The only gun control needed.

[Dr Grump]

It is funny because by the time you load a musket, the criminal has already shot and killed you.

Anybody that thinks our founders never thought of advanced weaponry is pulling their own leg. Of course they knew weapons would advance as they years went on, but like any part of the Constitution, there is an amendment process for changing times.

Of course it takes a very strong majority to change the Constitution. That's because the founders realized that there would be simple majorities when it comes to issues of change. They didn't want the Constitution being changed every time a majority took place.

We in the United States have learned that no law stops all illegal activity. Drug usage is the best example. They have been illegal as long as I've been alive, yet our prisons are full of offenders. The problem seems to be getting worse as well.

Of course if I wanted to purchase illegal narcotics, it would take me some time to do because I'm a law abiding citizen. The laws do nothing for criminals because they don't care about laws.

The only thing we do know for sure is that the only real defense against criminal activity is with a strong enough deterrent. If you really want to cut murders in half, then you need to get rid of liberal judges, exhaust all appeals for murderers within six months, and have public executions. Then it wouldn't matter how many guns we have in society. We would be much safer because of a stronger deterrent.

Not if you both have muskets...;o)

If you really want to do all those thinks with regard to deterrents then you need to overhaul your whole legal system. The conservative aspect as well as the liberal. Your system is a disgrace IMO....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Other reasons because guns don't kill people--people kill people.

We have plenty of places in the US where there are no gun murders at all. We have other places where murders take place almost every night, and sometimes multiple murders.

It's the people that are the problem--not the guns. We here in the US are the most diverse country on the planet. Some groups are more prone to use violence than others. But in the end, all the statistics get thrown in a blender and we end up with more gun violence than other countries.

You have laws against guns and claim they work. Well our gun violence and violence in general has been on the decline over the last ten years or more. And guess what, we have more guns and more gun carriers than we ever had.

I agree it is people who kill people, thus you put laws on the books that lessen the risks. I've posted a piece several times of this board by Australian comedian Jim Jefferies on gun control. One of the funnier moments is near the end where he says he loves the 2nd. He thinks it's a great idea as long as people use the weapon of the day (when the second was written) - a musket. Why a musket? (I'm paraphrasing here) - because it takes so long to load that by the time you're ready to fire you've calmed down...These days, there's no cooling off period when you're amped up...

It is funny because by the time you load a musket, the criminal has already shot and killed you.

Anybody that thinks our founders never thought of advanced weaponry is pulling their own leg. Of course they knew weapons would advance as they years went on, but like any part of the Constitution, there is an amendment process for changing times.

Of course it takes a very strong majority to change the Constitution. That's because the founders realized that there would be simple majorities when it comes to issues of change. They didn't want the Constitution being changed every time a majority took place.

We in the United States have learned that no law stops all illegal activity. Drug usage is the best example. They have been illegal as long as I've been alive, yet our prisons are full of offenders. The problem seems to be getting worse as well.

Of course if I wanted to purchase illegal narcotics, it would take me some time to do because I'm a law abiding citizen. The laws do nothing for criminals because they don't care about laws.

The only thing we do know for sure is that the only real defense against criminal activity is with a strong enough deterrent. If you really want to cut murders in half, then you need to get rid of liberal judges, exhaust all appeals for murderers within six months, and have public executions. Then it wouldn't matter how many guns we have in society. We would be much safer because of a stronger deterrent.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

This is also further confirmation of the contempt for the rule of law common to most conservatives; the right to appeal has nothing to do with 'liberal judges,' and shouldn't be abridged as a consequence of that contempt for the rule of law.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Other reasons because guns don't kill people--people kill people.

We have plenty of places in the US where there are no gun murders at all. We have other places where murders take place almost every night, and sometimes multiple murders.

It's the people that are the problem--not the guns. We here in the US are the most diverse country on the planet. Some groups are more prone to use violence than others. But in the end, all the statistics get thrown in a blender and we end up with more gun violence than other countries.

You have laws against guns and claim they work. Well our gun violence and violence in general has been on the decline over the last ten years or more. And guess what, we have more guns and more gun carriers than we ever had.

I agree it is people who kill people, thus you put laws on the books that lessen the risks. I've posted a piece several times of this board by Australian comedian Jim Jefferies on gun control. One of the funnier moments is near the end where he says he loves the 2nd. He thinks it's a great idea as long as people use the weapon of the day (when the second was written) - a musket. Why a musket? (I'm paraphrasing here) - because it takes so long to load that by the time you're ready to fire you've calmed down...These days, there's no cooling off period when you're amped up...

