Michael Sylvester wrote:
> It would appear that we as humans do not recognize surrender signals.
> You know-"I give up. You win.Don't shoot."
> They will still shoot you,even though you surrender.
Part of the problem is our response to violence and crime. Unlike the
rest of the animal kingdom where a surrender signal indicates the end of
the matter, humans pursue the resolution beyond that point (i.e., we jail
people for assault, sue people for intimidating us, etc.). I'm not arguing
that we should _not_ do those things, but it does provide a logical reason
for the violent offender to continue to the point of shooting a person.
One of the _stupidest_ concepts I've ever heard of in that context is the
use of the death penalty as a response to non-fatal crimes (i.e., rape,
child molestation, kidnapping, etc.). Certainly these crimes need
response--but if we set the death penalty as the response, then it only
makes sense for the offender to kill the victim and eliminate the witness
who could send him/her to the death chamber!
> I said the good old days.
When?
Early 20th century? Capone, etc.
19th century? Billy the Kid, etc.
Middle Ages? Crusades, etc.
Roman Empire? Roman Conquests.
Greek Empire? Greek wars.
Ancient Egypt? Slaughter of slaves, conquest, etc.
Pre-historic times: Systems of conquest, slavery, militancy, etc.
Take your pick of Marxist eras--Capitalistic, Feudal, Slave State,
Communalistic, etc.--since we climbed out of the trees (VOID WHERE
PROHIBITED--i.e., Kansas) and probably before, we've been finding ways to
maim and kill one another. If anything, firearms have made the job more
"tidy" and less painful to the victim (wouldn't YOU rather be shot than
impaled?), albeit a bit more accessible.
Rick
--
Rick Adams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Social Sciences
Jackson Community College, Jackson, MI
"... and the only measure of your worth and your deeds
will be the love you leave behind when you're gone."
Fred Small, J.D., "Everything Possible"
