See, there's exactly where your scenario deviates from this particular case. If any person negotiates action with another, it's not fantasy. They have ACTED, and it IS a crime.
But if all a person has done is fantasize, or research, and there's been no purchase of materials physical actions progressing the act closer to reality, then it's THOUGHT. Thought is not a crime, and as soon as you start to blur that line you start to make it possible for any person in a position of power make a case to prosecute anyone that has pissed them off or crossed them in some way.
By that reasoning, if a person were to research how to make some hostile device they have committed a crime. Without regard to whether they've bought any materials to actually do it.
You mean it's just another hypocrite lining his pockets by promoting an image of being a progressive leftist activist, but who in reality doesnt give two shits about anything but himself?
...and you seize the opportunity of an exceptional event to promote your own ideas.
You mean like diving on the shooting at a school to promote gun bans? There are thousands of kids dead at the hands of criminals in the inner cities every year, some by guns, some by drugs. There's no campaign to figure that shit out. No, it makes a hell of a lot better media and sound bites when it's a nice white suburban family whose lost a child.
Knowing that these protesters are allies of the French govt on this topic, knowing that the terrorists wish to hurt the French govt AND it's people as deeply as it can, knowing that this is a major international event which will be highly covered in news world-wide, and knowing that this is a predictable predetermined time and location where massive causalities might be inflicted, it's almost too good an opportunity for terrorists to pass up.
Maybe, just maybe, you could look at the big picture and give consideration that the govt you try sdo hard to vilify is trying to keep your allies alive.
Climate protests have nothing to do with terrorism. But large concentrated crowds of climate protesters sure would provide a juicy target for a terrorist strike, wouldn't they?
So the French govt can try to keep the would-be protesters alive and be condemned, or risk a catastrophe for which they would be condemned. At least the former is highly unlikely to result in any deaths.
So in your mind, what we label "bad guys" would be those who throw homosexuals off of rooftops, stone rape victims, beat or murder women who show their face in public or drive a car, who sell women and children into sex slavery, who murder anyone who refuses to convert to the religious doctrine that requires these actions of it's followers?
Is it your position then that these people and these actions are just misunderstood? That "evil" is a false label for these behaviors?
AND, because we now cant use the pipeline to transport the oil, there remains the trucking and rail industries moving it instead causing greater on-going wear and tear on the US transportation infrastructure, degrading the roads and bridges more quickly, and causing the price tag to repair that infrastructure to rise on a daily basis.
By what standard do you suggest that most people stop learning by age 25? That makes no sense whatsoever.
If you're just referring to the fact that by 25 most people have stopped going to school I'll grant you that much. Aside from the fact that its apparent many dont learn much beyond how to do keg stands while college, most everyone continues to learn throughout their lives. Even beyond retirement age. If you dont you stagnate in your career and in your relationships. And most of that learning cannot be replicated in any kind of school other than that of real life.
I commend you for taking up a musical instrument, age aside. But if you felt you needed to do that so that you continued using your mind, I'd seriously reevaluate your life.
So then you agree that the no gun zone is stupid and should be ignored. Or should it only be ignored if you feel you are in the right? Like the dad in his car. Or should I ignore it when I feel I'm right? Like when I have a concealed carry permit, and I'm there for parent teacher conferences?
It would be like concluding that since seat belts were intended to make you safer in a car, but don't make you safer if you get stabbed in the car, we should have no seat belts.
No, applying your logic it would be like concluding that because seat belts might trap you in a burning vehicle if used improperly we should ban seat belts.
But even ignoring the specific thing I mentioned, are there psychos out there that lose their shit and do horrible things to A person? Yes. Absolutely. And they use guns, and hammers, and bats, and cars, and... and... and...
That's perhaps one of the most bizarre positions I've ever seen posted on/.
You're suggesting that this site exists and is successful because... its populated by pissed off nerds with latent violent tendencies who were actively drummed out of the Scientific America crowd and forced to talk to one another by a school?
