犯罪无处不在，有些人认为他们生活、工作和旅行都只在特别的“无犯罪”地带。事实上，犯罪随时随地都可能发生，罪犯不按任何人的规则行事。你的生命值得保护吗?如果是这样，谁有责任保护它?如果你认为这是警察的责任，那么你不仅错了，因为法院普遍认为警察没有法律义务这么做，而且你还面临着另一个问题。当你自己都不承担责任的时候，你怎么能让别人冒着生命危险来保护你的生命呢?我们常说，暴力罪犯不尊重我们的财产、自由和生命，这使我们感到震惊。然而，当我们自己对他们的重视程度还不足以承担保护他们的责任时，为什么罪犯要尊重我们的财产或生命。我相信一个重视生命，认真对待自己的责任的人会拥有并培养适当反击的手段。政府和反枪支游说者喜欢使用功利主义的观点，最大的好处为最大的人数。这种做法存在一个问题，为什么我们捍卫自己的权利要依赖于犯罪率等统计数据呢?捍卫自己生命的合法权利是否应该是谋杀或暴力犯罪率的函数，以便在犯罪率上升或下降到某一点以下时，这种权利的存在和消失?由于犯罪可以发生在任何人身上,任何地方,任何时间,因此,政府冒称自己判断的能力,首先你的“需要”或“资格”的枪只能相信你的生活是不值得保护,至少直到你出现强有力的证据相反[8]。这种功利主义的方法不尊重每个人都有不可剥夺的生存权和自由权以及道德上的权利和保卫自己的义务。
澳洲学犯罪学论文代写:无犯罪
Crime is everywhere, some people like to believe that they live, work, and travel only in special ‘crime-free’ zones. The truth is crime can occur anywhere at any time, criminals do not play by anyone rules. Is your life worth protecting? If so, whose responsibility is it to protect it? If you believe that it is the police’s, not only are you wrong, since the courts universally rule that the police have no legal obligation to do so [8], but you face another question. How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to protect yours when you will assume no responsibility yourself? We often claim to be shocked that violent criminals possess no respect for our property, our liberty, or our lives. Yet why should criminals respect our property or lives, when we ourselves do not value them highly enough to assume the responsibility to defend them. I believe that one who values life and takes seriousness his or her responsibilities will possess and cultivate the means of properly fighting back.The government and anti-gun lobbyists like to use the utilitarian perspective, greatest good for the greatest number. There is a problem with this approach, why should our right to defend ourselves depend on statistics such as crime rate. Should the legal right to defend your life be a function of the homicide or violent crime rate, so that the right comes into and goes out of existence as the rate rises or falls below a certain point? Since crime can happen to anyone, anywhere, anytime, thus, a government that arrogates to itself the power to judge, in the first instance your “need” or “eligibility” to own a gun can only believe that your life is not really worth protecting, at least until such time as you present strong proof to the contrary [8]. This utilitarian approach doesn’t respect that each individual has an inalienable right to life and liberty and a moral right and obligation to defend oneself.
