4 ms·
I know this sounds crazy, but I'd be willing to tolerate a modest number of bystander deaths if it meant a dramatic uptick in the number of criminal deaths. The
by stickfigure 8y ago
I know this sounds crazy, but I'd be willing to tolerate a modest number of bystander deaths if it meant a dramatic uptick in the number of criminal deaths. There can't be that many criminals. The steady-state equilibrium might be safer than the current regime, which is that criminals can assault (and kill) with little risk to themselves.
Of course I'd like my chance of death-by-bullet to be zero. But for whatever reason, that doesn't seem to be an option on the table.
- darpa_escapee 8y ago> I know this sounds crazy, but I'd be willing to tolerate a modest number of bystander deaths if it meant a dramatic uptick in the number of criminal deaths. I'm of the opinion that it's better for a criminal to walk free than for an innocent person to be punished or killed for something they have nothing to do with.
- symlinkk 8y agoIf criminals are walking free left and right, they will feel less afraid to commit more crimes, including murdering innocents.
- darpa_escapee 8y ago> If criminals are walking free left and right They aren't: conviction rates are high and crime rates are at record lows.
- wolco 8y agoIf the criminal kills innocent people all hope is lost in your opinion.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]