Capital punishment

[WinterPalm]

COuld somebody please tell me the common method of capital punishment used in the U.S.

[ZIM]

It depends on the state, really. Most common are electric chair, lethal injection, and gas chamber [not sure if thats still used]. One state still uses firing squad, IIRC

Why d'you ask? :confused: Just curious.

[David Jamieson]

Here (http://www.amnestyusa.org/rightsforall/dp/) is some interesting info on the subject.

cheers

[Merryprankster]

Ah yes, an informative piece written by AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL.

Their POV won't be skewed at all. :rolleyes:

[rogue]

As we say here in the Old Dominion, Some people just need killing.

BTW, It's a legal defense in many courts of law south of the Mason/Dixon line.

[Ben Gash]

Merryprankster, you mean the point of view that the death penalty is statistically proven to be ineffective as a deterrent, kills innocent people, is unfair to the poor, those with learning disabilities and people who aren't white? Yeah, that'll skiew you a bit.

[joedoe]

Don't let hard numbers fool you :)

[Laughing Cow]

MP.

You mean by skewed that "capital punishment" is a human rights violation??

[Merryprankster]

I mean that Amnesty International has a particular perspective on a certain set of issues, this is going to color its presentation.

Here's an example:


The application of the death penalty is racist. Black and white people are the victims of violent crime in roughly equal numbers, yet 82 per cent of people executed since 1977 have been convicted of killing white victims.

Correllation is not causation. I'm not saying that it is or isn't racist. I'm saying there's not enough information here to make an informed decision whether it's racist or not. If I said 99% of Pleasanton, SD high school graduates were white would that make the community racist? You don't know because I haven't given you the full picture yet. You need to know more.


Children have not reached a full understanding of their actions. No one should be sentenced to death for a crime they committed before the age of 18. However, in 24 US states people can be sentenced to death for crimes committed when they were children.

They neglect to even discuss the waiver process. A waiver must be used to transfer a juvenile case to an adult criminal court, and needs to meet specific criteria, which vary from state to state. It's not as though the prosecution can just say "Oh, yeah, we're going to try this as an adult. Procedure must be followed. An outline of the the waiver process can be found here.

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/tryingjuvasadult/transfer.html

Amnesty International acts like we're just running around axe-happy, lopping heads off innocent, baby-faced cherubs--not exactly the case.


In 1989 the US Supreme Court ruled that it was not unconstitutional to execute mentally retarded people. Since then some 30 mentally impaired people have been executed. However, some positive steps have been taken. In 1998 Nebraska became the 12th state to adopt a law banning the execution of mentally retarded prisoners.

They need to update their website; in the summer of 2002 the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to execute the mentally retarded. I might also point out that the Supreme Court, in 1989, didn't say "Execute the mentally impaired, by all means!" What they said was quite specific: Jurors MUST be instructed to consider mitigating circumstances (ie, mental retardation) when dealing with the death penalty.

In other words, mental retardation, in and of itself, would not disqualify you from the death penalty under the 8th amendment, however, failing to instruct the jury to consider your mental retardation would be cruel and unusual and violate your constitutional rights. In other words, this sort of thing would be decided on a case by case basis, according to the 1989 ruling in PENRY v. LYNAUGH, 492 U.S. 302 (1989), based on whether you could fully comprehend what you had done, and your fate. That has since changed. The mentally retarded are no longer deemed competent to understand the full gravity of what they have done and are therefore incapable of being fully culpable for their acts. Consequently, the death penalty is now cruel and unusual (Atkins v. Virginia Docket #00-8452).

From the decision: "Clinical definitions of mental retardation require not only subaverage intellectual functioning, but also significant limitations in adaptive skills. Mentally retarded persons frequently know the difference between right and wrong and are competent to stand trial, but, by definition, they have diminished capacities to understand and process information, to communicate, to abstract from mistakes and learn from experience, to engage in logical reasoning, to control impulses, and to understand others' reactions. Their deficiencies do not warrant an exemption from criminal sanctions, but diminish their personal culpability."

Three paragraphs on a website, three non-complete stories. Now THAT'S an unbiased source if ever I heard one.

Might as well derive your opinion about blacks and jews from the KKK websites.

