Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 101 to 117 of 117

Thread: Guns, Age Limit?

  1. #101
    Elite Member TonyT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,317
    Establishing that there is a decline in morality with statistics is an impossible task. Morality can't be measured and it is far to subjective.
    Not so.
    It's not an impossible task and morality is not as subjective as you may think it is.

    The context in which I have used the term "morality" in this thread is pretty darn clear and objective. Laws of the land are moral codes. They are not subjective. Whether or not a citizen agrees with the existing laws IS subjective. I sense that you may have disagreements with some of the moral codes that the majority of the citizens of the USA agree with. I am NOT saying that you do, I am saying that it appears as though you do and I am open to clarification. My ideas are not fixed.

    Most laws are not open to interpretation and are solidly, obviously objective. "Do not murder" is one such law. It has already been interpreted subjectively and revised into multiple, variable types of murder, e.g. premeditated murder, degrees of man slaughter, self defense, etc. These interpretations are now objective in the eyes of the court. Subjectiveness enters into the computation of judicial decision in each trial, but the charges brought against a plaintiff are objective. The charges are "violations of some moral code item."

    Moral codes change over time so as to reflect the opinions and desires of the majority in a democratic society. At one time it was considered immoral to sell alcoholic beverages on a Sunday. It is now no longer immoral.to have a beer on Sunday. Some, a minority, still adhere to that old morality. I have nothing against them, they are free to do that.

    Shooting up schools is a crime, a violation of existing law, a breaking of a moral code, i.e. immorality. I think we can both agree that shooting up schools is an immoral act.

    Now, the questions was posed, "What to do about that problem?"

    Raising the age limit to 21 to purchase a gun may or may not result in fewer school shootings. And based on the logic and methodology that you have used in this thread, there is no evidence that raising the age limit would reduce school shootings. "Less guns = less use of guns" does not mean that school shootings would be lessened. It just means that for some the obtaining of a gun would be harder than it is currently.

    I still say that the criminal, who is bent on shooting up schools, who is unable to control his desire to shoot up schools, will still find a way to obtain the gun he needs to shoot up schools, even if he must resort to the crime of stealing someone else's gun, or getting a gun on the black market, or using a false ID to buy one, or some other illegal method of getting the gun he is compelled to use.

    We each have ideas about why the problem of school shootings exists, what to do about the problem and what the causes and influences are. The problem appears to be very complex. But by eliminating what has been tried in the past to solve this problem that did not work helps to simplify the problem.

    Religious moral codes forced upon us have not worked.
    Diagnosing kids with mental disorders and medicating them has not worked.
    Changing gun laws has not worked.
    Fake news, shocking multimedia, political agendas and influence by vested interest groups, including NRA, has not worked.
    Harsher penalties for those who commit the crime have not worked.

    Those things only serve to complicate the problem.

    I maintain the the resolution to the problem of school shootings relies upon the discovery of the causes of the things that create school shooters, those things which cause someone to one day be a troubled kid and some time later commit that criminal act of shooting up a school. There may be some complexity in that area to sort out, but in my opinion, that area has a lot to do with basic morality, morality as I have used the term in this discussion, the basic laws and rules of social conduct that have been proven to benefit mankind.

    And let us not forget that this discussion forum is primarily a venue for giving one's opinions.
    Last edited by TonyT; 03-23-18 at 10:39 AM.
    No one has any right to force data on you
    and command you to believe it or else.
    If it is not true for you, it isn't true.

    LRH

  2. #102
    Freedom Fighter jeremyboycool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,969
    Quote Originally Posted by TonyT View Post
    Not so.
    It's not an impossible task and morality is not as subjective as you may think it is.

    The context in which I have used the term "morality" in this thread is pretty darn clear and objective. Laws of the land are moral codes. They are not subjective. Whether or not a citizen agrees with the existing laws IS subjective. I sense that you may have disagreements with some of the moral codes that the majority of the citizens of the USA agree with. I am NOT saying that you do, I am saying that it appears as though you do and I am open to clarification. My ideas are not fixed.

    Most laws are not open to interpretation and are solidly, obviously objective. "Do not murder" is one such law. It has already been interpreted subjectively and revised into multiple, variable types of murder, e.g. premeditated murder, degrees of man slaughter, self defense, etc. These interpretations are now objective in the eyes of the court. Subjectiveness enters into the computation of judicial decision in each trial, but the charges brought against a plaintiff are objective. The charges are "violations of some moral code item."

    Moral codes change over time so as to reflect the opinions and desires of the majority in a democratic society. At one time it was considered immoral to sell alcoholic beverages on a Sunday. It is now no longer immoral.to have a beer on Sunday. Some, a minority, still adhere to that old morality. I have nothing against them, they are free to do that.

    Shooting up schools is a crime, a violation of existing law, a breaking of a moral code, i.e. immorality. I think we can both agree that shooting up schools is an immoral act.

    Now, the questions was posed, "What to do about that problem?"

    Raising the age limit to 21 to purchase a gun may or may not result in fewer school shootings. And based on the logic and methodology that you have used in this thread, there is no evidence that raising the age limit would reduce school shootings. "Less guns = less use of guns" does not mean that school shootings would be lessened. It just means that for some the obtaining of a gun would be harder than it is currently.

    I still say that the criminal, who is bent on shooting up schools, who is unable to control his desire to shoot up schools, will still find a way to obtain the gun he needs to shoot up schools, even if he must resort to the crime of stealing someone else's gun, or getting a gun on the black market, or using a false ID to buy one, or some other illegal method of getting the gun he is compelled to use.

    We each have ideas about why the problem of school shootings exists, what to do about the problem and what the causes and influences are. The problem appears to be very complex. But by eliminating what has been tried in the past to solve this problem and did not work helps to simplify the problem.
    It's not an impossible task
    Yes, it is, statistics has limitations, science over all has limits. You can't measure morality, it is not a quantitative variable, it is not even a qualitative variable. Further more cause and effect can only be assessed properly by statistics in a controlled experiment with random sampling. You can't do that with people and morality.

    The first thing you learn when you start to study statistics is that statistics cannot prove anything. It is called the science of uncertainty for a reason, TonyT. Statistics makes approximations of things we can't know and it is a measure of the uncertainty in those approximations. Statistics is built on certain assumptions, but reality does not always line up with those assumptions, and when that happens the uncertainty grows, and it happens a lot. Also, the entire foundation of statistics is based on randomization, and humans are notoriously difficult to get true random samples of and measure their response in a meaningful way. People are very hard to read statistically, that is why these political polls fail in their predictions so much. It is not because the people doing the polls are clueless, it is because people just don't comply with statistical methods very well.

