Thread: Fate of Criminals

My city ranks high in crimes. Should the criminals be killed on the spot? Should households have the permission to have unlicensed weapons?

Originally Posted by penguinhead

Quote was here

I answered NO to the original question (Should the criminals be killed on the spot?) - How do I know that someone woudn't shoot me by mistake?

The answer to the second question (Should households have the permission to have unlicensed weapons?) - Why the weapons should be unlicensed? It's normal to grant licenses to law abiding persons. Any person should have means to protect oneself, to this I agree. But uncontrolled weapons market leads to even more crimes.

Thanks for the reply. Yes the huge hurdle is that anyone can claim an innocent to be a criminal and shoot him away for pleasure. So there is no way out until the people control themselves.

You either have the rule of law, or you have anarchy. If the rule of law is ignored, then it is meaningless. In the US our worthless politicians refuse to enforce immigration laws, so since immigration laws are allowed to be broken, do we get to pick and choose what laws we will obey and which ones we will ignore?

It will be dangerous for anyone in your country to reform the government and reign in the criminal element. So, you have 2 choices. Accept the fact that your country is not going to change, or to start reform. The reformers need to know something about government before they can do this or else they will be as bad os the people in power now. You would be trading one tyranny for another.

The defination of freedom is tha absense of coersion. In total freedom, you could do anything you wanted to do. But in a free society, the power of coersion is transferred to the state, and with a set of written laws, you have a society that is somewhat free, and safe. You have freedoms (plural) where you do not have freedom. But it is the best compromise there is to give society some safety.

About weapons, there is a direct link between the private ownership of arms and freedom. A country that restricts the private ownership of firearms is not a free country. Tyrants prefer unarmed peasants.

In the US, when the Bill of Rights was being debated and the nation's capital was in Philadelphia (Washington DC did not exist then), George Mason argued for the right to keep and bear arms because, as he put it, "The tyranny of Philadelphia could be worse than the tyranny of King George."

In other words, it is the ultimate check and balance. It gives the people the ability to overthrow the government.

Best of luck, I have neighbors from your country and they have invited me to go to Pakistan with them when they go back to visit. I declined. Maybe someday when it is safe.....

I've heard there are no crimes in Communist societies. How far is this true?

My post was here.

Are there absolutely NO crimes in communist countries?

Last time I've been to the USSR there was no crime there. People were open and friendly and kept themselves fit with their morning exercises. There was no reason for any one to disrespect the law as they had everything and were respected by the Party and the Government. Had anybody just slightly entertained the idea of committing a crime, they were immediately overwhelmed with the deep shame and wished they had never even though of that strange idea. Instead of committing crimes people gathered in the free libraries and discussed the latest novels and poems. They traveled the world (of course not the despised Capitalistic one - yuk!) but all the fifteen Soviet Republics where the land belonged to the farmers and the factories belonged to the workers. :"":

The point is, what can you expect fruitful from peasants? They would be a waste for the country, parasites, no?

As I see, nobody voted "yes". Good.