double standard? (USA thread)

[Busyman]

then let me explain it yet again


The people I am talking about stated without any exception that foriegn courts have no bearing on US justice. They have no influence on US justice and they have no place in the US system. They used the arguement that non US courts have different laws and are not just and fair as US courts are and therefore under no circumstances are foreign courts relevent.

Therefore the double standard I see is that they wish to view convictions in these outside courts as relevent.

Now I am not basing this on the fact that they objected to "international opinion" I am basing it on why they said international opinion should not count.
If one says that international courts are not just then how can one argue to use convictions in those courts?

Edit: they also stated that they are different cultures so bear no relevence

Thanks for clearing that up but please point out the words in bold as it relates to the judicial activism thingie. I don't remember those phrases at all.

Even in your first post you say "moral ruling" and then say "foreign convictions".
They are two different things.

I know you arre saying now that it's basically "They want to disregard the courts in every way now they regard the courts only this one thingie". IiIIIIII gotcha.

[vidcc]

Thanks for clearing that up but please point out the words in bold as it relates to the judicial activism thingie. I don't remember those phrases at all.

.

I did say it before but i didn't go into detail in the first post because in saying it was a USA thread in the title i was hoping that those that joined in would be aware of the "issue", although it is as usual open to all.
I watch programs like hardball and scarborough country (i think you get both sides if you watch those two) as well as reading both left and right wing bloggers.

[Snee]

That would mean gunmakers are liable. They are not. If I club you in the head with a baseball bat then maybe it's the baseball bat's fault.

No it isn't, it isn't about what to blame, it's about what leads to death. And guns do have a tendancy to cause death when used.

Oh yeah, and the gunmakers bloody well should be liable, seeing as they lobby for the same thing you seem so happy with, that is, to let (almost) everyone buy a gun.

Anyone can be bad guy. Someone could want to knock off their wife and shoot her yet pass a background check.....and world keeps turning.

And that's the point, if anyone can be a bad guy, then why should they get to buy guns. The world doesn't keep on turning for the ones who get killed because someone killed them, I can promise you that.

..and damn I don't live in Sweden. If you were to come to my house, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't make it past the foyer...and you may come up short by just scoring six bullets.

Sure I would, as I know better than to break into someone's home when they are home.

I did say if I ever come there, now didn't I, btw?

When put in context, it definitely reads "the UK has less homicides" and discern the point was about "less homicides" and not just "homicides".

In the context of your posts, it might well have been the point which he had, what with your tendency to sometimes leave stuff out.

Not quite sure what you are trying to say here either.

Where did I say we should get rid of them? In a perfect world, of course I'd be rid of them.

It won't be a perfect world if people like you keep insisting they should have them. It sort of opens the door to all kinds of shit.

A hypothetical.....
The UK bans alcohol. Drunk driving deaths are then a 20th of America's, domestic goes down drastically, crime goes down drastically, alcohol related illness is almost wiped out. Anything to the contrary is due to moonshining.
America still won't ban alcohol. That's a bit strange.

Can't aim a bottle of booze at anyone and kill them in a second, it takes a bit more than that, and this is one of those places where your "people kill people" argument works to a greater extent, no matter how drunk I've been, and I've been pretty drunk indeed, I've never had any illusions as to why I've done what I've done.

I reckon it was all me. And as I didn't have a magic button to press in order to cause mayhem in an instant, it was slow process, not a moments decision, like it would be if you shot someone.

But, as we are on the subject, stricter control with regards to alcohol wouldn't hurt you either.

We have that, and it appears to work.

Almost anyone can't pass a test. Also, the implementation of stricter gun control is up for debate. Being able to walk into Kmart and come out with a shotgun is ridiculous. Go to a gun show, come out with a handgun....ridiculous. Close some of this shit up first.

Sure they can, unless the test is very strict indeed, not only involving background checks with regards to prior sentences, but psychoanalysis or something.

It isn't hard to hit a static target either.

So yeah, almost anyone can pass the test you propose.

Unless of course, you want people to pay for the priviliege, that'd filter out some people, I should imagine. Though it wouldn't be very fair.

