Is execution appropriate for drugs traffickers?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have no intention of going there.

But why do you approve of a society where it is possible to buy devices capable of inflicting death and injury without any sort of training or licencing?


Steve.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
Live by the sword, die by the sword. Don't want to be shot, don't take drugs into Indonesia. It isn't hard.

I am a big fan of the death penalty.
Click to expand...
I find it somewhat alarming that there appears to be a portion of our population who seem to take some sort of 'pleasure' or 'thrill' from people being killed.

Of course it's not appropriate to execute drug traffickers, it takes us back to mediaeval times when executions were public spectacles and achieves nothing whatsoever other than Indonesia making some sort of political 'statement' to the rest of the world which some seem to enjoy lapping up.
 
Steve Smith said:
I have no intention of going there.

But why do you approve of a society where it is possible to buy devices capable of inflicting death and injury without any sort of training or licencing?
.
Click to expand...

Yes.
Cartus said:
I find it somewhat alarming that there appears to be a portion of our population who seem to take some sort of 'pleasure' or 'thrill' from people being killed.

Of course it's not appropriate to execute drug traffickers, it takes us back to mediaeval times when executions were public spectacles and achieves nothing whatsoever other than Indonesia making some sort of political 'statement' to the rest of the world which some seem to enjoy lapping up.
Click to expand...

There is no thrill, but it is fiscally cheaper than life inprisonment and more humane too than a life without hope in a nasty prison. It also acts as a strong deterrent not to smuggle drugs in. It is perfectly appropriate to execute drug traffickers.

They knew the rules, they broke them and got caught. Other countries have imposed drug smugglers on Indonesia, they should be ashamed of the conduct of their nationals in Indonesia and be publicly apologizing for their conduct in Indonesia and offer to re-reimburse the costs of the execution.
 
Try reading my question. I asked "why do you approve..." rather than "do you approve..."


Steve.
 
ST4 said:
Yes.


There is no thrill, but it is fiscally cheaper than life inprisonment and more humane too than a life without hope in a nasty prison. It also acts as a strong deterrent not to smuggle drugs in. It is perfectly appropriate to execute drug traffickers.

They knew the rules, they broke them and got caught. Other countries have imposed drug smugglers on Indonesia, they should be ashamed of the conduct of their nationals in Indonesia and be publicly apologizing for their conduct in Indonesia and offer to re-reimburse the costs of the execution.
Click to expand...


If someone gets caught and its unequivocal then they knew what they were doing and took the gamble and lost. I am more uncomfortable about those mules who are coerced in to trafficking but that said they have the choice to shop those higher up the food chain and get us to the root of the problem. When you get to the problem of families being threatened then things get far less clear.

As regards The US And gun culture there needs to be controls and better controls than walking in off the street to buy a firearm the recent tragedies with the kids show that . However it beats our lily livered take on a persons rights when you aren't allowed to defend your property when someone breaks in or threatens you and if you attack that person in defence you will end up in custody!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
ST4 said:
Yes.


There is no thrill, but it is fiscally cheaper than life inprisonment and more humane too than a life without hope in a nasty prison. It also acts as a strong deterrent not to smuggle drugs in. It is perfectly appropriate to execute drug traffickers.

They knew the rules, they broke them and got caught. Other countries have imposed drug smugglers on Indonesia, they should be ashamed of the conduct of their nationals in Indonesia and be publicly apologizing for their conduct in Indonesia and offer to re-reimburse the costs of the execution.
Click to expand...
So do you think a convicted murderer should be executed or imprisoned (on Bali)? Is justice about money?
 
Steve Smith said:
Try reading my question. I asked "why do you approve..." rather than "do you approve..."
Click to expand...

Because it solves the problem permanently and is much more cost effective.

I do not need to approve or disapprove, its their country, their rules and if you do not like it no-one is putting a gun to your head to go to Indonesia.
 
Cartus said:
So do you think a convicted murderer should be executed or imprisoned (on Bali)? Is justice about money?
Click to expand...

Yes I do. I think justice/sentencing should be cost effective to the tax payer also.