So the law was intended to make someone already guilty of breaking the law also guilty of breaking another law. It doesn't take a genius to see the inherently flawed logic there. If the criminal didnt particularly give a shit about the first, why would they give a shit about the second? It doesn't prevent there being crime at or near a school. It just makes the punishment for getting caught greater. Or do you mean to say you need an excuse to bust gang members who weren't actually caught doing something criminal?
In the meantime you have criminalized not only a legal act, but more importantly a Constitutionally protected right.
The law solves nothing while taking rights from people not guilty of anything.
It adds more harsh punishment to existing criminal activity, yes. But the very same people trumpeting the fact that gun free schools laws are great are also trumpeting the unfairness and racism inherent in the judicial system which puts 1000's of minority and underprivileged young people in prison at a starkly incongruous rate to others.
So which is it? Is it incumbent upon us to more harshly punish these gang members and make it more easy to imprison then and for longer? Or is the judicial system unfairly attacking and too harshly punishing them?
And on the topic of impulse control, these mass violence events are never, ever spawned by a responsible concealed carry or open carry adult. Ever. You dont hear any stories about the "intimidating redneck hillbilly back-woods jarhead nutjob" getting pissed and whipping out his firearm, because it doesnt happen. But people pass laws that both fail to stop a person who has plotted to do harm, and prevents law-abiding people from stopping them.
And now not only will the law be ignored by a criminal, but your dad (assuming he's honest and law-abiding) can't even pick you up from the school parking lot in your family car if he's got a pistol in it. If he were to see a criminal or a bat-shit crazy kid marching into the building with a shotgun, your dad couldnt even run in to help with a firearm without being in direct violation of the law that was wholly ignored by said bat-shit crazy kid.
Gun free zones and laws dont prevent bat-shit crazy kids from doing horrible things. But they DO make it a crime to try to stop the bat-shit crazy kid by using a firearm unless you're "authorized".
The no gun zone is supposed to keep guns out. We agree, yes?
The no gun zone will be ignored by a criminal who wishes to do harm. We agree, yes?
The no gun zone will prevent law-abiding, educated and responsible adults from bringing means to protect innocent people into that zone. We agree, yes?
So the law first accomplishes nothing in it's intent to prevent a criminal from committing violence, while also preventing the means by which to defend against said criminal. The law both fails to prevent harm to innocent's, and also removes their best defense. THAT makes it a bad law, and directly puts innocent people at greater risk.
Agreed. And a fundamental difference is that you enforce the right for people to make bad decisions, and punish them for the impact those decisions have. Innocent until proven guilty. But so many people feel that we should instead should be regulated and herded to a degree that guilt is no longer possible, and do not have the foresight to realize that a life lived without the possibility of making mistakes is a pretty damn shallow experience.
And yet in these mass shootings are never a person who just got pissed one afternoon, pulled the open carry pistol they had at their waste and started firing.
No, instead it's the sick person who has planned, who has accumulated weapons over time, who has picked a target location and methodically executed the massacre of innocents. That contradicts your position that these very types of mass violence events would be prevented by making it more difficult to obtain firearms or ammo. A nut with a plan has patience, as evidenced by almost all of the mass shootings the US has experienced over the past decade. And with those types of people who plot to do violence, do you really think that if they cannot legally obtain a firearm they will just throw their hands up and say, "well shucky darn, I guess those anti-gun people foiled my plan!". Hell, the Aurora theater shooter even bought supplies and took the time to create pretty significant booby traps at his home which just as easily could have been used as the attack material. Was his plan detected by the very thing you say should have help find him? Nope. Creating weapons that had nothing at all to do with firearms was completed without any suspicion.
I do. The irony is that you likely trust random strangers every day who instead conceal carry a deadly weapon and sometimes multiple ones. And likely a portion of those do so illegally. You find comfort in your ignorance, and another layer of your ignorance encourages you to treat open, honest and law-abiding people with distrust and disrespect.
Slashdot Mirror
And by your reasoning, any person that purchases a firearm is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.
See, there's exactly where your scenario deviates from this particular case. If any person negotiates action with another, it's not fantasy. They have ACTED, and it IS a crime.
