|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,469 Year: 3,726/9,624 Month: 597/974 Week: 210/276 Day: 50/34 Hour: 1/5 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
| Author | Topic: Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rahvin Member  Posts: 4039 Joined: Member Rating: 8.2 |
The problem with "an eye for an eye" is that everyone ends up blind.
Cookie for the reference. The basic premise of "do unto others as they have done unto you" is inherently unstable in any human relationship, whether between two individuals or within a larger social structure. The motive of "revenge" does not serve a significantly useful purpose, but causes significant net harm. When you're cut off in traffic, reciprocation does not provide any objective benefit, but significantly increases the risk of an accident to yourself and others, including those not involved int eh original misdeed. Stealing from a thief simply continues to disregard any universal application of property rights. The thief should certainly be forced to pay for or return any stolen goods, but performing the same wrong to him achieves nothing. Further, "an eye for an eye" rarely results in measured responses in the real world. The motivation for revenge is by its nature an irrational emotion and tends towards excess. Retributive "justice" typically results in "punishments" far in excess of the crime. For example, recently in West Yorkshire a group of youths felt slighted when a woman asked them to quiet down at a movie. They proceeded to follow the woman and her family after the movie, eventually dousing her with bleach causing chemical burns and possibly-permanent eye damage. Clearly, this form of vengeance-seeking is massively disproportionate to any perceived slight. Other examples abound. When a thief enters your home and tries to steal from you, immediate emotional reactions tend toward violence - if you have a gun, shoot the thief. The revenge motivation overrides common sense - whatever goods a thief is trying to steal, none are worth a human life, whether yours or even that of the thief. The value of your goods is incomparable to a human life. This is part of the reason that most modern systems of justice shy away from revenge-based punishments. Their functionality as a deterrent can sometimes quench the thirst for revenge in a victim, but the practice of removing victims from sentencing procedures and outlawing cruel and unusual punishments at least partially works towards minimizing the net harm to society, while pure revenge simply perpetuates whatever initial harm was inflicted. Personally, I find that the most egregious examples of disproportionate responses are found in the common "internet tough guy" and his real-life counterparts. Immediate emotional responses to wrongs such as rape, theft, or even broken promises, coupled with the lack of real consequences when dealing with hypotheticals, frequently results in such exaggerated posturing. "If some guy treated my girl like that, I'd rip off his balls and shove 'em down his throat!" In a real-world circumstance, such posturing tends to fall apart. Particularly when violence is suggested, the risks of engaging in such an attempt at revenge clearly illustrate the fact that no good will come of such a course of action, but significant harm is very likely. The demand of "satisfaction" has always been a net detriment to any system of functional justice. It can function as a deterrent, but rarely is it an effective one. Killing murderers hasn't lowered murder rates in the US, even in Texas where executions are relatively common. All it does is remove another potentially productive member of society in exchange for the hollow emotional benefit of the victim's family and friends - hollow because inevitably the execution will not fill the hole left by the absence of their murdered loved one. The only rational argument for the death penalty is the protection of the rest of society from those who have proven to be dangerous to the lives of others by the permanent removal of the threat (this of course can be easily accomplished through life imprisonment at lower cost and without the risk of executing the innocent, but that sounds like a topic for another thread). I try very hard to separate my emotional reactions from my actual actions. I feel the same desire to "get back" at people who have wronged me in the past, but rationally I understand that reciprocation doesn't change what's already happened and simply causes me to perpetuate the same wrong for no actual benefit. I try to stick with the rational course of action rather than base animal instinct.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rahvin Member Posts: 4039 Joined: Member Rating: 8.2 |
In the scenario you mention revenge doesn't even enter the equation. When a thief enters your house, your 'fight-or-flight' mechanism is triggered and that's what leads to shooting the thief. Common sense has nothing to do with it, chemical reactions within your body do! Which is the point. Base instinct tends towards retribution in excess of what's actually necessary or wise. In the vast, vast majority of cases, the safest course of action in a home intrusion is to quietly call the police, and hide. The emotional "get him!" reaction is far more likely to result in greater net harm (ie, one or more people in need of medical attention or dead rather than simply stolen property that can be replaced) than actually accomplish anything beneficial.
Why?! what makes the thief's life so special? Please explain. What makes your personal property so special that it's worth more than a human life? Property can be replaced. Human lives cannot. A thief if caught can be made to return the stolen property. If you shoot him, you can't take it back. If he turns and shoots you, you've lost your property and your life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rahvin Member Posts: 4039 Joined: Member Rating: 8.2 |
Ahem. If the choices are Hitler, Stalin, Bush II, Dick Cheney, Rumsfield, or my clothes pins (not even the premium models with metal springs), I'd choose the clothes pins. No contest. I'd include Bush I and a very long list of others along with those. But still, each of these people has the potential to be more useful to society than a set of clothespins. It's simply unfortunate that they were placed in positions that allowed them to perform so much net harm. I'd much rather see Bush/Cheney, for example, forced to perform manual labor helping to rebuild Iraq for the rest of their natural lives than to see them dead. In teh case of a common thief, though, we're talking about an individual who has presumably not directly caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians or bankrupted major nations in unnecessary religiously-inspired wars while lying to their own citizenry and the world at large. We're talking about someone who is ignoring your right to property for any number of reasons, whether that be hunger, drug addiction, or simple greed. Such a person could potentially negate the harm caused by returning the stolen goods and be rehabilitated into a functional member of society, as opposed to being killed. And whatever emotional grief you would feel over losing an object of significant monetary or even emotional value, the thief almost certainly has family and friends who will mourn his loss far more than you would mourn the loss of some possessions. Killing the thief causes no net gain for society - it simply prevents the loss of your property, while also causing significant grief for others and losing a potentially productive member of society (not to mention the risk of missing and hitting an innocent neighbor). The "fight" response, the revenge response, is very clearly the worst choice that can be made. Only when your own life (or that of another) is directly and immediately threatened is killing the thief the best course of action (and even then, incapacitation would be preferred if possible).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rahvin Member Posts: 4039 Joined: Member Rating: 8.2 |
