That is only a side reason why deserting isn't allowed, an important one, but still an aside. Deserting is bad because it lowers the survivability of those who remain, and if enough do it, the survivability of all. That was the indirect analogy I was trying to allude to.
While you make some interesting points about high turnout giving the apearance of legitimacy whether deserved or not it's not that relevant here (USA) as we don't have a mjority of elligible voters or even a majority wins system. We have a most votes out of those cast wins system.
And if you think voter apathy scares the elected officials about thier jobs your sadly mistaken. Most of them don't care if they win in a race with 1% or 100% turnout. There is no law that I am aware of that says if a politian dosen't get x% of elegible voters to vote for him he's out of a job, the only way is if he fails to get more votes than anyone else running for the job.
The ONLY way to convince them thier job is in jeopardy is to show them high odds of not getting more votes than anyone else running for that job.
It's sad that you and so many others think (falsely) that not voting does anything but make exactly what you complain about worse. Your not undermining the system, that's already been done, your just enabling the current bad state of it. Your just propagating the 'my vote don't matter so why try' defeatist attitude that causes the whole damn mess in the first place. The founding fathers did not set up a system that would run well on apathy, but rather that could flourish under the informed and active participation of it's citizens.
Ah I see what your point is.
Not voting is like deserting the army in the face of the enemy in a minor respect, yes ONE does not matter, but they'll still shoot/courts martial you becaus it's the accumulation of ONEs that make a many and hurts the whole system.
Though I do agree to make the highest proportional effort requires real work rather than the few minutes to hour or so of your time voting takes.
Voting is taking part in being the statistics that choose our elected officials and tell them what WE believe they should be doing in our names.
With voter turnout so low of late we're telling them 'whatever you want, do it, we don't care that much'.
The more of us do our duty (it is a duty as well as a right) the better this country will be if for no other reason than the political type will realize that we DO care. When you shirk your duty to vote (even if for 'none', but hopefully you can find a few candidates worth your endorsement, even they aren't likely to win) it lessens the value of voting.
But by all means if there is a candidate for any election you believe is a good person for the job, and the best person for it, then feel free to donate time and or money, or at least tell all your friends 'hey this one is good one!". And there are a few out there worth your vote at least if not more.
I'm not shure what you mean by political process.
If you mean voting, then I can't think of any-other method that gives you any say in the governance of your country.
If you mean the current two party dominated system, well it's not going to change except through one of 4 processes. Voting, revolution, takeover (via war or 'martial law' or such) or natural disaster significant enough to render the point moot.
If you don't vote, then you can say "Don't blame me; I didn't vote for the turkey."
My answer to this has always been "you didn't vote against him eigther" if they tell me they didn't vote.
Voting is a duty, a duty to help decide the course of your nation. It's also why I vote for the right candidate or issues to the best of my abilities, not for the lesser of two evils, I refuse to knowingling support evil, even to avoid a greater evil.
Actually it's not so much the electorial collage, it's that all the states force thier electors into a winner takes all scenario.
If it was proportional the third party votes would have MORE influence.
As it is voting for third party or even totaly independent persons for any office helps defince what we want in a candidate and platform. What elected official is going to totaly ignore the vote tallies when they show people voting for third parties? It gives them insight into what we want and hopefully they look at adapting to suit.
The other side effect is that as a third party gets more votes more people see them as viable and are more likely to vote for them.
The libertarian party for example had over 2%(iirc) when Bush sr. lost to Clinton. More since then. Also look at what Perot and Nader have gotten in thier previous runs.
The problem is the two big parties thier supporters all try to act like not voting for one of them is a waste when the truth is they know thier safest keeping the struggle limited to just the two well defined groups and a real contest would likely toss most of them out.
Usually a criminal will avoid confronting someone who might be armed.
Also in the case of a burglary the home owner/renter is far more familiar and confortable in his surroundings than the burglar, this will give him an edge, especially in the dark.
What data we do have shows criminals tend to run rather than anything else when confronted by an armed victim, even when armed themselves. Which makes some sense as they will eigther die or be wanted for murder if they try and shoot it out (or be wounded and tried for atempted murder) whereas the victim just saved his life and possibly his families life or died, many will die trying to save thier families life rather than not.
Still I strongly advise training for anyone intending to own a gun. I do believe ownership is a right, but responsible ownership is a duty.
