?
Fine, we'll put you in jail.  It's better than your current life?
Fine, we'll execute you.  Take away your life of pain?

How do you take away something from somebody who has nothing?

An alternative use of jail/execution is: you're removing a potentially dangerous person from society.

[iago]

No, but it makes it a helluva lot harder to punish them. 

We're going to fine you.  Oh, no money?
Fine, we'll put you in jail.  It's better than your current life?
Fine, we'll execute you.  Take away your life of pain?

How do you take away something from somebody who has nothing?

An alternative use of jail/execution is: you're removing a potentially dangerous person from society.

Then anybody who is a potential danger to society should be killed, if that's the point of jail. 

But jail is supposed to be for rehabilitation.  The theory is that the people in jail will change.  If they don't, then your jail system has problems. 

[CrAz3D]

No, but it makes it a helluva lot harder to punish them. 

We're going to fine you.  Oh, no money?
Fine, we'll put you in jail.  It's better than your current life?
Fine, we'll execute you.  Take away your life of pain?

How do you take away something from somebody who has nothing?

An alternative use of jail/execution is: you're removing a potentially dangerous person from society.

Then anybody who is a potential danger to society should be killed, if that's the point of jail. 

But jail is supposed to be for rehabilitation.  The theory is that the people in jail will change.  If they don't, then your jail system has problems. 

Potential danger is everyone...you imprison/execute people that've proven themselves to be dangerous to society

[iago]

What about somebody who accidentally (truly an accident) runs over a person, then leaves the scene (ie, hit and run)?  Are they a danger to society?  Will prison time make them 'better'?  What reason are they in prison for?

[CrAz3D]

What about somebody who accidentally (truly an accident) runs over a person, then leaves the scene (ie, hit and run)?  Are they a danger to society?  Will prison time make them 'better'?  What reason are they in prison for?

If its a hit & run (& they knew they hit someone) they should be punished.
But, thats manslaughter...people dont get executed for manslaughter...only murder, and it makes sense that way

[Sidoh]

Then anybody who is a potential danger to society should be killed, if that's the point of jail. 

But jail is supposed to be for rehabilitation.  The theory is that the people in jail will change.  If they don't, then your jail system has problems. 

I'm hoping you understood the implied: people are sent to jail or executed because they've explicitly proven that they are a potential danger to society because they have shown that they already were by committing a crime.

Not necessarily.  Some people are simply sinister by nature.  It's foolish to expect jail to 'remedy' everyone.

What about somebody who accidentally (truly an accident) runs over a person, then leaves the scene (ie, hit and run)?  Are they a danger to society?  Will prison time make them 'better'?  What reason are they in prison for?

They're in prison because they chose to void themselves of the responsibility that they've fallen into.  It doesn't matter if it's an accident when you hit someone... it's your responsibility to see to it that the proper measures are taken.

[iago]

They're in prison because they chose to void themselves of the responsibility that they've fallen into.  It doesn't matter if it's an accident when you hit someone... it's your responsibility to see to it that the proper measures are taken.

True, but they aren't a danger to society any more than anybody else is a danger to society.  If jail is meant to remove dangerous people from society, as somebody above said, then there's no reason to put a hit&run person in jail.

[Sidoh]

True, but they aren't a danger to society any more than anybody else is a danger to society.  If jail is meant to remove dangerous people from society, as somebody above said, then there's no reason to put a hit&run person in jail.

Sure there is.  If they've proven that they would like to void themselves of the consequences that something like a hit and run entails, there's no saying that they'd do the same again and again.  People who don't take responsibility for their actions are dangerous to society.

[MyndFyre]

What about somebody who accidentally (truly an accident) runs over a person, then leaves the scene (ie, hit and run)?  Are they a danger to society?  Will prison time make them 'better'?  What reason are they in prison for?

I don't know how the laws are where you live, but if you *really* do accidentally hit someone and you don't leave the scene, you won't be charged with anything.  But you can be charged with murder if you leave the scene of an accident.  This is not uncommon knowledge; they always talk about it on the news.  It was very big publicity within the last couple of years when some Catholic cardinal or something who left the scene of an accident.

The person who leaves the scene of one accident is more likely to repeat the offense.  The reason these people are more of a danger to society than people who stick around at accidents is because they have the opportunity to render aid.  It is also important that we determine that you are *not* guilty of doing something illegal that caused the accident, such as drinking.

[iago]

But you're both making the same assumption -- that somebody who leaves the scene is more likely to injure somebody else.  Assuming no external influences (as I said in my first post) like drinking, then the person isn't any more likely to injure another.