It is a relatively recent concept, and one not universal, that a dead or seriously injured thief is an overall bad thing. So is the concept of women as anything more than property. That's why appeals to tradition are logical fallacies. Whether a thing is judged as "good" or "bad" depends entirely on a person's system of ethics. Many people, especially in the US, have a "rights-based" ethical system, and they consider certain rights forfeit when violating the rights of others. Others subscribe to authoritarian ethics - "good" and "bad" are determined entirely by the authority figure, and what's good one day can be bad the next depending on the dictates of the authority. This encompasses many Biblical literalists for whom God is the supreme moral authority, and others use nothing but applicable laws (ie, if it's legal, it's ethical). I'm much more of a utilitarian. Whether I judge an action to be "good" or "bad" depends mostly on net harm or benefit to society. Killing the thief provides no benefit (death penalties for theft have existed in the past without stopping the crime) that cannot be accomplished with a living thief (recovery of the stolen goods or monetary reimbursement), while causing significant harm (loss of a potentially productive member of society, the risk involved in a violent confrontation to you, the thief, and innocent bystanders, the emotional damage to a dead thief's family and friends who are also innocent of the crime, etc). I value human life pretty highly (as I view this life as the only chance we get), and I'm big on second and even third chances for all but the most heinous of offenses in the hopes that a person who was previously a net drain on society can become a net gain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rahvin Member Posts: 4039 Joined: Member Rating: 8.2 |
quote: No, basic instinct is just to make use of the adrenalin that floods your body for one of two purposes: fight or flight. If you're in your own home flight is not normally an option, as your sub-consious already considers your home the safest place to be and also if you have family in the house at the time. If you choose not to fight then all that's going to happen is that the hormones in your body will start working against you causing panic and/or fear paralysis. The phrase 'frozen in fear' hasn't been coined for no reason you know. Being frozen in fear and staying out of the thief's way is generally the very best course of action anyway. Everyone involved is far more likely to escape with their lives if confrontation is avoided. And while we have very little control on what we feel, we do have control over what we do with it. A rush of adrenaline is no excuse for murder, and doesn't make rushing in for a confrontation any less stupid.
quote: It's not an emotional response, it's a physiological response. You have very little control over it Again, we do have control over our actions, even if not over our feelings.
quote: We're not talking about any human life. We're talking about a specific human life, one that will cause you -at best- intense psychological damage or -at worst- extinguish your own life and that of your loved ones. Is those persons' life worth anything at all? or these one's. No, IMO their lives ain't worth shit. Then I find you to be a very bad person. Perhaps, because I consider you to be a very bad person, that gives me the right to kill you? After all, I would consider it beneficial for society if nobody had your system of ethics. We clearly have very different ethical systems. If someone broke into my apartment and stole my TV, I'd be angry, and certainly very afraid, but under no circumstances would I support killing someone over a $1400 television. I don't care how much he's stolen. The vast majority of the time an intruder is not interested in any sort of confrontation, only in stealing. If an intruder enters the room where I and my girlfriend are hiding, the situation changes somewhat. The best outcome is always to have the intruder simply not find you, take what he wants and leave; as finding you becomes more and more likely, confrontation in self-defense becomes a better option (potential benefit is decreasing, potential detriment is increasing). In other words, when it becomes apparent that my life or the life of another is in imminent danger, I would support responding with force, lethal or otherwise as available. Until that point, I'll hide and call the police.
quote: Some human lives (as above) just shouldn't be replaced. I simply don't find myself to be the sole arbiter of whose life is worth what. Perhaps the thief is deperate and sees no recourse but to steal. Perhaps he's under the influence of a mind-altering substance and doesn't realize what he's doing. The point is, I have no idea who this person is beyond the fact that he's entered my home. It's very easy to dehumanize a nameless intruder, and I tend to avoid dehumanizing human beings. I'd much rather see him in jail, where there is at least a possibility that he will turn his life around, than dead on my floor.
quote: why would you want to? Because, as the thread title implies, two wrongs don't make a right. Because, as I said in my initial response, the problem with "an eye for an eye" is that everyone winds up blind. Because I don't have a desire to kill another human being, and would do so only under the most dire of circumstances. Because I value every human life as one that can potentially be a benefit to society (with the exception of those who have perpetrated such heinous crimes that there is no amount of benefit that can change the balance, ie Hitler, Bush 2 etc). Because many people do stupid and immoral things in their lives, and can still turn out to be good people later on. Because I consider the consequences of my actions, including the effect they may have on others in the case of a missed shot hitting a bystnder, or simply the emotional trauma of killing someone's child/parent/sibling/spouse/friend...and the emotional trauma I would experience from taking a life. Should I continue? I find your sig to be interesting considering your opinions:
"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom" In what way is killing someone over taking replaceable physical property fair? In what way is it justice? You sound rather like the very "tough guy" I spoke of earlier. Think on this: if it's unethical for the thief to kill you over a $1400 TV, what makes it ethical for you to kill him over the same thing? Clearly we aren't talking about self-defense here. Do you consider your right to own property superior to another person's right to live?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rahvin Member Posts: 4039 Joined: Member Rating: 8.2 |
We are the state. The law *is* in our own hands, otherwise you are being ruled. As a member of the U.S.A. we fought a very violent war early in our history to avoid that. Ultimately, the law *is* what those who are wronged feel to be sufficient. As a representative democracy it is what the majority feeling is on the subject rather than per individual, but the concept is the same. How many people is the difference between vigilantism, a mob, and justice? I don't think the line is always particularly clear.
