The Death Penalty or Life Meaning Life

[MMI]

Having let the question simmer in my mind a while, I have decided I am still 100% against the death penalty. I can see no reason for it. None. I push the doubts I expressed earlier aside completely.

The idea of untrained members of the public carrying weapons in public is horrifying. To allow it is licensing vigilante-ism, which is utterly despicable. The prospect of people pulling a gun on another at the merest suggestion of trouble does not bear contemplation, and any authorities that encourage it are, in my opinion, reckless of the law and order they are supposed to enforce, and complicit in any deaths that result. There are no longer any new frontiers where savages and outlaws are liable to swoop down any second and massacre us for our trinkets. There is no danger of redcoats swooping down from Canada to steal hard-won liberties. There's not even any danger of the elected rulers usurping power and overthrowing the constitution - not even where the ruler is a black moslem-loving communist.

No-one has the right to take another person's life, not, to my way of thinking, even in self-defence unless there is no other way to save oneself, and anyone who does take life must show inthe cold light of day and beyond reasonable doubt that his fear of immediate death was real and that there was no other reasonable alternative to save himself. Failure to demonstrate these conditions should lead to a presumption of manslaughter at least.

And because no-one has the right to take another life, except in the most extreme circumstances, it follows that judicial murder is also unacceptable.

It seems to me that the answer must be tougher controls and restrictions on the manufacture, sale, importation and exportation, and possession of offensive weapons of all kinds, and heavy penalties for transgressing the law. OK - it won't stop criminals, but what law ever did? Raoul Moat would've got a gun regardless of what the law said, but maybe Derrick Bird would not; and if he hadn't, 12 lives would not have been pointlessly wasted. Tighter controls will stop people who are not professional lawbreakers from becoming killers by accident or any other cause.

[Thorne]

Having let the question simmer in my mind a while, I have decided I am still 100% against the death penalty. I can see no reason for it. None. I push the doubts I expressed earlier aside completely.

I knew I could drive you back into your shell!

The idea of untrained members of the public carrying weapons in public is horrifying.

Absolutely! That's why I support mandatory training, with frequent refresher courses.

There are no longer any new frontiers where savages and outlaws are liable to swoop down any second and massacre us for our trinkets.

Obviously you've never strolled through a city park after sundown. In most cities I wouldn't recommend it without Kevlar and an assault rifle.

There is no danger of redcoats swooping down from Canada to steal hard-won liberties.

One thing you have to give the British credit for: they learn from their mistakes. After getting their butts handed to them twice they're not likely to try again; and they eventually got rid of those silly red uniforms!

No-one has the right to take another person's life, not, to my way of thinking, even in self-defence unless there is no other way to save oneself,

What about to save someone else? If I see a man walking into a daycare center carrying a large machete, say, and I have the opportunity to take him out, but not the ability to reach him before he enters the building, should I pop him in the back and save countless kids? Or should I dial 911, wait on hold for 3 minutes, then have the police summoned? I know what I'd do!

and anyone who does take life must show inthe cold light of day and beyond reasonable doubt that his fear of immediate death was real and that there was no other reasonable alternative to save himself.

And just who is to define reasonable? You? The criminal? His family? These things happen in seconds! There's no time for reasonable, only for reaction, which is why training is so important.

Failure to demonstrate these conditions should lead to a presumption of manslaughter at least.

All killings are investigated as manslaughter. The difference between the US and England seems to be that the victim (the person attacked) is not presumed to be guilty because he defended himself.

And because no-one has the right to take another life, except in the most extreme circumstances, it follows that judicial murder is also unacceptable.

Except in the most extreme circumstances, of course.

It seems to me that the answer must be tougher controls and restrictions on the manufacture, sale, importation and exportation, and possession of offensive weapons of all kinds, and heavy penalties for transgressing the law.

These controls already exist. They are ineffective.

OK - it won't stop criminals, but what law ever did?

Laws allowing citizens to take action in their own self defense certainly stops a lot of criminals.

Tighter controls will stop people who are not professional lawbreakers from becoming killers by accident or any other cause.

But these people are not the source of the problem. Sure, accidents do happen, but they are very rare, and can result in charges of criminal negligence when they do occur. An average citizen who, for whatever reason, goes off his rocker and decides to kill his whole family will find a way to do so with or without guns. Regardless of the controls, the professional criminals will still get hold of weapons, and still use them, because they will know that their victims will not be able to fight back effectively.

[MMI]

One thing you have to give the British credit for: they learn from their mistakes. After getting their butts handed to them twice they're not likely to try again; and they eventually got rid of those silly red uniforms!

Actually, we don't learn. Otherwise we'd have stayed out of Afghanistand this time.

Furthermore, I am told that those silly red uniforms actually made it harder for enemy scouts to get a good estimate of troop numbers from any kind of distance. Perhaps they weren't as silly as the white ones the French used to wear.

As for handing us our butts back ... twice ... it was only recently that I had to remind you (1) that the French and the indians won your little revolution for you, while the treacherous woodmen who had turned on their own kin just tagged along for the reflected glory and (2) the Canadians won the war of 1812 as the Americans tried to turn their northern cousins against the homeland again. Canada understands the true meaning of loyaly, however. That's why Canada fought in the two world wars last century from the beginning instead of waiting till it was virtually over, and then moving in to pick up the victory.

Meanwhile, although the French won a minor victory in America, we took them apart in every other theatre of that global war, as well as defeating the Dutch, the Russians, the Swedes and the Spanish. So, while it hurt to lose the 13 colonies, it's to be expected if you only send your least competent officers. And it didn't amount to much when you look at the big picture. Plus we did get all of the French Canadian possessions to make up for the loss. So, well done you ...!

