guns

[ghaverkamp]

I see the distinction, I was merely trying to illustrate that the position you have taken is based on a possibility that frankly isn't very likely. You could take the position that the earth is flat and discuss it all day long, but in the end you would still be wrong. Some of us on the other side of this discussion are growing tired of all the mythical scenarios proposed also.

 

You clearly don't see the distinction.

[Fugu]

M: I came here for a good argument.

A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.

M: An argument isn't just contradiction.

A: It can be.

M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

A: No it isn't.

M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.

A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.

M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'

A: Yes it is!

M: No it isn't!

A: Yes it is!

M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

(short pause)

A: No it isn't.

M: It is.

A: Not at all.

M: Now look.

A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.

M: What?

A: That's it. Good morning.

M: I was just getting interested.

A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.

M: That was never five minutes!

A: I'm afraid it was.

M: It wasn't.

Pause

A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.

M: What?!

A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

[HairyCannonball]

I clearly do. You are choosing a position based on information that I have very good reason to not agree with, therefore I do not agree with the position that you have taken. If you were to base your debate on information that has some credibility it would be more convincing.

[Matts_12GS]

[ghaverkamp]

I clearly do. You are choosing a position based on information that I have very good reason to not agree with, therefore I do not agree with the position that you have taken. If you were to base your debate on information that has some credibility it would be more convincing.

 

I haven't taken a position. The particular point you quoted earlier, in particular, was merely my response to Fugu (who is as similarly unable to distinguish these matters as you) pointing out that both sides of the issue may feel that the others' wills are being forced upon them.

 

Nowhere did I take that position.

[exwingnut]

M: I came here for a good argument.

A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.

M: An argument isn't just contradiction.

A: It can be.

M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

A: No it isn't.

M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.

A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.

M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'

A: Yes it is!

M: No it isn't!

A: Yes it is!

M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

(short pause)

A: No it isn't.

M: It is.

A: Not at all.

M: Now look.

A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.

M: What?

A: That's it. Good morning.

M: I was just getting interested.

A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.

M: That was never five minutes!

A: I'm afraid it was.

M: It wasn't.

Pause

A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.

M: What?!

A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

 

Nudge, nudge. Wink, wink.

[philbytx]

SAY NO MORE SQUIRE

[Matts_12GS]

SAY NO MORE SQUIRE

 

So, you like pictures? Videos? Eh, eh, eh?

 

Is she a goer?

[tallman]

The Earth isn't flat?

Since when?

Sometimes a thread seems to just get to the edge

and fall off.

[ghaverkamp]

The Earth isn't flat?

 

Based on past conversations, many members here clearly can't accept that as scientific fact. After all, scientists continue to ask for money to investigate the earth's structure. Follow the money. Who benefits from suggesting the earth isn't flat? The international shippers!

[DiggerJim]

Why do we as a country continue to take away the freedoms of the many law abiding citizens to try to control the minority that cause the problem? Why not go after the problem rather than punish all for the crimes of a few....Perhaps it is time we start controlling existing crime rather than criminalizing more activities.

The Connecticut legislature just decided not to take up a "3 strikes" bill because (and I'm not making this up) "more people would probably take their trials to juries and then we'll have a lot of really dangerous people being let off"! A lawmaker believes that juries are not appropriate finders of guilt...his statement says he presupposes that a) those charged with a crime are guilty and b) juries will let them off - with a corollary that only plea bargains & judges know enough to keep the bad people off the street. So, in his mind we're better off letting them plea to reduced charges & sentences than risk the probability that juries will get it wrong.

 

I feel safer tonight knowing such a brilliant legal light is leading my state's legislative branch.

 

[DavidEBSmith]

Actually, I just saw a study the other day that concluded that two of the side effects of the 3 strikes law in California were (1) offenders with 2 strikes tended to commit more violent crimes on the 3rd strike because they were gonna get the same sentence as they would for a lesser crime and (2) offenders with 2 strikes tended to go to neighboring jurisdictions and commit their crimes there. So, California, Las Vegas thanks you for the bad guys.

 

The only law that is vigorously obeyed is the law of unintended consequences.