I think a big part of the distinction between "justice" and "revenge/vigilantism/mob justice/etc" is the application of human rights to those accused of a crime. For instance, while popular government like a democracy or republic can at their core be described as "mob rule," in the US we also have some basic rights set down in the Constitution to prevent the type of mistreatment and abuses of the past. Rights like the right to a fair and speedy trial; the freedom from cruel or unusual punishment; the freedom of speech. The notion that we should presume innocence until guilt is proven, the notion that the punishment should be appropriate for the crime in a rational way rather than simply an emotional one, help us to prevent our emotional "gut" reactions to crime from turning our society into one of self-oppression. I was called to jury duty once on a domestic violence case. The first witness was the woman who was claiming abuse, and she was able to provide pictures showing some moderate injury. The initial reaction of basically everyone in the jury to that day's testimony was one of outrage and anger. That pathetic excuse for a man beat his girlfriend! In front of their child! And he ripped the phone out of the wall when she tried to call for help! He's a monster! Lock him up and throw away the key! Mob justice would have gone poorly for the accused. Revenge would have been taken on the woman's behalf. But the justice system, unlike what you see on TV, is designed to prevent such flash judgments. We were reminded that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and we heard the defendant's side of the story. It painted a much fuller picture. There was a physical confrontation, but it didn't bear any resemblance to the beating of a defenseless woman that we were initially led to believe. She attacked him, and her injuries were sustained when, as he tried to restrain her to stop her from hitting him, the two fell and she struck the kitchen stove causing some moderate bruising and a small cut on her head. He did rip the phone out of the wall, which is a misdemeanor. We found him guilty on that count alone, because the rest was simple self-defense. The structure of the courtroom, where we had a set procedure for hearing all of the evidence and were given explicit instructions on how to proceed with our verdict helped to separate us from our emotional responses. We were forced to think our response through, rather than simply reacting instinctively. Then, we didn't hand down the sentence - the judge does that on a separate occasion, further separating the accused from what we might think was appropriate and meting out the punishment dictated by the law. What we participated in was justice. The defendant was punished for what he did wrong, but was not punished based on our emotional responses or the bare accusation of another person. That, I think, is the difference - taking steps to ensure that only the guilty are punished, and that the punishment is moderated to what is appropriate to the harm caused by the crime.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rahvin Member Posts: 4039 Joined: Member Rating: 8.2 |
I'm just unable to accept that. There is no way that I could not do something about it. I think just laying there and letting someone walk all over your right to your property perpetuates the problem. That the crook realizes that people probably aren't going to defend themselves anyway is a motivation to commit the crime. This assumes that resistance actually works as a deterrent. This is not the case. In most cases intruders don't realize there is anyone home - thieves want to avoid a confrontation as much as you do. Only those who specifically intend to commit acts of violence (rapists, etc) target homes they know are occupied, and those are far less common that everyday burglars.
And like Legend says, you're giving them the benefit of the doubt. Why assume that they are not going to try to hurt you? I assume nothing. Whether they're out to hurt me or not, the best outcome is for them not to ever find me before the police arrive. Allow me to clarify: if someone enters my home, the best course of action is indeed to hide and quietly call the police, trying to avoid confrontation. If confrontation becomes inevitable (the intruder enters the room I'm hiding in, or otherwise finds me) then certainly "doing something about it" becomes the only remaining course of action. I would in fact support a pre-emptive shooting if an armed intruder entered the room I'm hiding in - shoot him before he knows where I am. But if a confrontation can be avoided entirely...as I said, my TV isn't worth a human life, whether that's mine or his or anyone elses. Rushing out to meet an intruder who may well be armed simply invites disaster before taking such a risk is rationally justified.
I'm baffled by this line of thinking and just can't get myself to respect that attitude. I can understand that. The instinctual "defend my stuff and my family" reaction is very strong. I've actually had an intruder in my home, by the way, and I didn't react the way I would like to. It wasn't a break-in - some guy apparently got confused about which apartment was which and walked into mine by mistake (I had forgotten to lock the door). I wasn't asleep, and I came charging out...like an idiot who wanted to get shot. If the intruder had been violent, I would likely be dead. As it was, he quickly realized his mistake, raised his hands and apologized. He left without further incident, and I was lucky. I'm also rather glad I wasn't armed, as I may have ended a man's life for simply walking in the wrong door. Here's an idea: call your local police department and ask them what they think is the best course of action in case of a home intrusion. 100 internets says they'll tell you to call the police and hide.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rahvin Member Posts: 4039 Joined: Member Rating: 8.2 |
quote: Out of the instances where an intruder enters an occupied home, how many of them were for burglary? Out of burglaries, how many were in occupied homes? How many of those were thought to be unoccupied? Difficult to say: quote: But from the FBI, 2007 data: quote: There were a total of 16,929 murders and 90,427 rapes in the US in 2007 (resulting from breakins or otherwise, so definitely an upper limit), but there were 1,478,901 burglaries in residences. Even if we assume that all murders and rapes were the result of burglaries, only about 7% of all burglaries would result in rape or murder. Again, we're using all rapes/murdersin the US as an upper limit, while only including burglaries in residences; the actual number of muders/rapes from home intrusion would be significantly lower. Remember also, the FBIs definition of burglary is simply an unlawful entry into a structure to commit a felony or theft, with or without force involved. It appears that most burglaries happen during the day, when people tend to be at work. It also appears that violence is not the goal of the vast majority of intruders.
quote: I wish a mutha-fucka would find me! j/k You're attitude allows crime. I think its pathetic, no offense. Grow a pair and protect yourself. Don't let crooks walk all over you. This would be the macho posturing I spoke of eariler. "Growing a pair" is irrelevant. Rationally minimizing risk to myself, my loved ones, and others is the point. The best case scenario if I confront an intruder is that he simply surrenders and waits for the police. Other alternatives involve shooting him, missign and shooting a neighbor, getting shot myself, revealing that people are home and resulting in an assault on my girlfriend, etc. There are very few ways it can go right, and many ways it can go wrong. Refusing to kill another human being over what is vastly most likely to be a simple robbery is not "allowing crime;" it is the best possible course of action for society because it causes the least total harm. You may think me cowardly, but I think "shoot the fucker" responses are barbaric and irrational. And there is absolutely no way I can establish a deterrent against burglary other than a security system and a locked door. Whether I am armed or not, an intruder won't know until he's already entered my residence, meaning willingness and ability to kill absolutely cannot act as a deterrent. As I said, I will protect myself and my loved ones if we come under an iminent threat. Someone stealing my TV in my living room is not an iminent threat to my life. If he comes into the bedroom where I and my girlfriend are hiding, he becomes an imminent threat, the chances of avoiding a confrontation shrink to nearly nill, and the best course of action is to strike with whatever weapon is available to incapacitate or kill the intruder in defense of our lives. I simply allow for the distinction that, so long as the intruder is nothing more than a thief, I'd much rather deal with my renter's insurance and a police report than any of the alternatives.
quote: I think the best course of action is to yell: "Hey, there's somebody here and I have a gun. Get the fuck out of my house!" If violence is the intruder's goal, all you've done is told him where you are. I'd wait with the gun, and if he comes to the room where I'm hiding, I would then fire with no warning. I have the benefit of knowing exactly where he'll be if he enters the sole door, while he doesn't know where I'll be waiting in ambush. The best outcome is to avoid confrontation entirely, but I'm not advocating lying down and watching someone rape my girlfriend. I view confrontation as the last resort rather than the first response.
