Correlation between Anti-Gun v Anti Death Penalty Views

A straw man and a false dichotomy! You must be very proud.

The obvious objection is that such a law provides an incentive to murder, since in such a case the rapist has nothing to lose by killing his victim (he can only be put to death once no matter how many capital crimes he commits) but he has something to gain in the elimination of the only witness, making him less likely to be put to death at all.

He did not write that if you are for your guns, you are against the constitution. That may well be an ignorant statement, but it was written by you and not by him. Perhaps you should think before you post, especially if you are going to conclude your post by calling someone else a fool. It is perfectly possible, indeed distressingly common, for a person to enjoy (in both senses) one of the freedoms guaranteed to him by the constitution, and yet not be supportive of the constitution in general. For example, a man can be in favor of his own self having freedom of speech and religion, but wish to make Islam illegal and censor the press; or he might enjoy having the (First Amendment) right to fly the Confederate Flag while deprecating the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. In your case, you apparently enjoy the protections of the Second Amendment but don't think much of the Eighth. If this is the case, then however much you like your guns it is hard to see you as a wholehearted supporter of the Bill of Rights.By analogy, Al Capone enjoyed not being burgled; that didn't make him supportive of the law.

No. You can tell that that's not what I'm saying by the way that that's not what I'm saying. That would be an answer to my post if we could be certain of arresting every would-be rapist-murderer in between the point where he rapes his victim and the point where he kills her. Otherwise, it is barely relevant. This is not how you should conclude posts in which you have made a complete fucking fool of yourself.Let's run through this again.Suppose your law is in place: the death penalty for a child rapist.Now suppose a man rapes a child. He can now (a) kill her (b) not kill her.If he kills her and is convicted for the rape and murder, then he will be put to death. But equally, if he lets her live and is convicted for the rape, then he will also be put to death. Because of your law, there is no additional punishment for the murder, and so with regards to the severity of the punishment, he might as well murder her as not.But with regards to the likelihood of the punishment, he's clearly better off killing her, because if he eliminates the only witness to his crime, he's less likely to be convicted of it.

And equally there are some people who don't "consider" banning Islam as infringing on freedom of religion. (IIRC, they do this by "considering" that Islam is not a religion.) You can "consider" any unconstitutional thing to be constitutional, and then run about saying how much you love the constitution.But I'll leave that one to NoNukes, who clearly dislikes the death penalty a lot more than I do; I merely wished to point out that it is not a contradiction, let alone folly, to say of someone both that he likes having guns and that he is unsupportive of the Constitution.

Once again I should point out that until you learn to use the reply button your propensity to non sequiturs makes it hard to know to whom your statements are directed or to which of their statements you consider your statements to be a reply. Please learn to use the reply button, and be more liberal in your use of quote boxes. Thank you.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

... as General Gandhi said when he urged his troops to press home the final assault in the Battle of Delhi.

Yeah, it's a good thing that people rising up against the atheist Communist regimes of Eastern Europe in the late 80s had all those guns, they'd have been crushed if they'd used peaceful methods. Of course you'll hear people talking about the "Velvet Revolution" and suchlike nonsense, but the fact is that Alexander Dubček had Gustv Husk executed by firing squad after the Siege of Prague.

As usual, your failure to use the reply button makes it hard to tell who you think you're replying to. Judging by the content of your post, you're not actually replying to anyone participating on this thread; but on the other hand the fact that you're posting on this thread suggests that you're under the delusion that you are.

That depends on whether his stupidity is feigned or genuine.

I agree.I read a book recently (Philip Kerr, A Philosophical Investigation, I recommend it if you like that sort of thing) which included among its premises the idea that people convicted of murder would be put in a medically induced coma and then stashed in what was in effect a big warehouse. If they were later proved innocent, they could be taken out of the coma, if not then in effect it would be a death sentence, because although they would in fact die of old age, the last thing they would experience would be the needle that put them under. Would that meet the objection, or would we complain that the innocent man was still being deprived of all the joys that would go along with ... uh ... spending a decade in prison knowing that he was there unjustly?Discuss.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.