Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
66 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: That Whole "Innocent-Until-Proven-Guilty" Thing was Overrated Anyway rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
James Cowling
Canada
Salmon Arm
BC
flag msg tools
badge
I think I'm in the headspace to convert some of my library into food and gas.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I thought that punishment before conviction was an American ideal? Between extraordinary rendition, Gitmo, Sheriff Joe, etc. etc., it's a wonder that all of you aren't eating green baloney sandwiches in your pink underwear between chain gang stints.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
So, if you've been arrested and proven innocent of a drug crime


Since I agree with everything you've said of substance I naturally have to nitpick this. People are found not guilty of crimes, which can range anywhere from, "He probably did it but there was reasonable doubt" to "The evidence showed that he was in another country and they found the guy who did it" but "innocent" isn't a verdict in our system.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
Chad_Ellis wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
So, if you've been arrested and proved innocent found not guilty of a drug crime


Since I agree with everything you've said of substance I naturally have to nitpick this. People are found not guilty of crimes, which can range anywhere from, "He probably did it but there was reasonable doubt" to "The evidence showed that he was in another country and they found the guy who did it" but "innocent" isn't a verdict in our system.


I don't know what you're talking about. The OP looks good to me. whistle


My bad...I must have imagined it.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Potter
United States
Riverside
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
The problem is not the 'innocent until proven guilty' clause, it's the ridiculously overbroad and outdated reading of the Second Amendment.

How many so-called "responsible" gun owners are actually members of "a well regulated militia," anyway?
When we leave the dark ages, and our laws catch up to the actual universe, the one in which legally owned firearms are more likely to be turned on their owners than on criminals, then I'll be happy.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
potterama wrote:
The problem is not the 'innocent until proven guilty' clause, it's the ridiculously overbroad and outdated reading of the Second Amendment.


A discussion of what rights we actually have is one thing -- but at the moment the Supreme Court's ruling is that the right to bear arms is individual. Given that, an effort to restrict it based on merely being arrested seems clearly unconstitutional.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Chad_Ellis wrote:
potterama wrote:
The problem is not the 'innocent until proven guilty' clause, it's the ridiculously overbroad and outdated reading of the Second Amendment.


A discussion of what rights we actually have is one thing -- but at the moment the Supreme Court's ruling is that the right to bear arms is individual. Given that, an effort to restrict it based on merely being arrested seems clearly unconstitutional.


Chad and BJ and I find ourselves in apparently unqualified agreement. Is it leap year?

8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Potter
United States
Riverside
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
So you produce a single anecdote to suggest that we ignore these statistics?

In homes containing a firearm, homicides are 3 times likelier to occur.
Homes with firearms demonstrate a 5 times higher rate of suicide. Higher for children and young adults.
There are approximately 108,000 "defensive" uses of guns in America each year. There are 1,300,000 crimes committed with guns.
A homeowner's gun is 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend, or acquaintance, than to kill someone in self-defense.

Yes, on rare occasions, a responsible gun owner will thwart a crime. On rare occasions, having a gun on an airplane might stop a terrorist too. We still don't allow guns on airplanes.



I accept your surrender.

Sources:
http://www.jhsph.edu/bin/g/k/guns_in_home.pdf
New Engl J Med 1986. 314: 1557-60
http://www.danielmauser.com/cliches.html

{edit: typo extra zero in statistic. Mea culpa}
5 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Potter
United States
Riverside
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
Chad_Ellis wrote:
A discussion of what rights we actually have is one thing -- but at the moment the Supreme Court's ruling is that the right to bear arms is individual. Given that, an effort to restrict it based on merely being arrested seems clearly unconstitutional.


Then the constitution should be changed. I agree with Thomas Jefferson: scrap it every twenty years and start afresh.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
Overcome with sarcasm. But you don't need to read it.
Oh good.
For a while there this thread was staying on the all too political topic of "innocent till proven guilty".

