Mass Murder by Blade, you Vast Idiots

[SirGreenThumb]

Is a paroled former convict still a criminal? I say No.

OMFG CN.... How are you?

 

[twostrokenut]

Is a paroled former convict still a criminal? I say No.

Say, I always wondered. Do they get that signature that volunteers that right away by the Individual before or after the parole?

I know many ppl who have done this and know it is a condition of parole in most instances, yet I have to think the parole must technically happen B4 the signature for obvious reasons.

 

[cannabineer]

OMFG CN.... How are you?

Busier'n a one-armed paperhanger.

 

[SirGreenThumb]

Busier'n a one-armed paperhanger.

Same here.. Juggling to many things...

Glad to see you around.

 

[twostrokenut]

Everyone is getting new avi's it seems.

 

[SirGreenThumb]

Not I.
Mine is enjoyed too much..

 

[twostrokenut]

Yeah I enjoy that one thoroughly.

 

[Beefbisquit]

Is a paroled former convict still a criminal? I say No.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8575034.stm

Hard to say..... I can see arguments for both sides.

 

[cannabineer]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8575034.stm

Hard to say..... I can see arguments for both sides.

How does a chance of reoffending make someone a criminal? Doesn't that sort of bias directly assail the tenet of "innocent until proven guilty"?
In the USA, a paroled convict has a stigma for the rest of his/her life. I find that to be in direct violation of civic principles.
Whether or not someone has previously been convicted of a felony, I think it is incumbent on us to recognize that the justice system has been allowed power beyond its proper ambit. I also despair of fixing that at the level of the voters; we've swallowed the rightness of this basic violation of civic rights whole. Why this is ... is a five-beer rant; not now. I think that someone who has been paroled should be no different in the eyes of the law from someone who hasn't yet been convicted. (Adverb used advisedly.)

Nonetheless I recommend precise use of language. Let us define what a "criminal" is, preferably with a y/n test that can be easily applied without resorting to biased and untrustworthy databases. (Untrustworthy, you ask? How many innocents are convicted? How are people convicted? Have you ever sat on a jury? Want to be truly frightened!?) (Of course, such a test is utopian. My goal is to highlight that life isn't simple. We should be very wary of the terminology being fed us by interested legal engineers.) I also suggest jettisoning the terms "legal gun" and "illegal gun". These do not describe characteristics of the weapon, but angels/pinhead abstractions. At worst, they quietly reinforce the idea that guns are evil. Ordinarily, you are a precise communicator. The ways we use language contains information about our biases (which is an uncomfortable but correct term for some of our most fiercely-held personal mores).
I predict there will be a legal firestorm in this nation (the USA) in our lifetimes as the intent of the Second Amendment comes under hostile review. The deeper battle here is the forfeiture of a freedom so profound as to resist codification: the freedom to defend what language means. If we accept the newspeak coming from the various ministries of Truth (many not plainly governmental), we will be complicit in the possibly irreversible installation of the most insidious tyranny of all: the redefinition of the vehicle with which we think and then express our thoughts. Terms like "criminal" and "legal gun" are contentious because their adoption, without serious debate as to what semantic remoras they carry, betrays a cognitive shift, one I view with gravest alarm. Resist weaponizing philosophy, or abandon all hope.

 

[WillyBagseed]

China just had a doozy. Did you hear about it? An attack at a railway station in the southwestern city of Kunming, leaving at least 33 people dead and more than 140 injured. http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/kyodo-news-international/140302/china-calls-mass-killing-at-rail-station-terrorist-att

So what stopped this you, VIs? Guns. If you had a gun would you protect yourself and others?

Tokyo 2008

Rampage slasher, got 9 in just a couple of minutes, again in a rail station. 7 died, in horror.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/09/world/fg-stab9

Just check this out. Anytime you see an F, range weapon including crossbow, mostly firearms, M is melee incluiding rocks and fist. O is all other, autos, poison, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers_(school_massacres)

You VIs don't get to act like only guns kill and only guns rampage and without guns it would mean anything but LESS protection.

