Correlation between Anti-Gun v Anti Death Penalty Views

A criminal is more likely to escalate his crimes if he is subject to the death penalty. If speeding gets you the death penalty, you have nothing to lose by shooting the officer who tries to arrest you.

You mean like "militarized police" in places like Ferguson MO?Would Brown have been better off with a gun? If his friend had a gun?Would the city be more peaceful if the residents protesting the shooting were carrying assault rifles?On the other hand, if the police did not have guns would Brown have been shot?Enjoy

Your math is wrong. If you execute someone who was going to get life imprisonment, then you don't have any effect on crime in the streets. If you are instead planning to execute people who would normally get out after a few years then you need to make a case that you're justified in executing a murderer before he actually kills someone.

It is interesting how the four of you think you are so wise, yet have no wisdom. Your arguments are ridiculous. Here is why:
1. You blame us influence for your issues in the uk?
2. You cannot do math. I said if we get rid of a murderer the first time, he/she cannot repeat, which is the majority of the time. Thus, they would only commit one crime. Also, they do not sit in jails the rest of their lives, or they wouldn't be considered repeat offenders
3. How is it going against the eighth amendment to be for the death penalty?
I know i am wasting my time, but I need to try. At the end of the day, the four of you are simply illogical and irrational. No skin off my teeth, as they say

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.

That's not what you said, or at least it is not the statement you made with which I took issue. You said that if we removed violent criminals after their first offense, that we could cut the crime rate in half. Nobody would argue with you if you simply said that dead men do not commit crimes.There are quite a few things wrong with your accounting, and I've already pointed out one or two of those errors. Another problem is that we don't catch always catch criminals after their first offense.I would expect that someone found of calling others fools would take some pains to be correct, but what I find instead is that you post sloppy stuff, lie or are wrong when you recount what you've posted, and are quick to blame others for not figuring out what you really meant. In this case, it is extremely difficult to interpret your remarks in a way that makes any sense. In fact, it is impossible to do so. Nobody said this. You're an idiot.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Of course, this is highly misleading, because of the way difference that crime is counted. In the U.S, 'violent crime' is 4 different things, while in the U.K. they put many more different crimes into that category.So, this is sort of 'liar liar your pants are on fire' type of claimPolitiFact | Social media post says U.K. has far higher violent crime rate than U.S. does

You seem to be suggesting that convicted murderers will murder again if they are released from prison. Do you have any evidence of that?

Strangely enough, fantasies about liberty-loving armed Americans resisting jackbooted government thugs don't feature the colorful residents of Ferguson, MO.Historical ironies: the right wing promotes "2nd Amendment solutions" to an ever-imminently oppressive government, echoing the credo of the Black Panthers (and Mao), that all power flows from the barrel of a gun...echoing the same Black Panthers who studied the North Korean doctrine of juche, or self-reliance, and created their own soup kitchens, neighborhood watches and schools...sorta like the survivalists and home-schoolers today, most of them gun enthusiasts who anticipate repelling government thugs...Let me say, as a man of some Sicilian heritage, that clearly, as a species, we have a tendency to go to the mattresses.Also, the Panthers were pretty much all killed.

Sorta like Hamas? Or the residents of Palestine?Curious how oppressed people tend to behave in similar manners ... Live by the sword, die by the sword. Meanwhile more was accomplished in the Civil Rights movement by peaceful non-violent protest than by violence and guns.And it looks like the peaceful non-violent protests in Ferguson are have more of an effect than the violent outbursts in subduing the police actions and working towards justice. Looks a lot like the 60's all over again.Enjoy

Peaceful protests get you no where, if you have no means to defend yourself. The Jews, along with many others, did not fare well against Germany. Only a fool believes that gun control is the means to peace. There were plenty of murders prior to the 19th century.Again, for those that are so against guns, please feel free to give your up, or sell them to me for cheap.Violent criminals are not single time offenders. Google "violent crime repeat offenders" and look at the gov't demographics. Educate yourselves before you counter my claims.

Oh great, the troll is back.

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

I googled "violent crime repeat offenders" as you suggested and I found this:

quote:

---

Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%) and those in prison for possessing, using or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).

​

Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide. These are the lowest rates of re-arrest for the same category of crime. link

---

So violent criminals seem to be much less likely to re-offend than non-violent criminals. Done and done.

Mram10 managed to get you to do his homework.Curiously enough, there is very little to use in support of the proposition that executing murders would lower the murder rate significantly, although it may have an affect on other crimes.Perhaps executing people for theft or drug possession would have the effect mram10 is looking for.