I imagine if there was no test for driving a car then we'd not only have more cars on the road but also more people crashing shit up. In response to recent crashes by teenage drivers, in some places I think they have to have a learner's permit longer or the driving age has been upped.

Strangely enough, we can't get a license until we turn eighteen, and I'll be darned if that doesn't work better too.

We can't really compare cars to guns, as one is a weapon, while the other is a tool for transport. And since society needs that today, then we do have to use them, and the tests are the best way of ensuring that people at least know a little about what they are doing before going out on the road. But when it comes to guns, society really doesn't need them, in fact, they seem to be a big problem, without any real overall gain. So there's really no point in wasting money on devising better tests when you could bypass the problem by just taking the reason for the test away.

There'd be much lesser quantity with better gun control too.

I'd wager that the quantity would be a bit lesser, but since everyone seems so fond of owning one over there, they'd just wait a bit longer for their guns, and take the tests. The guns would still be available, you haven't really removed anything.

I believe that trouble can find anyone. It was far-fetched for me to believe I'd catch a stray bullet in my car while sitting at a fucking red light.
Trust me..even in America shit happens and we still can't believe it. This is because on a day-to-day basis, life is peachy. I see shit on the news but for me it's life as usual though the shit may have been somewhere that I was at a day ago.
Life..............
Shit happens. I never have to pull a gun someone here and yet move over there (UK) and have to.

This just in case thing is mad, yes, someone might shoot you, but the odds in favour of it are microscopic, and the chances of you getting stuck in a situation where a gun is the only way out are probably a lot smaller than you dying in a traffic accident or dying from an illness, yet that is important enough to waste your money on, and if you go to the UK, to risk prison for.

Why worry about that particular thing, and not wear a helmet when driving or something, and maybe a gasmask to keep the germs out?

It's pretty silly. And not in the least logical.


With regards to the thread-topic:
If you did bring a gun to my country and shot someone, I reckon you do deserve to go to prison, 'cos you have damn well broken the law.

So I certainly reckon you should be convicted in the US too, for it, if you happened to be there before they caught you.

Laws like that, laws that don't have anything to do with religion, or any other madness, should be followed wherever you go, so I'm all in favour of globalising the reach of certain laws, no matter the originating country.

And if you were tried in one of your own courts, the efficiency of the local police wouldn't be an issue either, and thus it'd be fair by american standards. I reckon.

And this is what this thread is originally about in a way, isn't it.


You have the patriot act, and things like that, that allow the US to convict people all over the world from what I understand, and even to some extent bring them back to be convicted, so the US owes it to the world to allow other nations a certain influence in the US. It's only fair, and to argue against it, would be an indication of double standards.

At any rate the discussion shouldn't be about what nations you should recognize as having authority, but rather about which laws you should follow as certain matters are universal.

And for them to suddenly recognize convictions only when it's convenient, ie to keep the guns out of the hands of some people, while arguing about foreign laws not having influence on US courts is mad.

[JPaul]

.... laws that don't have anything to do with religion, or any other madness ....

There are those amongst us who do not consider religion to be madness. You may not agree with this, however it is a bit harsh to describe us in such a manner.

[Busyman]

No it isn't, it isn't about what to blame, it's about what leads to death. And guns do have a tendancy to cause death when used.

So do knives and baseball bats.

Oh yeah, and the gunmakers bloody well should be liable, seeing as they lobby for the same thing you seem so happy with, that is, to let (almost) everyone buy a gun.

Gun makers should not be liable. They sell a product allowable under the law...shit, allowable under the Constitution ffs. I bet you think McDonald's is liable for obesity too.

And that's the point, if anyone can be a bad guy, then why should they get to buy guns. The world doesn't keep on turning for the ones who get killed because someone killed them, I can promise you that.

Why should they get to buy knives? You can't control free-will.

Sure I would, as I know better than to break into someone's home when they are home.

I did say if I ever come there, now didn't I, btw?

...and I said if you were to come to my house. I didn't do any edit so it was there. Read.
Besides that I have an alarm and you have to find the guns.

In the context of your posts, it might well have been the point which he had, what with your tendency to sometimes leave stuff out.

Not quite sure what you are trying to say here either.

