Just another political arguing thread

[Delfos]

that method leads from point A to B, B to C and so on..Columbine to Virginia.

[Ryazania]

Wait, where the fuck are we?

[Delfos]

hey i just mixed up 2 topics, amasing!

[Khablan]

What the heck, I'll throw in my own thoughts too.

If some guy murders/rapes someone, odds are they're still going to do it.

This is true, to an extent.  But not all murders/murderers are equal.  In the case of someone who has a criminal record long enough to indicate the type of personality that has a tendency toward it, then yes, chances are high that their crimes will only escalate over time. 

Another factor is what sort of people you're surrounded by as you're growing up.  A child raised in a neighborhood where criminal activity is commonplace is far more likely to commit crime as an adult, because to him, that's the norm - that's what adults do.  This does NOT mean that their thinking cannot be changed - it means that they're more likely to do what they've seen everyone else doing.

But not all murders are committed by career criminals.  Some are crimes of passion, for instance.  What a person might do while in a situation of extreme duress is not what they would necessarily do under normal circumstances.  Those people are not necessarily likely to commit murder again at a later date.   

My own personal opinion is that the death penalty is an acceptable means of preventing an individual from committing future murders, but only in those cases where there is clearly a high likelihood that the individual will do so, and that his personality is such that there is little to no chance of lowering that risk to an acceptable level through any means.  There are such cases. 

Fear DOESN'T work in that way due to the fact that NO criminal expects to be caught and if they aren't caught what does any penalty matter? Yup, that's it, making an example or many doesn't mean shit to crime rates.

You're making an assumption there.  For a career criminal, a period of incarceration is sometimes an acceptable risk, depending on many factors.  They may believe that they have some means of lowering that risk, but they do know full well that the risk exists.  Change that from a jail sentence to a death penalty, and the penalty is no longer a temporary thing - it is permanent and final.  Fear of death is stronger than fear of incarceration, for most people.

Fear does however make people with access to guns more prone to using them just in case, most often resulting in innocent deaths.

Fear makes non-violent people more likely to want to own a gun.  Most who do one one never end up in situations where they have to choose whether to use it or not.  There are far more deaths involving firearms committed by criminals than are committed by gun owners with no record of prior crime or violence.  A non-violent person who owns a gun is far more likely to hesitate before using it in a panic situation than one with a history of violence.  That period of hesitation can prevent an innocent person from being injured or killed.  The career criminal is far more likely to just shoot without hesitation, particularly if they've done it before.  As far as the implication that a non-violent person who owns a gun for the purpose of self-defense and who DOES end up using it at some point most often most often results in innocent deaths, I'm not sure that you're not just making another assumption there.  I would need to see valid statistics on the percentage of wrongful/accidental deaths caused by those who own guns for self-defense in fear situations, before I'd believe that to be true.

But seriously, all other nations that has stricter gun-laws still don't have as much violent crimes, thus it must be something cultural or the fact that it's the nation with the simplest access to guns in the world or a ccombination of the two.

I agree that it isn't a simple matter.  Some countries have similar gun control laws, but their crimes that involve gun use differ per capita.  So other factors must be considered before an accurate and useful conclusion can be reached.

[Talmann]

* Talmann agrees with Khablan's differentiation between 1st and 2nd degree murder.

I will have to amend my previous statement a bit. Anyone who has been convicted of first degree murder on multiple accounts or rape on multiple accounts should be killed. In fact, Texas has passed the latter recently and it is going to the governor's desk, where it is likely to be signed. And again, people who killed multiple people with pre-meditation should be executed, even if it's their first offense.

[Daimiaen]

If the death penalty worked as a method of prevention.....there'd be no-one on death row!?!!

 

[Talmann]

And my point exactly.

[New History lovers]

Firstly, let me go to another topic previously mentioned - the dictators of Europe pre-WW2.

The Portuguese dictatorship was entirely unrelated to Hitler, at least, in its creation, as was the Italian dictatorship, and most of the dictatorships in Europe.  The only dictatorship to form that was as a direct result of Hitler's intervention was Francisco Franco, Regent of Spain.  However, with the exception of Portugal, most of the dictatorships were either allied to Germany (Italy, Romania, Bulgaria) or conquered by Germany/Allies (Poland, Yugoslavia, Albania, Greece), or both (Vichy France).

