Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
"you make distinctions between a murders action based on religion i make my based on outcome white guy on the train co worker kills 5 ruth killed nine people and husband and wife (the only one called terrorism) i see them all as terrorism"
So because there is no way to stop ALL terror attacks (or all murders), you argue that there's no reason to try and stop any. Brilliant.
There is a huge difference between some random nut who goes on a killing spree because he's a schizophrenic psychopath, and what Osama Bin Laden did. If you disagree with that, you might be the only person in the world who doesn't make that distinction. Dead is dead - I agree on that. But different types of crime represent different problems requiring different solutions. You are saying that because no one solution works for all, that means there is no solution worth trying. You have the right of that opinion. But I don't get it.
You work in criminal justice. Don't you know that we have gun laws to prevent certain types of crime, we have drug laws to prevent other types of crime, we have domestic violence programs to prevent yet other types of crime, we have drinking and driving laws to prevent yet another type of crime.
Why have DUI laws? People still get killed in car accidents, right? That's the logic you are using.
|
your funny I never suggested not try to stop any crimes or terror attacks.. Just countering you're suggestion that banning a religion is prevention