Can you tell me why a murderer shouldn't be killed other than this compassion, liberal no place in the 21st century guff/state sanctioned murder hot air I see on here.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
I have no intention of going there.

But why do you approve of a society where it is possible to buy devices capable of inflicting death and injury without any sort of training or licencing?


Steve.
Click to expand...

Legally all guns have to be licensed / permit in the US. And an additional permit to carry or conceal.
 
I disagree with the death penalty. However, Indonesia has decided it will have the death penalty for drug trafficking and this is well known. I do not know if there are any circumstances that would lead to any doubt about their culpability (eg coercion, mental state) in the crime but, if not, anyone who knowingly and willingly traffics drugs in that country knows the risk they are taking.

Dave
 
viv1969 said:
Legally all guns have to be licensed / permit in the US. And an additional permit to carry or conceal.
Click to expand...
Yes but the process is little more than buying a fishing licence over there.
Try applying for or renewing a Firearms certificate over here
 
viv1969 said:
Legally all guns have to be licensed / permit in the US
Click to expand...

I bet there are many which are not though. My point was more about training though. I think all you have to do is to apply. I don't think there is any sort of compulsory training involved... which is scary!


Steve.
 
Tringa said:
I disagree with the death penalty. However, Indonesia has decided it will have the death penalty for drug trafficking and this is well known. I do not know if there are any circumstances that would lead to any doubt about their culpability (eg coercion, mental state) in the crime but, if not, anyone who knowingly and willingly traffics drugs in that country knows the risk they are taking.

Dave
Click to expand...

I think the two important things in your statement is 'knowingly and willingly'
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
ST4 said:
Yes I do. I think justice/sentencing should be cost effective to the tax payer also.

Can you tell me why a murderer shouldn't be killed other than this compassion, liberal no place in the 21st century guff/state sanctioned murder hot air I see on here.
Click to expand...
So explain to me then Steve why the recent Balinese 'suitcase murderers' were jailed (18 and 10 years) instead of being executed?
 
Cartus said:
So explain to me then Steve why the recent Balinese 'suitcase murderers' were jailed (18 and 10 years) instead of being executed?
Click to expand...

I do not know as the legal fine points in someone elses country doesn't massively bother me and their decisions are their decisions, but I'd like to think the murderers were put to death.
 
viv1969 said:
Legally all guns have to be licensed / permit in the US. And an additional permit to carry or conceal.
Click to expand...
It's worth pointing out that the situation is different in each state, and that in some states it is impossible to legally own a firearm, in others it is impossible to legally own certain types of firearm, etc.
Overexposed said:
Yes but the process is little more than buying a fishing licence over there.
Try applying for or renewing a Firearms certificate over here
Click to expand...
There are no training requirements in the UK either, at least there are none enshrined in law. Literally anyone who meets the criteria is entitled to possess a certificate that entitles them to own any number of shotguns (with a maximum capacity of 3 rounds) with no training. Increasingly, various police forces are introducing training and/or mentoring requirements for the possession of S.1 firearms (rifles) - no doubt in the hope that nobody requires them to prove that they have a legal right to make that requirement.

Back on topic - I don't know how I feel about this. I am opposed to capital punishment on principle, and I'm not happy with the justice system in this country, let alone in some others, so I don't necessarily accept that just because someone has confessed guilt, that the confession is true or that it was obtained by proper means. On the other hand, drugs cause untold misery and punishments should fit the crime.
 
Garry Edwards said:
It's worth pointing out that the situation is different in each state, and that in some states it is impossible to legally own a firearm, in others it is impossible to legally own certain types of firearm, etc.

There are no training requirements in the UK either, at least there are none enshrined in law. Literally anyone who meets the criteria is entitled to possess a certificate that entitles them to own any number of shotguns (with a maximum capacity of 3 rounds) with no training. Increasingly, various police forces are introducing training and/or mentoring requirements for the possession of S.1 firearms (rifles) - no doubt in the hope that nobody requires them to prove that they have a legal right to make that requirement.