Calling the police isn't going to help you. When seconds count, the police are just minutes away. They come to take notes on what you lost or to draw lines around your body. They don't stop the crime. This is most often the case. But if the intruder doesn't know that I'm home and that I've made the call, it's possible the police may arrive in time. If a confrontation is to be forced, it would still be far better for the police to force it than for me to do so. After all, they have body armor and training.
quote: Again you're assuming, for no reason, that all he wants is your TV. You didn't read the entire paragraph, did you. I said that if confrontation is inevitable, ie, the intruder enters the room where I am hidden, "doing something about it" becomes my only available action. So long as confrontation is not inevitable, ie the intruder stays out in my living room and office where most of my valuables are, it's far safer for everyone involved including my neighbors if I simply stay hidden and wait for the police.
If you hesitate and allow them to get the jump on you, then you could be done for. You might not even get a chance to call the police. Its better to be pro-active and to take the steps to protect yourself. How precisely will they "get the jump on me" in a way I can prevent? If they've just broken into my house, I've already lost the initiative. The only way to get it back is if they don't realize I'm home and to wait in ambush. If they immediately rush into the bedroom after breaking down the door (or whatever) I'm screwed no matter what I do. If they don't, I should be able to hide and call 911.
quote: Yeah, that's a stupid response that I'm not advocating. What precisely are you advocating? It sounds like your position may be similar to mine (wait while armed) except that you would also shout a warning, thus revealing your location to the intruder and giving up the initiative you seem to believe is so important. Do you expect to sneak around ninja-style and surprise the intruder as opposed to a direct confrontation? What specific action do you reccomend?
quote: Quite possibly the strongest. But people have become sheep and crooks know that. You'll just cower behind your bed and let him take what he wants That's sad. Burglaries happen regardless of the perceived testicular potency of the victim, CS. You're risking your life confronting an intruder who may be armed...why? Certainly not to protect your life, as we know that attempting to avoid confrontation is the safest course. Why then? To protect your property, which you won't be able to enjoy anyway if you're killed, and can replace if the thief succeeds? For some sense of "honor?" Would you really want to risk your life only to prove your manliness? I'm comfortable enough with my masculinity that I see no need to "prove myself" by playing the hero and winding up dead. I'll take action when it's warrented, as in when my life or the lives of others are in imminent danger, but to force a confrontation before then is foolhardy macho posturing, nothing mroe.
quote: You're lucky it wasn't an actual intruder! Indeed. Had it been, shouting "Who's there?!" and coming out to force a confrontation to "protect" my girlfriendand myself who hadn't even been put into imminent danger yet would have been rught about the stupidest thing I could do. I would almost certainly have been killed, to be followed by the possible murder and/or rape of my girlfriend. I don't think I'd care much about my possessions at that point.
quote: Don't shoot things that you don't know what or who they are, duh Who just starts blasting bullets like that!? In a home intrusion, how precisely are you supposed to know who or what they are? It could be a simplemistake as was my situation. It could be a theft. It could be an attempt at rape. I think the best situation is to wait and hide until it becomes apparent that violence is the intended or likely outcome, and only then respond with force.
quote: Of course they will. Fuck the police. They don't do shit. And they want you to not be able to protect yourself (in case they have to be against you). That being their advice makes me want to do that less. Whose advice would you listen to, CS? So far you haven't argued very well for forcing an immediate confrontation. You've suggested actions that reveal your position and don't provide a disincentive to an intruder who was planning violence anyway; you haven't provided a deterrent to prevent the intrusion from happening int eh first place. All you've done is made it more likely that you or someone else will be killed. Where is the benefit in that?
In this discussions situation, I'll be calling the police and telling them either a crook just got scared out of my home or that they need to come pick up his body. Unless, of course, you're unable to call because you've been shot yourself, and the criminal is now having his way with your loved ones and your possessions anyway. It's interesting that your responses seem to contain the assumption that you will be successful in your defense of your home. What makes you think so? Do you have SWAT or Special Forces training, and know how to deal with intruders in a confined space while minimizing innocent casualties? Do you believe yourself to be invulnerable? Tactically, you've already suggested giving away your position by yelling out a warning. That suggests that you're trying to look and feel like a "big man," but you aren't thinking the situation through in terms of risk, potential cost and potential benefit. I'd rather take the cautious route, maximize the chances that I and my loved ones and neighbors (and even the intruder) will all see another day, and respond with force only as a last resort.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rahvin Member Posts: 4039 Joined: Member Rating: 8.2 |
When justice fails, what do we do? Do we simply stand by and watch this woman continue to find other men who will give her everything they have and then kill themselves? It sounds like your friend came across a real monster. I'm sorry for your loss. But as you said, it's not illegal to manipulate someone. What sort of solution could you possibly ever undertake? Murder would remove the problem, but would land you in prison or on Death Row; you might minimize net harm by preventing more deaths, but you'll have completely ruined your own life and that of your loved ones. Confrontation with the psychopath is unlikely to result in anything but laughter on her part and frustration on yours. Warning future boyfriends is likely to more firmly establish their trust of her as opposed to the random outsider accusing her of horrible things, and you may face stalking charges to boot. In this case, revenge is still not an effective answer because it still causes additional harm to the victims. Unfortunately, there isn't always an effective solution in life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rahvin Member Posts: 4039 Joined: Member Rating: 8.2 |
quote: What makes you think so? Would you rather take advantage of someone who's not going to offer any resistance or of someone who might just take your head off. The burglary per capita rate is almost double in the UK (a country with strict gun controls and a notoriously liberal sentencing system) than in the US (a country wih lax gun controls and a strict sentencing system). This fact alone would seem to indicate that the posiibility of armed resistance and harsh punishment does work as a deterrent, thereby shooting down your argument. First: please provide the numbers supporting your crime statistics assertion. Second: an intruder has no way of knowing whether you are armed or not before an actual encounter takes place, ergo posession or willingness to use a firearm cannot act as a deterrent. Harsh sentencing certainly can act as a deterrent. I advocate making a punishment fit the crime in terms of the amount of real harm caused, meaning killing thieves is excessive unless they directly threaten you. I have severe doubts as to the real effectiveness of incarceration-based correctional systems (recidivism is extremely common, as would be expected when you cut someone off from all positive social influences and lock him up with other criminals), but that's a different topic.
