Thread: Here we go folks

Originally Posted by Russian 22.

You know you don't make it easy to think that you're a fit and proper person when you literally advocate for the death penalty for recidivism. Murder and rape I get but recidivism is a different kettle of fish.

The money you'd spend on killing NZ citizens would be better spent elsewhere.

Sent from my TA-1024 using Tapatalk

Think you need to look more carefully at what I've suggested: we outsource our corrections system - this will cost a lot less than our current spend on rehabilitating those who have proven to be incapable of rehabilitation and reintegration into society; which is what recidivism is (at the extreme end). Not everyone gets into this system - it's graduated....

Originally Posted by Nickoli

I've said it before: outsource our justice system to China or Saudi Arabia...send crims first class, one way to somewhere that will deal with the problem - we could even pay a nominal annual upkeep (much greater savings than keeping them here - and if they don't survive to make it back: so what?)
Of course this will only be applicable for those slow to learn their lessons....
Cut the bleeding heart shit - as has been said before, no further crime can be committed if the problem has been removed, we just need to agree on a cost effective way of taking out the trash (again - this isn't first time offender solution talk here...)

How is it bleeding heart shit to actually propose changes that have actual evidence of reducing crime rates? Suppose I should stick to coming up with half cocked fantasy about imprisoning criminals on the moon or somthing.

I get that being mean to bad people gives you the warm fuzzies. It just doesn't work. The whole point of the justice system is to deter people from committing crime in the first place. How long one guy is in jail for said crime is irrelevant. What matters is how many people don't commit the crime for worry of the consequence.

Studies show that the most effective way to reduce this is to increase the chance of getting caught rather than the length of sentence. If you think the sentences are to weak that's fine, it's just a separate issue to preventing crime.

I'm arguing the point that, it is often said on here that harsher sentencing will reduce the occurrence of gun crime, evidence shows it isn't true. Increasing the likelihood of getting caught will. So if your true intent is to deter criminals that's where your money is best spent

Originally Posted by stretch

Please explain how capital punishment does not reduce recidivism.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Haha, when you out it like that. What I'm saying is the threat does not meaningfully impact the occrance or reoccuramce of crime. The 3 strike laws is more relevant to recidivism. Harsh and doesn't work

Originally Posted by Nick-D

How is it bleeding heart shit to actually propose changes that have actual evidence of reducing crime rates? Suppose I should stick to coming up with half cocked fantasy about imprisoning criminals on the moon or somthing.

I get that being mean to bad people gives you the warm fuzzies. It just doesn't work. The whole point of the justice system is to deter people from committing crime in the first place. How long one guy is in jail for said crime is irrelevant. What matters is how many people don't commit the crime for worry of the consequence.

Studies show that the most effective way to reduce this is to increase the chance of getting caught rather than the length of sentence. If you think the sentences are to weak that's fine, it's just a separate issue to preventing crime.

I'm arguing the point that, it is often said on here that harsher sentencing will reduce the occurrence of gun crime, evidence shows it isn't true. Increasing the likelihood of getting caught will. So if your true intent is to deter criminals that's where your money is best spent

....missed a critical element in my argument: if you outsource to Saudi Arabia, China or North Korea the consequences will be severe...and it hasn't been tried, so any reference to "studies" are moot - this is a solution that fits with our capitalism mindset that has not been tried or studied. Warm fuzzies(WTF?) don't come into it: I feel nothing for people who victimise others - often repeatedly.

I also get your need to highlight that harsher sentencing doesn't work - you want to reference the USA example where they have the highest incarceration rate in the world, and higher recidivism than any other country; it also fits neatly when juxtaposed against the Scandinavian countries who have a greater focus on rehabilitation. You conveniently ignore the underlying backgrounds and cultural factors of both examples....
I get it - the US system creates a culture of criminality where there is "nothing to lose" - and my example is extreme; but what we are doing at the moment isn't working, and we have an issue with people getting caught more than once (definition of recidivist) - so it's not a fear of getting caught driving behaviour. We have a situation where the potential benefit outweighs any potential consequence (which is weak at best).
Happy to be proven wrong, but I don't believe our current crop of officials are willing to actually look at the problems - so we are left with assessing consequences....

Originally Posted by Nickoli

....missed a critical element in my argument: if you outsource to Saudi Arabia, China or North Korea the consequences will be severe...and it hasn't been tried, so any reference to "studies" are moot - this is a solution that fits with our capitalism mindset that has not been tried or studied. Warm fuzzies(WTF?) don't come into it: I feel nothing for people who victimise others - often repeatedly.

I also get your need to highlight that harsher sentencing doesn't work - you want to reference the USA example where they have the highest incarceration rate in the world, and higher recidivism than any other country; it also fits neatly when juxtaposed against the Scandinavian countries who have a greater focus on rehabilitation. You conveniently ignore the underlying backgrounds and cultural factors of both examples....
I get it - the US system creates a culture of criminality where there is "nothing to lose" - and my example is extreme; but what we are doing at the moment isn't working, and we have an issue with people getting caught more than once (definition of recidivist) - so it's not a fear of getting caught driving behaviour. We have a situation where the potential benefit outweighs any potential consequence (which is weak at best).
Happy to be proven wrong, but I don't believe our current crop of officials are willing to actually look at the problems - so we are left with assessing consequences....

I'm sorry man but outsourcing draconian prison and torture as a form of punishment is
1. Entirely unrealistic
2. Absolutely not a new idea. It's been the way things have happened for the majority of our civilised history.

