Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
There are two general ways to respond to crime problems: prevention and [/I]reaction[/I]. Prevention is about removing the opportunity to commit a crime. Reaction is about punishment and deterrence via punishment. Either way the problem is addressing and stopping crime. The problem with reaction is that the crime has already occurred, and someone has already been victimized. Things like "give em guns and if they commit crime, then punish the shit out of them" are perfect examples of reactive measures to crime. They may prevent crime by deterrence, but they're mainly punishment and don't protect the victims. My way, prevention, is about preventing the victimization in the first place.
I'll illustrate each of our philosophies using the travesty in the OP as an example.
DK's world: A gunman who was easily able to get a hold of guns despite the fact he may have had warning signs as to mental illness opens fire in a school. Several armed students return fire. The gunman is killed, and one of the students who pulled a gun to respond is killed, and another injured. Before the armed students returned fire, the madman was still able to kill a half a dozen students and injure an additional sixteen.
Willravel's world: A potential gunman applies for a gun license, but is turned down due to a history of emotional problems. He attempts to get a gun illegally, but fails. No one is injured and no one dies.
|
why is it that in your world, everything turns out peachy keen, yet in my world, the only thing that changed is another student died? bias? I think so. Especially considering the other possibilities, like a student with a gun stopping said gunman before 6 died or 16 were injured.....or wanna be gunman gets even more pissed because he can't find a gun so he straps on 10 pounds of homemade dynamite? It's all conjecture. The only difference is my scenario creates the possibility of defense in the face of failure while yours is hoping for success and no plans for failure.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
You act like "right" has one definition. It doesn't.
|
how many do you think there are?
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
|