quote: That's a naive misconception. I've already shown you a link referring to data from the British Crime Survey which mentions that 1 in 10 burglaries in the UK involve violence or threatening behaviour. 1 in 10 is too large a probability to ignore. Which, of course, means that in 90% of cases burglaries do not involve violence or "threatening behavior," however that's defined. 90% is an overwhelming majority. It also means that 90% of the time, I'd be safe leaving an intruder to go about his business. I rather like those odds, particularly since I can still lie in wait with a gun pointed at the bedroom door and open fire the moment the intruder actually becomes an imminent threat.
quote: Again, you're assuming that the intruder is only there to take your TV and leave quietly. There's a 10% chance this won't be the case. See my response to CS above. I assume nothing. I simply choose not to provoke a confrontation unnecessarily that may result in my death, the death of my loved ones, injury or death to neighbors, etc. If confrontation can be avoided, it should be - with no confrontation nobody gets hurt. If confrontation cannot be avoided, ie when an intruder actually enters the room I occupy, obviously responding with force is a viable and justified course.
quote: By that stage you've lost any tactical advantage you might have had and handed it over to the intruder. You can't respond pro-actively any more, you can only react to his actions. If the intruder is intent on hurting you he now has a much greater chance of success. Clearly you've never heard of the tactic known as an "ambush." Lying in wait, hidden from immediate view, when you know exactly where your enemy will have to enter is a tactically perfect position. Consider that I know where the door to the room is, but an intruder, even if he believes I may be present at all, does not know where in the room I will be. In all likelihood I would be able to shoot him before he can even identify me as a target. This of course has the added benefit of corresponding to my ethical priorities: minimize the chances of anyone getting injured.
quote: If an intruder enters your house armed, he's doing it for a reason. Chances are he intents to use the weapon he carries. Disaster has already been invited into your house whether you like it or not. It's up to you to take a pro-active stance in order to minimise the risk posed to you. Crouching in the cupboard, hoping he'll go away isn't such a pro-active stance. I have no way of knowing whether an intruder is armed when he first enters the house, any more than he knows whether I am armed. If he is actively seeking me or my girlfriend to harm us, I can still deal with the threat by lying in wait and using force only when confrontation becomes inevitable. If he is not seeking to do us harm, I'm content to let him go about his business. Whatever he takes is not worth a human life, his or mine. You seem to believe that I'm supporting an utterly pacifistic position where I cower in fear and pray. This is not the case. I advocate the use of force in the defense of my life or the lives of others from immenent danger. An intruder in the living room is not an imminent threat. An intruder entering the room we occupy is, and I would be justified in using force in such an instance.
quote: oh, what a surprise! so you found out what I've been saying all along: in situations like these you don't analyse and reason, you just react. Actually, this happened several years ago. My current position is partially due to the events of that evening. Analysis of course doesn't happen in the heat of the moment. It happens beforehand. You make your choice long before the point of decision. If I were to experience another home invasion, my actions would be different.
quote: If the intruder had been violent and you were hiding in the closet waiting for him to find you you'd certainly be dead! Unless I had a gun pointed directly at the entrance and opened fire if the entrance were breached. Or if he failed to find me. In very few cases (statistically) does an intruder enter a home with the express purpose of killing the occupants. Typically the intruder wants something, and any violence is simply the result of an unintended confrontation. See the numbers I posted above: even with excessively generous upper and lower limits, only around 7% of all residence burglaries result in a murder or rape (using the sum total of all rapes and murders in the entire country as the upper limit; "generous" is quite the understatement). Forcing an unnecessary confrontation increases my chances to get hurt for little potential benefit. Waiting until an actual imminent threat emerges significantly reduces my risk while simultaneously retaining my ability to defend myself, including retaining the element of surprise and ground of my choosing with an obvious chokepoint my enemy would be forced through.
quote: Of course they will! The police don't want to have Texas-style shootouts to deal with. That triples their paperwork and puts a strain on their resources. It's much easier to deal with a home-owner's corpse, after all the coroner will do most of the work with this one. Or perhaps the police would rather chase a thief instead of a murderer, would rather not have to go through an investigation to confirm that the intruder's death was justified homicide in self-defense...or, perhaps, are even interested in the wellbeing of the victim and would like to see their chances of getting hurt reduced. Your cinicism requires the police to be amoral lazy inhuman automatons seeking only to reduce paperwork regardless of the cost in human lives.
Besides, if people started protecting themselves and applying justice the police would find themselves out of a job. Heaven forbid. Ah, yes. We should return to those halcyon days of Wild West justice, where rugged individualism reigned supreme and the proper response to an accusation of crime was "lynch him!" property rights are most definitely superior to the right to live. And din't you just insinuate that the police do not protect the public, and then suggest that a self-defending public would put the police out of the job you say they don't perform anyway?