    Statistics alone never proves anything, it is evidence to be considered along side other evidence, I can't stress how important that concept is. We use statistics to support other evidence and we use it to find direction in our research. The media, however, uses it to sell papers and the findings are often misrepresented to sell more, so you always have to check out their source.

    The context in which I have used the term "morality" in this thread is pretty darn clear and objective
    Your opinions are not objective, TonyT, they are subjective. If they were objective you could beat me over the head with them, you could send me photographic evidence of them. Morality comes from people, subjective means from with in; morals are subjective. They don't exist outside our collective subjectivity. Now I will agree there is a homogeneous subjective core within humans that can help direct us all down a similar moral path, but they are still subjective. They come from within.


    Laws of the land are moral codes. They are not subjective.
    Laws are subjective, we made them up, but more importantly laws are not morality and sometimes laws are immoral, that is why they need to be able to change at times. What do you do when a law is immoral, TonyT? Just blindly follow it?


    Most laws are not open to interpretation and are solidly, obviously objective. "Do not murder" is one such law. It has already been interpreted subjectively and revised into multiple, variable types of murder, e.g. premeditated murder, degrees of man slaughter, self defense, etc. These interpretations are now objective in the eyes of the court. Subjectiveness enters into the computation of judicial decision in each trial, but the charges brought against a plaintiff are objective. The charges are "violations of some moral code item."
    It was certainty subjective to people 50 - 60 years ago. "Let's see, white, he is free to go, black, throw him in the chair."


    Raising the age limit to 21 to purchase a gun may or may not result in fewer school shootings. And based on the logic and methodology that you have used in this thread, there is no evidence that raising the age limit would reduce school shootings. "Less guns = less use of guns" does not mean that school shootings would be lessened. It just means that for some the obtaining of a gun would be harder than it is currently.
    Maybe it won't change it, TonyT, I am not disagreeing with that. I made it clear at the start of the thread why I supported rising the age limit and that is enough reason for me regardless of its potential impact on mass shootings. It is not like such a law would only be for the mass shooters, TonyT.

    But this is the very topic I am investigating now for my analysis and that takes time.

    I still say that the criminal, who is bent on shooting up schools, who is unable to control his desire to shoot up schools, will still find a way to obtain the gun he needs to shoot up schools, even if he must resort to the crime of stealing someone else's gun, or getting a gun on the black market, or using a false ID to buy one, or some other illegal method of getting the gun he is compelled to use.
    Or get caught by empowered law enforcement as they try to obtain a gun illegally, before they can shoot up the school. Empowering our law enforcement to act before it is too late could save not just the lives of the victims, it could prevent a messed up kid from doing something horrible and possible save him as well. And this is not just for mass shooters, but all gun violence committed by those under 21.

    But tell me, as I am courious, how many mass shootings would such a law need to stop to be justified in your eyes?
    Last edited by jeremyboycool; 03-23-18 at 02:25 PM.
    "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Stephen Hawking

  3. #103
    Elite Member TonyT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,317
    But tell me, as I am courious, how many mass shootings would such a law need to stop to be justified in your eyes?
    That's a question I cannot answer as I do not believe any law will be effective in reducing or stopping mass shootings. For the simple fact that those who engage upon mass shootings are already incapable of following the existing laws. I do not believe new law, meaning gun regulation, is warranted.

    As for statistics, well, as you say, they are variable, sometimes indefinite, limited and don't themselves prove anything. I agree with you there. However statistics can be evaluated and used.

    For example, let's say a football team, per statistics, has the best defense against the pass and during the last 10 games no team so far has passed for more than 100 yards when playing that team. The stats do not mean that next Sunday their opponent will not obtain more than 100 yards passing. But the defense's stats can be evaluated and used by the opposing team to determine their best methods of using pass plays in the upcoming game and also to determine which running plays would be most effective. Stats may indicate which sides of the field are best avoided, which players are the most aggressive, which players are fastest, strongest, etc.

    Similarly, crime statistics can be evaluated and utilized. This occurs daily by police department administrators. If statistics show that people are more likely to drive while intoxicated on holiday nights then the police will setup up sobriety check points during holidays. And because the use of check points is promoted via media and news outlets, many people will refrain from driving to and from parties, may use a designated driver or Uber. The criminals, those who disregard the DUI laws, will just avoid the areas where the check points are known to be.

    Or get caught by empowered law enforcement as they try to obtain a gun illegally, before they can shoot up the school. Empowering our law enforcement to act before it is too late could save not just the lives of the victims, it could prevent a messed up kid from doing something horrible and possible save him as well. And this is not just for mass shooters, but all gun violence committed by those under 21.
    Our law enforcement is already empowered to prevent and investigate crime. In quite a few of these mass shootings our law enforcement agencies had background info on the shooters already and for whatever reasons, failed to prevent the crimes. It would help if there was more cooperation between law enforcement agencies and shared info between them. There already are federal databases that are supposed to be used help prevent crimes involving guns, but govt red tape and political agendas interfere with its utilization and usefulness.

    I for one do not want law enforcement agencies to have more power than they currently have because history is filled with law enforcement agencies rising to such levels of power where a police state is resultant, and freedoms and liberties are reduced.
    No one has any right to force data on you
    and command you to believe it or else.
    If it is not true for you, it isn't true.

    LRH

  4. #104
    Freedom Fighter jeremyboycool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,969
    Quote Originally Posted by TonyT View Post
    That's a question I cannot answer as I do not believe any law will be effective in reducing or stopping mass shootings. For the simple fact that those who engage upon mass shootings are already incapable of following the existing laws. I do not believe new law, meaning gun regulation, is warranted.

    As for statistics, well, as you say, they are variable, sometimes indefinite, limited and don't themselves prove anything. I agree with you there. However statistics can be evaluated and used.

    For example, let's say a football team, per statistics, has the best defense against the pass and during the last 10 games no team so far has passed for more than 100 yards when playing that team. The stats do not mean that next Sunday their opponent will not obtain more than 100 yards passing. But the defense's stats can be evaluated and used by the opposing team to determine their best methods of using pass plays in the upcoming game and also to determine which running plays would be most effective. Stats may indicate which sides of the field are best avoided, which players are the most aggressive, which players are fastest, strongest, etc.

    Similarly, crime statistics can be evaluated and utilized. This occurs daily by police department administrators. If statistics show that people are more likely to drive while intoxicated on holiday nights then the police will setup up sobriety check points during holidays. And because the use of check points is promoted via media and news outlets, many people will refrain from driving to and from parties, may use a designated driver or Uber. The criminals, those who disregard the DUI laws, will just avoid the areas where the check points are known to be.