But if all a person has done is fantasize, or research, and there's been no purchase of materials physical actions progressing the act closer to reality, then it's THOUGHT. Thought is not a crime, and as soon as you start to blur that line you start to make it possible for any person in a position of power make a case to prosecute anyone that has pissed them off or crossed them in some way.
By that reasoning, if a person were to research how to make some hostile device they have committed a crime. Without regard to whether they've bought any materials to actually do it.
Wrong. He could certainly have action taken against him for misusing public databases. But not because it related to planning a crime.
Planning a crime isn't illegal either. If it were most Hollywood writers/producers/directors would be jailed.
Wait a minute, you might actually be on to something here...
Although you would have to jail a bunch of really good authors too. Bummer.
You mean it's just another hypocrite lining his pockets by promoting an image of being a progressive leftist activist, but who in reality doesnt give two shits about anything but himself?
Shocker.
...and you seize the opportunity of an exceptional event to promote your own ideas.
You mean like diving on the shooting at a school to promote gun bans? There are thousands of kids dead at the hands of criminals in the inner cities every year, some by guns, some by drugs. There's no campaign to figure that shit out. No, it makes a hell of a lot better media and sound bites when it's a nice white suburban family whose lost a child.
Knowing that these protesters are allies of the French govt on this topic, knowing that the terrorists wish to hurt the French govt AND it's people as deeply as it can, knowing that this is a major international event which will be highly covered in news world-wide, and knowing that this is a predictable predetermined time and location where massive causalities might be inflicted, it's almost too good an opportunity for terrorists to pass up.
Maybe, just maybe, you could look at the big picture and give consideration that the govt you try sdo hard to vilify is trying to keep your allies alive.
Climate protests have nothing to do with terrorism. But large concentrated crowds of climate protesters sure would provide a juicy target for a terrorist strike, wouldn't they?
So the French govt can try to keep the would-be protesters alive and be condemned, or risk a catastrophe for which they would be condemned. At least the former is highly unlikely to result in any deaths.
Oh, for points... +1
So in your mind, what we label "bad guys" would be those who throw homosexuals off of rooftops, stone rape victims, beat or murder women who show their face in public or drive a car, who sell women and children into sex slavery, who murder anyone who refuses to convert to the religious doctrine that requires these actions of it's followers?
Is it your position then that these people and these actions are just misunderstood? That "evil" is a false label for these behaviors?
AND, because we now cant use the pipeline to transport the oil, there remains the trucking and rail industries moving it instead causing greater on-going wear and tear on the US transportation infrastructure, degrading the roads and bridges more quickly, and causing the price tag to repair that infrastructure to rise on a daily basis.
By what standard do you suggest that most people stop learning by age 25? That makes no sense whatsoever.
If you're just referring to the fact that by 25 most people have stopped going to school I'll grant you that much. Aside from the fact that its apparent many dont learn much beyond how to do keg stands while college, most everyone continues to learn throughout their lives. Even beyond retirement age. If you dont you stagnate in your career and in your relationships. And most of that learning cannot be replicated in any kind of school other than that of real life.
I commend you for taking up a musical instrument, age aside. But if you felt you needed to do that so that you continued using your mind, I'd seriously reevaluate your life.
So then you agree that the no gun zone is stupid and should be ignored. Or should it only be ignored if you feel you are in the right? Like the dad in his car. Or should I ignore it when I feel I'm right? Like when I have a concealed carry permit, and I'm there for parent teacher conferences?
It would be like concluding that since seat belts were intended to make you safer in a car, but don't make you safer if you get stabbed in the car, we should have no seat belts.
No, applying your logic it would be like concluding that because seat belts might trap you in a burning vehicle if used improperly we should ban seat belts.
I did say "mass violence events" didnt I?
... and ... and ...
But even ignoring the specific thing I mentioned, are there psychos out there that lose their shit and do horrible things to A person? Yes. Absolutely. And they use guns, and hammers, and bats, and cars, and
That's perhaps one of the most bizarre positions I've ever seen posted on /.
You're suggesting that this site exists and is successful because... its populated by pissed off nerds with latent violent tendencies who were actively drummed out of the Scientific America crowd and forced to talk to one another by a school?