It is funny because by the time you load a musket, the criminal has already shot and killed you.

Anybody that thinks our founders never thought of advanced weaponry is pulling their own leg. Of course they knew weapons would advance as they years went on, but like any part of the Constitution, there is an amendment process for changing times.

Of course it takes a very strong majority to change the Constitution. That's because the founders realized that there would be simple majorities when it comes to issues of change. They didn't want the Constitution being changed every time a majority took place.

We in the United States have learned that no law stops all illegal activity. Drug usage is the best example. They have been illegal as long as I've been alive, yet our prisons are full of offenders. The problem seems to be getting worse as well.

Of course if I wanted to purchase illegal narcotics, it would take me some time to do because I'm a law abiding citizen. The laws do nothing for criminals because they don't care about laws.

The only thing we do know for sure is that the only real defense against criminal activity is with a strong enough deterrent. If you really want to cut murders in half, then you need to get rid of liberal judges, exhaust all appeals for murderers within six months, and have public executions. Then it wouldn't matter how many guns we have in society. We would be much safer because of a stronger deterrent.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

This is also further confirmation of the contempt for the rule of law common to most conservatives; the right to appeal has nothing to do with 'liberal judges,' and shouldn't be abridged as a consequence of that contempt for the rule of law.

Oh please. How long do you suppose it takes to actually carry out the death penalty in most states of this country? In my state it takes anywhere from 10 to 18 years. Do you worry about what's going to happen to you in 15 years from today? Neither do most people including criminals. The death penalty and imprisonment in this country is no deterrent to crime. That's why we need to arm ourselves.

 

[Conservative65]

Other reasons because guns don't kill people--people kill people.

We have plenty of places in the US where there are no gun murders at all. We have other places where murders take place almost every night, and sometimes multiple murders.

It's the people that are the problem--not the guns. We here in the US are the most diverse country on the planet. Some groups are more prone to use violence than others. But in the end, all the statistics get thrown in a blender and we end up with more gun violence than other countries.

You have laws against guns and claim they work. Well our gun violence and violence in general has been on the decline over the last ten years or more. And guess what, we have more guns and more gun carriers than we ever had.

I agree it is people who kill people, thus you put laws on the books that lessen the risks. I've posted a piece several times of this board by Australian comedian Jim Jefferies on gun control. One of the funnier moments is near the end where he says he loves the 2nd. He thinks it's a great idea as long as people use the weapon of the day (when the second was written) - a musket. Why a musket? (I'm paraphrasing here) - because it takes so long to load that by the time you're ready to fire you've calmed down...These days, there's no cooling off period when you're amped up...

It is funny because by the time you load a musket, the criminal has already shot and killed you.

Anybody that thinks our founders never thought of advanced weaponry is pulling their own leg. Of course they knew weapons would advance as they years went on, but like any part of the Constitution, there is an amendment process for changing times.

Of course it takes a very strong majority to change the Constitution. That's because the founders realized that there would be simple majorities when it comes to issues of change. They didn't want the Constitution being changed every time a majority took place.

We in the United States have learned that no law stops all illegal activity. Drug usage is the best example. They have been illegal as long as I've been alive, yet our prisons are full of offenders. The problem seems to be getting worse as well.

Of course if I wanted to purchase illegal narcotics, it would take me some time to do because I'm a law abiding citizen. The laws do nothing for criminals because they don't care about laws.

The only thing we do know for sure is that the only real defense against criminal activity is with a strong enough deterrent. If you really want to cut murders in half, then you need to get rid of liberal judges, exhaust all appeals for murderers within six months, and have public executions. Then it wouldn't matter how many guns we have in society. We would be much safer because of a stronger deterrent.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

This is also further confirmation of the contempt for the rule of law common to most conservatives; the right to appeal has nothing to do with 'liberal judges,' and shouldn't be abridged as a consequence of that contempt for the rule of law.

That you oppose the death penalty shows your contempt for justice.

People like you say the death penalty isn't a deterrent yet offer nothing in the way of suggestions as to what would be.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It is funny because by the time you load a musket, the criminal has already shot and killed you.

Anybody that thinks our founders never thought of advanced weaponry is pulling their own leg. Of course they knew weapons would advance as they years went on, but like any part of the Constitution, there is an amendment process for changing times.

Of course it takes a very strong majority to change the Constitution. That's because the founders realized that there would be simple majorities when it comes to issues of change. They didn't want the Constitution being changed every time a majority took place.