    Our law enforcement is already empowered to prevent and investigate crime. In quite a few of these mass shootings our law enforcement agencies had background info on the shooters already and for whatever reasons, failed to prevent the crimes. It would help if there was more cooperation between law enforcement agencies and shared info between them. There already are federal databases that are supposed to be used help prevent crimes involving guns, but govt red tape and political agendas interfere with its utilization and usefulness.

    I for one do not want law enforcement agencies to have more power than they currently have because history is filled with law enforcement agencies rising to such levels of power where a police state is resultant, and freedoms and liberties are reduced.
    However statistics can be evaluated and used.
    I am in my late 30's and paying for an education in statistics, obviously I think statistics is a worthwhile endeavor, but it is probably the most misunderstood science out there and definitely the most abused science. Many people don't even realize it is a science, but I think what trips people up the most is, unlike traditional science, which deals in hard evidence, statistics deals with uncertainty.

    Similarly, crime statistics can be evaluated and utilized. This occurs daily by police department administrators. If statistics show that people are more likely to drive while intoxicated on holiday nights then the police will setup up sobriety check points during holidays. And because the use of check points is promoted via media and news outlets, many people will refrain from driving to and from parties, may use a designated driver or Uber. The criminals, those who disregard the DUI laws, will just avoid the areas where the check points are known to be.
    If these tactics had no impact at all on reducing the number of drunk drivers on the road then cops won't do them. What I don't get here, TonyT, is that you did that long rant about how laws are moral codes then you argue that laws do nothing to hinder immoral actions.


    I for one do not want law enforcement agencies to have more power than they currently have because history is filled with law enforcement agencies rising to such levels of power where a police state is resultant, and freedoms and liberties are reduced
    I am not sure how you can assert that, when you have claimed such laws would do nothing.

    You are all over the map, TonyT, and you seem a bit wishy washy in your moral beliefs.
    "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Stephen Hawking

  5. #105
    Elite Member TonyT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,317
    If these tactics had no impact at all on reducing the number of drunk drivers on the road then cops won't do them. What I don't get here, TonyT, is that you did that long rant about how laws are moral codes then you argue that laws do nothing to hinder immoral actions.

    I am not sure how you can assert that, when you have claimed such laws would do nothing.
    You are all over the map, TonyT, and you seem a bit wishy washy in your moral beliefs.
    Hopefully I can help clear things up for you re what I have said re morals.

    Laws themselves, don't hinder immoral actions. Morality, the agreement with and adherence to moral codes, is to be determined by the individual himself, but the individual can only do that if (1) he is aware of the laws and (2) he understands the laws and (3) can apply the law (do or not do the actions the law references).

    Awareness of basic morals must be acquired. The individual must somehow become aware of right and wrong conduct, either by his own observation (trail and error) or by informal/formal education (from another), or both. The very basic moral codes which have been in use since man has been able to speak and form groups are still in use today. These are the simple morals I have been referring to all along in this post. They are simple ones like: Don't murder, be honest, keep your word, the golden rule, etc. The individual learns the golden rule by a lot of trial and error and education from parents and guardians. At some point, if his morals training was not too painful and he was not heavily punished and invalidated, he will grow above the need of moral codes and rise into being ethical. He becomes able to make decisions for himself and does not have to rely upon a moral code to guide him in how to get along with his fellow man, he just gets along nicely. But he has to learn all of that. His actions will not need to be regulated by laws.

    This fellow is not a threat to society. The threat is the person who purposely remains ignorant of the law because he doesn't understand it or for whatever reason(s) refuses to learn it or lacks the ability to apply it (do or not do the actions the law refers to). This threat is aka the criminal.
    No one has any right to force data on you
    and command you to believe it or else.
    If it is not true for you, it isn't true.

    LRH

  6. #106
    Freedom Fighter jeremyboycool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,969
    Quote Originally Posted by TonyT View Post
    Hopefully I can help clear things up for you re what I have said re morals.

    Laws themselves, don't hinder immoral actions. Morality, the agreement with and adherence to moral codes, is to be determined by the individual himself, but the individual can only do that if (1) he is aware of the laws and (2) he understands the laws and (3) can apply the law (do or not do the actions the law references).

    Awareness of basic morals must be acquired. The individual must somehow become aware of right and wrong conduct, either by his own observation (trail and error) or by informal/formal education (from another), or both. The very basic moral codes which have been in use since man has been able to speak and form groups are still in use today. These are the simple morals I have been referring to all along in this post. They are simple ones like: Don't murder, be honest, keep your word, the golden rule, etc. The individual learns the golden rule by a lot of trial and error and education from parents and guardians. At some point, if his morals training was not too painful and he was not heavily punished and invalidated, he will grow above the need of moral codes and rise into being ethical. He becomes able to make decisions for himself and does not have to rely upon a moral code to guide him in how to get along with his fellow man, he just gets along nicely. But he has to learn all of that. His actions will not need to be regulated by laws.

    This fellow is not a threat to society. The threat is the person who purposely remains ignorant of the law because he doesn't understand it or for whatever reason(s) refuses to learn it or lacks the ability to apply it (do or not do the actions the law refers to). This threat is aka the criminal.
    Laws themselves, don't hinder immoral actions.
    TonyT, we know for a fact that laws and law enforcement deterrent undesired behavior, so you can stop playing these games. I mean it is not like the law would be passed and never enforcement; the whole idea is to pass a law so it can be enforced.

    the agreement with and adherence to moral codes, is to be determined by the individual himself
    Tell that to the people locked away in prison. They are adhering to societal standards whether they like it or not, or maybe you think we should just let all these people out, as apparently law enforcement did nothing to impede their ill behavior from harming society.

    It is undoubtable, TonyT, that passing such laws would have an impact. That is not even a question, the question is: What type of impact and how much?

    Awareness of basic morals must be acquired.
    If that was at all true, then humans would have never acquired basic morals. Cause and effect, TonyT; morals didn't pop in out of thin air, they had to come from somewhere, that means the basic foundation for morals comes from within the human heart. The very foundation of moral behavior and our innate builtin moral compass, is love and compassion, something your typical human is born with. The problem is that many people have forgotten that and instead of looking inward for moral guidance they too often look outwards. I think what you are looking for, TonyT, are cookie cutter morals, and while guidance is an essential element, sometimes the mentor is wrong, and unless an individual can be an individual then you end up with the blind leading the blind. Those type of cookie cutter morals have had devastating results many times in history; people need to be taught how to think morally, not what to think.
    "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Stephen Hawking

  7. #107
    Elite Member TonyT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,317
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremyboycool View Post
    TonyT, we know for a fact that laws and law enforcement deterrent undesired behavior, so you can stop playing these games. I mean it is not like the law would be passed and never enforcement; the whole idea is to pass a law so it can be enforced.