So the law was intended to make someone already guilty of breaking the law also guilty of breaking another law. It doesn't take a genius to see the inherently flawed logic there. If the criminal didnt particularly give a shit about the first, why would they give a shit about the second? It doesn't prevent there being crime at or near a school. It just makes the punishment for getting caught greater. Or do you mean to say you need an excuse to bust gang members who weren't actually caught doing something criminal?
In the meantime you have criminalized not only a legal act, but more importantly a Constitutionally protected right.
The law solves nothing while taking rights from people not guilty of anything.
It adds more harsh punishment to existing criminal activity, yes. But the very same people trumpeting the fact that gun free schools laws are great are also trumpeting the unfairness and racism inherent in the judicial system which puts 1000's of minority and underprivileged young people in prison at a starkly incongruous rate to others.
So which is it? Is it incumbent upon us to more harshly punish these gang members and make it more easy to imprison then and for longer? Or is the judicial system unfairly attacking and too harshly punishing them?
And on the topic of impulse control, these mass violence events are never, ever spawned by a responsible concealed carry or open carry adult. Ever. You dont hear any stories about the "intimidating redneck hillbilly back-woods jarhead nutjob" getting pissed and whipping out his firearm, because it doesnt happen. But people pass laws that both fail to stop a person who has plotted to do harm, and prevents law-abiding people from stopping them.
And now not only will the law be ignored by a criminal, but your dad (assuming he's honest and law-abiding) can't even pick you up from the school parking lot in your family car if he's got a pistol in it. If he were to see a criminal or a bat-shit crazy kid marching into the building with a shotgun, your dad couldnt even run in to help with a firearm without being in direct violation of the law that was wholly ignored by said bat-shit crazy kid.
Gun free zones and laws dont prevent bat-shit crazy kids from doing horrible things. But they DO make it a crime to try to stop the bat-shit crazy kid by using a firearm unless you're "authorized".
Are you deliberately being obtuse?
The no gun zone is supposed to keep guns out. We agree, yes?
The no gun zone will be ignored by a criminal who wishes to do harm. We agree, yes?
The no gun zone will prevent law-abiding, educated and responsible adults from bringing means to protect innocent people into that zone. We agree, yes?
So the law first accomplishes nothing in it's intent to prevent a criminal from committing violence, while also preventing the means by which to defend against said criminal. The law both fails to prevent harm to innocent's, and also removes their best defense. THAT makes it a bad law, and directly puts innocent people at greater risk.
Somehow I doubt that anyone that was at Umpqua Community College yesterday is sighing with relief today to find that they still have their wallet.
Agreed. And a fundamental difference is that you enforce the right for people to make bad decisions, and punish them for the impact those decisions have. Innocent until proven guilty. But so many people feel that we should instead should be regulated and herded to a degree that guilt is no longer possible, and do not have the foresight to realize that a life lived without the possibility of making mistakes is a pretty damn shallow experience.
And yet in these mass shootings are never a person who just got pissed one afternoon, pulled the open carry pistol they had at their waste and started firing.
No, instead it's the sick person who has planned, who has accumulated weapons over time, who has picked a target location and methodically executed the massacre of innocents. That contradicts your position that these very types of mass violence events would be prevented by making it more difficult to obtain firearms or ammo. A nut with a plan has patience, as evidenced by almost all of the mass shootings the US has experienced over the past decade. And with those types of people who plot to do violence, do you really think that if they cannot legally obtain a firearm they will just throw their hands up and say, "well shucky darn, I guess those anti-gun people foiled my plan!". Hell, the Aurora theater shooter even bought supplies and took the time to create pretty significant booby traps at his home which just as easily could have been used as the attack material. Was his plan detected by the very thing you say should have help find him? Nope. Creating weapons that had nothing at all to do with firearms was completed without any suspicion.
I do. The irony is that you likely trust random strangers every day who instead conceal carry a deadly weapon and sometimes multiple ones. And likely a portion of those do so illegally. You find comfort in your ignorance, and another layer of your ignorance encourages you to treat open, honest and law-abiding people with distrust and disrespect.