Who knows wtf you are talking about either. You made a remark about my post...on something that I already posted and never edited. Then you try to cover it by saying nice edit when called on it. People skip over shit reading sometimes man...hell I do it. The problem was you were trying to be a smart-ass about something that was in your face all along and you can't back down enough to admit (with evidence still sitting there).

It won't be a perfect world if people like you keep insisting they should have them. It sort of opens the door to all kinds of shit.

I recognize this isn't Disneyland.

Can't aim a bottle of booze at anyone and kill them in a second, it takes a bit more than that, and this is one of those places where your "people kill people" argument works to a greater extent, no matter how drunk I've been, and I've been pretty drunk indeed, I've never had any illusions as to why I've done what I've done.

I reckon it was all me. And as I didn't have a magic button to press in order to cause mayhem in an instant, it was slow process, not a moments decision, like it would be if you shot someone.

The end result is the fact that the selling and consumption of alcohol leads to many deaths and alcohol is not necessary to live. A drunk driver can kill in a second...sometimes and entire family.

But, as we are on the subject, stricter control with regards to alcohol wouldn't hurt you either.

We have that, and it appears to work.

Agreed...stricter control.

Sure they can, unless the test is very strict indeed, not only involving background checks with regards to prior sentences, but psychoanalysis or something.

It isn't hard to hit a static target either.

So yeah, almost anyone can pass the test you propose.

I'm sorry. What test did I propose?

Unless of course, you want people to pay for the priviliege, that'd filter out some people, I should imagine. Though it wouldn't be very fair.

Strangely enough, we can't get a license until we turn eighteen, and I'll be darned if that doesn't work better too.

We can't really compare cars to guns, as one is a weapon, while the other is a tool for transport. And since society needs that today, then we do have to use them, and the tests are the best way of ensuring that people at least know a little about what they are doing before going out on the road. But when it comes to guns, society really doesn't need them, in fact, they seem to be a big problem, without any real overall gain. So there's really no point in wasting money on devising better tests when you could bypass the problem by just taking the reason for the test away.

I like folks to educated if they are going to own a gun. Many folks don't keep have proper gun locks and have children in the house. They pick up a gun and can't fire it yet they own it....so when they do have to fire it, bullets go to next door neighbors house.

I feel I should be able to own a gun for an intruder.

I'd wager that the quantity would be a bit lesser, but since everyone seems so fond of owning one over there, they'd just wait a bit longer for their guns, and take the tests. The guns would still be available, you haven't really removed anything.

Wtf are you on about again? Everyone is not fond of owning a gun over here. MOST people don't.

This just in case thing is mad, yes, someone might shoot you, but the odds in favour of it are microscopic, and the chances of you getting stuck in a situation where a gun is the only way out are probably a lot smaller than you dying in a traffic accident or dying from an illness, yet that is important enough to waste your money on, and if you go to the UK, to risk prison for.

Then it sounds like the odds of me having to even pull my gun are microscopic as well.

Why worry about that particular thing, and not wear a helmet when driving or something, and maybe a gasmask to keep the germs out?

It's uncomfortable and looks like shit.

It's pretty silly. And not in the least logical.

[B]How so? My gun ownership is unobtrusive, unintrusive, and can save my life under current law.[B]

With regards to the thread-topic:
If you did bring a gun to my country and shot someone, I reckon you do deserve to go to prison, 'cos you have damn well broken the law.

Of course.

So I certainly reckon you should be convicted in the US too, for it, if you happened to be there before they caught you.

Explain.

Laws like that, laws that don't have anything to do with religion, or any other madness, should be followed wherever you go, so I'm all in favour of globalising the reach of certain laws, no matter the originating country.

I disagree.

And if you were tried in one of your own courts, the efficiency of the local police wouldn't be an issue either, and thus it'd be fair by american standards. I reckon.

Explain.

And this is what this thread is originally about in a way, isn't it.

You have the patriot act, and things like that, that allow the US to convict people all over the world from what I understand, and even to some extent bring them back to be convicted, so the US owes it to the world to allow other nations a certain influence in the US. It's only fair, and to argue against it, would be an indication of double standards.

I don't think the Patriot Act works in that way. I think it fucks over American citizens and people on our soil.