    Tell that to the people locked away in prison. They are adhering to societal standards whether they like it or not, or maybe you think we should just let all these people out, as apparently law enforcement did nothing to impede their ill behavior from harming society.

    It is undoubtable, TonyT, that passing such laws would have an impact. That is not even a question, the question is: What type of impact and how much?

    If that was at all true, then humans would have never acquired basic morals. Cause and effect, TonyT; morals didn't pop in out of thin air, they had to come from somewhere, that means the basic foundation for morals comes from within the human heart. The very foundation of moral behavior and our innate builtin moral compass, is love and compassion, something your typical human is born with. The problem is that many people have forgotten that and instead of looking inward for moral guidance they too often look outwards. I think what you are looking for, TonyT, are cookie cutter morals, and while guidance is an essential element, sometimes the mentor is wrong, and unless an individual can be an individual then you end up with the blind leading the blind. Those type of cookie cutter morals have had devastating results many times in history; people need to be taught how to think morally, not what to think.
    I honestly believe that when you read what I have written that you are immediately critiquing it prior to gaining a concept of what I am saying! I am not playing games with the semantics of morals.

    Laws, all by themselves, don't do anything. They don't deter without the threat of enforcement, simply because someone who would never think of committing "immoral act # 27 based on law # 35" does not pay any attention to that law, he does not need to be guided by that law, he does not give it a second thought, he does not ever contemplate violating that law. He is guided by his certainty and his judgement.

    Enforcement of laws only becomes necessary when people break the laws. John Doe commits a crime, he murders Jane Doe. Jane's dead body is discovered and the police investigate and determine the death to be suspicious, possibly criminal, and embark upon a quest to enforce the "do not murder" law. John Doe gets arrested and charged with a crime.

    Meanwhile, Jim Doe kisses his wife Jill goodbye and leaves for work. The thought of killing her never entered his mind, never has entered his mind. He does this every day for 40 years, has a good relationship with Jill and never once has had to be reminded by a law that killing his wife would be immoral. He does not live under threat of punishment.

    People are in prison, the vast, vast majority, because they broke the law (some are innocent). They chose to ignore the law BEFORE they broke it. They became immoral BEFORE they broke the law. Their first crime was to CHOOSE to break a law, their second crime was to break it. They made a decision to do something they knew was wrong. It is the rare case where someone ends up in prison when they did not know it was wrong to murder or rob or sell drugs or steal a car or rape or harm another. Enforcement of the laws usually follows the breaking of the laws. Enforcement can deter the breaking of the law in some circumstances, such as DUI check points, investigations of suspicious behavior which lead to arrest, etc. But investigation of suspicious behavior is partial enforcement of the law and would probably do more to prevent shootings than a new law regarding age limits would.

    people need to be taught how to think morally, not what to think
    Now that is probably the wisest and most astute thing you have said so far in this thread!
    And that aligns completely with what I have been asserting re morals.
    People need to
    1. become aware of the moral code or laws.
    2. they must understand them
    3. they must be able to apply them, must be able to use them.

    "Thinking morally" results from the realizations following #3 above. As one practices morality, one sees the good effects and the bad effects, acquires judgement, adjusts himself a bit, continues to observe the effects of his actions, and continues to fine tune himself, and at some point he is capable of making the right choices without paying any more attention to morals or laws, he knows by his actions that he has morality.

    While I agree that there is such a thing as a "moral compass built upon love and compassion", environmental factors can and do interfere and prevent that compass from being used.

    First of all, one must discover for himself that such a moral compass exists, which is not often easy for the child whose family members don't use that compass. And in a few years, after association with friends whose family members are similar, the child has come to believe that morality is a pipe dream. (imho this is why the Christian concept of Original Sin is so well received, "we are all born with sin" justifies the immorality we see around us) (I disagree with that original sin thing)

    Once a person finds out he has a moral compass, that morality is possible, he must then seek a greater understanding of it. The environment he lives in, his associates, his friends, often act to impede his understanding. Misery loves company. The kid trying to better understand morality may be ridiculed or teased by his friends when he tries to apply some moral precept or adhere to some law. His ability to "think morally" can be thwarted.
    No one has any right to force data on you
    and command you to believe it or else.
    If it is not true for you, it isn't true.

    LRH

  8. #108
    Freedom Fighter jeremyboycool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,969
    Quote Originally Posted by TonyT View Post
    I honestly believe that when you read what I have written that you are immediately critiquing it prior to gaining a concept of what I am saying! I am not playing games with the semantics of morals.

    Laws, all by themselves, don't do anything. They don't deter without the threat of enforcement, simply because someone who would never think of committing "immoral act # 27 based on law # 35" does not pay any attention to that law, he does not need to be guided by that law, he does not give it a second thought, he does not ever contemplate violating that law. He is guided by his certainty and his judgement.

    Enforcement of laws only becomes necessary when people break the laws. John Doe commits a crime, he murders Jane Doe. Jane's dead body is discovered and the police investigate and determine the death to be suspicious, possibly criminal, and embark upon a quest to enforce the "do not murder" law. John Doe gets arrested and charged with a crime.

    Meanwhile, Jim Doe kisses his wife Jill goodbye and leaves for work. The thought of killing her never entered his mind, never has entered his mind. He does this every day for 40 years, has a good relationship with Jill and never once has had to be reminded by a law that killing his wife would be immoral. He does not live under threat of punishment.

    People are in prison, the vast, vast majority, because they broke the law (some are innocent). They chose to ignore the law BEFORE they broke it. They became immoral BEFORE they broke the law. Their first crime was to CHOOSE to break a law, their second crime was to break it. They made a decision to do something they knew was wrong. It is the rare case where someone ends up in prison when they did not know it was wrong to murder or rob or sell drugs or steal a car or rape or harm another. Enforcement of the laws usually follows the breaking of the laws. Enforcement can deter the breaking of the law in some circumstances, such as DUI check points, investigations of suspicious behavior which lead to arrest, etc. But investigation of suspicious behavior is partial enforcement of the law and would probably do more to prevent shootings than a new law regarding age limits would.


    Now that is probably the wisest and most astute thing you have said so far in this thread!
    And that aligns completely with what I have been asserting re morals.
    People need to
    1. become aware of the moral code or laws.
    2. they must understand them
    3. they must be able to apply them, must be able to use them.

    "Thinking morally" results from the realizations following #3 above. As one practices morality, one sees the good effects and the bad effects, acquires judgement, adjusts himself a bit, continues to observe the effects of his actions, and continues to fine tune himself, and at some point he is capable of making the right choices without paying any more attention to morals or laws, he knows by his actions that he has morality.