But now we can have a much needed thread on the too long neglected and little discussed topic of the right to bear arms in the USA.

I think firearm education should be mandatory in kindergartens.
[Youtube video of firearms education cop accidently shooting himself while giving a class]

You just have to look at countries like Iraq and Pakistan were citizens are not allowed to own guns to see that guns are a very necessary defence against government tyrany.

Also a lot of people go outside to use their guns. This is bad. They should be at home playing with their wii and ka-kah.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
potterama wrote:
So you produce a single anecdote to suggest that we ignore these statistics?

In homes containing a firearm, homicides are 3 times likelier to occur.
Homes with firearms demonstrate a 5 times higher rate of suicide. Higher for children and young adults.
There are approximately 108,000 "defensive" uses of guns in America each year. There are 1,3000,000 crimes committed with guns.
A homeowner's gun is 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend, or acquaintance, than to kill someone in self-defense.

Yes, on rare occasions, a responsible gun owner will thwart a crime. On rare occasions, having a gun on an airplane might stop a terrorist too. We still don't allow guns on airplanes.



I accept your surrender.

Sources:
http://www.jhsph.edu/bin/g/k/guns_in_home.pdf
New Engl J Med 1986. 314: 1557-60
http://www.danielmauser.com/cliches.html


Ah statistics.

If we would only allow the police to install and maintain cameras in every home, office and public places and to make warrantless searches of homes, cars and carried containers, we could reduce crime substantially. Are you willing to give up your 4th Amendment rights against search and seizure?

If only we could outlaw speech which is insulting, lewd, aggressive, or hateful, we could avoid many of the confrontational situations that lead to violent outcomes. In addition, if we routinely prevented gatherings in which unpleasant topics were advanced such like the KKK or militia groups or religious extremists, (or even post sporting event crowds) we could reduce group or mob violence. Would you surrender your 1st amendment rights of free speech and assembly?

Hey, if we could only allow the police to question suspects without interfereing lawyers or to hold people for longer periods of time, we would get more convictions quickly speeding up the certainty of punishment and thus reducing crime. How about that?

Also, if we gave police carte blanche to pick up and incarcerate homeless and mentally ill people (many of whom are drug users) we could reduce street crime. Wow, there is a lot we can do to reduce the negative interactions of people if these pesky civil rights are suspended.

Oh! Maybe you focused on gun ownership because that isn't a right that you "like".Maybe you don't actually know of people you cared about who did defend themselves. Maybe the statistics don't account for all of the successful defenses because they aren't always reported.

If you want surrender you'll need to be a tad more persuasive before convincing people to give up their only practical means of self defense.
18 
 Thumb up
2.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
How many homes are not broken into because the owner is known or suspected to own a gun?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Potter
United States
Riverside
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
Rulesj wrote:
Are you willing to give up your 4th Amendment rights against search and seizure?


But I actually get a benefit out of my privacy, and can prove that if removed there would be demonstrable harm. Neither argument is true of handguns.

Quote:

Would you surrender your 1st amendment rights of free speech and assembly?


I have already happily done so, as have you. We make common sense exceptions to both these constitutional provisions all the time, from 'fighting words' doctrine through anti-gang-affiliation laws. We should make similar common sense re-evaluation of the 2nd amendment.

Quote:
Hey, if we could only allow the police to question suspects without interfereing lawyers or to hold people for longer periods of time, we would get more convictions quickly speeding up the certainty of punishment and thus reducing crime. How about that?


Again, do some basic cost/benefit analysis. Statistics demonstrate that the very people so eager to possess handguns are those most likely to be destroyed by them. That is not true in the case of right to counsel.

Quote:

Also, if we gave police carte blanche to pick up and incarcerate homeless and mentally ill people (many of whom are drug users) we could reduce street crime. Wow, there is a lot we can do to reduce the negative interactions of people if these pesky civil rights are suspended.


