Newspaper Publishes Gun Owners' Names and Addresses

Would it not cost more to keep them in prison, than to complete a high amperage circuit using their asses?

 

Costing taxpayers billions of dollars for one person to die is practically astronomical compared to keeping that very prisoner in there for a lifetime. There's a good reason why some states dropped the death penalty, as do many countries. It's not economically reasonable.

I see prison as more of a rehabilitation center (or would like to look at it as such -- after all, it's like a business), and quite frankly, lobotomy programs would be a better suited option.

 

How does it cost more?? Where does the cost factor in? Certainly not at generating the voltage to do the job.

 

http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42​

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty​

It's common sense. Long-road judicial processes which costs money, plus other elements within the system to pay various governmental agencies in order to determine whether the person gets the death penalty.

It's actually cheaper to keep somebody in there for a lifetime as opposed to killing them outright. Factor in the average lifespan of a prisoner, it's pretty much cheaper all around. Better spend the money elsewhere on resources that can help these people.

Read the articles for detailed information.

 

So is keeping people who murder and rape alive for decades

 

Gotta love the contridictive nature of the legal process, and hence your way of thinking on this matter. If they seek to fry you then they want to know if you are guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. If they seek to put you in prison for life, they just seek a conviction? So lets just seek a conviction, because we only want to give him life in prison right? :smt023

 

Bad analogy. Even murderers and rapists tend to work hard, as long as they haven't been caught and behind bars. But if you want to be cute, then cut off all government funding for people who are welfare, corporate and personal. After all, it's a waste yah? :smt023

Again, prison is essentially a business because it has its own community in there and they do get paid literally, pennies on a dollar. Better to decriminalize drugs and other fallacious crimes and set up more rehabilitation centers to help them if they desire it so.

 

That made no sense to me but ok.

 

Of course it made sense. More sense than your earlier post. :smt006

 

Hey Majestic

Lurves yah?

Don't bother. No one is going to see eye to eye on this.
Like you've said time and time again...not even worth the time and it could be better spent doing something you like doing.

 

lol you crack me up girl

 

Death Penalty is aplicable for those that have voluntarily confessed (such as the NY killer), and/or irrefutable evidence back-up such as DNA, multiple eyewitnesses and surveillance footage, etc.

You can call it blood revenge but it only occurs with mitigating circumstances, so basically the killer went above and beyond standard first degree murder.

Have to laugh at your last paragraph.
So who gets to have a gun out of the 100 million? What if 150 million citizens want a gun, who gets to pick and choose and deny? Obama?
Listen, I'm with this guy below...you're out of your mind if you think you're going to take my gun.
Not happening. :smt018

[HDYT]XcyLeOm6yGc[/HDYT] :yawinkle:​

(ps: will answer your much earlier post question when I have more time)

 

u get no arguments from me. I have a different view on it.

give em life.....then periodically to raise money for the family and the public needs we should :

1) get a stadium of victims with paddles and tie the feet of the criminal to a helicopter. lower them into the crowd and let the crowd beat em like a pinata for 10 seconds....this will be a free charge.

2) for the general public 5 dollars for 10 seconds

 

I don't know who gets a gun Bliss, but I do know we don't need the number of firearms on the street equivalent to every man, woman and child in the United States.
300+ million privately owned firearms seems a bit excessive in a country of 310 million people.

But again I don't sleep with a 9mm Beretta under my bed at night.

It just blows my mind that someone would argue against the idea that we might have too many guns in the U.S.A.:shock::shock::shock:

EDIT: Bliss don't you dare believe EVERY death row inmate is there based on 'irrefutable evidence.'

Irrefutable evidence in many cases is the preponderance of circumstantial evidence or eyewitness accounts from coerced witnesses, but without any scientific link to the suspect.

Like I said, I used to be in favor of the death penalty for some cases, but when you realize that same statute has murdered hundreds of innocent people then I don't think you can justify killing convicted criminals.

If the legal system isn't foolproof, neither is the death penalty.

 

he problem with the death penalty is that plenty of people have been found innocent while on death row

 

Dude no one said they disagree with the idea that there are too many guns out there. There definitely are but the peoblem people like Bliss and I have is that during the transition period between 300 mill to 100 mill it leaves honest law abiding citizens defenseless against those who have obtained guns illegally. And what your arguing for in this thread isnt about having people do it voluntarily its about coercing them through puic shame. If you want to argue for more gun buy back programs fine or even heavier regulations on pfffensove weapons. Maybe a year waiting period instead of three months fine but doing it the way the newspaper did it is dead wrong amd its weird to me you havent admitted that yet.

 

Gun buyback programs aren't effective. Criminals aren't giving up their guns for $100 giftcards.

 

Every gun in the hand of a criminal is one too many guns. What blows my mind is that some people, (99 percent of which are clueless about guns) have a problem with business people, lawyers, engineers, and doctors owning guns, and they want to dictate which guns are acceptable to own. If their cause was that important, seems like the least they can do is educate themselves about guns,that they may be able to make a reasonable contribution to a possible resolution that most people can be somewhat satisfied with. Just being against guns or approching the issue with concepts gathered from TV comes off as reactionary and disingenuous. Just like you cant come fresh out of law school and run a law firm, you can't come fresh off the sidelines of cluelessness and expect a resonable person to take you seriously.

 

You really need to move past this belief that you need an intimate knowledge of firearms to be against their widespread proliferation.

A person is mistaken on one or two technicalities about firearms and suddenly their argument is invalid??

Knowing what a gun IS should be enough.

The only weapons specifically many people want banned are so called 'assault' weapons, burst capable tactical firearms(firing 2-3 rounds per single trigger pull) that can be modified by the owner to shoot in the case of the AR15 50 rounds in a minute.

This is what the movie theater shooter in Colorado had. If his AR15 hadn't jammed, his kill rate in the opinion of many would have been 20+.

IMO most of the people who own firearms on this forum after tighter regulations would still be allowed to own their weapons. But I think there should be a limit on the amount of firearms a single owner can buy, and what type.

There are people out here stockpiling huge arsenals of weapons that make no sense.

 

Andre:

Marry meeeeeeeeeee

Shotgun wedding please?