    While I agree that there is such a thing as a "moral compass built upon love and compassion", environmental factors can and do interfere and prevent that compass from being used.

    First of all, one must discover for himself that such a moral compass exists, which is not often easy for the child whose family members don't use that compass. And in a few years, after association with friends whose family members are similar, the child has come to believe that morality is a pipe dream. (imho this is why the Christian concept of Original Sin is so well received, "we are all born with sin" justifies the immorality we see around us) (I disagree with that original sin thing)

    Once a person finds out he has a moral compass, that morality is possible, he must then seek a greater understanding of it. The environment he lives in, his associates, his friends, often act to impede his understanding. Misery loves company. The kid trying to better understand morality may be ridiculed or teased by his friends when he tries to apply some moral precept or adhere to some law. His ability to "think morally" can be thwarted.
    Enforcement of laws only becomes necessary when people break the laws.
    If someone broke the law then guess what... it was not enforced. You can't enforce a law after the fact; that is when you move on to punishment.

    They chose to ignore the law BEFORE they broke it. They became immoral BEFORE they broke the law. Their first crime was to CHOOSE to break a law, their second crime was to break it.
    So as Martin Luther King, Jr. was pushing to change unmoral laws and was thrown in jail for his efforts, according to you he was immoral since he chose to ignore and break unethical laws. I guess by your standards Gandhi was immoral as well. Heck even Jesus fits in there as well. What a bunch of evil immoral people. Your nonsensical notion here is that if someone creates a law then anyone breaking that law, regardless of what the law is or who created it, is immoral. That is a horrible position.

    TonyT, your idea that laws are the same as morals is totally backwards. I don't buy it all, I want to make that clear to you. I think your whole perspective of laws and morally is fundamentally flawed. Laws are not perfect and "moral codes" are not perfect. While lawfulness is important to maintain the healthy functions of society and social interaction, moral roots needs come from within.

    And that aligns completely with what I have been asserting re morals.
    Except unlike you, I don't believe in cookie-cutter morals.

    TonyT, it is unlikely we'll see eye to eye on this, I don't care for your moral position; I see it as too mindless and too dogmatic.
    "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Stephen Hawking

  9. #109
    Elite Member TonyT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,317
    TonyT, your idea that laws are the same as morals is totally backwards. I don't buy it all, I want to make that clear to you. I think your whole perspective of laws and morally is fundamentally flawed. Laws are not perfect and "moral codes" are not perfect. While lawfulness is important to maintain the healthy functions of society and social interaction, moral roots needs come from within.

    TonyT, it is unlikely we'll see eye to eye on this, I don't care for your moral position; I see it as too mindless and too dogmatic.
    I don't expect you to see eye to eye with me.
    The analogies re MLK and Ghandi don't apply, we're talking about murder, shooting up schools.
    What you seem to be failing to grasp is that ONLY criminals murder.
    Criminals DO NOT have the ability to guide themselves with morals and values of society, they don't obey laws, they lack the moral roots from within.
    Thus, if their moral roots are ignored or lacking, how we change them?

    Moral codes are created by man and they evolve as society changes.
    Murder has been a violation of man's codes forever, society has always considered it wrong to murder.
    People committed murder, society created laws against it.
    The crime (immorality) always precedes the creation of a law. If murder had never occurred there would be no law against it.

    There is no law against hitching your giraffe to a lamp post in Washington, DC. But the day after someone actually does that there will be a rush by council members to create a law against it.
    No one has any right to force data on you
    and command you to believe it or else.
    If it is not true for you, it isn't true.

    LRH

  10. #110
    Freedom Fighter jeremyboycool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,969
    Quote Originally Posted by TonyT View Post
    I don't expect you to see eye to eye with me.
    The analogies re MLK and Ghandi don't apply, we're talking about murder, shooting up schools.
    What you seem to be failing to grasp is that ONLY criminals murder.
    Criminals DO NOT have the ability to guide themselves with morals and values of society, they don't obey laws, they lack the moral roots from within.
    Thus, if their moral roots are ignored or lacking, how we change them?

    Moral codes are created by man and they evolve as society changes.
    Murder has been a violation of man's codes forever, society has always considered it wrong to murder.
    People committed murder, society created laws against it.
    The crime (immorality) always precedes the creation of a law. If murder had never occurred there would be no law against it.

    There is no law against hitching your giraffe to a lamp post in Washington, DC. But the day after someone actually does that there will be a rush by council members to create a law against it.
    Back to your games. . . at least now you do seem to recognize that there are such things as immoral laws, even if you won't directly admit it. Also as I already pointed out at the start of this thread murder has been legal in the US before. Society has not always considered it wrong; depending on the victim murder was acceptable and legal at certain times in US history.
    "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Stephen Hawking

  11. #111
    Elite Member TonyT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,317
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremyboycool View Post
    Back to your games. . . at least now you do seem to recognize that there are such things as immoral laws, even if you won't directly admit it. Also as I already pointed out at the start of this thread murder has been legal in the US before. Society has not always considered it wrong; depending on the victim murder was acceptable and legal at certain times in US history.
    Murder was NEVER legal in the USA. Study your history dude.
    Sure, slave owners killed slaves, but it was not legal shortly after the Revolutionary War., it was culturally acceptable in some dixie states, but 100% illegal per federal law.
    On April 30, 1790 (during the 1st Congress) a statute was passed (An Act for the Punishment of certain Crimes against the United States, pp. 112-113 of the entire acts), the third section of which reads
    ...And be it [further]enacted, That if any person or persons shall, within any fort, arsenal, dock-yard, magazine, or in any other place or district of country, under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, commit the crime of wilful murder, such person or persons on being thereof convicted shall suffer death

    In Colonial America, before the US was established, each colony (pre states) had codes for the treatment of slaves, as did EU countries. Killing a slave was justified under certain circumstances, differently in each colony and country.
    Southern slave codes made willful killing of a slave illegal in most cases. For example, in 1791, the North Carolina legislature made the willful killing of a slave murder unless it was done who was resisting or under moderate correction.
    No one has any right to force data on you
    and command you to believe it or else.
    If it is not true for you, it isn't true.

    LRH

  12. #112
    Freedom Fighter jeremyboycool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,969
    Quote Originally Posted by TonyT View Post
    Murder was NEVER legal in the USA. Study your history dude.
    Sure, slave owners killed slaves, but it was not legal shortly after the Revolutionary War., it was culturally acceptable in some dixie states, but 100% illegal per federal law.