If we were all armed (apart of bars and alcohol, which there really should more education about) there would be more immediate response, but even that would not stop, bombing and fire, etc.

But, as soon as you start F-ing or M-ing, WE end you. That is the American Dream. That is Individual Sovereign responsibility.

I own a couple of guns , I am pro gun. However , I am pro regulation. I am armed for 2 reasons.
1 I like to hunt.

2 For protection from people who claim to be pro gun but are actually retarded people who can't read the constitution.

If ye could you can only come up with 1 of 2 conclusions.

1 arms can be regulated, period.

OR

2 Shall not be infringed. = felons should be able to own guns. taking away their right to bear arms is an infringement.


There is no in between , unless you are like many bible thumpers and prefer to pick and choose what does and does not apply from your Book/Paper.


If everybody is packing there might be a slight decrease to how often violence occurred but when it does happen the carnage of untrained retards (and a lot of trained retards) with weapons would more than make up for it.

PS: A person who knows how to wield a proper knife vs a common citizen with a holstered gun at 18ft apart = the knife wielder has a very good chance of winning.

 

[Beefbisquit]

How does a chance of reoffending make someone a criminal? Doesn't that sort of bias directly assail the tenet of "innocent until proven guilty"?

I also believe sex offenders should remain registered. Same concept. If you act like a big enough fuck up, you lose some privileges.

In the USA, a paroled convict has a stigma for the rest of his/her life. I find that to be in direct violation of civic principles.
Whether or not someone has previously been convicted of a felony, I think it is incumbent on us to recognize that the justice system has been allowed power beyond its proper ambit.

People hear stats (like 50% of criminals re-offend) and get scared, and quite frankly I can't always blame them. Now, if the reason people re-offend is because of the stigmas, that is another discussion.

I also despair of fixing that at the level of the voters; we've swallowed the rightness of this basic violation of civic rights whole. Why this is ... is a five-beer rant; not now. I think that someone who has been paroled should be no different in the eyes of the law from someone who hasn't yet been convicted. (Adverb used advisedly.)

I agree, and I don't agree. I'm torn I guess. Cons are people and they've already done their time and should be treated as such. But also, if the rate of re-offense is so high it's not prudent to ignore it either. No information should be 'ignored'....

Probably higher rates of reoffense for some crimes, and lesser for others. I will definitely agree that some people just 'fuck up' and don't deserve the lasting stigma associated with going to jail, but some people do. How to differentiate? I have no idea.

Nonetheless I recommend precise use of language. Let us define what a "criminal" is, preferably with a y/n test that can be easily applied without resorting to biased and untrustworthy databases. (Untrustworthy, you ask? How many innocents are convicted? How are people convicted? Have you ever sat on a jury? Want to be truly frightened!?) (Of course, such a test is utopian. My goal is to highlight that life isn't simple. We should be very wary of the terminology being fed us by interested legal engineers.) I also suggest jettisoning the terms "legal gun" and "illegal gun".

I disagree, and if we remove the term we're just going to have to use another term that's more cumbersome to explain the same thing. We could say 'a gun that a criminal is in possession of', but 'illegal gun' does the exact same thing, more succinctly.

These do not describe characteristics of the weapon, but angels/pinhead abstractions. At worst, they quietly reinforce the idea that guns are evil. Ordinarily, you are a precise communicator. The ways we use language contains information about our biases (which is an uncomfortable but correct term for some of our most fiercely-held personal mores).

I agree, it's not describing the weapon or its characteristics, but it is describing the status of the weapon. Much like when a weapon is 'stolen' or ' lost', it's not describing a characteristic of the weapon, but the status of the weapon.

I predict there will be a legal firestorm in this nation (the USA) in our lifetimes as the intent of the Second Amendment comes under hostile review. The deeper battle here is the forfeiture of a freedom so profound as to resist codification: the freedom to defend what language means. If we accept the newspeak coming from the various ministries of Truth (many not plainly governmental), we will be complicit in the possibly irreversible installation of the most insidious tyranny of all: the redefinition of the vehicle with which we think and then express our thoughts. Terms like "criminal" and "legal gun" are contentious because their adoption, without serious debate as to what semantic remoras they carry, betrays a cognitive shift, one I view with gravest alarm. Resist weaponizing philosophy, or abandon all hope.