Not useless, even if 'military' hardware never got into the hands of the revolutionaries, do you realy thing millions of armed with 'hunting rifles' 'useless arms' fighting a few thousand troops won't win?
Consider the.30-06 or.303. Typically hunting riffles, but with power in line with many infantry rifles. not to feeble, and frankly will cut through any reasonable wieght armour most grunts would wear. it certainly cuts through police level bpv's in most cases.
Also many 'hunting rifles' are made to use common rounds that include those used by military rifles, and are somtimes more acurate as in military operation of any scale it's quanity, not quality that counts.
FYI the founding fathers didn't make a distinction between 'military' weapons and civilian weapons, especialy not in the second amendment "..every arm of the soldier, however terrible".
Well one such situation that I recall was florida, the passed some legislation significantly reduce the barriers to handgun ownership/possesion (passed a concealed carry law IIRC) and the anti-gun loons insisted it'd cause a 'wild west' blood bath (hint, the wild west really wasn't so wild). And later they pointed out that florida's crime rate had indeed risen by some small fraction, what they failed to mention was the crime rate nation wide had gone up by a far larger percentage and florida's ranking as the xth most violent state had fallen considerably.
There are other examples I know, but I'm having trouble recalling them off the top of my head.
The closest to an example the 'other way' is the crime rate in dc vs the neighboring state. The state allows handgun ownership simular to many states and DC has all but banned handgun ownership, DC has the worse murder rate of the two.
But what are my odds of getting assaulted or killed or even robed?
Personally I think it's better if a criminal who wanted to hurt me or my loved ones die than I get beaten up. He had the choice I didn't. But this is just my opinion, maybe you'd rather see a rape than a rapist get shot for trying or even just 'a few bruises' than some poor criminal suffer for HIS choice to hurt others.
"Banning guns has a major effect on gun crime, because criminals usually get their guns by stealing them off people who buy them legally. Therefore, if less people owned guns there would be less guns for criminals to steal and then criminal would have fewer guns and there would be less shootings."
This argument, no matter how many times used, fails to match the facts. The simple truth is most criminals will AVOID going into a house where it's known or even reasonably suspected the owner has a gun. They don't want to die anymore than you do. By the same token muggers tend to avoid jurisdictions where concealed carry is likely.
"How many law abiding citizens who have guns have ever actually used their gun to protect themselves, and how many are actually killed by their own weapon?"
Not every time a gun is used in defence is it fired. Often a criminal will flee when confronted with a gun. It is certain that far fewer are killed with thier own gun than with thier own car.
I would say self defence is more likely than self injury, but that's purely anectedotal on my part.
I'll leave the rest as it's all apeal to emotion and not really an argument.
"Give the target a gun and the mugger feels he has to carry a gun also."
Well actually he's much more likely to feel he needs to move on to an area he's not likely to get shot in. At least that's what tends to happen here in the US where most of the time crime goes up when the citizens are dissarmed and down when concealed carry is leagle and likely.
"The other issue is that most muggings don't involve obvious approach at distance, this is the only situation under which you're likely to be able to draw a gun to defend yourself, so what good does it do?"
Well you do have to be paying attention to your surroundings, oblivious people tend to get into all sorts of problems not just not noticing some stranger aproaching them when they're alone.
Seriously, most situations where some stranger get's dangerously close in a situation that leaves you vulnerable to mugging can eigther be avoided by paying attention+common sense, or by being prepared.
Gak, if you graduated with a history degree, how come you miss one major factor in any civil war or revolution. It is never a case of all the government people and millitary agains just some of the citizens. People at all levels and position take sides.
Also you way over-estimate computers and gps and all that. Shure in an army vs army situation they are a major advantage. But in cases of guerilla warfare it becomes less so. This drops even farther when you have people in the system joining the revolution and commiting sabotage and taking intell to other side. Add in an armed populace the odds shift yet again.
Actually (iirc) it was Hitler that imposed gun registration, then used it to take guns away.
This significantly reduced any home-grown resistance to what he later did.
O.K. this is gonna sound a bit out there, but understand my point is the founding father's intent. but Jefferson (iirc) did explain that the 'arms' in the second were 'every sword of the soldier, however terrible'.
Not really advocating a literal interpretation per-se, but pointing out that Jefferson and co. did think clearly enough to plan for advancement in weapons tech.
