RE: Guns

RE: Guns (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

[Poll]

Guns

I own a gun

48% (36)

I don't own a gun

16% (12)

I think law abiding citizens should be allowed to own a gun

24% (18)

I don't think law abiding citizens should be allowed to own a gun

10% (8)

Total Votes : 74

(last vote on : 11/3/2006 4:09:34 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

kittinSol -> RE: Guns (6/29/2006 9:57:04 PM)
I knew this would degenerate into a 'pro-death penalty' debate! I come from a place where they invented the guillotine. Would you like to try it out? It's a bit rusty, out of service since the 70's I think, but many other innocents and wrongly convicted people lost their heads on it. Fun, isn't it? [:'(]

hizgeorgiapeach -> RE: Guns (6/30/2006 8:48:15 AM)
I see a huge difference between a sentence of death for those convicted of crimes and those who are political prisoners - such as what you're refering to with the guillotine and it's use during the 1700s in per the French Revolution. Comparing an acknowledged war situation from a prior century to the death penalty is about the same as comparing apples and pomegranets. Yes, they're both fruit. Yes, they're both red when ripe. That, though, is where the similarity ends. Do not, however, make the error of assuming that everyone who owns weaposn - or advocates the right to do so - is pro death penalty. My father is a prime example. We live in the same house, we share a gun safe, I will eventually be inheriting HIS weapons collection to add to my own, we often go out to the target range together. He's a member of the NRA, and a past president of the local gun owner's association and compitition shooting club. I'm very much in favor of the death penalty - hell, I'd pull the lever for an electrocution without losing any sleep at night. He on the other hand is very much a pacifist in most areas, abhors the death penalty except in certain extremes, and despises war except on certain very philosophical levels as a means of population control.

Arpig -> RE: Guns (6/30/2006 11:39:37 AM)
There is one problem with the death penalty, and it is such a huge problem that it renders all the arguements in favour of it moot....the death penalty is NOT reversable. Innocent people do get convicted, and executed. I would not have my Gvt murder an innocent man in my name. Now to get back to the OP. Do not own and and never have owned a gun. The way I see it is if somebody has a gun, and I pull a gun of myown, then they pretty much are forced to shoot me. If I have no gun, then they have the option of not shooting me. A little simplistic, perhaps, but it is a valid point.

NakedOnMyChain -> RE: Guns (6/30/2006 12:09:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig There is one problem with the death penalty, and it is such a huge problem that it renders all the arguements in favour of it moot....the death penalty is NOT reversable. Innocent people do get convicted, and executed. I would not have my Gvt murder an innocent man in my name. Very, very, very good point.

Level -> RE: Guns (6/30/2006 3:28:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NakedOnMyChain quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig There is one problem with the death penalty, and it is such a huge problem that it renders all the arguements in favour of it moot....the death penalty is NOT reversable. Innocent people do get convicted, and executed. I would not have my Gvt murder an innocent man in my name. Very, very, very good point. I third that. Even if we know someone is guilty, I don't want them put to death, though I understand those that disagree, especially if they knew the victim. I don't want to lower myself, or my society, down to the level of the animals.

Wulfchyld -> RE: Guns (6/30/2006 4:24:00 PM)
I hate to derail this further, (I do strive to derail with humor however this s not one of those times) it was a train wreck pages ago, how do you feel about mass murderers and serial killers? What if one escaped? Death row is a very good containment facility for them that ultimately leads to their permanent removal from society.

kittinSol -> RE: Guns (6/30/2006 4:28:16 PM)
Wickedly valid Arpig.

kittinSol -> RE: Guns (6/30/2006 4:31:29 PM)
hizgeorgiapeach, unfortunately they used the guillotine until 1970something: in order to obey European Union rules, France only abolished legalised State murder in 1981. Arpig made one of the most easily understandable points against legalised murder. Its irreversibility and the many examples of (they abound!) of wrongful convictions. Imagine, for an instant, being innocent and executed. Justice is about balance, not revenge.

kittinSol -> RE: Guns (6/30/2006 4:34:31 PM)
Hmmmm Wulfy this may sound a tad radical, but as far as I am concerned, the biggest mass murderer today is the president of the united states. As for the others, if the families of the victims want blood revenge, why don't they attempt to carry it out themselves? Why have to rely on the State to do your dirty work? This country's about 'Get up and Go', right? And since it's legal to own guns... they could just put them to good use?