I just don't agree. It's not 'newspeak', it's just using language for its intended purpose. If someone isn't allowed to own a gun, they stole a gun, or or they own an automatic firearm without the tax stamps, etc. that's an illegal gun. As in not lawful to own. Is that not what 'illegal gun' means?

I don't understand why you've selected this particular word to 'pick on'.

'Criminal' I can understand, to a point.

 

[twostrokenut]

If we can't distinguish between a Right and a Privledge how is this discussion
supposed to actually happen?

Not newspeak indeed.

 

[Beefbisquit]

If we can't distinguish between a Right and a Privledge how is this discussion
supposed to actually happen?

Not newspeak indeed.

Originally Posted by cannabineer

How does a chance of reoffending make someone a criminal? Doesn't that sort of bias directly assail the tenet of "innocent until proven guilty"?

I also believe sex offenders should remain registered. Same concept. If you act like a big enough fuck up, you lose some privileges.



I guess the wording is off, before you're arrested, in the USA it's a 'right' to have a firearm, and it's a right, pretty much everywhere, to live wherever you want. Should have said 'rights'...

 

[cannabineer]

I also believe sex offenders should remain registered. Same concept. If you act like a big enough fuck up, you lose some privileges.


People hear stats (like 50% of criminals re-offend) and get scared, and quite frankly I can't always blame them. Now, if the reason people re-offend is because of the stigmas, that is another discussion.


I agree, and I don't agree. I'm torn I guess. Cons are people and they've already done their time and should be treated as such. But also, if the rate of re-offense is so high it's not prudent to ignore it either. No information should be 'ignored'....

Probably higher rates of reoffense for some crimes, and lesser for others. I will definitely agree that some people just 'fuck up' and don't deserve the lasting stigma associated with going to jail, but some people do. How to differentiate? I have no idea.


I disagree, and if we remove the term we're just going to have to use another term that's more cumbersome to explain the same thing. We could say 'a gun that a criminal is in possession of', but 'illegal gun' does the exact same thing, more succinctly.



I agree, it's not describing the weapon or its characteristics, but it is describing the status of the weapon. Much like when a weapon is 'stolen' or ' lost', it's not describing a characteristic of the weapon, but the status of the weapon.



I just don't agree. It's not 'newspeak', it's just using language for its intended purpose. If someone isn't allowed to own a gun, they stole a gun, or or they own an automatic firearm without the tax stamps, etc. that's an illegal gun. As in not lawful to own. Is that not what 'illegal gun' means?

I don't understand why you've selected this particular word to 'pick on'.

'Criminal' I can understand, to a point.

To the blue: I don't think we can justly/fairly profile people ion the chance that they'll be criminals, whether or not they have a record. I also think that making some crimes "special bad" such as sex offenses is unsound. I don't buy into the concept that some crimes are inherently and necessarily absolute moral abdications. It seems to me to be imposing the priggery of the age onto the human condition.

To the red: do you not see the difference, the transfer of the semiotic fulcrum from the perpetrator to the instrument? I would not trust that my interlocutor appreciates the fact that a compact but insidiously deceptive phrase means the longer but better-formulated idea. In fact, I see that sort of superficially reasonable restatement as an avenue for a shift in the moral premises of the argument to advance the agenda of the lingual engineers. Thus I am counseling a sort of semantic hygiene in the service of a deeper conceptual hygiene. I, for one, oppose the master communicators' ongoing program to beg the question by getting us to accept loaded language as normative. Jmo, of course.

 

[cannabineer]

I also believe sex offenders should remain registered. Same concept. If you act like a big enough fuck up, you lose some privileges.



I guess the wording is off, before you're arrested, in the USA it's a 'right' to have a firearm, and it's a right, pretty much everywhere, to live wherever you want. Should have said 'rights'...