Now, to wholly understand the US's role in the Second World War as it pertains to Europe, leaving out in entirety the Pacific theater of the war:

In mid 1940, at the height of the Battle of Britain, Franklin Roosevelt ordered the creation of an agreement of bases in exchange for American military equipment, which Britain immediately took up.  This material aid caused Hitler to argue with Roosevelt over this, and ordered attacks on US shipping to Britain, leading to the little-known Atlantic Conflict, a police action from December 1940-December 1941, in which the US Navy was ordered to Take all actions necessary for the protection of Anglo-American trade, including, but not limited to, the nullification of German submarine control of the Atlantic ocean.  In effect, Roosevelt went to war with Germany in December 1940.  These conflicts between the US and Nazi Germany in the Atlantic for a year before official American entry into the war are always forgotten, and overshadowed by Pearl Harbor, and the rapid attacks on Samoa and the Philippines by the Japanese, a year later.  Nazi Germany and the US, however, had been unofficially at war for a year before the official American declaration of war.

Now, let us point out that many Frenchmen supported Petain's dictatorship.  While the vast majority, after the war, claimed to be part of the Resistance, get real: there is no way that such a supermajority majority of French were members of the resistance, yet did not manage to nullify German control in ANY part of France for the four year occupation.  Many Frenchmen, both in France and in the colonial areas, supported Petain, and, by connection, the Axis.  In effect, France was an Axis power, for all intents and purposes, until D-Day.  French corroborated with the Nazis in the occupation of Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia (all French-controlled at the time).  There was a French-supported Nazi occupation of Tunisia, where hundreds of Jews were massacred as part of the Holocaust, not to mention several thousand in the other French territories, where the Nazis did not have the manpower to do it alone, and, therefore, the French were doing it themselves.

Now that we've shown French corroboration with the Nazis, one can see that the US was NOT allied with France in World War II - just the Free French, who had far less support than popularly believed.  In effect, it was an Anglo-American alliance, in treaty with the Soviet Union, that defeated Nazi Germany.  Britain, however, did not really have the industrial base nor the population for extensive actions.  Therefore, basically, without American assistance, even though Britain would have likely held off the Germans, the European Union, today, would exclude Britain, and be dominated by Germany, in all likelihood.  The Soviet Union, also, did not have the material to defeat the Germans, even working with the British, and, though, again, would probably have managed to hold off the Germans, Germany would still end up a dominant state with eventual puppetting of Switzerland and de facto control over Sweden likely achieved, possibly even over Ireland as well.

Therefore, the United States was essential to Allied victory in World War II, and was far more involved, far earlier  than even Americans realize.  Now that I've totally thrown off the topic at hand, we can now argue, and then decide to be happy in our diversity

 
 
 

[Delfos]

 

yes they were. But it's a far insulting comment saying europe would be all germany/nazi as some americans say. Plus you cant say EU would be ruled by germany, that's probably, plus it's IF EU would be formed if nazi germany still existed, let's not forget the European Comunity, later known as it is now, European Union, was formed after the end of WWII. If there was an union was it would be some kind of Fascist Union, but i dont belive nazi germany, Estado Novo (Portugal) or any other dictatorship would form an union, it's against the nationalism concept. Only modern nationalists accept the concept of being united for a greater good, although some extremists yet say we should be back to our national money instead of euro. Euro have brought nothing but prosperity, the concept works, and we'r the fastest growing economy.

Let's not forget, the way we see WWII or nazi germany history is the point of view of the winners, beyond the facts, i doubt Hitler would invade any fascist country, as some said he would look at Italy as a weak ally and would invade it later on..doubt it alot. but guess what, we'll never know.

If nazi germany wouldnt be stopped and conquered, how would the world be? Probably bevided exactly in 3, North America as Liberal/Imperialist/Capitalist center..as the western part in view of the european world map, center part would be mainly fascist, ruled by european dictators, even Africa with all the colonies, let's not forget WWI, germany was mainly aiming for colonies "you have them, i want them too!", plus the big portuguese, french and whoever's colonies in Africa. And an eastern part, ruled by Communist...maybe the world would be a better place, we'll never know. Would Fascists fight communists and capitalists?, would capitalists fight communists and fascists(as they did and still do)?, would the communists fight fascists and capitalists? or maybe would we live in a peaceful world of stable international society admitting theire differences? or maybe a coldwar-like peace?

[New History lovers]

Well, I was saying, IF there was an EU, THEN Germany would probably dominate, and it would little resemble the real EU.  Germany, do not forget, DID invade Italy near the end of the war, and puppetted it, their own ALLY.

But, yes, we'll never know what would have happened.  I was just saying what would have LIKELY happened.

[Talmann]

Gun Control discussion on imperialism moved here.

Will get back to this later.

