4 ms·

Singapore will also execute anyone for simply possessing a firearm.

ptaipale 12y ago
Not quite, Wikipedia: "Trafficking in arms (Section 6) is a capital offence in Singapore. Under the Arms Offences Act, trafficking is defined as being in unlawful possession of more than two firearms."
- l10nf15h 12y ago
  That is still shocking to anyone in the US where the ratio of guns to people is 1:1.
  - sjwright 12y ago
    The 1:1 ratio of guns to people is shocking to the majority of the civilised world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP3HJVp3n9c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP3HJVp3n9c
    - refurb 12y ago
      Why? Many other countries come close to that ratio. Is there something intrinsically bad about that?
      - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
        I think the bigger problem is that we manufacture many more guns than we can use, which is basically tacit support for the guns for drug trade.
        refurb 12y ago
        The US? People can own more than one gun. The 1:1 ratio is for privately own guns. Doesn't include military or guns for export.
      - 9872 12y ago
        Is there something intrinsically bad about executing illegal arms dealers?
        wycx 12y ago
        Mandatory execution sees offenders only as their offence, rather than human beings, and denies offenders the opportunity to change for the better. It is cynical and pessimistic.
        sjwright 12y ago
        Treating offenders only as their offence is what most justice systems to to most criminals most of the time. Particularly in the USA, where incarceration is a for-profit business traded on the stock market.
        ptaipale 12y ago
        Is there a mandatory execution for firearms violation in Singapore? I didn't think so.
      - sjwright 12y ago
        No, very few countries come close to that ratio. The poster-child for widespread gun ownership, Switzerland, still only has half as many guns per capita[0] as the US. They also have laws that prohibit most people from carrying loaded guns. The result is a gun homicide rate less than 1/5th that of the US per capita.[1] Yes, intrinsically bad. It's pretty clear to anyone who doesn't live in a gun "bubble". Number one cause of death by gun? Suicide. Watch that YouTube clip[2] in full; it summarises my opinion quite well. The second amendment makes sense in the era of muskets, but in the present day only serves to make everyday life less safe, and police officers more Ferguson-ey. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_co... [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-re... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP3HJVp3n9c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP3HJVp3n9c
        jessaustin 12y ago
        If the attempt is to understand the roots of homicide, rather than just bash one nation or another, it's more instructive to look at homicides [0], rather than homicides of a particular flavor. A careful look at that list will make it clear that elevated homicide rates are a legacy of colonization, at least as much as legal policy. Those in the Americas or Africa can't really be blamed that they were colonized by Europeans. Therefore, nations in the bottom, say, third of the table for those continents really aren't doing such a bad job. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...
        sjwright 12y ago
        If your argument is that America's problems are caused by Europe, that's pretty embarrassing.
        ptaipale 12y ago