I believe another poster has answered your assumptions on both sides fighting conventionaly. Asymetric warfare is the new term for it, but guerrilla tactics and such can make it harder to use all the fancy airplanes and such.]
Sorry that red herring is long since dead. There was more than one 'original copy' at the time (no fax machines, mail took weeks-months, etc.) so as to be available for many people to look at without it taking years to get around. Guesse what, they had different punctuation from each other in some cases.
Also the additional writing of the founding fathers made a few things clear. They really did mean every citizen had the right, not just the militia.
It was also thier ideal that every man of age be in the militia, or at least available should it be needed. They even went so far as to define the militia as every competent adult male citizen (words to that general effect, don't have exact qoute) in federal law early on. Note they defined the miltia as being no different than adult male citizen, not that every adult male citizen was in the militia.
O.K. I'll bite. What your missing is numbers and history. Also in case of revolution do you honestly think EVERY tank crew will side with the government? do you think a tank has that much use in a guerrilla warfare situation. Tanks are good against tanks and armor and armored positions. If they were that effective against infantry then why do we still have one?
Now what country has an army of sufficient size to put down a serious revolution (over 1%) of it's population if they were armed, especialy considering some the army is likely to join the revolution.
I am not ignoring the effect of computers, I'm not overestimating them eigther.
Let's put it this way, box-cutters are far less effective a weapon than guns, yet look how a very few determined men did with those and a little training. This is even more recent history.
Or to quote darth vader "don't put to much faith in this technological terror you have created..."
I really don't think even if the government got 100% of army to do it's bidding (not likely in civil war or simular, it's thier families and homes and friends) it could stop an armed uprising of a just 5% of the population (14+million).
And just how are computers or gps going to help if you have any real uprising of the people? Maybee in co-ordinating the troops who do go along with quelching the uprising, but start droping any bombs or such on american soil and you just INCREASED the size of your rebellion.
What we have done and can do with computers and technology is impressive, but don't be so overawed by it you miss the simple effectiveness of low tech or the capacity of smart men to subvert such systems. And again if there ever was another american revolution it wouldn't all be joe citizens, but scientist and soldiers and others on the side of the revolution.
Actually you can privately own a tank in the US. Ever see the movie by the name 'Tank', that was a privately owned tank rented by the studios for the movie.
My uncle helped restore it. And as a result got a job doing more of the same by some incredibly rich guy in northern California who collects military vehicals.
You do however have to get them de-milled before you buy them so they don't fire anymore. (breach is cut so that any atempt to fire live rounds will blow it out) and of course modern tanks aren't for sale, and near modern ones that might be sold have anything sensitive removed.
Some of those links even seemed to indicate that current thinking is they wouldn't lead to another universe, but rather to our own. There are other problems concerning wormholes as well.
But when the work was first done on Einstein-rosen bridges these problems weren't known yet, and s.f. and other stories rapidly popularised thier more dramatic effects and THAT is what has stuck in popular culture.
Because at least one theory showed that as a possibility for certain kinds of black holes.
Try googling for Einstein-Rosen bridges. Some of the links are likely helpfull. for example this page looks good, but is math heavy, and wikipedea has a brief mention on the subject.
There are lots of other pages listed at google as well to check out.
So your saying I could visit london and go anwhere I want (that's public of course) with NO fear of mugging because they don't have guns?
Saying someone skilled with a weapon has better odds than someone not skilled is an obvious assertion. What guns do is raise the stakes that even a skilled person is much less likely to even take the risk when his potential victim is armed as well. Guns have been called the great equalizer for a reason.
An unarmed mugger in an unarmed society simply picks targets they can easily overpower. By removing guns as defence you only place society's weaker members at greater risk unless you can find a fool proof method of eliminating ALL criminal risk.
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Letter to William S. Smith 13 Nov 1787 (Jefferson, On Democracy p. 20, 1939; Padover, editor)
Thank you, I've been looking for that quote on and off and have had the worst luck.
A few other good ones there as well.
Slashdot Mirror
That is only a side reason why deserting isn't allowed, an important one, but still an aside. Deserting is bad because it lowers the survivability of those who remain, and if enough do it, the survivability of all. That was the indirect analogy I was trying to allude to.