We in the United States have learned that no law stops all illegal activity. Drug usage is the best example. They have been illegal as long as I've been alive, yet our prisons are full of offenders. The problem seems to be getting worse as well.

Of course if I wanted to purchase illegal narcotics, it would take me some time to do because I'm a law abiding citizen. The laws do nothing for criminals because they don't care about laws.

The only thing we do know for sure is that the only real defense against criminal activity is with a strong enough deterrent. If you really want to cut murders in half, then you need to get rid of liberal judges, exhaust all appeals for murderers within six months, and have public executions. Then it wouldn't matter how many guns we have in society. We would be much safer because of a stronger deterrent.

Not if you both have muskets...;o)

If you really want to do all those thinks with regard to deterrents then you need to overhaul your whole legal system. The conservative aspect as well as the liberal. Your system is a disgrace IMO....

There we can agree. But as I said, these liberal judges made our prisons into lowlife playgrounds. They get three squares a day plus snacks if they have outsiders contribute to their prison savings account, they have a pool room, a workout room, a field outside where they can play football or whatever. We even give them a nice quiet room where they can actually start a family from prison.

A few years ago we had a capital punishment case where the subject used the excuse of being too fat to be executed. His lawyers claim was that because he was so fat, the technicians would have too hard of a time finding his vain, and it would cause too much discomfort. I didn't question that, what I questioned is how did he get so fat in prison in the first place?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They must not be working too well because they haven't changed much at least in Australia. They had just as much gun crime after gun confiscation as before. And again you are focused on mass shootings which take much less casualties and lives than individual murders:

List of massacres in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

None of those deaths have been random mass murderers. Two of them were arson. One of them was an arsonist who liked fires, but didn't mean to kill people. You think the Sandy Hook guy accidentally shot all those young kids? I stand by my statement that there have been no random mass killings since Port Arthur.

I guess it's how you would define mass murder.

Over here, our FBI considers a mass murder if four or more people get killed. That being the case, I had a mass murder take place less than 15 miles from my home this week. The guy had mental problems and killed his entire family by blowing up the house.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why is it a fallacy? You're the one making the claim, it's yours to prove.

You don't know what a post hoc fallacy is?

Allow me to either alleviate you of your ignorance or illustrate your dishonesty.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ad-hom?

Yep.
Proof that you fully understand you have nothing of value to say.

I disagree that it is post hoc..

That just means you do not understand the meaning of 'post hoc'.
The only question is if that failure to understand is willful.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Other reasons because guns don't kill people--people kill people.

We have plenty of places in the US where there are no gun murders at all. We have other places where murders take place almost every night, and sometimes multiple murders.

It's the people that are the problem--not the guns. We here in the US are the most diverse country on the planet. Some groups are more prone to use violence than others. But in the end, all the statistics get thrown in a blender and we end up with more gun violence than other countries.

You have laws against guns and claim they work. Well our gun violence and violence in general has been on the decline over the last ten years or more. And guess what, we have more guns and more gun carriers than we ever had.

I agree it is people who kill people, thus you put laws on the books that lessen the risks. I've posted a piece several times of this board by Australian comedian Jim Jefferies on gun control. One of the funnier moments is near the end where he says he loves the 2nd. He thinks it's a great idea as long as people use the weapon of the day (when the second was written) - a musket. Why a musket? (I'm paraphrasing here) - because it takes so long to load that by the time you're ready to fire you've calmed down...These days, there's no cooling off period when you're amped up...

It is funny because by the time you load a musket, the criminal has already shot and killed you.

Anybody that thinks our founders never thought of advanced weaponry is pulling their own leg. Of course they knew weapons would advance as they years went on, but like any part of the Constitution, there is an amendment process for changing times.

Of course it takes a very strong majority to change the Constitution. That's because the founders realized that there would be simple majorities when it comes to issues of change. They didn't want the Constitution being changed every time a majority took place.

We in the United States have learned that no law stops all illegal activity. Drug usage is the best example. They have been illegal as long as I've been alive, yet our prisons are full of offenders. The problem seems to be getting worse as well.

Of course if I wanted to purchase illegal narcotics, it would take me some time to do because I'm a law abiding citizen. The laws do nothing for criminals because they don't care about laws.

The only thing we do know for sure is that the only real defense against criminal activity is with a strong enough deterrent. If you really want to cut murders in half, then you need to get rid of liberal judges, exhaust all appeals for murderers within six months, and have public executions. Then it wouldn't matter how many guns we have in society. We would be much safer because of a stronger deterrent.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

This is also further confirmation of the contempt for the rule of law common to most conservatives; the right to appeal has nothing to do with 'liberal judges,' and shouldn't be abridged as a consequence of that contempt for the rule of law.