And again, simple cost/benefit analysis undoes this one. While there is a correlative relationship between street people and crime statistics, it is not causal. That between guns and gun violence is causal.

Really, how many false analogies can you cram into one post? No wonder the gun lobby keeps losing ground.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Potter
United States
Riverside
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
bjlillo wrote:

I get a lot of enjoyment out of my handgun and there would be demonstrable harm if someone were to try to take it away from me.


So....all you've got is threats?
And that's supposed to convince us that private gun ownership is a good thing?

Again, the gun lobby are their own worst enemies.

bjlillo wrote:
So Aaron, we know now what you think of guns. What do you think of the topic of this thread? Do you find Schumer's proposal acceptable?


Schumer is getting guns out of the hands of people who are demonstrably at risk of making decisions under the influence of drugs. Since I'm interested in removing guns from the hands of people whether they're drugged up or not, why would I object?

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Antigonus Monophthalmus
United States
Maryland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
potterama wrote:
Schumer is getting guns out of the hands of people who are demonstrably at risk of making decisions under the influence of drugs. Since I'm interested in removing guns from the hands of people whether they're drugged up or not, why would I object?


This is almost a model of dangerous thinking that erodes right. "He may be going too far, but I agree with the direction he's going. Therefore, I will forgive the excess."

Or do you think it is okay to remove rights from people suspected of a crime, even if found not guilty? (which is also troubling)
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
potterama wrote:
Rulesj wrote:
Are you willing to give up your 4th Amendment rights against search and seizure?


But I actually get a benefit out of my privacy, and can prove that if removed there would be demonstrable harm. Neither argument is true of handguns.

Quote:

Would you surrender your 1st amendment rights of free speech and assembly?


I have already happily done so, as have you. We make common sense exceptions to both these constitutional provisions all the time, from 'fighting words' doctrine through anti-gang-affiliation laws. We should make similar common sense re-evaluation of the 2nd amendment.

Quote:
Hey, if we could only allow the police to question suspects without interfereing lawyers or to hold people for longer periods of time, we would get more convictions quickly speeding up the certainty of punishment and thus reducing crime. How about that?


Again, do some basic cost/benefit analysis. Statistics demonstrate that the very people so eager to possess handguns are those most likely to be destroyed by them. That is not true in the case of right to counsel.

Quote:

Also, if we gave police carte blanche to pick up and incarcerate homeless and mentally ill people (many of whom are drug users) we could reduce street crime. Wow, there is a lot we can do to reduce the negative interactions of people if these pesky civil rights are suspended.


And again, simple cost/benefit analysis undoes this one. While there is a correlative relationship between street people and crime statistics, it is not causal. That between guns and gun violence is causal.

Really, how many false analogies can you cram into one post? No wonder the gun lobby keeps losing ground.



False analogies? Do you declare it so? It must therefore be. I guess that the 2nd amendment somehow isn't a right while the 1st and 4th are rights which explains why they aren't analogous.

What "proof" do you have that you benefit from your right to privacy and would be harmed by it's removal. Have you lived without 4th amendment protections? You might be more secure at the expense of your privacy. I benefit by my ability to repel an intruder. This is both a psychic and security benefit to me.

You have given up your rights of free speech and assembly? Really? I'm not talking about a few narrowly circumscribed limits. I am talking about submitting to wholesale censorship. After all that is what would be truly analogous to eliminating gun rights in toto. Isn't it?

What "causal" relationship is there between guns and crime? You mean to say the the mere presence of a gun causes a crime? If guns were to magically vanish so would all violent crime? People would no longer form the requisite mens rea to commit crimes? Perhaps the existence of cars incites people to vehicular homicide? Knives encourage mayhem?

And what do you mean there is no causal nexus between street populations and crime. You think that people with addictions who live on the street aren't driven to criminal acts to survive and feed their habits? You think homelessness and mental illness are merely coincident?