While you make some interesting points about high turnout giving the apearance of legitimacy whether deserved or not it's not that relevant here (USA) as we don't have a mjority of elligible voters or even a majority wins system. We have a most votes out of those cast wins system.
And if you think voter apathy scares the elected officials about thier jobs your sadly mistaken. Most of them don't care if they win in a race with 1% or 100% turnout. There is no law that I am aware of that says if a politian dosen't get x% of elegible voters to vote for him he's out of a job, the only way is if he fails to get more votes than anyone else running for the job.
The ONLY way to convince them thier job is in jeopardy is to show them high odds of not getting more votes than anyone else running for that job.
It's sad that you and so many others think (falsely) that not voting does anything but make exactly what you complain about worse. Your not undermining the system, that's already been done, your just enabling the current bad state of it. Your just propagating the 'my vote don't matter so why try' defeatist attitude that causes the whole damn mess in the first place. The founding fathers did not set up a system that would run well on apathy, but rather that could flourish under the informed and active participation of it's citizens.
Mycroft
lol, slashdot blocks the w3 validator. I try it and get:
I got the following unexpected response when trying to retrieve <http://slashdot.org>:
403 Forbidden
Please make sure you have entered the URL correctly.
Tried it with your link and directly, same result.
Mycroft
Ah I see what your point is.
Not voting is like deserting the army in the face of the enemy in a minor respect, yes ONE does not matter, but they'll still shoot/courts martial you becaus it's the accumulation of ONEs that make a many and hurts the whole system.
Though I do agree to make the highest proportional effort requires real work rather than the few minutes to hour or so of your time voting takes.
Voting is taking part in being the statistics that choose our elected officials and tell them what WE believe they should be doing in our names.
With voter turnout so low of late we're telling them 'whatever you want, do it, we don't care that much'.
The more of us do our duty (it is a duty as well as a right) the better this country will be if for no other reason than the political type will realize that we DO care. When you shirk your duty to vote (even if for 'none', but hopefully you can find a few candidates worth your endorsement, even they aren't likely to win) it lessens the value of voting.
But by all means if there is a candidate for any election you believe is a good person for the job, and the best person for it, then feel free to donate time and or money, or at least tell all your friends 'hey this one is good one!". And there are a few out there worth your vote at least if not more.
Mycroft
I'm not shure what you mean by political process.
If you mean voting, then I can't think of any-other method that gives you any say in the governance of your country.
If you mean the current two party dominated system, well it's not going to change except through one of 4 processes. Voting, revolution, takeover (via war or 'martial law' or such) or natural disaster significant enough to render the point moot.
Mycroft
My answer to this has always been "you didn't vote against him eigther" if they tell me they didn't vote.
Voting is a duty, a duty to help decide the course of your nation. It's also why I vote for the right candidate or issues to the best of my abilities, not for the lesser of two evils, I refuse to knowingling support evil, even to avoid a greater evil.
Mycroft
Actually it's not so much the electorial collage, it's that all the states force thier electors into a winner takes all scenario.
If it was proportional the third party votes would have MORE influence.
As it is voting for third party or even totaly independent persons for any office helps defince what we want in a candidate and platform. What elected official is going to totaly ignore the vote tallies when they show people voting for third parties? It gives them insight into what we want and hopefully they look at adapting to suit.
The other side effect is that as a third party gets more votes more people see them as viable and are more likely to vote for them.
The libertarian party for example had over 2%(iirc) when Bush sr. lost to Clinton. More since then. Also look at what Perot and Nader have gotten in thier previous runs.
The problem is the two big parties thier supporters all try to act like not voting for one of them is a waste when the truth is they know thier safest keeping the struggle limited to just the two well defined groups and a real contest would likely toss most of them out.
Mycroft
Usually a criminal will avoid confronting someone who might be armed.
Also in the case of a burglary the home owner/renter is far more familiar and confortable in his surroundings than the burglar, this will give him an edge, especially in the dark.
What data we do have shows criminals tend to run rather than anything else when confronted by an armed victim, even when armed themselves. Which makes some sense as they will eigther die or be wanted for murder if they try and shoot it out (or be wounded and tried for atempted murder) whereas the victim just saved his life and possibly his families life or died, many will die trying to save thier families life rather than not.
Still I strongly advise training for anyone intending to own a gun. I do believe ownership is a right, but responsible ownership is a duty.
