THIS is the reason why I support Death Penalty.

[NetSnake]

Even without violent ideology there is about 10% of the human race that are psychotic or damned close to it, and a lot of them are dangerous. These folks don't just steal for their needs but because they enjoy it, and most aren't adverse to a little sadism along the way.

In my medical life I was exposed to thousands of these people, and believe me nothing changes them. It's just plain endemic. Matters not how it got that way, nature or nurture - and I lean strongly towards nature in most cases, we've got a lot of dangerous folks running around.

To make things safer these folks either have to be locked up permanently in asylums, which they aren't now because of the 'psychiatric reform' laws of the 70's and 80's, jailed forever, which is losing favor in some circles because of high costs, or otherwise restrained.

so let's kill 'em all.

Absent those restraints, and absent a cop on every door step, the people need the right to defend against them, PERIOD.

I am with you on this one, although not 100% (I would not support shooting someone in the back). But the death penalty? that is murder in my book

[TransformX]

I am with you on this one, although not 100% (I would not support shooting someone in the back). But the death penalty? that is murder in my book

As long as you're ready to accept the fact that taxes paid will be used to host those people in facilities which many times offer better conditions than homeless people have, instead of going to education, medicine or simply helping the homeless etc.

[Technoid]

a political/religius cluster**** and not even in the appropriate forum, cool - I'll get the gasoline

The death penalty as a deterant is completely useless because of how the human psych works I'd say that in most cases a fine of $5000 is a much more efficient deterant. why? because our minds tend to block out "catastrophe" level events. (same thing that enables people to do potentially lethal acts, "it wont happen me"). they become unreal and therefore of no consequence. A $5000 fine on the other hand is something that your mind can readily plot out all the negative issues of and dire consequences of.

And then we have the poor afraid gun toting Americans that are so sure that IF they don't have at least a bazooka the big evil crooks will gun them down.
Seriously, being armed is a zero deterant due to above explained reason, the "crooks" will never think the thought "he might be armed and could kill me", instead they are more likely to think "better bring an gun if they packin'".

damnit...I'm out of gasoline

[Dr Mordrid]

Seriously, being armed is a zero deterant due to above explained reason, the "crooks" will never think the thought "he might be armed and could kill me", instead they are more likely to think "better bring an gun if they packin'".

Then explain why, during two attempted robberies - at my home and a neighbors, as soon as I racked my 12 gauge magnum combat shotgun - even in the dark - the perps all but crapped and wet their pants as they fell on the floor in surrender? One was armed with a .357 and the other with a .38, neither legally obtained. As it turns out they came in from Mexico. (I was star witness ).

You see, the sound of a 12 gauge magnum racking is perhaps the most sobering sound in the world. So much so that even in Afghanistan etc. when the troopers with shotguns come to the front, as in the new 12 gauge full auto models, the baddie scatter.

Also explain why the cities with the strongest anti-gun laws have increasing crime rates and those with liberalized gun laws have decreasing rates? Chicago and Detroit being examples. A few highly publicized incidents of a granny, grandpa, preacher or other citizen taking matters into their own hands has a distinctly sobering effect on the local goons.

SPEAKING OF CHICAGO....

Their local gun ban is on life support: the US Supreme Court heard arguments in McDonald vs. Chicago last term and finished them recently that seeks to apply its landmark decisions in Washington DC vs. Heller. Heller overturned a local gun ban in DC and affirmed full 2nd Amendment gun rights, including the right to use them for self defense and as a countermeasure against a possible government tyranny.

McDonald's arguments last spring and this summer sounded like the court is more than ready to apply the same logic to Chicago's anti-gun laws with even the usual swing justices asking very tough questions of the city.

Heller's key findindings -

* that the operative clause of the Second Amendment—"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense and intrinsically for defense against tyranny, based on the bare meaning of the words, the usage of "the people" elsewhere in the Constitution, and historical materials on the clause's original public meaning;

* that the prefatory clause, which announces a purpose of a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", comports with the meaning of the operative clause and refers to a well-trained citizen militia, which "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense", as being necessary to the security of a free polity;

* that historical materials support this interpretation, including "analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions" at the time, the drafting history of the Second Amendment, and interpretation of the Second Amendment "by scholars, courts, and legislators" through the late nineteenth century;

* that none of the Supreme Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation, specifically United States v. Cruikshank (1875), Presser v. Illinois (1886), nor United States v. Miller (1939).

[TransformX]

a political/religius cluster**** and not even in the appropriate forum, cool - I'll get the gasoline

The death penalty as a deterant is completely useless because of how the human psych works I'd say that in most cases a fine of $5000 is a much more efficient deterant. why? because our minds tend to block out "catastrophe" level events. (same thing that enables people to do potentially lethal acts, "it wont happen me"). they become unreal and therefore of no consequence. A $5000 fine on the other hand is something that your mind can readily plot out all the negative issues of and dire consequences of.

And then we have the poor afraid gun toting Americans that are so sure that IF they don't have at least a bazooka the big evil crooks will gun them down.
Seriously, being armed is a zero deterant due to above explained reason, the "crooks" will never think the thought "he might be armed and could kill me", instead they are more likely to think "better bring an gun if they packin'".

damnit...I'm out of gasoline

Then again, with the death penalty, tax payers won't have to finance criminals for 20 years in jail.