[Dave McReynolds]

So, California, Las Vegas thanks you for the bad guys.

 

One of the few things I would dislike more than participating in an iron butt rally would be to spend any time at all in a Nevada prison out in the middle of the desert. Whenever I ride past one of those things, I review my past and pray that my sins have been forgotten, if not forgiven.

[Lawman]

Actually, I just saw a study the other day that concluded that two of the side effects of the 3 strikes law in California were (1) offenders with 2 strikes tended to commit more violent crimes on the 3rd strike because they were gonna get the same sentence as they would for a lesser crime and (2) offenders with 2 strikes tended to go to neighboring jurisdictions and commit their crimes there. So, California, Las Vegas thanks you for the bad guys.

 

The only law that is vigorously obeyed is the law of unintended consequences.

 

 

Was this study conducted by a couple of twice convicted felons?

[SageRider]

The Earth isn't flat?

 

Based on past conversations, many members here clearly can't accept that as scientific fact. After all, scientists continue to ask for money to investigate the earth's structure. Follow the money. Who benefits from suggesting the earth isn't flat? The international shippers!

Obviously, it's the lawyers who benefit on both sides of the "issue".

[Fugu]

offenders with 2 strikes tended to commit more violent crimes on the 3rd strike because they were gonna get the same sentence as they would for a lesser crime and

 

Clearly the solution is random sentencing.

 

We could have a big wheel, like in Thunderdome, but we could name it Melanie (so it's euphonious). DO A FELONY, FACE THE MELANIE!

 

Then when the next guy who graduates from B&E to armed robbery gets his head lopped off on his second strike, criminals might take notice...

[Fugu]

Fugu (who is as similarly unable to distinguish these matters as you)

 

It's not that I'm unable, it's that I don't care. Whether you are posting what you do because it's your personal belief or because you like to argue is immaterial.

 

Davidebsmith tries to mock me for assuming his personal position is contrary to my own, while having already said he agrees with his employer's amicus brief. Having read that brief, I find it quite contrary to my beliefs and filled with anti-gun BS and false conclusions in addition to their reasoned legal argument. When asked for clarification, he refuses. Well, there aren't many valid conclusions to draw from that other than we do not agree.

 

Oh, and by the way - I've just been taking up the pro-gun position for the sake of argument here.

[PhillyFlash]

...(2) offenders with 2 strikes tended to go to neighboring jurisdictions and commit their crimes there. So, California, Las Vegas thanks you for the bad guys.

 

Arizona is pretty close to California, too. Which brings us to our open-carry and CCW laws.

[Lawman]

Without taking a position on the matter I will tell you that I agree with that position and disagree with the other.....

[4wheeldog]

offenders with 2 strikes tended to commit more violent crimes on the 3rd strike because they were gonna get the same sentence as they would for a lesser crime and

 

 

 

Clearly the solution is random sentencing.

 

We could have a big wheel, like in Thunderdome, but we could name it Melanie (so it's euphonious). DO A FELONY, FACE THE MELANIE!

 

Then when the next guy who graduates from B&E to armed robbery gets his head lopped off on his second strike, criminals might take notice...

 

The problem is that criminals are better at denial than anyone else. They never believe it will happen to them, and they are never responsible (In their own limited understanding) for being in trouble with the law in the first place. That is why the standard expression is that "I caught a case", like you or I would catch a cold. No connection to the act that is being prosecuted, just bad luck.

 

The numbers tell us that we have 3 million people in jail in this country, and what I see on the street tells me it ain't near enough.

 

Many of us have had enough of paying 40/50k per inmate for 1% of the population to be jailed. We really need to approach this differently, with a long term solution.

 

I have always felt that we need better parents to avoid this continuing from generation to generation. For any program to work, it needs to be in place for 20/30 years before you see results. Head start was probably the closest thing to a way to raise a generation of kids whose offspring would not likely go jail. It didn't last much past one administration. Paying the poor and downtrodden not to have children rather than rewarding them for each additional unsupported offspring might make a dent as well.

 

Either that, or we dedicate a (Very large) island as a penal colony, and put convicts there (Permanently) with no supervision. Their numbers would dwindle quickly from attrition.