Funny how you do not point out the post hoc arguments of people you agree with.
Mindless partisan bigotry must do that to people.

 

[Dr Grump]

That just means you do not understand the meaning of 'post hoc'.
The only question is if that failure to understand is willful.

It's easy to understand. I just disagree that what I am saying meets the definition. If you care to show me how it does, then have at it. Other than that all you are expressing is an opinion.

 

[Rustic]

 

[M14 Shooter]

That just means you do not understand the meaning of 'post hoc'.
The only question is if that failure to understand is willful.

It's easy to understand. I just disagree that what I am saying meets the definition.

You then choose to be wrong.
Fortunately, I need not worry abut such things any longer.

 

[Dr Grump]

That just means you do not understand the meaning of 'post hoc'.
The only question is if that failure to understand is willful.

It's easy to understand. I just disagree that what I am saying meets the definition.

You then choose to be wrong.
Fortunately, I need not worry abut such things any longer.

Either explain how I'm wrong or get off the pot...

 

[ChrisL]

Other reasons because guns don't kill people--people kill people.

We have plenty of places in the US where there are no gun murders at all. We have other places where murders take place almost every night, and sometimes multiple murders.

It's the people that are the problem--not the guns. We here in the US are the most diverse country on the planet. Some groups are more prone to use violence than others. But in the end, all the statistics get thrown in a blender and we end up with more gun violence than other countries.

You have laws against guns and claim they work. Well our gun violence and violence in general has been on the decline over the last ten years or more. And guess what, we have more guns and more gun carriers than we ever had.

I agree it is people who kill people, thus you put laws on the books that lessen the risks. I've posted a piece several times of this board by Australian comedian Jim Jefferies on gun control. One of the funnier moments is near the end where he says he loves the 2nd. He thinks it's a great idea as long as people use the weapon of the day (when the second was written) - a musket. Why a musket? (I'm paraphrasing here) - because it takes so long to load that by the time you're ready to fire you've calmed down...These days, there's no cooling off period when you're amped up...

It is funny because by the time you load a musket, the criminal has already shot and killed you.

Anybody that thinks our founders never thought of advanced weaponry is pulling their own leg. Of course they knew weapons would advance as they years went on, but like any part of the Constitution, there is an amendment process for changing times.

Of course it takes a very strong majority to change the Constitution. That's because the founders realized that there would be simple majorities when it comes to issues of change. They didn't want the Constitution being changed every time a majority took place.

We in the United States have learned that no law stops all illegal activity. Drug usage is the best example. They have been illegal as long as I've been alive, yet our prisons are full of offenders. The problem seems to be getting worse as well.

Of course if I wanted to purchase illegal narcotics, it would take me some time to do because I'm a law abiding citizen. The laws do nothing for criminals because they don't care about laws.

The only thing we do know for sure is that the only real defense against criminal activity is with a strong enough deterrent. If you really want to cut murders in half, then you need to get rid of liberal judges, exhaust all appeals for murderers within six months, and have public executions. Then it wouldn't matter how many guns we have in society. We would be much safer because of a stronger deterrent.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

This is also further confirmation of the contempt for the rule of law common to most conservatives; the right to appeal has nothing to do with 'liberal judges,' and shouldn't be abridged as a consequence of that contempt for the rule of law.

That you oppose the death penalty shows your contempt for justice.

People like you say the death penalty isn't a deterrent yet offer nothing in the way of suggestions as to what would be.

Most people who commit crimes have no intentions on being caught. Nothing is really a "deterrent." Is getting a ticket a deterrent to speeding? Do drug laws work as a deterrent? No.

The reason for locking people up is to separate them from the rest of society, so that they can't harm others, or as a form of punishment. It has never deterred people from committing crimes, especially when it comes to psychopaths who want to shoot up schools and things like that.

 

[ChrisL]

The only people who are deterred by laws and punishments are the LAW ABIDING people. We call people criminals who do not obey laws and they are not "deterred" by our laws.

 

[Conservative65]

Other reasons because guns don't kill people--people kill people.

We have plenty of places in the US where there are no gun murders at all. We have other places where murders take place almost every night, and sometimes multiple murders.

It's the people that are the problem--not the guns. We here in the US are the most diverse country on the planet. Some groups are more prone to use violence than others. But in the end, all the statistics get thrown in a blender and we end up with more gun violence than other countries.