At any rate the discussion shouldn't be about what nations you should recognize as having authority, but rather about which laws you should follow as certain matters are universal.

Laws are interpreted differently in different countries. Some are the same. A person in another country should be liable to that country and how that country interprets their law.

And for them to suddenly recognize convictions only when it's convenient, ie to keep the guns out of the hands of some people, while arguing about foreign laws not having influence on US courts is mad.

Well in America anything's up for debate. The Court made an interpretation of the law which I think was just. As far as arguing international opinion not having an influence, I thought one Supreme Court justice in particular was actually for the influence.

[Snee]

There are those amongst us who do not consider religion to be madness. You may not agree with this, however it is a bit harsh to describe us in such a manner.

Sorry, wasn't thinking there. I didn't mean that religion is mad, but that laws based on religion alone are, or at least can be.

I apologize, I did not mean to critizise your faith. I really didn't.

[Snee]

And busy, the makers of guns differ from mickey dee's and such in that they weapons.

If they lobby to keep their weapons in society, then they certainly should pay for that when someone dies because of what they sell.

This is nothing like blaming a company that sells food for making you fat, that's just stupid. the guns do something to you, you don't choose to get shot.


Knives and baseball bats aren't intended to be used as weapons by the manufacturer, they have their valid, peaceful uses, so that's not the same thing either.



I think I'll leave out that weirdness about edits, you said I wasn't there and I pointed out that I said that I wasn't there, and meh.

You say you want a stricter test, that means that you want a test, albeit unspecified test, I say any test is going to be inadequate and won't really work. Thus you are in favour of using a test, and I'm not.

You want people to be educated when it comes to using a gun, and I suppose that's better than them just picking them up when the trouble starts, but seeing as how people are people most will only do the training necessary to pass any test, and then forget all about it once they have the gun. It can't really help much in the long run.


And wtf are you on about, I reckon the people who own guns are fond of their guns, or at least of their right to own guns. So nothing would change. And if anyone gives the impression of everyone having guns it's you. You certainly seem to think that the possibility of you getting shot is oh so serious. If most people don't have guns I don't really see how you can need one. Microscopic odds and all that.


A helmet is uncomfortable? and looks like shit. Well, a gun is loud, oh and it's lethal.


You say you want a gun even in the UK, that's not logical, 'k? The risk is even smaller there, the gun is illegal, and you could probably have managed without it.


And with regards to the laws, I think you should be punished if you murder someone, no matter where you murder them. And if you managed to get back to the US, you shouldn't be protected from the influence of other courts because the american courts don't recognize the authority of those courts.


Part of the patriot act (at least I think it was the patriot act, I know it was US law), and other recent additions, allows for convicting people just for using american servers and similar. To some extent America gives itself jurisdiction on foreign soil when it comes to certain crimes, like terrorism, or what they think is terrorism.

And who knows what your intelligence agencies have been up to, I know they've supported all kinds of shennanigans in the past.


I think vid's comment about double standards and that was made with the ones not in favour of allowing foreign courts influence on your legal system.

[Busyman]

And busy, the makers of guns differ from mickey dee's and such in that they weapons.

Same principle. People choose to eat at McDonald's. The blame is not on McDonald's. A person kills another with a gun. The blame is on the person doing the killing. Pretty simple.

If they lobby to keep their weapons in society, then they certainly should pay for that when someone dies because of what they sell.

Gun makers don't make law. The sale of guns is law biding.

This is nothing like blaming a company that sells food for making you fat, that's just stupid. the guns do something to you, you don't choose to get shot.

Guns don't do anything to me. They just sit there until someone picks it up.

Knives and baseball bats aren't intended to be used as weapons by the manufacturer, they have their valid, peaceful uses, so that's not the same thing either.

They both can be objects used for killing. In that, they are the same. Guns require more regulation. If there was an epidemic of knifings then it would require regulation too.

I think I'll leave out that weirdness about edits, you said I wasn't there and I pointed out that I said that I wasn't there, and meh.

I bet you do now want to leave out the edit weirdness seeing that you were wrong.

You say you want a stricter test, that means that you want a test, albeit unspecified test, I say any test is going to be inadequate and won't really work. Thus you are in favour of using a test, and I'm not.