Blimey, you are naive indeed! Says the paragon of moral virtue that honestly thinks shooting is the best response to what, in 90% of cases, will be a nonviolent robbery.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rahvin Member Posts: 4039 Joined: Member Rating: 8.2 |
Legend writes: The burglary per capita rate is almost double in the UK (a country with strict gun controls and a notoriously liberal sentencing system) than in the US (a country wih lax gun controls and a strict sentencing system).This fact alone would seem to indicate that the posiibility of armed resistance and harsh punishment does work as a deterrent, thereby shooting down your argument. It would seem that France has a lower incidence of burglary than the US, despite having very strict gun control laws. Japan has 2 burglaries per 1,000 citizens (US has 7, UK has almost 14) and has outlawed all but sport weapons (rifles and shotguns). The Netherlands has similar restrictions on gun ownership (no gun license unless you belong to a hunting/sporting club, and then only guns appropriate for such purposes), and has about 5 burglaries per 1,000 citizens. It would seem that gun control laws are not actually correlated to a reduced incidence of burglary. Isn't that odd? Perhaps the possibility of firearm ownership is not an actual deterrent in the case of burglary?
quote: An intruder doesn't need to know you're armed, he just needs to suspect that you are. In the US with a large gun ownership, an intruder has good reason to believe that the homeowner may be armed. Suprisingly (or not), the rate of burglary per capita is almost half of that in the UK where gun ownership is strictly outlawed and the deterrent is minimal. Ergo, your claim that potential resistance doesn't act as a deterrent doesn;t hold much water. And yet, as I pointed out, other countries with extremely strong gun control laws have significantly lower burglary rates than the US. It would appear that your attempt to correlate the possibility of gun ownership with a lower incidence of burglary is complete bullshit.
quote: ..you like those odds? Are you serious ?! Here's a question for you then: do you wear a seat belt when you're driving a car? I'm not seeking out a burglary, Legend. I'm telling you my reaction if one occurs. In 90% of cases, I'll be safe by avoiding confrontation. Forcing a confrontation decreases my chance of survival, contrary to what you're suggesting. If the intruder is unarmed, I;d be safe either way. If the intruder is armed, whether he actually wanted to harm me or not, confrontation puts me at risk. Hiding only puts me at risk if the intruder is armed and wants specifically to do me harm and manages to find me and manages to somehow "get the drop on me" while I have a gun pointed directly at the doorway waiting to open fire if anyone enters. Taking a course of action that significantly increases your risk of injury as a "defense" against a situation that only has a 10% chance of occurring is foolhardy. This is significantly different from using a seatbelt, with decreases risk.
quote: That's exactly what these poor boys thought and look what happened to them. And a single anecdote is supposed to convince me of the statistically demonstrable safest course of action...why, exactly? I try not to let irrational fear guide my decisions, Legend.
Had they taken immediate and decisive action they moment they spotted the intruders they wouldn't have ended up tortured and hacked to bits. Really? Are you sure? Perhaps they would have wound up in exactly the same position. All of your arguments depend on assuming that forcing a confrontation results in the victim overpowering the intruder. That's not the way reality works. If intruders are armed, there's a good chance forcing a confrontation will get you shot, even if the intruder intended to avoid a confrontation and only steal. In the real world, "immediate and decisive action" does not guarantee victory.
quote: It's this definition of imminent danger that we disagree on. Among other things, like the value of a human life.
quote: I find this to be a very naive position. An intruder anywhere in your house is an imminent threat. The fact that he intruded into your house means that he's intent on doing you some kind of harm. False assumption. It means that he may be intent on doing me harm. He may not.
You're just hoping that it will be restricted to him stealing your TV and nothing worse. "Hoping" nothing. Statistically I have shown that in the vast majority of cases, my TV is all they want. I'm planning around statistical likelihoods rather than irrational fear over anecdotal horror stories, while hedging my bets by setting up a very easy ambush for an intruder should they actually seek to do real harm.
You do realise that some burglars use arson to cover their tracks after they leave the house, don't you? You really think I should plan my defense around something that happens less than 1% of the time by taking action that will increase my risk in 90% of home intrusions? Are you incapable of reading statistics? You seem very poor at assessing risk.
quote: I find it incredible that you're happy to take a 7% odds against your life and run with it! That's a misrepresentation of my position, and you know it. I like the odds of taking the course of action that is demonstrably the safest in 90% of cases, as opposed to the course of action that may be safer in 10% of cases but is more dangerous in the other 90%.
You've heard of this swine-flu thingy haven't you? Do you know what it's mortality rate is? It's much, much less than 7%. Yet, people go out of their way to protect themselves from it. Governments shut down schools, people don't travel, mass immunisation is about to start, etc. All this for much bigger survival odds than you have in a home invasion. You're either a very cool and confident person or just extremely naive. Or I understand the difference between putting on a face mask to prevent the flu and forcing a confrontation with a possibly-armed intruder. Further, I'm not afraid in the least of swine flu. I have a greater chance of dying on my commute to work in the morning than I do of dying from swine flu. Other people can feel free to panic. I won't cancel my travel plans, I won't bother getting a flu shot, and I won't go out of my way to protect myself from something that seems to have a single-digit mortality rate, and that primarily amongst people who have compromised immune systems or poor access to health care, neither of which describes me. I take a rational approach to risk. I am not guided by my emotional "gut" reaction.
quote: what makes you think that the 'right to live' should be immutable and unconditional? I didn't say that. Considering how many times I've expressed willingness to kill if an intruder actually enters the room where I am hidden, this comment borders on outright lying. I said that property rights do not outweigh the right to love. If a man steals $1, $100, or $1,000,000, he doesn't deserve to die for it.
quote: I just insinuated that the police have other interests, purpose and priorities than protecting you individually and their advice reflects that. If they do not effectively protect teh citizenry from attack as it is, how would a well-armed citizenry put the police "out of a job," Legend? I understand not trusting the police to have your best interests at heart. But your level of cynicism is unjustified. You really think the police will advise you to take an action that increases your risk? Who's advice would you listen to? "Common sense," that wonderful arbiter of accurate risk assessment that leads people, as you pointed out, to panic over SARS or the swine flu? That caused people to drive instead of fly after 9/11 even though their chances of survival would still have statistically been higher flying even if terrorists performed a 9/11 attack every day? Who's naive, Legend? The person who honestly thinks that increasing risk in 90% of home invasions to decrease risk in the remaining 10%, and bases his reactions around statistically unrepresentative anecdotes intended to cause fear rather than rational thought? Or the one who looks at the statistics and makes decisions based on what is most likely to result in no deaths, even if it costs me a TV and possibly increases my risk in a tiny minority of cases?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rahvin Member Posts: 4039 Joined: Member Rating: 8.2 |
quote: I initially joined this thread by replying to your Message 7 where you claimed
quote: I responded by saying that this has nothing to do with revenge but is a response triggered by physiological factors and evolution. But in Message 10 you described this as..
quote: Which you re-affirmed in Message 19:
quote: Now you've stopped talking about hiding in fear but actually setting up armed ambush instead. I can't help but feel that you've moved the goalposts a bit. My position has always been that lethal force should be the very last resort. Attempting to avoid confrontation is the best way to avoid needing lethal force to defend oneself, as well as the safest route for the victim in 90% of cases. I never excluded lethal force entirely. I didn't specifically mention setting up an ambush at first, only adding that as we moved more into the specific scenario. If you believed that I was a strict pacifist in the beginning, then it appears we have had something of a misunderstanding.