    In Colonial America, before the US was established, each colony (pre states) had codes for the treatment of slaves, as did EU countries. Killing a slave was justified under certain circumstances, differently in each colony and country.
    Study your history dude.
    You have a warped view of the past. Likely due to that dead white European male history they taught in schools when you were gowning up. Not only was it legal to kill runaway slaves, but there was also the "lawfully" carried out near genocide of an entire race of native inhabitants.

    Here is one example:

    http://www.newsweek.com/2016/08/26/c...de-490824.html


    Montana even use to have a law that said it was legal to shoot Indians if you saw them in a group of 7 or more because that was considered a war party.

    There use to be a death plenty for homosexuals which stay on the book in South Carolina until 1873.


    ----


    I don't really think you know your history, TonyT; I honestly just don't think you do. American history is not pretty; it is dark and ugly. If you believe things get better the further back in history you go, then that clearly shows you need to read more history books. If you think unmoral killing has always been illegal in all aspects of society though out all of history, well that is just flat out wrong and it is not even true of today.
    Last edited by jeremyboycool; 04-04-18 at 09:04 PM.
    "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Stephen Hawking

  13. #113
    Elite Member TonyT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,317
    I don't really think you know your history, TonyT; I honestly just don't think you do. American history is not pretty; it is dark and ugly. If you believe things get better the further back in history you go, then that clearly shows you need to read more history books. If you think unmoral killing has always been illegal in all aspects of society though out all of history, well that is just flat out wrong and it is not even true of today.
    I do know that our history is not pretty.
    While I do not condone what our ancestors did to Indians, federal law makers rarely traveled west to see what was going on. They relied upon reports sent back east, many of them falsified, and made decisions based on the data they had to hand. I am NOT defending them. But realize that the west was a "kill or be killed" environment. Civilization had not taken hold fully until the later 1800s and early 20th century. Sure, there were states and governments there, but only in the major cities, and communication and news traveled very slowly. Telegraph lines were not everywhere. Mail was by horse or ship. Railroads were only the major routes.

    I never said that killing was legal in all aspects of society. I stated that it was legal in certain conditions, such as self-defense and war. The conquest of the American west was done in the guise of war, propagated by the vested interests of greedy leaders of industry who, just like today, control our elected officials.

    You seem to think that myself and some others are hung up on the past, that we think life was better then, that we think people were more moral then. I don't think that. What I believe is that many of the moral problems we face today did not exist in past generations the way they exist today, such as mass shootings by deranged individuals. What needs to be realized is that the moral problems we face today are created, they have causes, they don't just appear out of nowhere.

    NOW, IN THE PRESENT TIME WHICH IS 2018, as in any other time in history, no law will prevent a criminal from committing a crime. By definition, a criminal is one who does not obey the law. That there is an increasing number of school shootings and an increasing number of individuals shooting others for whatever reasons, means that there is an increasing number of criminals being created. People are not born criminal, they become criminal. And I say that the lack of morality, personal integrity and personal ethics have everything to do with this increase of this particular criminality. While morality and personal ethics come from within the individual himself, and that morality and personal ethics are learned things, it is when the individual compromises his personal integrity that moral and ethical decay begins. The individual will from then on seek to justify his violations of moral codes and laws, riding on a dwindling spiral downward away from rationality, honesty and self-determination. If he fails to correct himself he will be unable to thwart his criminal tendencies. And no law will be able to curb his actions.

    The War on Drugs (drug control) does not work, birth control programs do not work to reduce unwanted pregnancies (except as in the rising number of abortions) and gun control has not worked to reduce the number of homicides involving guns. Such laws and programs ONLY work for rational people, the criminal is not rational. And rational people don't need laws to guide their behavior, they can guide themselves because they can choose sane moral codes to live by, they can maintain personal ethics and they have integrity, things the criminal does not have.

    I've said all I need and want to say about raising the age limit to purchase firearms. It won't help to reduce the number of shooting crimes.
    No one has any right to force data on you
    and command you to believe it or else.
    If it is not true for you, it isn't true.

    LRH

  14. #114
    Freedom Fighter jeremyboycool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,969
    Quote Originally Posted by TonyT View Post
    I do know that our history is not pretty.
    While I do not condone what our ancestors did to Indians, federal law makers rarely traveled west to see what was going on. They relied upon reports sent back east, many of them falsified, and made decisions based on the data they had to hand. I am NOT defending them. But realize that the west was a "kill or be killed" environment. Civilization had not taken hold fully until the later 1800s and early 20th century. Sure, there were states and governments there, but only in the major cities, and communication and news traveled very slowly. Telegraph lines were not everywhere. Mail was by horse or ship. Railroads were only the major routes.

    I never said that killing was legal in all aspects of society. I stated that it was legal in certain conditions, such as self-defense and war. The conquest of the American west was done in the guise of war, propagated by the vested interests of greedy leaders of industry who, just like today, control our elected officials.

    You seem to think that myself and some others are hung up on the past, that we think life was better then, that we think people were more moral then. I don't think that. What I believe is that many of the moral problems we face today did not exist in past generations the way they exist today, such as mass shootings by deranged individuals. What needs to be realized is that the moral problems we face today are created, they have causes, they don't just appear out of nowhere.

    NOW, IN THE PRESENT TIME WHICH IS 2018, as in any other time in history, no law will prevent a criminal from committing a crime. By definition, a criminal is one who does not obey the law. That there is an increasing number of school shootings and an increasing number of individuals shooting others for whatever reasons, means that there is an increasing number of criminals being created. People are not born criminal, they become criminal. And I say that the lack of morality, personal integrity and personal ethics have everything to do with this increase of this particular criminality. While morality and personal ethics come from within the individual himself, and that morality and personal ethics are learned things, it is when the individual compromises his personal integrity that moral and ethical decay begins. The individual will from then on seek to justify his violations of moral codes and laws, riding on a dwindling spiral downward away from rationality, honesty and self-determination. If he fails to correct himself he will be unable to thwart his criminal tendencies. And no law will be able to curb his actions.

    The War on Drugs (drug control) does not work, birth control programs do not work to reduce unwanted pregnancies (except as in the rising number of abortions) and gun control has not worked to reduce the number of homicides involving guns. Such laws and programs ONLY work for rational people, the criminal is not rational. And rational people don't need laws to guide their behavior, they can guide themselves because they can choose sane moral codes to live by, they can maintain personal ethics and they have integrity, things the criminal does not have.

    I've said all I need and want to say about raising the age limit to purchase firearms. It won't help to reduce the number of shooting crimes.
    I like how it is suddenly now federal law; however, if you read that link I provided it states federal troops were part of the massacre and it is not a unique story in US history.