hizgeorgiapeach -> RE: Guns (6/30/2006 4:50:18 PM)
Feel free to consider me a harsh and unfeeling, cold blooded wench. (Or is that witch?) I simply do not place as much significance upon an individual life as you and Arpig seem to place there. This doesn't make either of us right and the other wrong - it's simply that we appear to have diametrically opposed points of view on this subject. No individual is irreplacable as far as body count goes, and at this point in time the planet could desperately use a significantly lower body count. I was not aware that France had continued to use the Guillotine as it's means of execution for those sentenced with the death penalty for criminal activity, rather than having retired it due to it's stigmata attained while in use for politically motivated execution. I can't say that I particularly Object to it as a means of execution for criminals knowing such any more than I object to electrocution or lethal injection or simply having the ballif put a bullet in their brain pan right there in the court room to save time and money. Dead is dead is dead, and it matters not one whit how you arrive at that state - one method does not make you any more or less dead than another. Are there "innocents" convicted on occassion. Of course there are. We are all human, with human failings. Sitting as a member of a jury does not alleviate this particular condition. (I've been called for jury duty before, and BOY do I KNOW it doesn't allieviate the humanity of any of us! ) Evidence can be misrepresented; evidence can come to light after the fact which isn't presented at all during a trial; technicalities can make evidence inadmisable or carry more weight than perhaps it "should." We do the best we can, though - and if 12 randomly selected people are all presented with the same set of evidence and come to a single conclusion, it's much more likely that they're going to be correct than if it's only one person coming to that conclusion. I'm an old Trek fan - both the series' and the movies - and this particular tanget brings to mind Spock's comments to Kirk at the end of one of the movies. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the Few." The many (society) need order and a stable social structure much more than the few (the rare but potentially convicted innocent) needs to be kept alive indefinately at the public's expense on the Off Chance that some new evidence will be presented decades later. And I still maintain my stance on the OP - I own weapons, I will always own weapons, they are a part of my life that I choose not to give up, and I will defend my right to continue doing so via USE of those weapons until the day I die. You don't like them? Then don't own them. Just be prepared to meet armed resistance if you attempt to negate my right to own them.

Invictus754 -> RE: Guns (6/30/2006 5:13:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig There is one problem with the death penalty, and it is such a huge problem that it renders all the arguements in favour of it moot....the death penalty is NOT reversable. Innocent people do get convicted, and executed. I would not have my Gvt murder an innocent man in my name. I appreciate your point of view; however, with this reasoning we should ban automobiles. More innocent people die in car accidents in one year than the number of innocent poeple this government has put to death. >Ahem<... allegedly innocent, that is. quote: Now to get back to the OP. Do not own and and never have owned a gun. The way I see it is if somebody has a gun, and I pull a gun of myown, then they pretty much are forced to shoot me. If I have no gun, then they have the option of not shooting me. A little simplistic, perhaps, but it is a valid point. My father had a simple rule with guns: never point one at people unless you intend to use it. In your argument, I have to assume that he intended to shoot me by pulling the gun and pointing it, and me pulling a gun won't force him to do what he obviously was going to do from the beginning. I will do everything in my power to ensure I am the one who lives another day. Although fantasy, it would be nice to remove all projectile weapons (of the gunpowder/ballistic sort...trebuchets would be allowed) and let men fight with their fists again. I think Mr. Bush would get his ass kicked.

Level -> RE: Guns (6/30/2006 7:00:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wulfchyld I hate to derail this further, (I do strive to derail with humor however this s not one of those times) it was a train wreck pages ago, how do you feel about mass murderers and serial killers? What if one escaped? Death row is a very good containment facility for them that ultimately leads to their permanent removal from society. I despise murderers, and rapists, and molesters. If Death Row is a good containment facility for them, it stands to reason society can create and maintain facilities that keep them in check for life. Like I said, Loki, I do understand the side that wants to see the monsters of our time dead, and I'd likely toss my convictions aside if I found a loved one murdered; I'd likely kill the killer myself. But, taking a dispassionate view of a passionate subject leads me to opposing the death penalty. "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes. " Walt Whitman

Wulfchyld -> RE: Guns (6/30/2006 7:40:19 PM)
It's all good level. It just seemed to me that people did not look at the possibility of escape. I was very apposed to the death penalty even after I Lost friend to a serial killer. Then a Detective asked me if it was better he live and be tormented in prison with the possibility of escape or put to death books closed. I had considered the loss and misery that I felt over the loss of my friends and even considered the loss his parents would be feeling when "he" was executed, however I never considered escape a possibility until the Det. pointed that out. If he escaped many more lives would be lost. Therefore I think once all doubt has been removed, and I need more proof than most jury's, then they should be executed. Now I have passionate reasons to support the death penalty and others may not. One of my biggest problems with the Prez was when he was Gov. he denied a DNA test to a death row inmate. The wonderful lawyers in their infinite wisdom (greed) paid for the DNA test post execution and exonerated him of all charges. The death penalty is given a little too liberally with out a sensible enough judicial system to bear the responsibility of another’s life. Mandatory DNA testing would sway me to the positive. However the experience I went through made me a strong supporter of the death penalty in cases of serial killers that are proven guilty beyond all doubt simply to remove the possibility of escape. In a perfect world there would be a lovely little island that they all could be dropped on and forgotten. IMO YMMV

Level -> RE: Guns (6/30/2006 7:52:24 PM)
Or a sewage pit to put them in [:)]. And I'm sorry for the loss of your friend.