Legend writes: what makes you think that the 'right to live' should be immutable and unconditional?
quote: You've either shifted your position or I've originally misunderstood you. In the interest of clarity and focus, your current position is that human life is invaluable until it enters your bedroom in a threatening manner, correct? That's a bit more specific. I would say that human life has a greater value than any number of possessions, and that no degree of theft, ever, period, on its own is sufficient to justify shooting the thief. However, lethal force is justified when used to defend againt an imminent threat to oneself or others. Not a potential threat as in an unknown intruder who may or may not be armed, may or may not intend harm, and as yet has not forced a confrontation. An imminent threat is one that has presented itself, where a confrontation is actually occurring or has become obviously inevitable. I view an intruder entering the room where I am hidden as the point where the threat becomes imminent, and not acting becomes far more risky than acting. If I can see that the intruder is unarmed, I would attempt to threaten him with the gun rather than opening fire as my life would not be in imminent danger. If I am uncertain or I can see that he is armed, then I would open fire. I do not value human life as "sacred." I simply value it as significantly more than any posession or amount of money. Possessions and money can all be replaced, while a human life cannot. I do view the life of an intruder as less than the lives of the intended victims, but for such a judgment to be relevant a confrontation must occur. If confrontation can be avoided, no lives need to be lost resulting in the least amount of net harm done. Is that more clear?
quote: then how much does he deserve to die for? There is no amount. I find the very notion that a human life can be assigned a monetary value in terms of "if he steals this much, he deserves to die" to be repugnant. He certainly deserves to be punished, but on a scale proportionate to the crime committed. Death is vastly disproportionate to any amount of theft.
and what about the emotional and psychological trauma that burglary inflicts on people? You seem to forget to bring that up. Does the intruder deserve to die for that or doesn't that even register in your worldview ? I don't bring it up becasue we were discussing the use of lethal force, and I do not see emotional trauma as being on an even footing with death. Certainly I consider the traumatic experience and the consequences thereof as significant in terms of justice and meting out punishment, but at no point does it justify a death sentence. Why is it that for you every single thing an intruder does is somehow deserving of death? He enters the house -> kill him. He steals my TV -> kill him. He emotionally traumatized me -> kill him. I support lethal force only in the immediate defense of my life or the life of someone else against an imminent threat. Not a defense against the loss of property. Not a defense against or retibution for emotional trauma. It seems that if we were to follow your advice concerning the value of the lives of criminals, we may as well do away with prisons entirely and simply execute the lot of them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rahvin Member Posts: 4039 Joined: Member Rating: 8.2 |
Sorry for the out-of-order reply - I saw the second one first.
quote: There'a reason I contrasted the UK to the US: both countries share to a great extent cultural and socio-political characteristics, they have similar cultural and social values, principles and ideologies. By having many things that are the same one can more easily distinguish and explain the things that are different, like the gun-culture and attitude to crime. France, for example, has a long tradition of egalitarianism, communal action and disregard for individualistic greed and ambition, dating back to the French Revolution. In the UK and particularly in the US individualistic ambition is considered an asset! France also has a higher percentage of rural population than either the UK or the US and the British Crime Survey has long established that burglary rates are more likely in urban areas. In addition, my French colleague informs me that in France you can legally own a shotgun or non-automatic rifle as long as you're registered with a shooting or hunting club, which is not the case in the UK. If factors like these are disregarded no valid correlation can be drawn between between deterrents and burglary rates. As for Japan, you must be having a laugh! Japan has a culture where pride and honour are highly-valued and revered. I have Japanese friends who wouldn't steal anything even if you paid them! To them it's "fumeiyo", the greatest sin. That's why crime is so low in Japan, not because of the strict gun laws. If you want to compare something, make sure it's like for like. Do you have anything beyond your personal conjecture as to the "Real cause" of lower crime rates? The fact is, gun control laws do not have a causal effect on crime rates. Cime rates are determined by other factors, as is shown by the wild distribution of crime rates that have absolutely no correlation statistically with gun control laws.
quote: Not if you're comparing apples to oranges. I'm comparing gun control laws and crime statistics. If the two do not show a correlation, then they must not share a causal relationship, and crime rates must be more significantly affected by other variables.
quote: Or perhaps you're ignoring all the socio-cultural factors that affect burglary rates. Perhaps I'm pointing out that socio-cultural factors by far outweigh the presence or absence of gun control laws as a determining factor in crime rates. In what twisted world can you honestly look at international burglary rates compared to gun control laws, see that there is no direct pattern, and conclude that they are in fact correlated and in fact share a causal relationship? How can you in one sentence claim that socio-cultural influences are a larger factor when determining burglary rates and then turn around and say that gun control laws are the real cause?
quote: It would appear that you're just disregarding a significant number of other factors that affect burglary rates. It would appear that you're disregarding the fact that gun control and burglary are not statistically correlated. If other factors more significantly affect burglary rates, you cannot claim that gun control laws are in fact the dominant factor. You can't cherry-pick two countries and claim a pattern, Legend. "2" is not a statistically representative number. If we look at all countries and compare their crime statistics, we see that gun control is not even remotely the dominant factor in determining burglary rates. Let's look at some better data. Washington DC until recently had a complete handgun ban in effect, beginning in 1977, which was overturned in 2007. According to Wiki, the property crime rate (meaning burglary, among others) went up 5.6% between 2006 and 2007, when the ban was repealed. If your assertion were true, we should see a decrease in property crime as victims are more likely to be armed. Violent crime went down 6.2% over the same period, but had gone up 9.3% from '05 to '06 with no change in gun control laws. 2008 data is apparently not yet available. While we need a few more years to really see whether a trend develops, preliminary data suggests that strict gun control and its repeal had a negligible effect on crime rates in DC.
quote: No, in 90% of cases you'll be safe. Period. Unfounded assumption. We know that in 90% of cases no violence actually occurs, but we do not know whether the victim forced a confrontation or not. In a situation where an intruder is willing to harm but is not seeking to harm, forcing a confrontation increases your risk while hiding reduces it.