[Dave McReynolds]

Actually, I just saw a study the other day that concluded that two of the side effects of the 3 strikes law in California were (1) offenders with 2 strikes tended to commit more violent crimes on the 3rd strike because they were gonna get the same sentence as they would for a lesser crime and (2) offenders with 2 strikes tended to go to neighboring jurisdictions and commit their crimes there. So, California, Las Vegas thanks you for the bad guys.

 

On a more serious note than my previous post, if these studies are correct, don't they demonstrate that the 3 strikes law is warranted? If criminals are actually planning their crimes in anticipation of being locked up for their third strike, doesn't that demonstrate that they are incorrigible and should be locked up forever? If they are committing major crimes or moving to other states to commit crimes in the face of 3 strikes, what would you expect them to do in the absence of 3 strikes? Maybe the answer is for NV and AZ to have their own 3 strikes law. Do strikes count against a person if committed in another state? They should, if they don't.

[Lawman]

Either that, or we dedicate a (Very large) island as a penal colony, and put convicts there (Permanently) with no supervision. Their numbers would dwindle quickly from attrition.

 

Works for me!

[smiller]

Three strikes laws may inhibit some criminals some of the time, that's the intended consequence. They also sentence non-violent offenders to absurd prison terms that are both morally wrong and wasteful of taxpayer dollars. That's the unintended consequence. As usual we have to decide as a society whether one is worth the cost of the other.

[Fugu]

If criminals are actually planning their crimes in anticipation of being locked up for their third strike, doesn't that demonstrate that they are incorrigible and should be locked up forever?

 

If they are incorrigible, why are we keeping them alive?

 

(uh-oh... this thread could now wander into "is it better that one innocent man is put to death, or 100 guilty men go free" territory....)

[PhillyFlash]

Either that, or we dedicate a (Very large) island as a penal colony, and put convicts there (Permanently) with no supervision. Their numbers would dwindle quickly from attrition.

 

Works for me!

 

Wasn't there a documentary about this some time ago. Something called "Escape From New York," I think.

[g_frey]

Your ideas are strangely similar to mine, I could have written what you did. Particularly the island idea. I think we should drop the jerks off on the unguarded island with a sleeping bag, tent, and MREs. Resupply MREs monthly by helicopter and pick up the survivors at the end of their terms. These survivors would then go to a normal prison for 4 months and be observed for criminal behaviour. Any such behaviour would return them to the island for a repeat of their sentence. Just an idea that actually might save citizens a lot of misery.

I think it IS just bad luck they serve time. I personally don't even bother reporting actually ... anything anymore. With criminals getting light sentences and time off for good behaviour (see Governor Janklow)why bother. On the other hand, I really enjoy causing criminals the maximum amount of hassle that I can on a personal level. Every time I have been called to testify (drug trial, assault trial, fraud trial, personal injury trial) in my opinion the bad guys got off. I remember one trial in Kansas City where just before the trial the drug manufacturer was out in the hall passing more 100 dollar bills to his lawyer than I had ever seen before. He got off too and I had personally caught him stealing chemicals from the university where I worked! Real waste of time driving 280 miles and sitting outside a courtroom for 4 hours for nothing in the end. Yes I was searched before I was allowed in the court house too! Must protect our Federal "Judges"!

 

Yesterday a child molester returned to our small community, he got time off for good behaviour! Too light a sentence and he didn't serve it anyway. Sorry I am on a soapbox and in full flow. I think castration would be appropriate though!

[4wheeldog]

I agree for the most part, but when it comes to the island idea, I guess I am even more hardcore. I don't think you send them there with any idea of coming back. And I wouldn't feed them.......Let them figure that out for themselves.

As far as sex offenders are concerned, my belief is that castration will only change the deviancy, not eliminate it. I would excise a different set of orbs. I think that if we blind them, it will seriously limit their ability to victimize anyone.

Hard to believe as I am reading this that, in most ways, I consider myself a liberal!

