From: Geraint Rees (g.rees@fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk)
Date: Sun Dec 23 2001 - 09:25:57 MST
On 12/23/01 2:00 PM, "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey@datamann.com> wrote:
> When someone is arrested on charges of violating immigration laws, after
> being reported by his flight instructor for only wanting to learn how to
> fly a plane in the air, not take off or land, it is rather obvious to
> ANYONE with a brain that the guy is a terrorist.
Sure - hindsight is a wonderful thing. But how do you spot 'obvious'
terrorists without the benefit of hindsight? Or are you suggesting that
anyone who has violated immigration laws and is under some sort of suspicion
should be 'interrogated' (or do you mean 'tortured'?) until they confess?
The difficulty here is that you believe that it is possible for you (or
someone from law enforcement) to identify 'the enemy'. As most of Europe has
found out over the last few decades of terrorism throughout the continent,
judging who the 'enemy' is turns out to be very difficult. Your approach
might discover some terrorists; but I suspect at the very great cost of
throwing away everything about the Constitution and individual rights that
makes America such a great country.
> The ACLU IS a terrorist organization responsible for thousands of
> murders. They do NOT defend civil liberties that their left-wing agenda
> is opposed to. For instance, the ACLU has NEVER defended anyone's 2nd
> Amendment rights, and is on record with an official policy of supporting
> gun control and gun confiscation laws. Since it has been conclusively
> shown that gun use by law abiding citizens saves far more lives than it
> costs (and those that do die from gun use by law abiding citizens are
> more likely to be criminals than not) then the ACLU is responsible for
> the deaths of thousands of Americans who die from criminal assaults,
> unable to defend themselves due to gun control laws.
This argument depends entirely on your statement 'Since it has been
conclusively shown...'. If you are incorrect, then your argument fails. So
please could you post some evidence to support your argument. To start the
ball rolling, here's some evidence against your hypothesis:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/329/15/1084
This study of 1860 homicides shows that "use of illicit drugs and a history
of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in
the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are
associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or
intimate acquaintance."
Best,
Geraint
Geraint Rees | Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience
g.rees@fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk | University College London
+44-(0)20-7679-5496 (work) | Alexandra House
+44-(0)20-7813-2835 (fax) | 17 Queen Square
www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/~grees | London WC1N 3AR
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:12:45 MST