I want to point out that arrested for a sex crime ≠ convicted of a sex crime ≠ the perpetrator of a sex crime. There is a prevalent and imo colossally dangerous presumption that conviction equals guilt. As I've said before ... if you want to become truly frightened, study the machinery of jurisprudence in the USA.

 

[Harrekin]

To the blue: I don't think we can justly/fairly profile people ion the chance that they'll be criminals, whether or not they have a record. I also think that making some crimes "special bad" such as sex offenses is unsound. I don't buy into the concept that some crimes are inherently and necessarily absolute moral abdications. It seems to me to be imposing the priggery of the age onto the human condition.

To the red: do you not see the difference, the transfer of the semiotic fulcrum from the perpetrator to the instrument? I would not trust that my interlocutor appreciates the fact that a compact but insidiously deceptive phrase means the longer but better-formulated idea. In fact, I see that sort of superficially reasonable restatement as an avenue for a shift in the moral premises of the argument to advance the agenda of the lingual engineers. Thus I am counseling a sort of semantic hygiene in the service of a deeper conceptual hygiene. I, for one, oppose the master communicators' ongoing program to beg the question by getting us to accept loaded language as normative. Jmo, of course.

*Off topic*

Welcome back dude, I was thinking for the last while "where is Bear?"

Better call the milk carton printer and cancel the order, he thought I was nuts putting a polar bear on the carton anyways.

 

[Beefbisquit]

I want to point out that arrested for a sex crime ≠ convicted of a sex crime ≠ the perpetrator of a sex crime. There is a prevalent and imo colossally dangerous presumption that conviction equals guilt. As I've said before ... if you want to become truly frightened, study the machinery of jurisprudence in the USA.

Oh, I understand that being arrested for something doesn't mean you did it.

But, how do you suggest we send people to jail after a guilty verdict is read, without presuming they're guilty? I can understand having reasonable doubt in certain cases, but a lot of cases are pretty straight forward too.

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

Rational thought and discourse. Glad to have you back , Bear.

 

[twostrokenut]

To the blue: I don't think we can justly/fairly profile people ion the chance that they'll be criminals, whether or not they have a record. I also think that making some crimes "special bad" such as sex offenses is unsound. I don't buy into the concept that some crimes are inherently and necessarily absolute moral abdications. It seems to me to be imposing the priggery of the age onto the human condition.

To the red: do you not see the difference, the transfer of the semiotic fulcrum from the perpetrator to the instrument? I would not trust that my interlocutor appreciates the fact that a compact but insidiously deceptive phrase means the longer but better-formulated idea. In fact, I see that sort of superficially reasonable restatement as an avenue for a shift in the moral premises of the argument to advance the agenda of the lingual engineers. Thus I am counseling a sort of semantic hygiene in the service of a deeper conceptual hygiene. I, for one, oppose the master communicators' ongoing program to beg the question by getting us to accept loaded language as normative. Jmo, of course.

I knew my dictionary had too much dust on it.
Welcome back cn.

 

[twostrokenut]

I also believe sex offenders should remain registered. Same concept. If you act like a big enough fuck up, you lose some privileges.



I guess the wording is off, before you're arrested, in the USA it's a 'right' to have a firearm, and it's a right, pretty much everywhere, to live wherever you want. Should have said 'rights'...

Its our "right" to bear arms...firearms included.
This is an individual right....the highest right of Law.
If you are a member of society, society has the right to make a "legal gun".
Much the same as it does to make "legal tender" or running a stop sign "illegal"

Think about it though....if you come to a stop sign...look in all directions, roll it and get caught...did you break the law?
You broke a statutory law or "law" which beckons the word illegal.
Was it unlawful to run that stop sign?
No injured party....so no it wasn't.

If I have a drum mag on a full auto shotgun...is simply possessing that unlawful or illegal?

Society has the right to make the wording so confusing on most issues it requires
a society within that society to coach you on all the legalese.

To the best of my reckoning its the same in Canada.