Correlation between Anti-Gun v Anti Death Penalty Views

I suggested one in Message 39:

quote:

---

If you must have the death penalty, I think you should get rid of the pretense that it's done "humanely".
It should be done with a teaspoon. And the ones who support it - e.g. the victim's family - should be the ones to do it.

---

Are you willing to step up and do the deed? Or are ou a hypocrite?

Feel free not to read uncomfortable facts. This is a bizarre and uniquely American paranoia. No-one in the rest of the developed world worries that their democratically elected government is about to enslave them (and if they did they wouldn't believe that ownership of handguns could make a blind bit of difference against a modern army.) Another absolutely crazy idea. I've happily protected my family from the non-existent threat of armed home invasion for many years. Living with your kind of fear is something I wouldn't want to have to do. Your means of protection is the thing that you are killing each-other with. It's crazy.

I suppose you will care when violations of the 8th amendment result in the loss of the right to carry out the death penalty. Do you actually care about the constitution, or not?

Non-existent?? Please google home invasions for your own benefit. In fact, have a look at your own country's crime rate increase from 2009 till now. Here is one stat summary I found on the uk: I'll help you with your next post:
1. "Obviously, mram, those are ridiculous statistics!"
2. "You yanks are all the same! ......."The above stats show you must have many more guns than us to cause this much havoc in the UK

So NN,
Cruel and unusual? Would a guillotine be more painless? Yes. Would a firing squad? Yes. So, the cruel and unusual is based on the failure of our system. They want to inject chemicals that have known issues. It doesn't bother me when a violent criminal dies while gasping for breath. I actually think of those he innocently slayed (arizona case) and wonder if it was even close to what they suffered.
As for the scope of the death penalty, I think it should be expanded to child rapists. What is your stance on that?

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.

Typical. You are not supportive of the constitution. You just want your guns. Why do conservatives hate America?

So, if I am for my guns, I am against the constitution? You are obviously trying to waste time with ignorant statements, but I'll bite.Priceless buddy. You might have skipped the second one. Take a few minutes and google "second amendment". Mom always said don't argue with fools ....

Let's try this one....last.....time. You are saying that a criminal is MORE willing to commit crimes if he is guaranteed to get the death penalty??Also, you mention "how many capital crimes". Let's focus on the majority of violent criminals being repeat offenders (check out the bjs website). If we execute them after the first crime, we don't have to worry about him/her repeating. Keep up now....All that to say, if we get rid of violent offenders after the first one, we are effectively cutting violent crime in half Crazy math here.I'm starting to question your sanity, adequate.

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.

Then please clarify how I am against the constitution and "destroying" this country by being for the 2nd and the 8th?I do not consider a murderer gasping for his final breaths as "cruel and unusual" when his murderous acts were far worse.Edited by mram10, : No reason given.

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.

I have to assume that your missing the point is deliberate. As I explicitly stated, it is your expressed lack of respect for the other amendments of the constitution, and in particular the eighth amendment that makes it clear that your love of guns is something other than an embracing of the constitution.You show the same failure to grasp the arguments of others in every thread you participate in. That plus your tendency to start threads on ridiculous premises followed by your long disappearances mean that it may take months for you to even understand what you are disagreeing with.

Well before we get into whether those statistics are ridiculous or not we have to deal with your misrepresentation of them.Firstly you'll see that I said that I had no fear of "ARMED home invasion" - which is relevant to the topic. Secondly, you'll see from your stats that the UK is 13th in EUROPE for homicide with a rate of 1.49. Thirdly you *accidentally* missed the US's homicide rate in your 'analysis' which is 4.7 ie 3 times higher.Finally, I have also said that US's overtly punitive and aggressive culture is contagious and seems to be seeping into UK culture - although guns and capital punishment will never be allowed here again.If you're going to make these arguments, spend a little time and thought on them. And, like they told you in school, read the question before answering.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.