Wulfchyld -> RE: Guns (6/30/2006 7:53:56 PM)
Thanks Level.

Emperor1956 -> RE: Guns (6/30/2006 8:18:57 PM)
Just joined this thread, and so if I repeat something in the prior 9 pages...well, sorry. 1. On the Death Penalty -- It is irreversible as Arpig says, and we apply it very badly. And it is incredibly racist. I've worked in the system and at one time was a prosecutor, and I'll tell you that I could not countenance it as applied. In theory, I have no problem with executions, but when the system kills the wrong people routinely, and most of those wrong people are people of color, I have to say "NO". 2. Invictus said his father told him you never point a gun at a person unless you intend to use it. Generally I believe you don't even LOAD a gun unless you intend to use it...be it to shoot at a target, or defend your home. This is common sense. I would modify that rule for persons who guard (police, etc.) but generally, I follow that rule. (And yes I own, and use, guns.) 3. And wolfie, they DID have that island where you could drop criminals and forget 'em. Its called Australia, and it gave us Iron Bear! See? the laws of unintended consequences work again. GRIN E.

ScooterTrash -> RE: Guns (6/30/2006 8:19:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level Got this from the Gorean's board. Do you own a firearm? Would you? Why, or why not? Yep, have a gun cabinet full of them and a couple of them, as Mr. Warren described..are only designed to blow a bloody big hole in someone. Why? Because I can and because I want to...nuff said.

kittinSol -> RE: Guns (6/30/2006 8:35:30 PM)
I quote: "The Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from inflicting "cruel and unusual punishments." The controversy over the constitutionality of the death penalty lies in the ambiguity of the phrase "cruel and unusual." The first meeting of Congress addressed the phrase for only a few minutes. Congressman William Smith of South Carolina foreshadowed the controversy to come when he stated that the wording of the Eighth Amendment was "too indefinite." By 1976, Georgia, Florida, and Texas had drafted new death penalty laws and this time, the Supreme Court upheld them. Of the nine Supreme Court justices, only two, William J. Brennan, Jr., and Thurgood Marshall, persisted in the belief that capital punishment is unconstitutional per se. Capital punishment had survived and so had the controversies surrounding it. Though the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution permits the use of capital punishment, decisions on this issue have divided the Court and done little to convince opponents of the death penalty's fairness. Critics have argued that the death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment, that it is applied in a racially discriminatory manner, that it lacks a deterrent effect, and that it is just plain wrong." (See original article on http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=2l2fvvqbcxdg8?tname=capital-punishment&sbid=lc08a)

UtopianRanger -> RE: Guns (6/30/2006 9:05:30 PM)
quote: I despise murderers, and rapists, and molesters. If Death Row is a good containment facility for them, it stands to reason society can create and maintain facilities that keep them in check for life. Like I said, Loki, I do understand the side that wants to see the monsters of our time dead, and I'd likely toss my convictions aside if I found a loved one murdered; I'd likely kill the killer myself. But, taking a dispassionate view of a passionate subject leads me to opposing the death penalty. Looks like this thread is moving off track a bit. I like the conditions set forth in the movie '' No Escape'' with Ray Liotta. I'd like to see the murders, rapists and molesters put on an island, similar to the one in the movie and just have air drops of food and basic necessities. Let the strong survive and the last man stand. For all other offenders, I'd like to tear most of the prisons down and move to a system similar to that which Singapore has: Various levels of corporal punishment for medium and low-level offenders. Prisons are a huge drain on society both in terms of economics and mentality - Especially when you factor in the whole ''private prison industry'' that's now starting to be talked about more. And yes... I think the prisons, themselves, are the bigger drain the very low and medium-level offenders. - R

Wulfchyld -> RE: Guns (6/30/2006 9:08:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger For all other offenders, I'd like to tear most of the prisons down and move to a system similar to that which Singapore has: Various levels of corporal punishment for medium and low-level offenders. Man think of just how fast all the masochists would start running amok.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Spam Policy

0.046875