Mycroft
Not useless, even if 'military' hardware never got into the hands of the revolutionaries, do you realy thing millions of armed with 'hunting rifles' 'useless arms' fighting a few thousand troops won't win? .30-06 or .303. Typically hunting riffles, but with power in line with many infantry rifles. not to feeble, and frankly will cut through any reasonable wieght armour most grunts would wear. it certainly cuts through police level bpv's in most cases.
Consider the
Also many 'hunting rifles' are made to use common rounds that include those used by military rifles, and are somtimes more acurate as in military operation of any scale it's quanity, not quality that counts.
FYI the founding fathers didn't make a distinction between 'military' weapons and civilian weapons, especialy not in the second amendment "..every arm of the soldier, however terrible".
Mycroft
Well one such situation that I recall was florida, the passed some legislation significantly reduce the barriers to handgun ownership/possesion (passed a concealed carry law IIRC) and the anti-gun loons insisted it'd cause a 'wild west' blood bath (hint, the wild west really wasn't so wild). And later they pointed out that florida's crime rate had indeed risen by some small fraction, what they failed to mention was the crime rate nation wide had gone up by a far larger percentage and florida's ranking as the xth most violent state had fallen considerably.
There are other examples I know, but I'm having trouble recalling them off the top of my head.
The closest to an example the 'other way' is the crime rate in dc vs the neighboring state. The state allows handgun ownership simular to many states and DC has all but banned handgun ownership, DC has the worse murder rate of the two.
Mycroft
But what are my odds of getting assaulted or killed or even robed?
Personally I think it's better if a criminal who wanted to hurt me or my loved ones die than I get beaten up. He had the choice I didn't. But this is just my opinion, maybe you'd rather see a rape than a rapist get shot for trying or even just 'a few bruises' than some poor criminal suffer for HIS choice to hurt others.
Mycroft
"Banning guns has a major effect on gun crime, because criminals usually get their guns by stealing them off people who buy them legally. Therefore, if less people owned guns there would be less guns for criminals to steal and then criminal would have fewer guns and there would be less shootings."
This argument, no matter how many times used, fails to match the facts. The simple truth is most criminals will AVOID going into a house where it's known or even reasonably suspected the owner has a gun. They don't want to die anymore than you do. By the same token muggers tend to avoid jurisdictions where concealed carry is likely.
"How many law abiding citizens who have guns have ever actually used their gun to protect themselves, and how many are actually killed by their own weapon?"
Not every time a gun is used in defence is it fired. Often a criminal will flee when confronted with a gun. It is certain that far fewer are killed with thier own gun than with thier own car.
I would say self defence is more likely than self injury, but that's purely anectedotal on my part.
I'll leave the rest as it's all apeal to emotion and not really an argument.
Mycroft
"Give the target a gun and the mugger feels he has to carry a gun also."
Well actually he's much more likely to feel he needs to move on to an area he's not likely to get shot in. At least that's what tends to happen here in the US where most of the time crime goes up when the citizens are dissarmed and down when concealed carry is leagle and likely.
"The other issue is that most muggings don't involve obvious approach at distance, this is the only situation under which you're likely to be able to draw a gun to defend yourself, so what good does it do?"
Well you do have to be paying attention to your surroundings, oblivious people tend to get into all sorts of problems not just not noticing some stranger aproaching them when they're alone.
Seriously, most situations where some stranger get's dangerously close in a situation that leaves you vulnerable to mugging can eigther be avoided by paying attention+common sense, or by being prepared.
Mycroft
Gak, if you graduated with a history degree, how come you miss one major factor in any civil war or revolution. It is never a case of all the government people and millitary agains just some of the citizens. People at all levels and position take sides.
Also you way over-estimate computers and gps and all that. Shure in an army vs army situation they are a major advantage. But in cases of guerilla warfare it becomes less so. This drops even farther when you have people in the system joining the revolution and commiting sabotage and taking intell to other side. Add in an armed populace the odds shift yet again.
Mycroft
Actually (iirc) it was Hitler that imposed gun registration, then used it to take guns away.
This significantly reduced any home-grown resistance to what he later did.
Mycroft
O.K. this is gonna sound a bit out there, but understand my point is the founding father's intent. but Jefferson (iirc) did explain that the 'arms' in the second were 'every sword of the soldier, however terrible'.