[lawnchairboy]

[Dave McReynolds]

Three strikes laws may inhibit some criminals some of the time, that's the intended consequence. They also sentence non-violent offenders to absurd prison terms that are both morally wrong and wasteful of taxpayer dollars. That's the unintended consequence. As usual we have to decide as a society whether one is worth the cost of the other.

 

I don't think the criminals that Eebie was talking about who commit particularly violent crimes or move states to commit crimes because one crime is punished much the same as another on the 3rd strike are the same Jean Valjeans you're talking about who may be sentenced to life on the galleys for stealing a loaf of bread on their 3rd strike. We're talking about two different unintended consequences here entirely.

 

Ironically, we're also talking about two different intended consequences, also. My understanding of the intended consequence of 3 strikes is not so much to deter aspiring criminals as to recognize that some repeat criminals are incorrigible and should be locked up forever to spare society the anguish of many subsequent crimes and the cost of many subsequent arrests and trials.

[smiller]

Well, the intended consequence is to protect society, whether it be by deterring criminals or keeping them locked up. These are two different avenues but basically the same intended consequence.

 

Regarding the unintended part, I'm not sure exactly which particular criminals David was referring to in his post but regardless some individuals that receive life sentences based third strike laws might deserve it and others decidedly may not. The point remains the same and we still must decide as a society whether the trade-off is worth it.

 

Repeat violent criminals can and do receive lengthy sentences with and without mandatory sentencing laws. I'm not sure what real purpose they serve.

[Dave McReynolds]

Was CA 3 strikes passed in an initiative? I seem to remember that it was.

 

One thing about certain initiatives, whether 3 strikes or Prop 13, it does get peoples attention. When people get fed up, as can be seen by many of the responses on this thread to perceived light sentences and revolving doors on prisons, and the legislature and/or courts don't do anything, the people tend to jump in with both feet.

 

However, a recent initiative to restrict 3 strikes to violent offenders did not pass, so it appears the people want the Jean Valjeans hauled off to the galleys when they steal their 3rd loaf of bread. They are less than enthusiastic about building more galleys or hiring more guards, however.

[Lawman]

I ask this question as one who believes that those who are convicted of three felony offenses probably have committed many others (just as I've been guilty of speeding many more times than I've been cited). Which felonies do you think should be exempt from the three stikes rule and would you mind living next door to those felons? Frankly, I believe the only reason we have crime in this country to the extent we do is because we are willing to tolerate it. There is no good reason you should have to fear your wife walking down any city street alone at 2:00 a.m.

It's only dangerous because we are not willing to make it safe.

[HexHead]

What an idiotic statement. I realize you live in an idealistic fairyland . . .

 

You live in IL, so how's that gun free state working out for ya? Maybe you should ask those women at Lane Bryant?

 

And the pro-gun folks can't figure out why the rest of the country calls them "gun nuts" . . .

 

But it's nice to see you can present your position in an intelligent, respectful manner. Yes, that's exactly the kind of cool-headed attitude I want to see in a person carrying a deadly weapon.

 

Rest of the country? Do you mean the 40 or so "shall issue" states? Or the 2 "no issue" and handful of "may issue" that are in reality "ain't gonna happen" states because one person like a sheriff or police chief doesn't want it states?

I have a friend that used to live in CA and tried to apply for a carry permit. He was told at the County office they didn't even have applications because the Sheriff never approves them. They don't even bother to print them.

 

 

[HexHead]

...the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

A bright spot in the transcripts posted by the WSJ are that some of the Justices are aware of this part of the second amendment.

 

Fixed that for you.

 

Scalia is a hunter, pronounced 30-'06 correctly and knew of .270 cartridge. There's at least one gun guy on the SCOTUS.

[smiller]

However, a recent initiative to restrict 3 strikes to violent offenders did not pass, so it appears the people want the Jean Valjeans hauled off to the galleys when they steal their 3rd loaf of bread. They are less than enthusiastic about building more galleys or hiring more guards, however.

Yeah, strange. If I didn't know better I'd almost have to say that it seems as though they didn't think it through.

[4wheeldog]

However, a recent initiative to restrict 3 strikes to violent offenders did not pass, so it appears the people want the Jean Valjeans hauled off to the galleys when they steal their 3rd loaf of bread. They are less than enthusiastic about building more galleys or hiring more guards, however.