Back on topic - I don't know how I feel about this. I am opposed to capital punishment on principle, and I'm not happy with the justice system in this country, let alone in some others, so I don't necessarily accept that just because someone has confessed guilt, that the confession is true or that it was obtained by proper means. On the other hand, drugs cause untold misery and punishments should fit the crime.
Click to expand...

Have you ever had an FAC Garry ?Its not really about the training requirements, because it is axiomatic that you will know how to use the firearm(s) you are applying for,where you can shoot, what guns you can own and the number you can hold(you are not allowed to own unlimited shotguns) and more importantly your fitness to hold an FAC - including checks with your Doctor. I had a Section 1 FAC which I gave up because I wasn't shooting anymore and the checks for renewal and retention were getting more invasive to the point it was easier to surrender it.
 
Overexposed said:
Have you ever had an FAC Garry ?Its not really about the training requirements, because it is axiomatic that you will know how to use the firearm(s) you are applying for,where you can shoot, what guns you can own and the number you can hold(you are not allowed to own unlimited shotguns) and more importantly your fitness to hold an FAC - including checks with your Doctor. I had a Section 1 FAC which I gave up because I wasn't shooting anymore and the checks for renewal and retention were getting more invasive to the point it was easier to surrender it.
Click to expand...
Have I ever?...

I currently hold
S2 (shotguns)
S1 (firearms)
S5 (more heavily restricted firearms) so yes, I do have experience.

Up to a point, and to qualify my earlier post, there is a degree of training involved when someone only has a "half license" - a S.1 certificate to shoot ONLY at an approved range, because they have to attend a licensed club for a minimum of 6 months as a probationary member before they are able to even apply, and they can only shoot under the direct supervision of a range officer anyway. But those of us who have a "full" license (I have a full open certificate that allows me to shoot any legal quarry on any land on which I have lawful authority) do NOT have to undergo any form of training. As it happens, I was trained by my late father (Sniper, British Army) and later by being trained 'on the job' by a number of experienced shooters but this was my own choice, i.e. not a requirement.

Fitness to hold a certificate is a requirement of the licensing process, and rightly so, but that isn't a problem for anyone of good character who does not suffer from medical problems that might make that person unsuitable.

Suitable security arrangements are also a requirement, but there's no problem with that either.
As for "you are not allowed to own unlimited shotguns" there are no conditions on shotgun certificates that limit the number of shotguns, so you are wrong on that one. The only limitation is on the length of the barrel (it must be at least 24" to be classified as a shotgun, if it is less then it becomes a S.5 certificate), it must have a bore of no more than 2", otherwise it become a cannon, and it must not have a removable magazine or accept more than 3 rounds, otherwise it becomes a S.1, and there are limitations on the number of the pellets, otherwise it becomes a S.1. Some police forces do impose extra security requirements if the person wishes to hold a large number of shotguns, but again this is not enshrined in law, it's local and has no legal basis.

I have owned a large number of different shotguns for a very long time, and the police have never even asked me why I feel it necessary to have so many - I suppose that if they did, they would expect me to ask whether golfers are expected to manage with just one golf club:)
 
Last edited:
How come this thread is now on about guns and the yanks?
 
@Garry Edwards Which states prohibit the legal ownership of any kind of gun, provided you don't meet any of the criteria for being denied a permit? (ie being a felon)
It's a 2nd amendment right.
 
viv1969 said:
@Garry Edwards Which states prohibit the legal ownership of any kind of gun, provided you don't meet any of the criteria for being denied a permit? (ie being a felon)
It's a 2nd amendment right.
Click to expand...
Frankly I don't know, but this is what people are saying on shooting forums. This may help
 
I think the way they hide away behind the 2nd amendment rights is ridiculous, based on that theory the following applies in Britain

1. It is illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament
2. Placing a postage stamp featuring the queens head upside down is an act of treason (punishable by death)

However on the flip side:
If you are within the York ancient city walls, you can legally murder a Scotsman, providing he is carrying a bow and arrow (available from all touristy type shops, "excuse me would you mind holding this") ;)
 
I thought that was a Welshman in Chester...