You have laws against guns and claim they work. Well our gun violence and violence in general has been on the decline over the last ten years or more. And guess what, we have more guns and more gun carriers than we ever had.

I agree it is people who kill people, thus you put laws on the books that lessen the risks. I've posted a piece several times of this board by Australian comedian Jim Jefferies on gun control. One of the funnier moments is near the end where he says he loves the 2nd. He thinks it's a great idea as long as people use the weapon of the day (when the second was written) - a musket. Why a musket? (I'm paraphrasing here) - because it takes so long to load that by the time you're ready to fire you've calmed down...These days, there's no cooling off period when you're amped up...

It is funny because by the time you load a musket, the criminal has already shot and killed you.

Anybody that thinks our founders never thought of advanced weaponry is pulling their own leg. Of course they knew weapons would advance as they years went on, but like any part of the Constitution, there is an amendment process for changing times.

Of course it takes a very strong majority to change the Constitution. That's because the founders realized that there would be simple majorities when it comes to issues of change. They didn't want the Constitution being changed every time a majority took place.

We in the United States have learned that no law stops all illegal activity. Drug usage is the best example. They have been illegal as long as I've been alive, yet our prisons are full of offenders. The problem seems to be getting worse as well.

Of course if I wanted to purchase illegal narcotics, it would take me some time to do because I'm a law abiding citizen. The laws do nothing for criminals because they don't care about laws.

The only thing we do know for sure is that the only real defense against criminal activity is with a strong enough deterrent. If you really want to cut murders in half, then you need to get rid of liberal judges, exhaust all appeals for murderers within six months, and have public executions. Then it wouldn't matter how many guns we have in society. We would be much safer because of a stronger deterrent.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

This is also further confirmation of the contempt for the rule of law common to most conservatives; the right to appeal has nothing to do with 'liberal judges,' and shouldn't be abridged as a consequence of that contempt for the rule of law.

That you oppose the death penalty shows your contempt for justice.

People like you say the death penalty isn't a deterrent yet offer nothing in the way of suggestions as to what would be.

Most people who commit crimes have no intentions on being caught. Nothing is really a "deterrent." Is getting a ticket a deterrent to speeding? Do drug laws work as a deterrent? No.

The reason for locking people up is to separate them from the rest of society, so that they can't harm others, or as a form of punishment. It has never deterred people from committing crimes, especially when it comes to psychopaths who want to shoot up schools and things like that.

For some people getting a speeding ticket is a deterrent especially when they get the insurance premiums. My dad told me that he would pay the insurance when I started driving at 15. However, he said if I ever got a ticket, I would no longer drive until I made up the difference in the premiums. Knowing he wasn't bullshitting me, that was a deterrent.

 

[ChrisL]

I agree it is people who kill people, thus you put laws on the books that lessen the risks. I've posted a piece several times of this board by Australian comedian Jim Jefferies on gun control. One of the funnier moments is near the end where he says he loves the 2nd. He thinks it's a great idea as long as people use the weapon of the day (when the second was written) - a musket. Why a musket? (I'm paraphrasing here) - because it takes so long to load that by the time you're ready to fire you've calmed down...These days, there's no cooling off period when you're amped up...

It is funny because by the time you load a musket, the criminal has already shot and killed you.

Anybody that thinks our founders never thought of advanced weaponry is pulling their own leg. Of course they knew weapons would advance as they years went on, but like any part of the Constitution, there is an amendment process for changing times.

Of course it takes a very strong majority to change the Constitution. That's because the founders realized that there would be simple majorities when it comes to issues of change. They didn't want the Constitution being changed every time a majority took place.

We in the United States have learned that no law stops all illegal activity. Drug usage is the best example. They have been illegal as long as I've been alive, yet our prisons are full of offenders. The problem seems to be getting worse as well.

Of course if I wanted to purchase illegal narcotics, it would take me some time to do because I'm a law abiding citizen. The laws do nothing for criminals because they don't care about laws.

The only thing we do know for sure is that the only real defense against criminal activity is with a strong enough deterrent. If you really want to cut murders in half, then you need to get rid of liberal judges, exhaust all appeals for murderers within six months, and have public executions. Then it wouldn't matter how many guns we have in society. We would be much safer because of a stronger deterrent.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

This is also further confirmation of the contempt for the rule of law common to most conservatives; the right to appeal has nothing to do with 'liberal judges,' and shouldn't be abridged as a consequence of that contempt for the rule of law.

That you oppose the death penalty shows your contempt for justice.