Yeah, strange. If I didn't know better I'd almost have to say that it seems as though they didn't think it through.

 

It is a contradiction, but with some reason behind it. The majority don't want to pay for prisons, but we don't want those folks among us either. It would be ideal if there was an acceptable way for them to just not exist.

[Lawman]

It would be ideal if there was an acceptable way for them to just not exist.

 

There is...It's called an electric couch.

[HexHead]

Hey, folks - if you read one amicus brief today, I humbly suggest you make it this one:

 

http://www.nraila.org/heller/proamicusbriefs/07-290_amicus_jpfo.pdf

 

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. Good people.

 

Excellent. Thank you for that link.

 

Interesting that they are WI based group. WI is the other no carry state like IL.

[Paul_Burkett]

Three strikes is not always fair, especially in the case of a homeless person who would steal a loaf of bread because he is starving. If there wasn't any one hurt during the commission of the crime, no foul, but if during the apprehension he/she hurts someone rather than acquiesce and say "you caught me, I give up", that would be a crime worth taking to the next level. Prisons need to be a punishment for people, but too often they are leisure camps for the lawless, never should they be a concentration camp or gulag, but a correctional place to rehabilitate those that really want to make a change in their lives. If they new that they would be working a chain gang on M-W-F and T-TH-Sat they would learn to read and become formally educated, perhaps they would see that crime is bad and there is another way to succeed, and become white collar criminals, OH wait, did I say that out loud?

But in all seriousness, the punishment needs to fit the crime, and the crime needs to be paid in full, no plea bargaining. If you are a foreigner and commit a serious crime, you do the time and are extradited. No tattoos,(I'm shaken the bush Mama).

 

http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2005/06/04/111793349229233723/

[Les is more]

If they new that they would be working a chain gang on M-W-F and T-TH-Sat they would learn to read and become formally educated

 

Yeah. Why don't they just go out and do that. You make it sound so easy but is this not an area where we as a nation have dropped the ball? I haven't gone out today and done my homework but it seems to me that the majority of the people we're talking about in this thread are hardly from wealthy families nor even from 2 parent households. In the case of two parent households I think you'd find that in a large number of cases both parents are working AT LEAST two jobs just to keep their families housed and fed. Child care is out of the question. I know there are other circumstances but these are prevalent issues.

 

We could also speak to how difficult it is for someone whose been incarcerated once to fit back into society even if that's their desire. Who hires, wants to live next door to, etc. Note, I'm not saying that it never happens but I've spoken with people who have some knowledge of prisoner rehab and recidivism and these things are major problems.

[Lawman]

Paul,

Three strikes only applies to felonies..I don't know of any felonies that are not serious offenses.

[DavidEBSmith]

I don't know of any felonies that are not serious offenses.

 

Bringing a $5000 hooker from NYC to DC?

[Paul_Burkett]

You make it sound so easy but is this not an area where we as a nation have dropped the ball?

This is true that the ball has been dropped and often those incarcerated have not gotten the education that may have led them to a more productive life, but all too often the kids in school are coerced through peer pressure to join gangs or participate in unwholesome activities. I had lunch with my daughter today, she is a school teacher, and she said that half of the students will not graduate from high school. She teaches a combined class of 5Th & 6Th graders, several of them can not read at a second grade level, and much of the problem is from parents being too busy or not caring enough to help their children succeed. But if a person is going to be locked away for years, they have time to work and time to learn, and it should be mandated that they work to become assimilated into a society that they have been shut away from. There isn't an easy solution to the problems that criminals face, taking the easy way out is often times the path that criminals have taken and gotten into the situation that they are now in. It takes a lot of hard work, sacrifice and determination to accomplish anything worth while in this life, and I believe that in this society we are being lied to about "you deserve to have the best, you need it now, it's your right to have the best in life and we are going to give it to you" advertisements and political slogans. What about these slogans? "Life is not fair", "you need to work hard and pull yourself up by your own boot straps", anything worth doing is worth doing well", "take pride in yourself and others will too".

