Yeah you have a point. Even the best teachers can't control everyone. And if you push too hard then as you say, where do you draw the line before it becomes abuse.
But basically on the whole, it's a battle that needs to be fought on two fronts at the same time for anything to get better. Firstly, locating and fighting the causes of the crime- education and a sense of morality and responsibility with kids as they grow up. Treat them more like adults, more interaction between kids/adults in the community e.t.c. so that there isn't such a huge gulf between generations.
Secondly, at the same time, be tough on the existing crime, with youths especially. Perhaps tougher than we are, to send out a strong message.
I think. :lol:
yeah, tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime. good point about treating kids like adults- i don't agree with trying them as adults, but it certainly wouldn't hurt if some adults weren't so supercilious with them. :)
of course, we could just legalise handguns. that'd be awesome. :twisted: (i'm being serious)
But in a society where you carry a handgun, do you think the bad guys won't? They'll have Uzis.
If we take the "fight fire with fire" route we're not going to end up with less violent crime.
oh, i know. just the difference now is that the crims have guns and I don't. I'd rather have a handgun against a crim with an uzi, than the current situation where i have no gun and a criminal has a handgun. if anything, single-shot guns are more accurate and easy to aim. It's unlikely to escalate into much of an arms race... i can't see too many criminals going round with RPGs, driving challenger tanks etc., or perhaps a tactical nuke. The whole point of illegal weapons is that you have to be able to hide them- pretty hard with anything much bigger than a handgun.
And my sister always makes an excellent point about this- women are already by and large weaker than men. This surely encourages rape etc. Society has no problem with accepting that women are less able to defend themselves than men as things are, yet it's wrong for women to want to have guns to protect themselves?
Much the same for wussy guys (like myself). I don't want to have to learn to do ju-jitsu for 15 years so I can defend myself- and more's the point, what do I do for those 15 years until I'm good enough, not go out? And as mark will rightly say, if you do know ju-jitsu, or other martial art, what would go down as self-defence for an amateur member of the public would be considered murder in the eyes of the law.
As my sister says, currently women pretty much have the option of being raped, or else learning self-defence where, in the unfortunate event they managed to successfully fend off a rapist, would likely be tried for murder, or assault, because of their training.
Not exactly a great choice there. guns would level the playing field somewhat.
Thats not what I mean.
I mean that self-defence and bystander-intervention are more acceptable in the eyes of the law.
That wont make people more aggressive, because its implicit in that that aggressors are in the wrong, and anyone that gives comuppance for it there and then, provided they dont go nuts, will not be arrested for defending themselves/others.
I'm talking about aggressors getting the short end of the stick in the law. At the moment any violent act is, stricktly speaking, viewed as illegal regardless of circumstance (i.e. you defend yourself aggressively, youre in the wrong)
Though I do think that the police have a decent grasp of this already. I was in a fight a little while ago, typical pub nonesense, where this guy nutted me out of the blue, so I hit him back (reflex action). I got a sore lip and loose tooth, he got a knocked out, broken nose (had to be set back in place) and wandered round with two black eyes for a week. There was quite a bit of blood. Realising that I had caused more damage than him, I went to the police to get in first in case they had to be (if an ambulence was called) and explained what happened, and that I was there because I didnt want to be nicked because I defended myself. They said "As far as were concerned hes the perp and youre the IP" and stuck him in the cells for the night. I asked them not to take any further action and the guy admitted he was being a tw@t and bought me a drink the next day.
I know quite a few police officers (my parents met in the police) and this sort of attitude seems to be prevelant.
Its when it gets to courts and the moral evaluation of the situation is thrown out of the window and replaced with the letter of the law, which in this regard is an ass, that we get the problem.
Many criminals know all about that and exploit it.
That needs to stop, is basically my point.
ah, sorry, yeah, i agree there. definitely dodgy how they'll spend weeks in court arguing over an action which someone had perhaps a few seconds to judge what to do.
similar thing happened to jeremy clarkson, i think, and he got off too.
i guess we need to separate whether the criminal had a bad life (which is society's fault, not the victim's) from trying to get the victim charged. instead of blaming the victim for fighting back (which is bs), blame society. something like that anyway. It doesn't sit easily with me that, as it appears anyway, a lot of these situations you just have to hope not to happen to you- once you're in them, it can feel like a catch-22 situation...
:)