        Well, I didn't read the argument like that. More like that the homicide rates are a legacy of the process of colonization; in a country that was first colonies and then a nation expanding across the North American continent, sometimes meeting hostile original inhabitants who were mercilessly and violently overrun, there was violence, and that violence necessitated self-defence, which in turn means the people traditionally rely on guns they use themselves, not the authorities and legal process - because the authorities weren't there. Plus that in Europe, the powers-that-be have largely wanted to avoid revolutions, which means that the public's access to firearms as well as right to self-defence is restricted and police, gendarmerie and similar organisations have true monopoly on (lawful) violence. America, in turn, is a child of revolution and is revering the overthrowing of powers-that-be who were perceived as tyrants. That's just my understanding of the history how the United States has come to this situation, not a value statement that it's how things should be. (Just for comparison, compare to other countries colonized at the same time or earlier, like Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Venezuela, Honduras, Colombia, Nicaragua - they all have much higher homicide rates than the U.S.)
  - ptaipale 12y ago
    Yes, but note that the offense is for unlawful possession of firearms, not lawful possession (though I imagine the conditions for lawful possession in Singapore are extremely restrictive). Where I live (Finland) the ratio is 2:5 (2 million legal guns, 5 million people). That's the highest in EU. We also have among the highest homicide rate in EU, but these two rates are not really connected (i.e. very few of the homicides done with a gun.).
    - adventured 12y ago
      I think Sweden and Germany have you matched or beat on guns per capita in the EU http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_co...
  - branchless 12y ago
    And 1:1 guns ratio is shocking for most of the rest of the world...
lalalander 12y ago
Your point being? The possession of firearm is illegal in the country.
- jqgatsby 12y ago
  Your response and the thinking it indicates gave me a chill. You are justifying executing someone based on whether or not they broke a state law, not on whether or not they broke a moral law. Either you think firearm possession is inherently immoral (problematic but defensible position), or you think moral law and state law are equivalent (terrifying position) or you think something else that I haven't thought of. My experience in Singapore showed that the moral/state equivalence position was very common. It was the most unsafe "safe" place I've ever been in. When we arrived at the airport, my wife was detained because the silver earrings she was wearing were cast from a mold to look like empty bullet cartridges (with feathers and various doodads attached, nothing that had attracted any attention in any of a dozen high security settings). The bureaucrat who interrogated her claimed that whether she was in very serious trouble or not was entirely in his hands. I'm no second amendment fanatic, but as an American, it was shocking to find myself in a position where some minor official could plausibly even claim to have so much power. The fact that Singaporean society is willing to make that kind of tradeoff for the sake of safety made me realize that it was not somewhere I could ever live. The craziest part was that the Singaporeans and expats I met there did not even see it as a tradeoff. It was more like "these are the rules, if you follow them you will be so safe, whether the rules are right or just or good isn't a well-posed question". We were just having two different conversations.
  - jpatokal 12y ago
    While I don't disagree, it's worth noting that any minor official at any airport -- and this very much includes the US -- has very, very wide-ranging powers over non-citizens traipsing through. Sample: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar Singaporean officials are also very keen on following the letter of the law, and in Singapore that letter happens to state that unauthorized possession of ammunition is a Very Big Deal.
  - 12y ago