Fitting back into society will never be as easy as getting thrown back into prison, as long as they are a captive audience, they have the time to learn and when the chance comes to be reinserted into society, they will have better tools than when they went in.

[Lawman]

I don't know of any felonies that are not serious offenses.

 

Bringing a $5000 hooker from NYC to DC?

 

I would call that a serious case of felony stupidity..

[ShovelStrokeEd]

Either that, or we dedicate a (Very large) island as a penal colony, and put convicts there (Permanently) with no supervision. Their numbers would dwindle quickly from attrition.

 

Works for me!

 

Wasn't there a documentary about this some time ago. Something called "Escape From New York," I think.

 

Isn't that how modern Australia got started? They actually seem to have turned out all right.

[tallman]

Either that, or we dedicate a (Very large) island as a penal colony, and put convicts there (Permanently) with no supervision. Their numbers would dwindle quickly from attrition.

 

Works for me!

 

Wasn't there a documentary about this some time ago. Something called "Escape From New York," I think.

 

Isn't that how modern Australia got started? They actually seem to have turned out all right.

 

Either that, or we dedicate a (Very large) island as a penal colony, and put convicts there (Permanently) with no supervision. Their numbers would dwindle quickly from attrition.

 

Works for me!

 

Wasn't there a documentary about this some time ago. Something called "Escape From New York," I think.

 

Isn't that how modern Australia got started? They actually seem to have turned out all right.

 

And Georgia.

Oh, and all the "criminal" Irish evicted and placed on boasts for America because the fare was cheaper than feeding them

 

It has already been done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_Island

[4wheeldog]

Either that, or we dedicate a (Very large) island as a penal colony, and put convicts there (Permanently) with no supervision. Their numbers would dwindle quickly from attrition.

 

Works for me!

 

Wasn't there a documentary about this some time ago. Something called "Escape From New York," I think.

 

Isn't that how modern Australia got started? They actually seem to have turned out all right.

 

Yes and no. Australia was primarily a debtor's prison. Back then, they put you away for not paying your bills......Imagine that! Entirely different mind set from criminals with no moral compass. I am sure that many of my relatives wound up there.

[DavidEBSmith]

Yes and no. Australia was primarily a debtor's prison.

 

Not true. Australia was used as a penal colony in large part as an alternative to capital punishment because the British public felt that the penal code had become too oppressive, making relatively minor offenses capital crimes. But the prisons were overflowing, and it was too expensive to build new ones - for many years British convicts were kept on old naval ships tied up in the Thames, which were even worse conditions than the prisons. Australia was supposed to be a more humane and self-supporting alternative (although it wasn't self-supporting until it was opened up for free settlement). The early transportees tended to be non-violent property offenders - thieves, burglars, forgers, embezzlers, etc. In later years, Australia become a convenient place for political prisoners, especially the Irish. Transportation was only permitted for certain offenses, and I'm fairly certain (without looking it up) that debt was not among them.

[HexHead]

And Georgia.

Oh, and all the "criminal" Irish evicted and placed on boasts for America because the fare was cheaper than feeding them

 

It has already been done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_Island

 

And North Carolina was founded by the undesirables thrown out of South Carolina.

[4wheeldog]

Yes and no. Australia was primarily a debtor's prison.

 

Not true. Australia was used as a penal colony in large part as an alternative to capital punishment because the British public felt that the penal code had become too oppressive, making relatively minor offenses capital crimes. But the prisons were overflowing, and it was too expensive to build new ones - for many years British convicts were kept on old naval ships tied up in the Thames, which were even worse conditions than the prisons. Australia was supposed to be a more humane and self-supporting alternative (although it wasn't self-supporting until it was opened up for free settlement). The early transportees tended to be non-violent property offenders - thieves, burglars, forgers, embezzlers, etc. In later years, Australia become a convenient place for political prisoners, especially the Irish. Transportation was only permitted for certain offenses, and I'm fairly certain (without looking it up) that debt was not among them.

 

That may be the Brit version, but is not born out by the numbers or the history. The Brits did everything they could to empty Ireland of the Irish, including starvation.

Look here:

http://www.pilotguides.com/destination_g...he_convicts.php