[Delfos]

lol, very funny, but it's actually different. As far as i know CIA and US government were the only ones financing the king of Iran to fight against the people. Actually financed Iraqi army against Iran people as well, also invaded Afghanistan when CIA never wanted Bin Laden dead for some reason. Even last week there were Afghan killed in a bombardment..maybe you killed Taliban that supported al qaeda, who knows. Who cares for that in USA? (yes not everyone, but the majority doesnt, the fact Bush is still there makes it true in all possible ways), same goes for the environment...'oh but USA spends alot of money researching for alternate fuels', can be, but why dont you start now? Just wait until you have a cheap and reasonable environmental answer for petrol? Same goes for gun ownership.

[Talmann]

People DO care about innocents dying in Afghanistan. But do you think the Army's really gonna say 'oh we killed 100 people in a bombardment today, but only one was a terrorist'? Heck no! The key to staying in power is to not admit mistakes. I agree, they should probably admit those mistakes, but then we'd end up like the French during their never-ending revolution.

And I would rather we be spending on researching alternative fuel as well, because this oil crisis is just un-fricking-believable. Gun ownership, not so much.

[Delfos]

as far as i know, Us government is spending on research. the point is it isn't doing anything. In Europe we're already promoting clean industries. There's commercials on TV about all that. And there's nothing like that in USA. OK there's alot of states that are already betting on renewable energies, but they are still far from Kyoto, USA is still the largest pollutant.

It's a international problem, and the nation with the most supposed power isn't doing anything. That's why it's the same as gun ownership, what have been done to increase security or decrease gun related mortality in USA? not much more than nothing, beyond the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq that are not doing any good, specially Iraq one. I do approve the NATO incursions on Afghanistan, but not an invasion force anymore, whenever the crisis is over, UN should take care of it.

If USA is so mighty, why it isn't doing better than EU in environment, hunger, and peace? fighting something with a war, causing another war that will last alot, really is the solution? I would dare to ask how many people died while Saddam was in Power in 4 years, and how many have died in 4years since USA invaded Iraq? If counting the upcoming civil war (either you leave or not, it's gonna happen, a minority that got supported by USA is now avenging against the majority, ofc the majority is now pissed off) Saddam's Death was an avenge, no question on that. They lowered themselves to the same level Saddam was.

[Khablan]

Just to be clear, the financing you mentioned was by a prior administration.  Americans didn't know about it until recently.

Even last week there were Afghan killed in a bombardment..maybe you killed Taliban that supported al qaeda, who knows. Who cares for that in USA? (yes not everyone, but the majority doesnt, the fact Bush is still there makes it true in all possible ways)

Talmann is right.  The vast majority of Americans DO care when civilians are harmed, and they are not silent about it.

The fact that Bush is still in office does NOT make that statement true by any stretch of the imagination.  The fact that he is still in office means #1 that his term has not run out, and #2 that he hasn't done anything illegal for which he could be impeached.  It has no bearing on whether Americans care about civilian deaths or not.

as far as i know, Us government is spending on research. the point is it isn't doing anything. In Europe we're already promoting clean industries. There's commercials on TV about all that. And there's nothing like that in USA.

Yes, the government spends money on research.  There are also independent research groups.  There is progress made, although not enough, in my opinion.  The major roadblock, as I see it, is that the government is run by politicians.  Politicians, by nature, need a lot of support in order to obtain and keep their office.  Big business can give that support.  Big business is the largest polluter.  It would cost them money to change their manufacturing to more environment-friendly means. 

We have had periods in this country where the environment was a much higher priority.  The current administration doesn't give a hoot about it.  Some of the previous ones did. 

In addition to that, remember the sixties and seventies.  The hippies and the flower children brought us all a much deeper awareness of the environment and its affect on the earth's inhabitants.  Recycling became all the rage, protests became commonplace.  Television shows reflected the concern of the majority of Americans, and there were frequent commercials put out by the government and other groups encouraging people toward more environmentally sound practices. 

It's sad that such things are less common now.  But given the fact that we've had republican presidents for the last several terms, it isn't surprising.  Still, that also means that this is not necessarily a permanent trend.

It's a international problem, and the nation with the most supposed power isn't doing anything. That's why it's the same as gun ownership, what have been done to increase security or decrease gun related mortality in USA? not much more than nothing, beyond the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq that are not doing any good, specially Iraq one.

I'm not sure how invading another country relates to gun ownership or decreased gun related mortality in the US.  Further, you are implying that if stricter gun control is not mandated, then nothing at all is being done to attempt to reduce gun related mortality.  The fact that one specific route is not chosen does not mean that nothing at all is being done.

Saddam's Death was an avenge, no question on that.

That assumption is incorrect.  Revenge is useless, when all is said and done.  It cannot undo the damage done in the past.  The greater concern was to prevent him from committing the atrocities in the future that he had in the past.