And it's not legal. There is a crime of murder which supercedes it!


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Garry Edwards said:
Have I ever?...

I currently hold
S2 (shotguns)
S1 (firearms)
S5 (more heavily restricted firearms) so yes, I do have experience.

Up to a point, and to qualify my earlier post, there is a degree of training involved when someone only has a "half license" - a S.1 certificate to shoot ONLY at an approved range, because they have to attend a licensed club for a minimum of 6 months as a probationary member before they are able to even apply, and they can only shoot under the direct supervision of a range officer anyway. But those of us who have a "full" license (I have a full open certificate that allows me to shoot any legal quarry on any land on which I have lawful authority) do NOT have to undergo any form of training. As it happens, I was trained by my late father (Sniper, British Army) and later by being trained 'on the job' by a number of experienced shooters but this was my own choice, i.e. not a requirement.

Fitness to hold a certificate is a requirement of the licensing process, and rightly so, but that isn't a problem for anyone of good character who does not suffer from medical problems that might make that person unsuitable.

Suitable security arrangements are also a requirement, but there's no problem with that either.
As for "you are not allowed to own unlimited shotguns" there are no conditions on shotgun certificates that limit the number of shotguns, so you are wrong on that one. The only limitation is on the length of the barrel (it must be at least 24" to be classified as a shotgun, if it is less then it becomes a S.5 certificate), it must have a bore of no more than 2", otherwise it become a cannon, and it must not have a removable magazine or accept more than 3 rounds, otherwise it becomes a S.1, and there are limitations on the number of the pellets, otherwise it becomes a S.1. Some police forces do impose extra security requirements if the person wishes to hold a large number of shotguns, but again this is not enshrined in law, it's local and has no legal basis.

I have owned a large number of different shotguns for a very long time, and the police have never even asked me why I feel it necessary to have so many - I suppose that if they did, they would expect me to ask whether golfers are expected to manage with just one golf club:)
Click to expand...

I had a full open section 1 with S2 Shotguns though our Firearms Licencing officer was a real PITA asking what you needed each gun for and why you needed so many which is why I as unaware that you could have as many as you liked as it was suggested 1 12 bore was sufficient. the point I as going to make is that a friend I shot with was prescribed Prozac for a stomach condition ( A common treatment) and he had a real battle on renewal to keep his ticket.In hindsight it was probably totally right that anyone prescribed Prozac should be fully vetted for fitness to hold a ticket and at one point is was suggested that he might want to relinquish his licence. I cant imagine that level of inquiry happening in the good old US of A as constitutional rights would immediately be bought in to play hence the nutters who holf licences over there.
 
Last edited:
Garry Edwards said:
Frankly I don't know, but this is what people are saying on shooting forums. This may help
Click to expand...

There are a number of federal, state and local restrictions, but no state prohibits firearms ownership.

ChrisHeathcote said:
I think the way they hide away behind the 2nd amendment rights is ridiculous...
Click to expand...

No-one is hiding behind anything. The 2nd Amendment is part of the US Constitution, the supreme law, and there's no need or reason to 'hide' behind it. It's origins lie, at least partly, in English law as it stood at the time of ratification.
 
MartynK said:
There are a number of federal, state and local restrictions, but no state prohibits firearms ownership.



No-one is hiding behind anything. The 2nd Amendment is part of the US Constitution, the supreme law, and there's no need or reason to 'hide' behind it. It's origins lie, at least partly, in English law as it stood at the time of ratification.
Click to expand...

But they won't change it because they use the excuse that it's in the constitution
 
ChrisHeathcote said:
But they won't change it because they use the excuse that it's in the constitution
Click to expand...

Who are 'they' and why do they need an excuse? The 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, and is consequently part of the supreme law of the United States. Changing/amending the Constitution is difficult, deliberately so, and requires a two thirds majority of the Senate and House of Representatives, sitting together, followed by ratification by three quarters of the state legislatures. There is an alternative procedure, but it's not any easier and has never been used.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
here we go, total derailment... all the muppos with shotgun licences will be here soon as well
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top