People like you say the death penalty isn't a deterrent yet offer nothing in the way of suggestions as to what would be.

Most people who commit crimes have no intentions on being caught. Nothing is really a "deterrent." Is getting a ticket a deterrent to speeding? Do drug laws work as a deterrent? No.

The reason for locking people up is to separate them from the rest of society, so that they can't harm others, or as a form of punishment. It has never deterred people from committing crimes, especially when it comes to psychopaths who want to shoot up schools and things like that.

For some people getting a speeding ticket is a deterrent especially when they get the insurance premiums. My dad told me that he would pay the insurance when I started driving at 15. However, he said if I ever got a ticket, I would no longer drive until I made up the difference in the premiums. Knowing he wasn't bullshitting me, that was a deterrent.

Well that's a little different than being a murderer, you know?

 

[Conservative65]

It is funny because by the time you load a musket, the criminal has already shot and killed you.

Anybody that thinks our founders never thought of advanced weaponry is pulling their own leg. Of course they knew weapons would advance as they years went on, but like any part of the Constitution, there is an amendment process for changing times.

Of course it takes a very strong majority to change the Constitution. That's because the founders realized that there would be simple majorities when it comes to issues of change. They didn't want the Constitution being changed every time a majority took place.

We in the United States have learned that no law stops all illegal activity. Drug usage is the best example. They have been illegal as long as I've been alive, yet our prisons are full of offenders. The problem seems to be getting worse as well.

Of course if I wanted to purchase illegal narcotics, it would take me some time to do because I'm a law abiding citizen. The laws do nothing for criminals because they don't care about laws.

The only thing we do know for sure is that the only real defense against criminal activity is with a strong enough deterrent. If you really want to cut murders in half, then you need to get rid of liberal judges, exhaust all appeals for murderers within six months, and have public executions. Then it wouldn't matter how many guns we have in society. We would be much safer because of a stronger deterrent.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

This is also further confirmation of the contempt for the rule of law common to most conservatives; the right to appeal has nothing to do with 'liberal judges,' and shouldn't be abridged as a consequence of that contempt for the rule of law.

That you oppose the death penalty shows your contempt for justice.

People like you say the death penalty isn't a deterrent yet offer nothing in the way of suggestions as to what would be.

Most people who commit crimes have no intentions on being caught. Nothing is really a "deterrent." Is getting a ticket a deterrent to speeding? Do drug laws work as a deterrent? No.

The reason for locking people up is to separate them from the rest of society, so that they can't harm others, or as a form of punishment. It has never deterred people from committing crimes, especially when it comes to psychopaths who want to shoot up schools and things like that.

For some people getting a speeding ticket is a deterrent especially when they get the insurance premiums. My dad told me that he would pay the insurance when I started driving at 15. However, he said if I ever got a ticket, I would no longer drive until I made up the difference in the premiums. Knowing he wasn't bullshitting me, that was a deterrent.

Well that's a little different than being a murderer, you know?

The principle is still the same. If the punishment or expected punishment is worse than the possible benefit, it's a deterrent.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Other reasons because guns don't kill people--people kill people.

We have plenty of places in the US where there are no gun murders at all. We have other places where murders take place almost every night, and sometimes multiple murders.

It's the people that are the problem--not the guns. We here in the US are the most diverse country on the planet. Some groups are more prone to use violence than others. But in the end, all the statistics get thrown in a blender and we end up with more gun violence than other countries.

You have laws against guns and claim they work. Well our gun violence and violence in general has been on the decline over the last ten years or more. And guess what, we have more guns and more gun carriers than we ever had.

I agree it is people who kill people, thus you put laws on the books that lessen the risks. I've posted a piece several times of this board by Australian comedian Jim Jefferies on gun control. One of the funnier moments is near the end where he says he loves the 2nd. He thinks it's a great idea as long as people use the weapon of the day (when the second was written) - a musket. Why a musket? (I'm paraphrasing here) - because it takes so long to load that by the time you're ready to fire you've calmed down...These days, there's no cooling off period when you're amped up...

It is funny because by the time you load a musket, the criminal has already shot and killed you.

Anybody that thinks our founders never thought of advanced weaponry is pulling their own leg. Of course they knew weapons would advance as they years went on, but like any part of the Constitution, there is an amendment process for changing times.

Of course it takes a very strong majority to change the Constitution. That's because the founders realized that there would be simple majorities when it comes to issues of change. They didn't want the Constitution being changed every time a majority took place.

