71–80 of 160 posts
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The default sentence depends on the charges, charges depend on the persecutor, which are motivated to increase those to get the easier deal of a plea bargain, so it is exactly the much higher cost of a trial and a higher risk of a more severe sentence that is the selling point for the accused if you don't look at it backwards
But the prosecutor doesn't decide the sentence . The judge or jury do. And prosecutors need to be careful. If they go for a more serious charge, but can't prove it, the defendant may be found not guilty when they would have been found guilty of a lesser charge (this happened to me on a jury - we found them not guilty of 1st degree murder, but likely would have found them guilty of manslaughter, but that wasn't an opt…
And you example is a bit backwards: the trial happened after the plea bargain failed, so this has little effect on the threat to bring more (or more serious) charges, but even if it does: the "careful" sub-range is still measured in multiples/years, so a huge risk
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What about gun ownership (oh thats the nerve), its easy to assume things will be better when guns are banned, but what is the actual game theory in the balance of power between a people and their government when the people are stripped of their ability to defend themselves from an oppressive government? While this has surface appeal, this theory of "gun ownership as bulwark against oppression" falls apart when you…
>> the US still manages to exert power over its populace Self-oppression. For all the fearmongering, the US population is clearly able to install random people into high office and rewrite the rules as they see fit. Both Obama and Trump are clear evidence that you don't need to be from established political families to gain power. Literally any idiot can be elected should the people want them. Many are.
[flagged]
Also, what is the game theory when an armed faction of the people gain the ability to overthrow a democracy and install a king, or at least, can credibly threaten to do so?
The game theory is that it is likely that most of the time successful Revolutions are backed by powerful opposing States or quasi-States. Any others get squashed, but likely most often don't get off of the ground to begin with.
I was part of a lecture covering a case where US police had tortured out a false confession. The prof asked a Canadian student if such a thing would happen in Canada. "No. The RCMP wouldn't bother. If they need a confession they would just forge one. Forgery is much easier than torturing someone."
[flagged]
At this point, I think it has less to do with a belief in a complete gun ban, which seems an absurd thing to even contemplate. It's more that absolutely nothing is done at all. Not even Sandy Hook produced any change whatsoever. A prominent argument was that the entire thing was a fake for the purpose of banning guns, tacitly admitting that reality did merit some kind of change. So at this point it's more of an indic…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> the US still manages to exert power over its populace Self-oppression. For all the fearmongering, the US population is clearly able to install random people into high office and rewrite the rules as they see fit. Both Obama and Trump are clear evidence that you don't need to be from established political families to gain power. Literally any idiot can be elected should the people want them. Many are.
[flagged]
[flagged]
I like and appreciate your viewpoint. I push back on your stance on gun ownership. How does your view change when governments control weapons as powerful as nuclear weapons? How does this tilt the balance of power when ordinary citizens only have guns? Does this require a rethink?
They will do so in war as denying it to their enemy, but not with M.A.D. So ordinary people having guns has nothing to do with war, except as a deterrent.
[flagged]
I like and appreciate your viewpoint. I push back on your stance on gun ownership. How does your view change when governments control weapons as powerful as nuclear weapons? How does this tilt the balance of power when ordinary citizens only have guns? Does this require a rethink?
[flagged]
I like and appreciate your viewpoint. I push back on your stance on gun ownership. How does your view change when governments control weapons as powerful as nuclear weapons? How does this tilt the balance of power when ordinary citizens only have guns? Does this require a rethink?
The US government is unlikely to carpet bomb its own territory even after hypothetically sliding into tyranny because it would presumably want territory to rule afterwards. What is left is intense urban fighting which we’ve seen in Iraq or wilderness fighting in poor terrain like Afghanistan. It doesn’t end quickly so the cost is a deterrent.