Not really advocating a literal interpretation per-se, but pointing out that Jefferson and co. did think clearly enough to plan for advancement in weapons tech.
I believe another poster has answered your assumptions on both sides fighting conventionaly. Asymetric warfare is the new term for it, but guerrilla tactics and such can make it harder to use all the fancy airplanes and such.]
Mycroft
Sorry that red herring is long since dead. There was more than one 'original copy' at the time (no fax machines, mail took weeks-months, etc.) so as to be available for many people to look at without it taking years to get around. Guesse what, they had different punctuation from each other in some cases.
Also the additional writing of the founding fathers made a few things clear. They really did mean every citizen had the right, not just the militia.
It was also thier ideal that every man of age be in the militia, or at least available should it be needed. They even went so far as to define the militia as every competent adult male citizen (words to that general effect, don't have exact qoute) in federal law early on. Note they defined the miltia as being no different than adult male citizen, not that every adult male citizen was in the militia.
Mycroft
O.K. I'll bite. What your missing is numbers and history. Also in case of revolution do you honestly think EVERY tank crew will side with the government? do you think a tank has that much use in a guerrilla warfare situation. Tanks are good against tanks and armor and armored positions. If they were that effective against infantry then why do we still have one?
Now what country has an army of sufficient size to put down a serious revolution (over 1%) of it's population if they were armed, especialy considering some the army is likely to join the revolution.
Mycroft
I am not ignoring the effect of computers, I'm not overestimating them eigther.
Let's put it this way, box-cutters are far less effective a weapon than guns, yet look how a very few determined men did with those and a little training. This is even more recent history.
Or to quote darth vader "don't put to much faith in this technological terror you have created..."
I really don't think even if the government got 100% of army to do it's bidding (not likely in civil war or simular, it's thier families and homes and friends) it could stop an armed uprising of a just 5% of the population (14+million).
And just how are computers or gps going to help if you have any real uprising of the people? Maybee in co-ordinating the troops who do go along with quelching the uprising, but start droping any bombs or such on american soil and you just INCREASED the size of your rebellion.
What we have done and can do with computers and technology is impressive, but don't be so overawed by it you miss the simple effectiveness of low tech or the capacity of smart men to subvert such systems. And again if there ever was another american revolution it wouldn't all be joe citizens, but scientist and soldiers and others on the side of the revolution.
Mycroft
Actually you can privately own a tank in the US. Ever see the movie by the name 'Tank', that was a privately owned tank rented by the studios for the movie.
My uncle helped restore it. And as a result got a job doing more of the same by some incredibly rich guy in northern California who collects military vehicals.
You do however have to get them de-milled before you buy them so they don't fire anymore. (breach is cut so that any atempt to fire live rounds will blow it out) and of course modern tanks aren't for sale, and near modern ones that might be sold have anything sensitive removed.
Mycroft
Some of those links even seemed to indicate that current thinking is they wouldn't lead to another universe, but rather to our own. There are other problems concerning wormholes as well.
But when the work was first done on Einstein-rosen bridges these problems weren't known yet, and s.f. and other stories rapidly popularised thier more dramatic effects and THAT is what has stuck in popular culture.
Mycroft
Because at least one theory showed that as a possibility for certain kinds of black holes.
Try googling for Einstein-Rosen bridges. Some of the links are likely helpfull.
for example this page looks good, but is math heavy, and wikipedea has a brief mention on the subject.
There are lots of other pages listed at google as well to check out.
Mycroft
Followed your links, and boy do you have some big ones to be calling ANYONE a crackpot. Or did your tin-foil hat fall off?
Mycroft
Not only that, but one rated at +5 at that.
Mycroft
So your saying I could visit london and go anwhere I want (that's public of course) with NO fear of mugging because they don't have guns?
Saying someone skilled with a weapon has better odds than someone not skilled is an obvious assertion. What guns do is raise the stakes that even a skilled person is much less likely to even take the risk when his potential victim is armed as well. Guns have been called the great equalizer for a reason.
An unarmed mugger in an unarmed society simply picks targets they can easily overpower. By removing guns as defence you only place society's weaker members at greater risk unless you can find a fool proof method of eliminating ALL criminal risk.
Mycroft
Thank you, I've been looking for that quote on and off and have had the worst luck.
A few other good ones there as well.
Mycroft