We in the United States have learned that no law stops all illegal activity. Drug usage is the best example. They have been illegal as long as I've been alive, yet our prisons are full of offenders. The problem seems to be getting worse as well.

Of course if I wanted to purchase illegal narcotics, it would take me some time to do because I'm a law abiding citizen. The laws do nothing for criminals because they don't care about laws.

The only thing we do know for sure is that the only real defense against criminal activity is with a strong enough deterrent. If you really want to cut murders in half, then you need to get rid of liberal judges, exhaust all appeals for murderers within six months, and have public executions. Then it wouldn't matter how many guns we have in society. We would be much safer because of a stronger deterrent.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

This is also further confirmation of the contempt for the rule of law common to most conservatives; the right to appeal has nothing to do with 'liberal judges,' and shouldn't be abridged as a consequence of that contempt for the rule of law.

That you oppose the death penalty shows your contempt for justice.

People like you say the death penalty isn't a deterrent yet offer nothing in the way of suggestions as to what would be.

Most people who commit crimes have no intentions on being caught. Nothing is really a "deterrent." Is getting a ticket a deterrent to speeding? Do drug laws work as a deterrent? No.

The reason for locking people up is to separate them from the rest of society, so that they can't harm others, or as a form of punishment. It has never deterred people from committing crimes, especially when it comes to psychopaths who want to shoot up schools and things like that.

That's because our kind of punishment offers no deterrent.

Many years ago a middle-east family opened a store at the corner of my street. I used to go in there all the time. After the clerk experienced a problem with shoplifters, we got into a discussion about crime here in the US.

He was a young lad at the age of 18, and his grandmother back in the middle-east wanted to know how he was getting along in the new land. So he sent her one of our local newspapers because she could speak and read English.

She wrote back with great concern. She stated we have more theft in our little suburb in one week than the entire middle-east has in one year. I asked him if that was true, and he concurred.

He said where he was from, they had outside markets and some picnic tables set up for the shoppers. He said if a woman lay her purse on a table and left it unattended, it would be right back there the following day. People would cross the street to be nowhere near it.

He said in his country, if you get caught stealing once, off comes your hand, and not at a hospital either; right there on the table. Steal a second time, and your other hand comes off. There is no third time.

He said here they stole three packs of cigarettes, and when the police came, they said if he comes back again, call the police and they will kick him out of the store. That's why people come here to steal he said.

 

[ChrisL]

I agree it is people who kill people, thus you put laws on the books that lessen the risks. I've posted a piece several times of this board by Australian comedian Jim Jefferies on gun control. One of the funnier moments is near the end where he says he loves the 2nd. He thinks it's a great idea as long as people use the weapon of the day (when the second was written) - a musket. Why a musket? (I'm paraphrasing here) - because it takes so long to load that by the time you're ready to fire you've calmed down...These days, there's no cooling off period when you're amped up...

It is funny because by the time you load a musket, the criminal has already shot and killed you.

Anybody that thinks our founders never thought of advanced weaponry is pulling their own leg. Of course they knew weapons would advance as they years went on, but like any part of the Constitution, there is an amendment process for changing times.

Of course it takes a very strong majority to change the Constitution. That's because the founders realized that there would be simple majorities when it comes to issues of change. They didn't want the Constitution being changed every time a majority took place.

We in the United States have learned that no law stops all illegal activity. Drug usage is the best example. They have been illegal as long as I've been alive, yet our prisons are full of offenders. The problem seems to be getting worse as well.

Of course if I wanted to purchase illegal narcotics, it would take me some time to do because I'm a law abiding citizen. The laws do nothing for criminals because they don't care about laws.

The only thing we do know for sure is that the only real defense against criminal activity is with a strong enough deterrent. If you really want to cut murders in half, then you need to get rid of liberal judges, exhaust all appeals for murderers within six months, and have public executions. Then it wouldn't matter how many guns we have in society. We would be much safer because of a stronger deterrent.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

This is also further confirmation of the contempt for the rule of law common to most conservatives; the right to appeal has nothing to do with 'liberal judges,' and shouldn't be abridged as a consequence of that contempt for the rule of law.

That you oppose the death penalty shows your contempt for justice.

People like you say the death penalty isn't a deterrent yet offer nothing in the way of suggestions as to what would be.

Most people who commit crimes have no intentions on being caught. Nothing is really a "deterrent." Is getting a ticket a deterrent to speeding? Do drug laws work as a deterrent? No.

The reason for locking people up is to separate them from the rest of society, so that they can't harm others, or as a form of punishment. It has never deterred people from committing crimes, especially when it comes to psychopaths who want to shoot up schools and things like that.