[Thorne]

Actually, we don't learn. Otherwise we'd have stayed out of Afghanistand this time.

Well, it did take you two tries against the US, and this is only the second try in Afghanistan, so....

Furthermore, I am told that those silly red uniforms actually made it harder for enemy scouts to get a good estimate of troop numbers from any kind of distance.

That may be true, but it certainly made it easier to see where the troops were.
You might enjoy this. Trust me, it's relevant.

As for handing us our butts back ... twice ... it was only recently that I had to remind you...

Yeah, yeah, I got all that. But still, the British Army had to leave, didn't it?

That's why Canada fought in the two world wars last century from the beginning instead of waiting till it was virtually over, and then moving in to pick up the victory.

Perhaps a topic for another thread. But remember, the US did provide material support before actually getting involved, both times. And US volunteers fought in both wars long before the government decided to get involved.

[MMI]

1. We've been in and out of Afghanistan since 1842, and never won, and never learnt

2. Yes, we had to leave the USA afte the first revolution, but I didn't think that was the point you were making. After the second, USA had to leave Canada (where it hadn't already been driven out, that is).

[Thorne]

1. We've been in and out of Afghanistan since 1842, and never won, and never learnt

Apparently they US hasn't learned anything from all the other countries who haven't learned anything about Afghanistan, either.

2. Yes, we had to leave the USA afte the first revolution, but I didn't think that was the point you were making. After the second, USA had to leave Canada (where it hadn't already been driven out, that is).

I wasn't trying to make a point, per se, just teasing. So okay, the US had to leave Canada. So what? Other than hockey and polar bears what have they got to offer? (Geez! I can already feel the indignation blasting down like an Arctic freeze! Give it a rest, guys! I'm kidding! I like hockey! Polar bears, too. And there are plenty of Canadian actors who pretend to be Americans so they can make a lot of our money! So take it easy on me, eh?)

[DuncanONeil]

What else has Canada to offer? Um ... oil sands?

Apparently they US hasn't learned anything from all the other countries who haven't learned anything about Afghanistan, either.


I wasn't trying to make a point, per se, just teasing. So okay, the US had to leave Canada. So what? Other than hockey and polar bears what have they got to offer? (Geez! I can already feel the indignation blasting down like an Arctic freeze! Give it a rest, guys! I'm kidding! I like hockey! Polar bears, too. And there are plenty of Canadian actors who pretend to be Americans so they can make a lot of our money! So take it easy on me, eh?)

[DuncanONeil]

Thank you Thorne!

I knew I could drive you back into your shell!


Absolutely! That's why I support mandatory training, with frequent refresher courses.


Obviously you've never strolled through a city park after sundown. In most cities I wouldn't recommend it without Kevlar and an assault rifle.


One thing you have to give the British credit for: they learn from their mistakes. After getting their butts handed to them twice they're not likely to try again; and they eventually got rid of those silly red uniforms!


What about to save someone else? If I see a man walking into a daycare center carrying a large machete, say, and I have the opportunity to take him out, but not the ability to reach him before he enters the building, should I pop him in the back and save countless kids? Or should I dial 911, wait on hold for 3 minutes, then have the police summoned? I know what I'd do!


And just who is to define reasonable? You? The criminal? His family? These things happen in seconds! There's no time for reasonable, only for reaction, which is why training is so important.


All killings are investigated as manslaughter. The difference between the US and England seems to be that the victim (the person attacked) is not presumed to be guilty because he defended himself.


Except in the most extreme circumstances, of course.


These controls already exist. They are ineffective.


Laws allowing citizens to take action in their own self defense certainly stops a lot of criminals.


But these people are not the source of the problem. Sure, accidents do happen, but they are very rare, and can result in charges of criminal negligence when they do occur. An average citizen who, for whatever reason, goes off his rocker and decides to kill his whole family will find a way to do so with or without guns. Regardless of the controls, the professional criminals will still get hold of weapons, and still use them, because they will know that their victims will not be able to fight back effectively.

[DuncanONeil]

First I trimmed your post because You are entited to personally held beliefs. But I feel constrained to respond to the view of Every random Joe Blow running out and getting a firearm, and carrying it around, because it is allowed.
Every law permitted Concealed Carry (CCW) mandates training and a permitting process. There are two different languages in the law; one is "shall" issue and the other is "may" issue. In either case the permit is controlled by law enforcement. Certain categories are prohibited in the law. All such laws require training. But all that aside there is only a small percentage of the people that will avail themselves of the right to carry. It is the uncertainty that offers deterrence. Currently there are only two states in the US that do not allow CCW, I happen to live in one and the President comes from the other. Think on this for a moment, while it is illegal to CCW where I live it is perfectly legal to carry a firearm in an open fashion! That means I could strap on a holster, put my 9mm Bersa in it, go out and conduct my daily chores and be perfectly legal!

The idea of untrained members of the public carrying weapons in public is horrifying. To allow it is licensing vigilante-ism, which is utterly despicable. The prospect of people pulling a gun on another at the merest suggestion of trouble does not bear contemplation, and any authorities that encourage it are, in my opinion, reckless of the law and order they are supposed to enforce, and complicit in any deaths that result. There are no longer any new frontiers where savages and outlaws are liable to swoop down any second and massacre us for our trinkets. There is no danger of redcoats swooping down from Canada to steal hard-won liberties. There's not even any danger of the elected rulers usurping power and overthrowing the constitution - not even where the ruler is a black moslem-loving communist.