    While I do not condone what our ancestors did to Indians, federal law makers rarely traveled west to see what was going on. They relied upon reports sent back east, many of them falsified, and made decisions based on the data they had to hand. I am NOT defending them. But realize that the west was a "kill or be killed" environment. Civilization had not taken hold fully until the later 1800s and early 20th century. Sure, there were states and governments there, but only in the major cities, and communication and news traveled very slowly. Telegraph lines were not everywhere. Mail was by horse or ship. Railroads were only the major routes.

    You are now backpedaling and making excuses. It was government approved and state approved mass murder and there is no two ways about it, that is what it was. You made a silly claim about history, so now just be a man and eat your crow.

    Laws are made by people, TonyT, and people are riddled with flaws, as such the legal system is riddled with flaws.

    birth control programs do not work to reduce unwanted pregnancies
    What? They absolutely do, where on Earth are you getting your information?


    NOW, IN THE PRESENT TIME WHICH IS 2018, as in any other time in history, no law will prevent a criminal from committing a crime. By definition, a criminal is one who does not obey the law. That there is an increasing number of school shootings and an increasing number of individuals shooting others for whatever reasons, means that there is an increasing number of criminals being created. People are not born criminal, they become criminal. And I say that the lack of morality, personal integrity and personal ethics have everything to do with this increase of this particular criminality. While morality and personal ethics come from within the individual himself, and that morality and personal ethics are learned things, it is when the individual compromises his personal integrity that moral and ethical decay begins. The individual will from then on seek to justify his violations of moral codes and laws, riding on a dwindling spiral downward away from rationality, honesty and self-determination. If he fails to correct himself he will be unable to thwart his criminal tendencies. And no law will be able to curb his actions.

    I have already heard this song and dance, TonyT. Repeating it over and over will not make your right, nor will it convince me you are right. I mean what do you want me to do? Repeat my song and dance over to you again as a response? For what ends? I have already said my part on this point, if you want to rehash that part of the debate go back and reread the thread. To be honest, I am more concerned about your dogmatic moral beliefs. Morals without thought lead to the darkest ends of history. I would hope you can realize that morally comes from compassion and reason and not from a rule book. Rule books have their purpose, but they are not the moral authority here, people are. That is my concern, TonyT, that you are so taken by laws and moral codes that you can't tell the difference between the good ones and the bad ones. I also find it odd for someone who can't stop yammering about the importance of rules, code and laws that you also seem to think laws are worthless and do nothing. That is a contradiction, TonyT. Are you holding true to your beliefs? Or are you just trying to win an argument?
    "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Stephen Hawking

  15. #115
    Elite Member TonyT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,317
    That is a contradiction, TonyT. Are you holding true to your beliefs? Or are you just trying to win an argument?
    I hold to my beliefs. Could care less about winning an argument. I only have kept responding because of your failure to recognize the simplicity of some key points.

    Morals are not inherent to human beings. Moral codes are created by people. Laws are created by people AS THE NEED ARISES. Forget about the past. The past is over, moral codes and laws have changed, we no longer kill Indians and Negro slaves in the USA. There are few incidents of homosexual murder compared to earlier times.

    The simple point you fail to acknowledge is that law abiding citizens don't break the law. And if they do, they become criminal if only for a few minutes or longer. If they continue to ignore the laws then they ARE criminals. If the speed limit is 55 on the highway near your house and you regularly drive 75, then you are breaking the law, you are a criminal, plain and simple. I don't know anyone who is not guilty of that crime from time to time. It does not mean you are criminal in all of your activities, just driving. It's a far cry from murder. The person who considers murder as a solution to some problem has long since lost his judgement, rationality and sanity.

    Tell me how a criminal under the age of 21 will obey a law that states that he must be 21 years old to legally purchase a gun? If you believe that he will obey such a law then you are too far removed from observation of people in this world. Go talk to a few criminals and get their viewpoint of laws.
    No one has any right to force data on you
    and command you to believe it or else.
    If it is not true for you, it isn't true.

    LRH

  16. #116
    Freedom Fighter jeremyboycool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,969
    Quote Originally Posted by TonyT View Post
    I hold to my beliefs. Could care less about winning an argument. I only have kept responding because of your failure to recognize the simplicity of some key points.

    Morals are not inherent to human beings. Moral codes are created by people. Laws are created by people AS THE NEED ARISES. Forget about the past. The past is over, moral codes and laws have changed, we no longer kill Indians and Negro slaves in the USA. There are few incidents of homosexual murder compared to earlier times.

    The simple point you fail to acknowledge is that law abiding citizens don't break the law. And if they do, they become criminal if only for a few minutes or longer. If they continue to ignore the laws then they ARE criminals. If the speed limit is 55 on the highway near your house and you regularly drive 75, then you are breaking the law, you are a criminal, plain and simple. I don't know anyone who is not guilty of that crime from time to time. It does not mean you are criminal in all of your activities, just driving. It's a far cry from murder. The person who considers murder as a solution to some problem has long since lost his judgement, rationality and sanity.

    Tell me how a criminal under the age of 21 will obey a law that states that he must be 21 years old to legally purchase a gun? If you believe that he will obey such a law then you are too far removed from observation of people in this world. Go talk to a few criminals and get their viewpoint of laws.

    I only have kept responding because of your failure to recognize the simplicity of some key points.
    Oh I get what you are saying, I just disagree with you on several of your key points. I am allowed to do that, TonyT.

    Morals are not inherent to human beings. Moral codes are created by people.
    I think you need to re-think that, as if there was not an inherent moral foundation inside humans then, and this is important TonyT, they would not be able to create them.

    The simple point you fail to acknowledge is that law abiding citizens don't break the law.
    Well duh. Obliviously a "law abiding" citizen does not break laws or else they would not be law abiding, it is always a game of semantics with you, TonyT. However, an ethical human being will break immoral laws, as to do otherwise would be immoral.

    Forget about the past.
    No, history is far too important to forget. It shows us all the wrong ways we have already done things.

    And if they do, they become criminal if only for a few minutes or longer.
    That is just framing for your black and white views. Martin Luther King, Jr. was not a criminal, what was criminal were the injustices he worked so hard to change including some criminal laws.

    If the speed limit is 55 on the highway near your house and you regularly drive 75, then you are breaking the law, you are a criminal, plain and simple.
    I don't drive at all, but I would hardly consider someone who is speeding by a bit a criminal. You can argue it semantically but you also have to consider context when it comes the English language. As criminal also implies immoral and if someone accidentally went over the speed limit by a bit, I would not paint them as immoral.

    I don't know anyone who is not guilty of that crime from time to time.
    Well, you do now.

    Tell me how a criminal under the age of 21 will obey a law that states that he must be 21 years old to legally purchase a gun? If you believe that he will obey such a law then you are too far removed from observation of people in this world.
    You think these people only come in one flavor: absolutely determined and able to get illegal arms.