There are plenty of countries out there where gun ownership and violence are less closely intertwined than here in the US. Better to ask why there are so many people wanting to commit suicide by gun or any other method. Better to ask why the "war on drugs" continues without significant policy changes despite demonstrable lack of success and ongoing crime driven violence. Better to ask why our society is so frayed with evergrowing poverty and gang affiliation consuming city youth with no readily apparent choices.

But all of this aside, we are each unique and have the ulitmate right to defend ourselves and our families from aggressors. Depriving people of the right to meaningful self defense runs counter to the principles on which the republic was founded. People can and do deter crime and defend themselves in numbers far beyond what the "statistics" claim in your cites. I'll resist you with as much vigor on this issue as I would if you were promoting censorship or unwarranted searches. There are no "lesser" rights.
11 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Potter
United States
Riverside
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
Rulesjd wrote:

False analogies? Do you declare it so? It must therefore be.


No, it must therefore be because of the arguments I proffered.
Quote:
I guess that the 2nd amendment somehow isn't a right while the 1st and 4th are rights which explains why they aren't analogous.


No, they are not analogous because speech and assembly and privacy do not immediately, violently threaten other members of society in nearly the same way in which gun ownership does.

Quote:

What "proof" do you have that you benefit from your right to privacy and would be harmed by it's removal.


Burden of proof is on the other side. I can - and have, in this thread - demonstrate the verifiable harm of unrestricted gun ownership.

Quote:
You might be more secure at the expense of your privacy. I benefit by my ability to repel an intruder. This is both a psychic and security benefit to me.

And I'm sure you'd feel better with a rocket launcher as a security blankie, but we don't let you have that either, and for the same reason. As the statistics provided above prove, you're more harm to society armed than not, and more likely to shoot yourself or a family member than to defend yourself against a home invasion.

Quote:
You have given up your rights of free speech and assembly? Really? I'm not talking about a few narrowly circumscribed limits. I am talking about submitting to wholesale censorship.


Again, false analogy. Guns are demonstrably harmful, in toto. Speech is not.

Quote:

What "causal" relationship is there between guns and crime? You mean to say the the mere presence of a gun causes a crime?


Again, I urge you to examine the statistics above, and to investigate the reasons so many law enforcement officials are the ones desperately pushing for gun control legislation.

Quote:
If guns were to magically vanish so would all violent crime?


Straw man fallacy. No, it would not all magically disappear, nor did I say it would. I have proven that violent crime would go down, as it has in all countries where such legislation is in place.

Quote:
Perhaps the existence of cars incites people to vehicular homicide? Knives encourage mayhem?

You can do *other, useful things* with knives and cars. That is not true of handguns.

Quote:

But all of this aside, we are each unique and have the ulitmate right to defend ourselves and our families from aggressors.


No. You do not have that right when the presence of that right means all of us must live in a society in which guns are easy and legal to obtain. That is why we already have limits on who can gain ownership, and will institute more.

Quote:
Depriving people of the right to meaningful self defense runs counter to the principles on which the republic was founded.


Ab traditio fallacy. This republic was also founded on the principles of slave labor and gender inequality. Times change.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
フィル
Australia
Ashfield
NSW
flag msg tools
designer
badge
I am the wasp / that burrows in! I am the shriek / of twilight din!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree with Aaron about the gun control being great, but I'm not keen on punishing those who haven't been found guilty.

If this law were taking away some other right from the not guilty (let's say the right to free assembly), hopefully we would agree it's going too far.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Morris
United States
Raytown
Missouri
flag msg tools
2nd, 6th and 7th Wisconsin, 19th Indiana, 24th Michigan
badge
24th Michigan Monument Gettysburg Pa
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
qzhdad wrote:
How many homes are not broken into because the owner is known or suspected to own a gun?


There was actually this month an incident where a burglar was in a house he was robbing when the home owner came home. The man hid in the bathtub and called the police to come and rescue him because he thought the home owner owned a gun.