You are claiming causation based entirely on your oppinion and not on evidence. I get that it seems logical but humans are not logical creatures. It isn't a matter of weighing up benifits vs consequence.
Recidivism is a complex issue. But again in the context of this discussion (firearms and firearms law) not really relevant.

In the 1st world there is no harsher recidivism policy than the 3 strikes laws. Yet people still repeat offend.

It's all about the psychology of prevention. Imagine you are a kiwi bloke who likes to drive at 115. Now you have road a and road b. Road a has a $500 fine for driving 115. However you drive road a all the time, you never see a cop or speed camera on there.

Road b only has a $200 fine for going 115, but you see cops on there all the time. At least a couple times a week. You see people pulled over and getting tickets. Hell your mate got pinged last week.

Which road are you more likely to slow down on?

Originally Posted by systolic

Yes, what was proposed in the DRAFT. Which was then changed to be more specific and reference 762mm.

Only a retard would seriously think that making illegal the fitting a thinner recoil pad, or scraping 0.00002mm off by rubbing on concrete was the intention of this proposal.

I hope all those who sent in abusive or half cocked emails sent another to apologise and congratulate him on seeking heavier penalties for those found with cut down guns.

Really? If it wasn't for the fact hardly anyone seems to trust the police hierarchy anymore nor vote seeking pollies who may mean well and think they are doing the right thing by listening to aforementioned police with coming up with these then maybe it wouldn't happen.
Politicians need to be abused and often otherwise they kowtow to the vocal minority and the apathetic majority is screwed.
I've seen what an agenda can do to firearms ownership in Australia which was strongarmed in by Johnny H, we don't want them to ever, ever think we are soft enough to let it happen here.
He should also only get congratulations if it doesn't turn out bad and why should he get an apology?
Its not the fact that it was the intention of the proposal to infer all shortening would make them illegal, the fact it wasn't excluded give a copper with an attitude to enforce if he see's fit, much like they do now. @systolic, you weren't a politician in an earlier life were you? Cant be as you aren't that diplomatic.

Originally Posted by stretch

Please explain how capital punishment does not reduce recidivism.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

The ones who get it don't do it again...

With you on that, csmiffy. Precisely the opposite of what Nick-D was claiming.

Originally Posted by stretch

With you on that, csmiffy. Precisely the opposite of what Nick-D was claiming.

What? No it isn't.

I'm "claiming" that the threat of capitol punishment does not reduce recidivence rates. Obviously if you are dead you can't repeat offend.

Originally Posted by Nickoli

Think you need to look more carefully at what I've suggested: we outsource our corrections system - this will cost a lot less than our current spend on rehabilitating those who have proven to be incapable of rehabilitation and reintegration into society; which is what recidivism is (at the extreme end). Not everyone gets into this system - it's graduated....

I have. You're suggesting that criminals have less human rights than you and I. And that you are perfectly comfortable with others doing the dirty work.

If you think the government would stop at actual criminals and leave us alone then you're naïve at best.

Sent from my TA-1024 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Russian 22.

I have. You're suggesting that criminals have less human rights than you and I. And that you are perfectly comfortable with others doing the dirty work.

If you think the government would stop at actual criminals and leave us alone then you're naïve at best.

Sent from my TA-1024 using Tapatalk

Never even suggested that the government would ever leave us alone - nice if they would, but it will never happen.
If you believe I'm that naive - you are stupid at best... I can do false equivalency too - and suggest you grow up a bit.

Originally Posted by Russian 22.

I have. You're suggesting that criminals have less human rights than you and I. And that you are perfectly comfortable with others doing the dirty work.

If you think the government would stop at actual criminals and leave us alone then you're naïve at best.

Sent from my TA-1024 using Tapatalk

Never even suggested that the government would ever leave us alone - nice if they would, but it will never happen.
As for human rights: we already remove the rights of criminals via incarceration. As part of living in society, if you break the social contract you forfeit some of those rights. We can disagree until the cows come home as to where to draw the line of just what rights are forfeit; but I suggest we remember the victims before putting the rights of criminals above them.
If you believe I'm that naive - you are stupid at best... I can do false equivalency too - and suggest you grow up a bit.

Originally Posted by Nickoli

Never even suggested that the government would ever leave us alone - nice if they would, but it will never happen.
If you believe I'm that naive - you are stupid at best... I can do false equivalency too - and suggest you grow up a bit.

If you think it won't happen then why would you suggest something that could be used against us?

Jog on. I'm not the one suggesting stupid ideas.

No need to be patronising.

Originally Posted by Nickoli

Never even suggested that the government would ever leave us alone - nice if they would, but it will never happen.
As for human rights: we already remove the rights of criminals via incarceration. As part of living in society, if you break the social contract you forfeit some of those rights. We can disagree until the cows come home as to where to draw the line of just what rights are forfeit; but I suggest we remember the victims before putting the rights of criminals above them.
If you believe I'm that naive - you are stupid at best... I can do false equivalency too - and suggest you grow up a bit.

Never denied that we do remove rights or that the social contract requires it to function.

Nice. Conflating victims and criminals into one. I never mentioned victims and criminals getting more help or anything like that.

Since you had to stoop to calling me stupid and immature if wager that you never read much of an argument anyway.

Sent from my TA-1024 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by systolic

Yes, what was proposed in the DRAFT. Which was then changed to be more specific and reference 762mm.

Only a retard would seriously think that making illegal the fitting a thinner recoil pad, or scraping 0.00002mm off by rubbing on concrete was the intention of this proposal.

I hope all those who sent in abusive or half cocked emails sent another to apologise and congratulate him on seeking heavier penalties for those found with cut down guns.

Wow you haven't worked for a political organisation or seen their handiwork.