The real answer to control gun violence...

[mlyonsd]

is execute anyone that commits a violent crime with one. That means holding up a convenience store, etc.

A society that embraces killing an innocent human conceived but not yet born should be able to do this, right? This of course won't stop a nut from killing kindergartners but nothing will do that.

And don't preach to me about being a civilized society because you're fighting a losing argument. If you're not intelligent enough to understand what the consequences of your actions are you're not civilized.

The answer is so simple it's scary.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Sure, but I don't think expanding the death penalty is necessarily going to do that.

I'm open to ideas but think capital punishment is the best answer.

[lcarus]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

I have to ask, what value is there keeping someone on this earth that would use a gun to gain something illegally?

What value is there in keeping someone on this Earth that would use a knife or other weapon to gain something illegally? If someone robbed a store by holding a knife to someone's throat, it's the same thing correct? Someone is threatening someone's life to gain. What about people that just make a verbal threat to someone's life whether to gain something or not? For instance, what if someone came up to you and said "I have a concealed gun and if you don't give me your money I will draw it and use it", but they don't actually have a gun. I'd be just about as scared of that as I would if someone actually drew a gun and did the same thing. So I don't agree that we should execute someone just for threatening a life. There's just too many variables and scenarios.

However, what I DO agree with is possibly executing someone for carrying out attempted murder. For instance, we've all seen television shows (or real life instances) where someone shoots a person in the head or chest, and that person is in the hospital fighting for their life. The cops say "You better hope that person survives or else". If you shoot someone with intent to kill, and by the miracle of god the victim survives, you should maybe be sentenced the same way as someone who shot someone with intent to kill and succeeded.

I don't know. It's tricky. We have so many laws already, and these people out there using guns for all the wrong reasons are typically so stupid they don't know the law, or they're so far gone they just don't care.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

I'm open to ideas but think capital punishment is the best answer.

Well we could start by eliminating "victimless" crimes and immediately paroling those who were found guilty of them to clear room in our prisons. Drug users, prostitutes, people prosecuted under morality laws. Then we can enact stiff penalties for violent criminals and offer them no parole, no probation, no time off for good behavior. Concentrate on convicting and imprisoning people who pose a legitimate threat to our society.

[lcarus]

Also, after thinking about my second paragraph in my previous post, there's a lot of tricky scenarios with that too. What if someone shoots someone in the leg, and the prosecutors say you attempted murder because they could have bled out. I just don't like laws where things are open to interpretation or judgement. Obviously, we do that anyway in some cases, but I don't know. I believe people are just overreacting because they're angry and/or fearful. I don't like the idea of making decisions on law based on emotion. There's nothing wrong in having the conversation though.

[lcarus]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Well we could start by eliminating "victimless" crimes and immediately paroling those who were found guilty of them to clear room in our prisons. Drug users, prostitutes, people prosecuted under morality laws. Then we can enact stiff penalties for violent criminals and offer them no parole, no probation, no time off for good behavior. Concentrate on convicting and imprisoning people who pose a legitimate threat to our society.

Agreed. People who pose a threat to another are the ones who should be caged. If someone buys a bunch of pot so they can eat a bag of chips and play an old Super Nintendo game, we shouldn't be caging them, and we CERTAINLY shouldn't be paying for their incarceration.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Well we could start by eliminating "victimless" crimes and immediately paroling those who were found guilty of them to clear room in our prisons. Drug users, prostitutes, people prosecuted under morality laws. Then we can enact stiff penalties for violent criminals and offer them no parole, no probation, no time off for good behavior. Concentrate on convicting and imprisoning people who pose a legitimate threat to our society.

You're avoiding the issue people that use guns to commit crimes add no value to society and are a waste of resources.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by lcarus

Agreed. People who pose a threat to another are the ones who should be caged. If someone buys a bunch of pot so they can eat a bag of chips and play an old Super Nintendo game, we shouldn't be caging them, and we CERTAINLY shouldn't be paying for their incarceration.

I agree with that.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

You're avoiding the issue people that use guns to commit crimes add no value to society and are a waste of resources.

Violent criminals, regardless of weapon, fit that same description. I would not be so cavalier about giving the State that ultimate power over its citizens.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Violent criminals, regardless of weapon, fit that same description. I would not be so cavalier about giving the State that ultimate power over its citizens.

All violent criminals are a waste of time and should be put down like rabid dogs.

The State siding on the rights of criminals instead of law abiding citizens is the problem.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

All violent criminals are a waste of time and should be put down like rabid dogs.

I disagree.

The State siding on the rights of criminals instead of law abiding citizens is the problem.

Criminals do have rights.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by listopencil

I disagree.

We have better things to do with our money and eventually under my plan the number of violent criminals will shrink.

Criminals do have rights.

I'm not saying they don't. But the system in place allows them to game the system and innocent people get killed is the result.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

We have better things to do with our money and eventually under my plan the number of violent criminals will shrink.

You can't imagine any violent criminal behavior that is unworthy of the death sentence? Bear in mind that you don't even have to have a weapon of any kind to engage in violent criminal behavior.

I'm not saying they don't. But the system in place allows them to game the system and innocent people get killed is the result.

So clean up the system. Start by removing the bloat of people who are in the system that don't really need to be locked up. Then concentrate on the people who do need to be locked up.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by listopencil

You can't imagine any violent criminal behavior that is unworthy of the death sentence? Bear in mind that you don't even have to have a weapon of any kind to engage in violent criminal behavior.

I assumed we were talking about violent crimes committed with a gun, hence the title of the thread and that seems to be the burr in everyone's saddle right now.

So clean up the system. Start by removing the bloat of people who are in the system that don't really need to be locked up. Then concentrate on the people who do need to be locked up.

I agree with the bloated system but I see no value with locking up people that use a gun to commit a crime. Just get rid of them now.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

I assumed we were talking about violent crimes committed with a gun, hence the title of the thread and that seems to be the burr in everyone's saddle right now. I agree with the bloated system but I see no value with locking up people that use a gun to commit a crime. Just get rid of them now.

I don't think which particular weapon a violent criminal uses is a valid enough issue to make the call as to whether he lives or dies. In fact it could be argued that killing someone with a crowbar rather than a gun takes a greater commitment to violence and a more enduring will to do evil.

[jspchief]

Originally Posted by A Salt Weapon

Actually the answer is to arm everyone. Sure crime would increase for about a month, and then become almost nil. Not too many people out there willing to commit crimes when they know everyone has a gun.
Posted via Mobile Device

Doesn't the wild west suggest otherwise?