The problem is on this type of subject is both sides have good points. You own a gun and chances are better that it will be used to kill a member of your family than an intruder. On the other hand some people drive drunk and kill people. Should we require breathalyzer car ignitions in every car? Yeah that would save lives but of course we don't do that.

The truth is guns aren't going away. The question is how do we decide who gets them and who doesn't. As it stands now any adult with a clean record can buy a gun after a waiting period. Just because they can however doesn't mean they should. It's easy to use a gun. You point and pull the trigger. But that's also like saying it's easy to use a car. You press the gas to go and turn the wheel to turn. We of course know that there is a lot more to driving a car than that so we require people to learn how to drive and be tested before getting that license. We don't however do the same for guns which is something we should.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Eig
United States
Huntington
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
The mistake here is in assuming this bill is intended to be a law, when its in fact its just a prop for a soundbite in a future political commercial that will include something about how "Republicans want to protect the rights of drug abusers to use guns".

So while its a terrible bill, its a wonderful campaign prop. And isn't that whats Congress is there for? To produce cheap fodder for our endless political campaigns?
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Potter
United States
Riverside
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
DarthXaos wrote:
A very simple argument against gun control is when they come to load you on a train to a camp, you'll be glad you own a gun.


And again with the hyperbole and explicit threats of violence. Thank you, gun lobby, you make our job easier.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
potterama wrote:
Rulesjd wrote:

False analogies? Do you declare it so? It must therefore be.


No, it must therefore be because of the arguments I proffered.


Your arguments, "proofs" and "statistics" are obviously compelling to you. I find them to be non compelling. Your inability to consider the potential validity of the views of another render further pursuit of this thread futile.

Enjoy your intransigence.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Potter
United States
Riverside
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
Rulesjd wrote:

Your arguments, "proofs" and "statistics" are obviously compelling to you. I find them to be non compelling.


So you don't find statistics, nor arguments, compelling. Threats you do?

Quote:
Your inability to consider the potential validity of the views of another render further pursuit of this thread futile.

Enjoy your intransigence.


I accept your surrender.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Wheeler
United States
Mobridge
South Dakota
flag msg tools
No peeking!
badge
The item is not here.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
potterama wrote:
There are 1,3000,000 crimes committed with guns.


Wow! One point three thousand million crimes? That's a lot right? I've read that statistic, like, ten five hundred and one thousand times (10500,1000) and I think it must be a lot.

devil
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Dunne
United States
Austin
TX
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
potterama wrote:
So you produce a single anecdote to suggest that we ignore these statistics?

In homes containing a firearm, homicides are 3 times likelier to occur.
Homes with firearms demonstrate a 5 times higher rate of suicide. Higher for children and young adults.
There are approximately 108,000 "defensive" uses of guns in America each year. There are 1,300,000 crimes committed with guns.
A homeowner's gun is 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend, or acquaintance, than to kill someone in self-defense.

Yes, on rare occasions, a responsible gun owner will thwart a crime. On rare occasions, having a gun on an airplane might stop a terrorist too. We still don't allow guns on airplanes.



I accept your surrender.

Sources:
http://www.jhsph.edu/bin/g/k/guns_in_home.pdf
New Engl J Med 1986. 314: 1557-60
http://www.danielmauser.com/cliches.html

{edit: typo extra zero in statistic. Mea culpa}


And these statistics are bunk.

I could probably come up with a statistic stating that homes that own cars are a bajillion times more likely to buy gas or get in a car wreck.

I think if I apply these numbers to myself and my family we are 150% percent sure of a homicide, 250% more likely to have a suicide, and there is a 2150% chance that one of my family members is going to be killed by a gun we own.

Bummer.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Potter
United States
Riverside
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
Echo2112 wrote:


And these statistics are bunk.


Feel free to provide counter sources, or to elucidate why you don't like the data. Simply running up, sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "is not, is not, is NOT!" doesn't accomplish much.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.