That's because our kind of punishment offers no deterrent.

Many years ago a middle-east family opened a store at the corner of my street. I used to go in there all the time. After the clerk experienced a problem with shoplifters, we got into a discussion about crime here in the US.

He was a young lad at the age of 18, and his grandmother back in the middle-east wanted to know how he was getting along in the new land. So he sent her one of our local newspapers because she could speak and read English.

She wrote back with great concern. She stated we have more theft in our little suburb in one week than the entire middle-east has in one year. I asked him if that was true, and he concurred.

He said where he was from, they had outside markets and some picnic tables set up for the shoppers. He said if a woman lay her purse on a table and left it unattended, it would be right back there the following day. People would cross the street to be nowhere near it.

He said in his country, if you get caught stealing once, off comes your hand, and not at a hospital either; right there on the table. Steal a second time, and your other hand comes off. There is no third time.

He said here they stole three packs of cigarettes, and when the police came, they said if he comes back again, call the police and they will kick him out of the store. That's why people come here to steal he said.

Oh, they just have bombings in markets that kill hundreds of people at a time. And really, is that the kind of control you want the government to have over you? Geez! That's nuts!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It is funny because by the time you load a musket, the criminal has already shot and killed you.

Anybody that thinks our founders never thought of advanced weaponry is pulling their own leg. Of course they knew weapons would advance as they years went on, but like any part of the Constitution, there is an amendment process for changing times.

Of course it takes a very strong majority to change the Constitution. That's because the founders realized that there would be simple majorities when it comes to issues of change. They didn't want the Constitution being changed every time a majority took place.

We in the United States have learned that no law stops all illegal activity. Drug usage is the best example. They have been illegal as long as I've been alive, yet our prisons are full of offenders. The problem seems to be getting worse as well.

Of course if I wanted to purchase illegal narcotics, it would take me some time to do because I'm a law abiding citizen. The laws do nothing for criminals because they don't care about laws.

The only thing we do know for sure is that the only real defense against criminal activity is with a strong enough deterrent. If you really want to cut murders in half, then you need to get rid of liberal judges, exhaust all appeals for murderers within six months, and have public executions. Then it wouldn't matter how many guns we have in society. We would be much safer because of a stronger deterrent.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

This is also further confirmation of the contempt for the rule of law common to most conservatives; the right to appeal has nothing to do with 'liberal judges,' and shouldn't be abridged as a consequence of that contempt for the rule of law.

That you oppose the death penalty shows your contempt for justice.

People like you say the death penalty isn't a deterrent yet offer nothing in the way of suggestions as to what would be.

Most people who commit crimes have no intentions on being caught. Nothing is really a "deterrent." Is getting a ticket a deterrent to speeding? Do drug laws work as a deterrent? No.

The reason for locking people up is to separate them from the rest of society, so that they can't harm others, or as a form of punishment. It has never deterred people from committing crimes, especially when it comes to psychopaths who want to shoot up schools and things like that.

That's because our kind of punishment offers no deterrent.

Many years ago a middle-east family opened a store at the corner of my street. I used to go in there all the time. After the clerk experienced a problem with shoplifters, we got into a discussion about crime here in the US.

He was a young lad at the age of 18, and his grandmother back in the middle-east wanted to know how he was getting along in the new land. So he sent her one of our local newspapers because she could speak and read English.

She wrote back with great concern. She stated we have more theft in our little suburb in one week than the entire middle-east has in one year. I asked him if that was true, and he concurred.

He said where he was from, they had outside markets and some picnic tables set up for the shoppers. He said if a woman lay her purse on a table and left it unattended, it would be right back there the following day. People would cross the street to be nowhere near it.

He said in his country, if you get caught stealing once, off comes your hand, and not at a hospital either; right there on the table. Steal a second time, and your other hand comes off. There is no third time.

He said here they stole three packs of cigarettes, and when the police came, they said if he comes back again, call the police and they will kick him out of the store. That's why people come here to steal he said.

Oh, they just have bombings in markets that kill hundreds of people at a time. And really, is that the kind of control you want the government to have over you? Geez! That's nuts!

No, merely pointing out that the reason our punishment system is not a deterrent is because it's designed that way. Like you said, we have people that buy drugs and get high. They don't have that problem in Singapore, because in Singapore, they don't put you in a cell, feed you three squares a day plus snacks, give you a pool room, a workout room, a football field in the back to get exercise. They execute you on the spot.

Nobody has recreational narcotics there.