    TonyT, if you are going to keep pushing the semantics then until they actually break the law they are not technically a criminal. And the only mind you can read is your own and whether a person is good or evil is defined by how they choose to act. Honestly, if thoughts were a sin we'd all burn in Hell. I think some of these kids can be saved before they pull the trigger, but we need to empower out communities and law enforcement to act before it happens. I am also not convinced that they will always be able to find illegal arms without getting caught and if they get caught trying to acquire illegal arms that gives us a greater opportunity to interact with these troubled youths before it escalates.

    Go talk to a few criminals and get their viewpoint of laws.
    How many criminals do you actually know and talk with? Oh wait, I am sorry, according to you everyone is a criminal.
    Last edited by jeremyboycool; 04-06-18 at 09:12 AM.
    "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Stephen Hawking

  17. #117
    Elite Member TonyT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,317
    Oh I get what you are saying, I just disagree with you on several of your key points. I am allowed to do that, TonyT.
    Absolutely! Hell, if we agreed on everything we'd have no one to talk to! What a bore life would be. (I'm not being sarcastic)

    I think you need to re-think that, as if there was not an inherent moral foundation inside humans then, and this is important TonyT, they would not be able to create them.
    To clarify what I mean by "morals not inherent", I mean that people are not born with morals. They are born receptive to morals, and that is the foundation which you speak of. I do believe man is basically good. I disagree with the Christian concept of Original Sin, i.e. man is born bad and must become good through Christian moral codes. Morals are learned. Not just by instruction or teaching, but by observing, then evaluating what was observed and then forming conclusions.

    it is always a game of semantics with you, TonyT.
    Trust me, I am not playing some semantics game. I try to say what I mean and use words in context in accordance with valid definitions in dictionaries. I am not super-literate nor do I have an IQ of 200. Last test my IQ was 148. (I am not one that cares much about IQs though) And honestly, I am not posting in this thread just to annoy you or play some Web game of back and forth chatter. Some of what you have stated here so far HAS changed my viewpoint. about some things. I may not have acknowledged you when it occurred as I was probably too focused on rebuttals at the time. Anyhow... thank you.

    I don't drive at all, but I would hardly consider someone who is speeding by a bit a criminal. You can argue it semantically but you also have to consider context when it comes the English language. As criminal also implies immoral and if someone accidentally went over the speed limit by a bit, I would not paint them as immoral.
    To clarify again. I'm not talking about the guy who "accidentally" goes over the speed limit, the guy stuck in the left lane on a 4 lane highway who suddenly realizes he needs to turn at the next exit and stomps on the gas going 85 to change lanes. I'm talking about the person who most always will ignore the speed limit when possible. If you drove you might have seen such folks more often, there are a lot of 'em here in the DC Metro area. Sure, speeding is a low order of crime, but a crime none the less. The point I was trying to assert is that speed limit laws don't exist for the guy that speeds, they exist mainly for revenue from fines in some areas and for safety reasons in other areas.

    TonyT, if you are going to keep pushing the semantics then until they actually break the law they are not technically a criminal. And the only mind you can read is your own and whether a person is good or evil is defined by how they choose to act. Honestly, if thoughts were a sin we'd all burn in Hell. I think some of these kids can be saved before they pull the trigger, but we need to empower out communities and law enforcement to act before it happens. I am also not convinced that they will always be able to find illegal arms without getting caught and if they get caught trying to acquire illegal arms that gives us a greater opportunity to interact with these troubled youths before it escalates.
    Well there is a crime called Conspiracy. It occurs prior to the act itself.
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/conspiracy
    Unfortunately, mass shootings have mostly been committed by individuals, so a legal charge of conspiracy cannot be drawn. For the single individual, there are the conditions of premeditated and deliberate. While a person cannot be arrested for premeditating or deliberating the commission of a crime, there are lower charges that can be brought against the person IF there's enough time to do so before the person commits the overt act. Many of these mass shooters in the last 20 years gave plenty of warning signs, such as posting their intent on social media; telling others what they were considering to do; displaying emotion like anger, hostility; telling friends about the gun(s) he has, conducting himself irresponsibly in personal and social endeavors. etc.

    I DO agree with these points you stated: some of these kids could be saved and we need to empower law enforcement to better prevent such crimes. I lean to empowering law enforcement to mean: more resources to investigate, more manpower, more training, better screening, streamlined coordination between agencies, to name a few. I do not wish for teachers to be armed nor do I want our schools to be policed by armed security task forces.

    I guess some could be prevented by raising the age limit, i.e. those kids that have not yet fully crossed the line into "cukoodom" and are still capable of changing their minds. But I also believe that the die hard kid motivated by his inner demons will still commit a violent crime, albeit with a knife, sword, bow and arrow, slingshot, fireworks, automobile, poison or whatever he can get his hands on. Since these mass shootings have all been done by pretty insane people I don't think the age 21 limit is warranted.

    How many criminals do you actually know and talk with? Oh wait, I am sorry, according to you everyone is a criminal.
    Not cool to be so hostile! I've known my fair share of criminals. I'm almost 62 years old and have lived a life on both sides of the tracks. I knew members of Pagans motorcycle club that have murdered. I knew thieves, drug dealers, extortionists, pimps, hookers, dishonest folk and more. They all have things in common: stupidity, a disregard for the law and a sackful of justifications (reason why breaking the law is OK) ready to be used when questioned about their actions. I also know policemen who say the similar thing: we can't stop crime, all we can do is slow it down a bit, we don't have enough resources, too much political red tape. I also knew cops who took illegal drugs when I was a part of that culture in the 70s. I haven't used illegal drugs in 35 years. I know many many more people who are not criminals. (criminals are a minority) My friends are honest people who follow the golden rule and a few other simple, moral non-religious precepts. I consider that I know a decent amount about criminality and more about ethical behavior, and a whole lot more about being ethical myself.
    Last edited by TonyT; 04-07-18 at 03:44 PM.
    No one has any right to force data on you
    and command you to believe it or else.
    If it is not true for you, it isn't true.

    LRH

Similar Threads

  1. limit connection speed "how to limit for lan?"
    By egt520 in forum Networking Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-20-06, 03:07 AM
  2. Take away their guns...
    By waferdog in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 05-27-05, 01:43 PM
  3. Guns...Something to Think About!!!
    By minir in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 09-13-03, 10:11 PM
  4. Guns in the ****pit?
    By Joe in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 09-25-01, 05:09 AM
  5. BIG GUNS
    By Chris in forum Distributed Computing
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-10-01, 11:37 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •