Would you join Section 31 (if you were offered a position)?

[T'Girl]

Which is absolute bullshit, as the United States imprisons a larger percentage of its population than any other developed liberal democracy in the world. The U.S. is far less lenient than those countries that have stricter gun control laws and less violent crime

To be fair, the US doesn't imprisons a larger percentage of its population, the US imprisons a larger percentage of its criminals.

Also the sentences served tend to be longer than in European countries so the convicts tend to "pile up" behind bars. Half of murder/manslaughter convictions get 25 years to life. 90 percent convictions for robbery, burglary and drug offenses receive 10 years or more. In the case of drug offenses, there are drug laws in America that simply don't exist in many European nations.

 

[neozeks]

Also, again, we say, "Innocent Until Proven Guilty". England says "Guilty Until Proven Innocent". Thus, there is a greater fear of punishment in countries such as England--a fear which is not as extensive in the US.

What on Earth...? I don't live in the UK, but this is the first I've heard of this. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights all explicitly guarantee the presumption of innocence, and all are binding on the UK. Even if for some weird reason this is actually not the case in the UK (Brits and their silly traditions...), Europe is much larger than just the UK.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Q: So...why is there less gun crime in Europe?
A: Because there are less people in Europe.

the United States imprisons a larger percentage of its population than any other developed liberal democracy in the world.

Of course we do. There are more people, and more crimes which are therefore commited.

You don't seem to understand the population of the US (310 million) is less than half the population of Europe (730 million). Also, you don't seem to understand percentages.

Also, with our having an Innocent Until Proven Guilty policy, and England in particular having a Guilty Until Proven Innocent policy...I could see your point, in that case.

Also, again, we say, "Innocent Until Proven Guilty". England says "Guilty Until Proven Innocent". Thus, there is a greater fear of punishment in countries such as England--a fear which is not as extensive in the US.

That's completely CRAZY. There is no such thing in the UK legal system, nor in any of the other European countries. I don't know where did you get this, but such ignorance is fucking incredible.

And it's not even the first time I've heard such things. Sometimes I really question some people's connection to reality. I have to say, Rush, your entire knowledge and worldview seems to be composed by tv series, right-wing radio shows, and adolescent fantasies.

 

[stj]

The assertion that gun control does not work fails, because individual cities cannot enforce gun control. It's like expecting a fence around three sides of the garden will keep the deer out.

Not only is the assertion that gun control doesn't work unjustified, since European countries with gun control and lower violent crime rates provide a prima facie case. The claim that private weapons defend against violent crime is refuted prima facie by the higher violent crime rates in the US.

Confessions to supposed crimes extorted by torture, which includes waterboarding, are worthless as evidence. As mentioned up thread, confessions extracted by torture "proved" the existence of a vast Satanic conspiracy of witches, complete with elaborate details of structure and ritual. You cannot prove that torture works to prevent a terrorist incident by the use of a confession extracted by torture. This requires other evidence.

Most so-called terrorist cases that are supposedly nipped in the bud are dubious in the extreme, with very little real evidence. They almost all rely on provacateur testimony and confessions compelled by duress. The use of such cases to whip up fear and anger, and justify government policy is blatant. It is much the wisest course to doubt whether there was any real plot at all, absent objective evidence. It is much easier to frame some idiots, particularly those excited by provocateurs, than to do real intelligence work. In many of these cases the prosecution cannot even detail a physical act by the so-called plotters!

 

[Admiral Shran]

Gun control does not work

It would probably be more accurate to say that gun control works in some cultures and not in others. I doubt it would work in American culture, but it seems to work well in, for instance, Japanese or European cultures.

That's unconvincing. Switzerland, for example, is an advanced liberal democracy, yet has widespread gun ownership and one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

You want to stop gun crime? Let the good guys have guns to defend themselves. All prohibition does is create black markets, which means violent dispute resolution, corruption of judges and police, and the hamstringing of law abiding citizens.

 

[anabolina]

IDK about whether gun control truly prevents anything, but I will never vote for someone that advocates stronger gun control. I may not own a gun right now, but I'd like the option to buy one in the future, hmm maybe this is inspiration for taking the concealed handgun class I keep reminding myself to take, lol

Back to joining section 31. I probably would, but only as an administrator since I'm a klutzy coward, lol. I've always heartily approved of what actions we learned about and never completely forgave Bashir for killing Sloan. Such drama. It would have been so much better if Sloan had been able to hold out until the end and Bashir had killed him for nothing and proven himself to be as bad as the people he decried. Hmmm, maybe I'm not very forgiving since I never forgave Odo for his betrayal at the end of the station's occupation in Season 6 either.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Gun control does not work

It would probably be more accurate to say that gun control works in some cultures and not in others. I doubt it would work in American culture, but it seems to work well in, for instance, Japanese or European cultures.

That's unconvincing. Switzerland, for example, is an advanced liberal democracy, yet has widespread gun ownership and one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

How is having examples from countries with very different approaches (gun-control in UK and Japan vs. no gun-control in the US and Switzerland) unconvincing that sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't?

You want to stop gun crime? Let the good guys have guns to defend themselves. All prohibition does is create black markets, which means violent dispute resolution, corruption of judges and police, and the hamstringing of law abiding citizens.

That's your opinion, and as far as I have seen, the opinion of most Americans. We in Europe somewhat disagree. That's ok. To each their own.

 

[Sci]

Gun control does not work

It would probably be more accurate to say that gun control works in some cultures and not in others. I doubt it would work in American culture, but it seems to work well in, for instance, Japanese or European cultures.

That's unconvincing. Switzerland, for example, is an advanced liberal democracy, yet has widespread gun ownership and one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

Like I said: Different cultures are different. Gun control will work differently in different cultures due to differing values and differing general attitudes.

You want to stop gun crime? Let the good guys have guns to defend themselves.

If that were automatically true, gun crime would be much lower in the United States (which, after all, has a much higher percentage of gun ownership than most European countries).

Like I said: Different cultures are different. There's no universal rule about how gun ownership rights will affect crime rates across all cultures.

 

[Admiral Shran]

^ It just seems to me that every place here in the U.S. that has tried gun control has had a massive increase, not decrease, in crime, especially gun-related crime.

Take Chicago and Washington D.C., for instance, until the Supreme Court said thier laws were unconstitutional, they had some of the strictest gun control policies on the books. Yet both cities have extraordinarily high crime rates.

Places like Arizona or Ohio, on the other hand, have minimal gun control policies and have much lower rates of crime.

It seems obvious to me that gun control doesn't work.

 

[iguana_tonante]

^ What part of "in America" is confusing to you?

 

[Sci]

^ It just seems to me that every place here in the U.S. that has tried gun control has had a massive increase, not decrease, in crime, especially gun-related crime.

Take Chicago and Washington D.C., for instance, until the Supreme Court said thier laws were unconstitutional, they had some of the strictest gun control policies on the books. Yet both cities have extraordinarily high crime rates.

Places like Arizona or Ohio, on the other hand, have minimal gun control policies and have much lower rates of crime.

It seems obvious to me that gun control doesn't work.

And if you read earlier in the thread, you'll note that I specifically said that I don't think gun control would work in American culture even if it works in most European cultures.

I think it's a matter of general attitude, myself. Michael Moore made a very compelling argument in his film Bowling for Columbine: He said that it's not gun ownership that's causing all the violent gun crime (he cited Canada as a country with similar per-capita rates of gun ownership but much lower rates of crime). Rather, the problem is that the United States as a culture of fear and alienation and, often, of racism and classism. These narratives create a society far more violence-prone than societies whose media aren't constantly sending messages about how important it is to be scared of your fellow citizens.

 

[scotpens]

. . . Since our lives are dominated by interstate commerce, including commerce in guns, national legislation on interstate commerce must address such issues if there is to be effective democratic control. For historical reasons, the interstate commerce clause in the US constitution is overly narrowly interpreted, on false (ideologically motivated) grounds..

On the contrary, the original purpose of the Commerce Clause was to eliminate trade barriers among the states. The definition of “interstate commerce” has been over-BROADLY interpreted by the courts to give Congress regulatory power over virtually everything -- power the Federal government was never meant to have under the Constitution.

. . . Of course, waterboarding is far different than what most would call “torture”. The effect is more psycological, not physical.

Bullshit. Waterboarding is both very dangerous, and has been classified as an act of torture for centuries. The Spanish Inquisition did it.

But to those guys, it was just a warm-up.

In the case of drug offenses, there are drug laws in America that simply don't exist in many European nations.

That's a good point. A lot of our incarcerated population is serving time for non-violent drug offenses. There would be far fewer Americans behind bars if we did the sensible thing and decriminalized drugs.

 

[Sci]

Bullshit. Waterboarding is both very dangerous, and has been classified as an act of torture for centuries. The Spanish Inquisition did it.

But to those guys, it was just a warm-up.

So what? The fact that the followed one form of torture with another, more extreme form of torture does not mean that waterboarding is not torture.

 

[T'Girl]

A lot of our incarcerated population is serving time for non-violent drug offenses. There would be far fewer Americans behind bars if we did the sensible thing and decriminalized drugs.

Are you recommending that all non-violent crimes in general be decriminalized? Many forms of thief are non-violent. The argument could be made that if those involved with drug activity were to simply and sensible refrain from such, that there would be fewer Americans behind bars as well.

 

[Sci]

A lot of our incarcerated population is serving time for non-violent drug offenses. There would be far fewer Americans behind bars if we did the sensible thing and decriminalized drugs.

Are you recommending that all non-violent crimes in general be decriminalized? Many forms of thief are non-violent. The argument could be made that if those involved with drug activity were to simply and sensible refrain from such, that there would be fewer Americans behind bars as well.

I can't speak for scotpens, but most people who advocate judicial reform in the U.S. tend to be thinking of things like marijuana growth, trafficking, and possession when they use the phrase "non-violent crime." I for one would certainly like to see marijuana legalized throughout the country.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and any organization not kept accountable to anyone else will inevitably become totally corrupt. People within Starfleet decided to use the "don't throw the book at them every time an officer tries to fix a crisis and breaks one or two rules in the process" rule and decided to use it to justify creating a criminal conspiracy to put themselves above the law. It's legal bullshit, and it's nothing more than a bunch of conspirators trying to use patriotism and vaguely-worded military laws to justify criminal behavior.

This.

The way I see it is, there are certain organizations and behaviors which MUST ALWAYS be corrupt - by their very definitions. It is literally impossible that they can be good - their very existence means they will always, without fail, be evil. Section 31 is one of these, for obvious reasons.

Another is (and I admit I won't have as many takers on this one) lobbyists. IMHO, all lobbying is by nature corrupt - lobbyists tell politicians how to act (and give them money and other gifts), and politicians give kickbacks and favors back to the lobbyists. The very definition, let alone the practice, is by its very nature unavoidably corrupt.

So it is with Section 31. The only way to make lobbying not be corrupt is to make it free (i.e. ban all gifts by lobbyists to politicians); the only way to make Section 31 legit is to give it accountability, but then again, you can use Starfleet Intelligence for that.

 

[scotpens]

A lot of our incarcerated population is serving time for non-violent drug offenses. There would be far fewer Americans behind bars if we did the sensible thing and decriminalized drugs.

Are you recommending that all non-violent crimes in general be decriminalized?

Certainly not. Please don't put words in my mouth. I would argue that all victimless crimes be eliminated, and that all voluntary transactions involving consenting adults be made legal: drugs, gambling, prostitution, and so on.

The argument could be made that if those involved with drug activity were to simply and sensible refrain from such, that there would be fewer Americans behind bars as well.

Except that there's nothing “sensible” about our drug policy. Alcohol and tobacco cause far more harm to the individuals who use them and to society in general than marijuana does, yet both are legal. Alcohol prohibition didn't work; it only drove liquor sales underground and provided a rich opportunity for organized crime.

So-called vice will always be with us. The best way to deal with it is legalize it, tax it and regulate it.

 

[T'Girl]

Please don't put words in my mouth.

Something I would never do, simply asking for a clarification of your position.

 

[T'deD'Edkeid'Ende'Dejdid]

I think it would be exciting, but I couldn't do it. I'm the type of guy who'd spill the beans to try and impress a girl.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Q: So...why is there less gun crime in Europe?
A: Because there are less people in Europe.

Of course we do. There are more people, and more crimes which are therefore commited.

You don't seem to understand the population of the US (310 million) is less than half the population of Europe (730 million). Also, you don't seem to understand percentages.

Also, with our having an Innocent Until Proven Guilty policy, and England in particular having a Guilty Until Proven Innocent policy...I could see your point, in that case.

Also, again, we say, "Innocent Until Proven Guilty". England says "Guilty Until Proven Innocent". Thus, there is a greater fear of punishment in countries such as England--a fear which is not as extensive in the US.

Wow.

Rush Limborg, you continued insisting that USA has a larger population than Europe, even AFTER I showed you the numbers?
And what's with the non-sense about England having a 'guilty until proven innocent' policy?

What world are you living in?

No offense, Rush Limborg, but after this, the credibility of your past and future claims on this board dropped like a rock.