In 10% of cases some kind of violence will be inflicted upon you whether you want it or not. I'm saying that 1 in 10 chance of bodily harm is too large to ignore. You can reduce those odds by taking pro-active and decisive action. Says you. Again you assume that "pro-active and decisive action" reduces risk, but all I see is an unfounded assumption. Most people aren't Rambo - when we start gun fights, we can get shot, too. Further, I'm not suggesting that the 10% of cases should be ignored. You are the one suggesting we should ignore 90% of cases. I've already addressed the wisest course of action - hide, but respond with force if a confrontation becomes inevitable. The ambush addresses the 10% of cases with the best possible tactical response, forcing the enemy to meet you on ground of your chooseing where you have the advantage of surprise (he doesn;t know where in teh room you are) and a chokepoint (he has to come through the one door - cover the door and you can easily strike before he can identify you as a target). That same ambush addresses the other 90% of cases (as well as the ethical dilemma of killing someone for simple theft) by not forcing a confrontation.
quote: That's a false and naive assumption. Violence is very effectively inflicted with bare hands or household items. An intruder who is seeking to do me harm is almost certainly going to be armed, for that very reason - he doesn;t want to get brained by a lamp in a struggle either. Chances are very high that an unarmed intruder is only intending to steal, not kill or injure. Further, if I am lying in ambush waiting with a gun, an unarmed intruder certainly is at a disadvantage.
quote: And if the intruder knows you have a gun pointed at the door, he'll be very reluctant to come in. Which re-inforces my point about the possibility of resistance (especially armed resistance) acting as a very good deterrent! Ah, right - you want to shout out that you are armed. What if the intruder believes you are bluffing? What about the fact that you just completely ruined your tactical position by giving away your location, ruining the element of surprise? If the intruder intended you harm, he now knows exactly where you are, and to use caution when entering the room. Perhaps he'll have another solution to get you out of the room. None of which happens if you just lie in wait and avoid a confrontation until the intruder enters your defensive trap.
quote: You haven't shown why you think that taking a decisive and pro-active action, like shooting/stabbing the intruder the moment you see them, increases your risk of injury. If the intruder is only there to steal and not inflict violence then your initial attack -or even warning of attack- will only send him fleeing. If the intruder is intent on inflicting violence anyway then surely your odds of survival won't be diminished by you attacking him first. That rather depends on how you attack first. My scenario of lying in ambush could certainly be called attacking first, since I'm nearly certain to get off the first shot (and do so accurately given the chokepoint). Other scenarios involve sneaking around the house attempting to "get the drop" on the criminal - and if you're seen, he can easily shoot first. You have no advantage - neither of you knows where the other is, you have equivalent cover, and if you've shouted a warning he knows you're there (and may know at least a general direction, meaning you're at a disadvantave). This is a clear increase of risk. So in 90% of cases, you've successfully reduced your risk of being stolen from by scaring off the attacker...or increased your risk as you force an unnecessary confrontation with an intruder who didn;t want to harm you but will shoot back. You may have jsut killed someone for stealing your TV. In those same 90% of cases, I've allowed my replaceable possessions to be taken, but I've avoided a confrontation and nobody gets hurt. In 10% of cases, you've sacrificed significant tactical advantages and done nothing to deter a determined attacker intent on doing you harm. You've simply entered a gun fight, or allowed the intruder to find a tactical solution to your well-advertised "ambush" (for instance, pretending to leave and hiding, waiting for you to come out of the room in his own ambush). Meanwhile, in those same 10% of cases, I have retained the tactical advantage by remaining hidden and focusing my line of fire on a chokepoint. Since the intruder does not know where I am, he does not know that the door is a killing zone, and will likely fall into the trap as he searches for me. He doesn't get to know where I am until he already has a bullet in his center of mass. I'm pretty sure that a simple tactical analysis shows that my position is vastly superior in reducing risk, as well as following my ethical code of avoiding lethal force unless absolutely necessary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rahvin Member Posts: 4039 Joined: Member Rating: 8.2 |
You see injuring or killing a human being as a benefit? Wow...just...wow.... Legend doesn't see intruders as human beings. He's made quite plain in his initial responses that he doesn't value the life of an intruder at all. He seems to be one of those repugnant individuals who believes that criminals are all cancerous tumors that deserve whatever they get and should be removed from society permanently. He doesn't care about the relative severity of the crime - to him, breaking into someone's house is just as damning as actually raping or killing someone. Most actual legal codes recognize that murder has more of an effect than rape, which has more of an effect than theft, which has more of an effect than slander or libel, which has more of an effect than jaywalking. Sentencing is determined accordingly: murderers typically get the longest or most severe penalties, and the scale moves down from there so that the punishment at least appears to fit the crime. Legend thinks this is all nonsense, and thinks that a nonviolent thief who breaks into your home deserves to die just as much as a murderer...and he doesn't care about getting his hands bloody himself. His system of ethics seems, from all signs he's given us in this thread, to be a very simple black/white, good guys/bad guys judgment. If you break the law, you're a bad guy. He doesn't distinguish in any meaningful way between bad guys - they're all bad, so who cares? That seems to be the end of it. He should move to Texas. He'd fit right in.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rahvin Member Posts: 4039 Joined: Member Rating: 8.2 |
wow...! that's quite a strawman you've built for yourself there mate! Just because I value individual liberty, including one's right to protect oneself, one's family and one's property in the manner which one considers the most effective and less risky I have to be labelled as a gung-ho, one-dimensional republican cowboy. But yeah, whatever rocks your boat, that horse you're on is mighty high partner, you make sure you don't fall of it now, d'ya hear? I based my statements solely on the statements you have made in this thread. If my portrayal of you is indeed a strawman, please feel free to correct me by describing your actual system of ethics. How do you judge right and wrong? Are there only black/white distinctions, or are there actual shades of gray where certain offenses are more or less harmful than others? What do you consider appropriate action for criminals? Do you emphasize punishment and retribution? Deterrence? Rehabilitation? Removal from society for safety's sake?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