All test filter out people. There was a test for me to get inton Verizon. This test probably filtered out many people that didn't fit the company's employment criteria (or to be blunt, they were too dumb for the job). It makes one have to go through more trouble than simply putting the gun on their credit card.

You want people to be educated when it comes to using a gun, and I suppose that's better than them just picking them up when the trouble starts, but seeing as how people are people most will only do the training necessary to pass any test, and then forget all about it once they have the gun. It can't really help much in the long run.

Maybe but I remember all my driver "training"........

And wtf are you on about, I reckon the people who own guns are fond of their guns, or at least of their right to own guns. So nothing would change. And if anyone gives the impression of everyone having guns it's you. You certainly seem to think that the possibility of you getting shot is oh so serious. If most people don't have guns I don't really see how you can need one. Microscopic odds and all that.

Hmmm but you said "everyone seems so fond of owning one over there." You had that impression of everyone having a gun from TV not me. The possiblity of anyone getting shot is serious even if statistically unlikely (sound weird huh). Most people don't have guns but it seems that there are folks still getting shot by the one's that do. Microscopic odds and all that.

A helmet is uncomfortable? and looks like shit. Well, a gun is loud, oh and it's lethal.

I don't mind loud and lethal. Loud let's my neighbor's know there's trouble. Lethal means hopefully the intruder got capped.

You say you want a gun even in the UK, that's not logical, 'k? The risk is even smaller there, the gun is illegal, and you could probably have managed without it.

Not quite. I know it's against the law there so I wouldn't have one. It's a catch-22...I want one for protection but I don't want one if it breaks the law. It's the same reason I don't ride around in my car with a loaded weapon (the latter reason), that and the fact that if someone breaks into my car, they've got my gun.


And with regards to the laws, I think you should be punished if you murder someone, no matter where you murder them. And if you managed to get back to the US, you shouldn't be protected from the influence of other courts because the american courts don't recognize the authority of those courts.

That's what extradition is for so in that, I agree.

Part of the patriot act (at least I think it was the patriot act, I know it was US law), and other recent additions, allows for convicting people just for using american servers and similar. To some extent America gives itself jurisdiction on foreign soil when it comes to certain crimes, like terrorism, or what they think is terrorism.

I can't speak tooooooo much on the Patriot Act since I don't a hell of alot about it. The jurisdiction you speak of isn't PA related. It's "pissed-off were coming to fuck you up 9-11 related". If we suspect Syria is a terrorist country and had something to with a bombing on our country, us going in there doesn't involve the PA.

And who knows what your intelligence agencies have been up to, I know they've supported all kinds of shennanigans in the past.

As all governments have.

I think vid's comment about double standards and that was made with the ones not in favour of allowing foreign courts influence on your legal system.

His double standard is too broad. One has to look at what actually is being talked about and not just put "foreign courts and influence" together.

[Snee]

Purely to set the record straight:

If I thought I was wrong, I'd admitted it, I'm not, you know, you.


As for the rest.

Guns, the other tools and the food are all different, in that guns are made to kill, while the others are made for other purposes.

If everything is used for what it's intended for, guns will still be used to kill people.
That's not exactly a side effect.

And when it comes to training, I guarantee you, you'll forget most of it if you never use what you learned, whether it's about cars or guns. The reason it would be a bigger problem when it comes to guns is that most people don't use them daily, to repel invading forces or somesuch, whereas most people do drive to work quite often.

And the double standard, as far as I can tell, lies in how the us courts only accept the decisions of other courts, if at all, to take away rights other people in the US do have, on the basis of laws they won't otherwise accept. And, as an added insult, it appears to be allowed, by US law, for certain organizations to break the laws in all kinds of ways, in foreign countries.

And no, not every country does the same kind of thing, but even if they did, that's still not a reason to do it.

As for the patriot act, I do think it regulates the usage of american servers as well. At any rate US law regulates the usage of servers on american soil in such a fashion that, say negotiating a sale of some, in the US, illegal substance in, say Amsterdam via email passing through an American server, might become a problem if the server is ever cracked open, depending on how you read the law, it certainly looked that way to me in an excerpt I came into contact with last year.