Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
Up to Bermuda.
Doesn't look like it works all that well in places that have them such that it would serve any of the supposed purposes having them (expediting violent offenses through the criminal justice system within some pretense of due process by sacrificing jury trials, as though that were a serious impediment of speed and justice).
They have super strict gun possession laws as it is. How many gun crimes per year do they have that they need to fix it by bypassing normal due process court procedures?
It sounds like they have a bigger problem with drug laws fueling gang violence and armaments rather than a serious problem with random gun violence. Get rid of the drug laws or decriminalize drugs and treat this as a medical problem, or even just change how the country prosecutes drug trafficking (get it off the street, but don't worry about it occurring in private venues where it can exist with less obviousness and bloodshed) and the problem of violence goes away much cheaper and more efficiently than foisting a new bureaucratic solution to resolve a couple dozen murders per year.
Broad scale solutions to a relatively small problem are wasteful intrusions and uses of government power. Particularly when the problem itself is caused by other government intrusions.
Things are messed up now already.
I don't live there and have never been there . . . so I say that it is up to Bermuda . . . . . OMG! What did I just do? Did I actually agree with Sun Tzu?
Just my not-so-humble opinion. B)
I have no idea why you think this should be strange or offensive that we should be in rough agreement on anything at all. It's not like I've identified some consistent thread that runs through your ideological views and the data and sources of such which informs your worldview that makes it clear which places I should preemptively disagree with you just out of some petty general principle that states "you are always wrong" before reaching those places where I am fairly certain you hold antithetical views already (religion, science, foreign policy, homosexuals, abortion) where we would more safely be able to attempt to argue something.
Well, just for ducks, I would leave religion out of it since I do not belong to any organized religion and never have.
You remind me of my father-in-law. We have always had to explain our points of view to him in an exact and minute detail in order for him to point out in that same manner that you have to prove to us that we held the wrong point of view . . . even when it was the same as his.
My comment up there was written with some humor in mind . . . sorry you missed it.
Or did you? o.0
I don't miss anything. Don't hear myself laughing much. I wouldn't take it personal. I just don't get by all that well with authoritarian types, or people who like anything authoritarian looking and sounding. A joke isn't going to get me on the good side or to ease off. A reason and some facts i don't already know will.
The religion aspect is more to do with your hostility toward people who don't share your religious views (mostly atheists and Muslims from what I have gathered) and less to do with your depiction of religion or personal spirituality. I could care less what you believe or how often you read a bible or go to church (or if you don't). It's the blind intolerance in the form of how to treat these people that gets the hair up on the back of my neck and put that on my list.