Not quite, Wikipedia: "Trafficking in arms (Section 6) is a capital offence in Singapore. Under the Arms Offences Act, trafficking is defined as being in unlawful possession of more than two firearms."

l10nf15h 12y ago
That is still shocking to anyone in the US where the ratio of guns to people is 1:1.
- sjwright 12y ago
  The 1:1 ratio of guns to people is shocking to the majority of the civilised world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP3HJVp3n9c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP3HJVp3n9c
  - refurb 12y ago
    Why? Many other countries come close to that ratio. Is there something intrinsically bad about that?
    - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
      I think the bigger problem is that we manufacture many more guns than we can use, which is basically tacit support for the guns for drug trade.
      - refurb 12y ago
        The US? People can own more than one gun. The 1:1 ratio is for privately own guns. Doesn't include military or guns for export.
    - 9872 12y ago
      Is there something intrinsically bad about executing illegal arms dealers?
      - wycx 12y ago
        Mandatory execution sees offenders only as their offence, rather than human beings, and denies offenders the opportunity to change for the better. It is cynical and pessimistic.
        sjwright 12y ago
        Treating offenders only as their offence is what most justice systems to to most criminals most of the time. Particularly in the USA, where incarceration is a for-profit business traded on the stock market.
        ptaipale 12y ago
        Is there a mandatory execution for firearms violation in Singapore? I didn't think so.
    - sjwright 12y ago
      No, very few countries come close to that ratio. The poster-child for widespread gun ownership, Switzerland, still only has half as many guns per capita[0] as the US. They also have laws that prohibit most people from carrying loaded guns. The result is a gun homicide rate less than 1/5th that of the US per capita.[1] Yes, intrinsically bad. It's pretty clear to anyone who doesn't live in a gun "bubble". Number one cause of death by gun? Suicide. Watch that YouTube clip[2] in full; it summarises my opinion quite well. The second amendment makes sense in the era of muskets, but in the present day only serves to make everyday life less safe, and police officers more Ferguson-ey. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_co... [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-re... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP3HJVp3n9c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP3HJVp3n9c
      - jessaustin 12y ago
        If the attempt is to understand the roots of homicide, rather than just bash one nation or another, it's more instructive to look at homicides [0], rather than homicides of a particular flavor. A careful look at that list will make it clear that elevated homicide rates are a legacy of colonization, at least as much as legal policy. Those in the Americas or Africa can't really be blamed that they were colonized by Europeans. Therefore, nations in the bottom, say, third of the table for those continents really aren't doing such a bad job. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...
        sjwright 12y ago
        If your argument is that America's problems are caused by Europe, that's pretty embarrassing.
        ptaipale 12y ago
        Well, I didn't read the argument like that. More like that the homicide rates are a legacy of the process of colonization; in a country that was first colonies and then a nation expanding across the North American continent, sometimes meeting hostile original inhabitants who were mercilessly and violently overrun, there was violence, and that violence necessitated self-defence, which in turn means the people traditionally rely on guns they use themselves, not the authorities and legal process - because the authorities weren't there. Plus that in Europe, the powers-that-be have largely wanted to avoid revolutions, which means that the public's access to firearms as well as right to self-defence is restricted and police, gendarmerie and similar organisations have true monopoly on (lawful) violence. America, in turn, is a child of revolution and is revering the overthrowing of powers-that-be who were perceived as tyrants. That's just my understanding of the history how the United States has come to this situation, not a value statement that it's how things should be. (Just for comparison, compare to other countries colonized at the same time or earlier, like Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Venezuela, Honduras, Colombia, Nicaragua - they all have much higher homicide rates than the U.S.)
- ptaipale 12y ago
  Yes, but note that the offense is for unlawful possession of firearms, not lawful possession (though I imagine the conditions for lawful possession in Singapore are extremely restrictive). Where I live (Finland) the ratio is 2:5 (2 million legal guns, 5 million people). That's the highest in EU. We also have among the highest homicide rate in EU, but these two rates are not really connected (i.e. very few of the homicides done with a gun.).
  - adventured 12y ago
    I think Sweden and Germany have you matched or beat on guns per capita in the EU http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_co...
- branchless 12y ago
  And 1:1 guns ratio is shocking for most of the rest of the world...

lalalander 12y ago

Your point being? The possession of firearm is illegal in the country.

jqgatsby 12y ago
Your response and the thinking it indicates gave me a chill. You are justifying executing someone based on whether or not they broke a state law, not on whether or not they broke a moral law. Either you think firearm possession is inherently immoral (problematic but defensible position), or you think moral law and state law are equivalent (terrifying position) or you think something else that I haven't thought of. My experience in Singapore showed that the moral/state equivalence position was very common. It was the most unsafe "safe" place I've ever been in. When we arrived at the airport, my wife was detained because the silver earrings she was wearing were cast from a mold to look like empty bullet cartridges (with feathers and various doodads attached, nothing that had attracted any attention in any of a dozen high security settings). The bureaucrat who interrogated her claimed that whether she was in very serious trouble or not was entirely in his hands. I'm no second amendment fanatic, but as an American, it was shocking to find myself in a position where some minor official could plausibly even claim to have so much power. The fact that Singaporean society is willing to make that kind of tradeoff for the sake of safety made me realize that it was not somewhere I could ever live. The craziest part was that the Singaporeans and expats I met there did not even see it as a tradeoff. It was more like "these are the rules, if you follow them you will be so safe, whether the rules are right or just or good isn't a well-posed question". We were just having two different conversations.
- jpatokal 12y ago
  While I don't disagree, it's worth noting that any minor official at any airport -- and this very much includes the US -- has very, very wide-ranging powers over non-citizens traipsing through. Sample: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar Singaporean officials are also very keen on following the letter of the law, and in Singapore that letter happens to state that unauthorized possession of ammunition is a Very Big Deal.
- 12y ago