Comment Re:lol Weinersmith (Score 1) 90
Where does one apprentice to become a master Weinersmith?
Where does one apprentice to become a master Weinersmith?
My guess is that you have causation confused on this one. Presumably if those people were that depressed and they hadn't had a firearm, they still would have committed suicide using some other means.
As I noted elsewhere, we don't actually know if this is true or not, but there is one data point: the overall suicide rate in Australia went down immediately after the gun buyback.
One data point does not a trend make, and even if it was a causal relationship, this doesn't imply that the same would be true in the US. Australia has a real public health system, remember. So yes, we're both presuming. More data is needed.
Author has apparently never heard of Strunk & White.
If only we had the technology to be able to search the available research for specific items of interest, so we wouldn't have to rely upon poorly-written study titles and could narrow down the available research to the items that apply to our own narrow subject of interest.
Ironically, I used to do research in this very area. It's a little easier in the biomedical field because most papers are tagged in ontologies like MeSH and ICD, but if you're trying to find the latest research on algorithms to solve a problem that you have, you're pretty much screwed.
Nice putting words in my mouth!
In case it wasn't clear, let me rephrase: It's an axiom of modern policing that the best time to stop a crime is before it happens, and the best way to do that is to prevent someone from ever becoming a criminal in the first place.
Violent psychopaths are not the norm. The majority of people become criminals (and I'm referring to actual crime here, not non-violent drug offences or all the other crap that the US seems to think is worth locking people up for) because of poverty, because they grew up in a highly dysfunctional family, because they get in with the wrong crowd, and any number of other things.
Your fault? No. Society's fault? Not exactly, but it's nonetheless true that if society gave a crap, most people who are at risk for becoming criminals could be diverted away from that early, before anyone is hurt, and at a fraction of the cost.
But it won't happen, because making a crime never happen doesn't make headlines and doesn't justify budgets.
ISIS recruits idiots who grew up with Call of Duty and modern zombie movies (rather than say, Doom and Counterstrike 1.x).
I think that is the scariest "get the hell off my lawn" I've ever seen.
The US is in a war against the freedom and basic rights of its citizens.
If you're saying that the US, as it is now, can't be trusted with the power of capital punishment, then I think this is something that everyone can agree on.
This is very much a digression, but I've never found the argument "we should execute people because our prison system sucks" convincing. This can be found in various forms, such "prisons don't rehabilitate people" or "they could escape and kill someone else", but it's essentially the same argument.
John Wayne Gasey or Ed Gein
You do realise that these are the exception and not the rule, right? There's an argument to be made in the case of these psychopathic serial killers, but they are remarkable precisely because they are rare.
Yeah, because Rudolf Hess was totally set free in 1971.
Just to be clear, the choice isn't between execution and parole. The choice is between execution and life without possibility of parole. Restitution is possible in the latter case, should it turn out that someone was wrongly convicted.
Those who voted it "Flamebait" should consider that there's a rather good sub-discussion to be had here over McVeigh. Those who say he "deserved" it should not forget that he wanted it.
"I knew I wanted this before it happened. I knew my objective was state-assisted suicide and when it happens, it's in your face. You just did something you're trying to say should be illegal for medical personnel."
Moreover, in McVeigh's mind, he was exacting retribution against the US Government for murdering 76 innocent citizens in cold blood two years earlier. Comparisons between that and "retribution"-type arguments for capital punishment are entirely appropriate.
I don't think there's a need to feel remorse for ridding society of someone about whom otherwise never give another thought, [...]/
Given that not giving people "another thought" is one of the reasons why people become murderers in the first place, I would think that remorse is entirely appropriate.
Violent psychopaths are far more rare than people seem to think. Besides, affluent and educated psychopaths become CEOs and are lauded by society.
The reason, not excuse, to execute someone is simple, they've executed someone else themselves.
Imagine if we applied the same reasoning to rapists. Except, of course, that we kind of do, we're just not honest about it.
Anyone who deserves execution does not deserve a quick, painless termination, they deserve to suffer as much as possible. The only way to make it better is to make them suffer like their victims, and their victims are NOT JUST THE PEOPLE THEY KILLED, but also all the people left behind.
I'm sorry that you're so simple-minded that you seriously think that this makes anything "better".
This is revenge, not justice. The whole reason why we give the government a monopoly on dealing with criminals is precisely to take the revenge aspect out of the equation; remember, the point was to replace blood feuds.
FORTRAN is not a flower but a weed -- it is hardy, occasionally blooms, and grows in every computer. -- A.J. Perlis