Instead of deciding that a position paper (Amnesty International's little piece IS) that you happen to agree with is the unvarnished truth, do some research. Otherwise, you're just as ignorant and lazy as Rush's dittoheads.

[David Jamieson]

I mean that Amnesty International has a particular perspective on a certain set of issues, this is going to color its presentation.

Yes, they are an organisation that has a mandate.

They are decidedly against the infringement of human rights in any of it's manifestations.

They are fairly respected and have a good track record. To compare them to the kkk is ludicrous Merry. I mean c'mon dude.

All you had to say was "I'm for capital punishment". Then maybe state your reasons why.

All I have to say is "I'm against it". And then maybe I state my reasons why.

cheers

[David Jamieson]

It also behooves me to ask:

How many deaths is "acceptable"?

How many mistaken death sentences is considered tolerable in society?

Besides this issue, I was also reading a list of statements and factual truths regarding gun facts in the US, Canada, Japan, the UK and Sweden.

I have to ask after reading that the "numbers" are much lower than those shown in the studies that date up to 1993.

Exactly how many accidental deaths of children by guns in the home is acceptable? How many easily accomodated suicides are acceptable?

What is it that makes any number "ok" when it comes to loss of human life to preserve some rather antiquated thinking that still sits in the law books around the world?

The truth to me is that the 1st world has no place telling morality tales to the rest of the world when their own face is dismal.
Freedom justice and liberty for all? I sincerely doubt that.

cheers

[Merryprankster]

Kung Lek,

Like some others on this forum, you have the nasty habit of automatically assuming I'm either for or against something because I question sources.

Citing the KKK is obviously hyperbole. My point was simply that if an organization has an agenda, then the "facts" they present will be the ones that support their side of the argument, not necessarily the complete picture. A responsible organization wouldn't resort to what is essentially histrionics. If you rely on that information alone or only information from other organizations with a similar agenda to form your opinion then your opinion is not informed.

[David Jamieson]

If you rely on that information alone or only information from other organizations with a similar agenda to form your opinion then your opinion is not informed.

I don't rely solely on any one source for any information, but instead I look at the pro and the con sources and glean an understanding from the facts presented by both and any statistical data each offers.

My opinion is formed by which side of the argument I support according to how I feel and think about it from a logical pros/cons viewpoint.

What is the source that supports capital punishment? Do they not also have a skewed agenda? Do they not also have the luxury of having it in the law books already?

I appreciate your hyperbole in regards to the kkk, my statement was merely to point out that that comparison, for the sake of comparison weighed against Amnesty international is misleading.

If anyone has a skewed perspective it is the splinter groups. I don't see amnesty international out there hating on anyone and therefore give them creedence for their agenda. I also don't see amnesty international as a splinter group. They are global.

cheers

[Merryprankster]

Of course their POV is going to be skewed, but to present something as being "information," as you did, when, in fact it's closer to propaganda, is a bit disingenuous.

The Sea Shepherds are global. So is the ELF. So is Al Qaida.

However, you are correct that Amnesty International is more mainstream. Just pointing out that being global don't mean squat.

[Oso]

I'm with rogue. Go VA.

(completely off the cuff and my opinion only)

As flawed as the justice system is today there are probably
far more people that should be sentenced to death than
haven't been sentenced to death.

of course you have to believe the death penalty is an appopriate
penalty for some actions. I believe it is.

And the concept of a death row is silly too. The sentence should
be carried out immediately.

And the appeal system is blown out of proportion as well. IF the
first 12 jurors could have been wrong then so could the second
12 and the 3rd 12.......


of course the problem is really too many **** lawyers.

lawyers suck, almost as much as ninjas

[GLW]

A slightly different perspective:

A few years ago while doing some research - most of which I've forgotten - into this, I ran across and interesting item.

Seems that due to the required legal wrangling and mandatory appeals for a capital sentence, it is actually almost an order of magnitude more expensive to execute someone instead of imprisoning them for life.

What is the point of the sentence? Is it to punish the convicted for their crime? If so, is the punishment to fit the crime? If yes, then there should be a deterrent factor in punishment for the convicted as well as for others. There can be no doubt that there is a deterrent factor for the convicted. You can't get much more deterred than dead. However, every piece of research into this has indicated that there is no deterrent factor for others.

Is the point to remove a hazard to society? If yes, then permanent imprisonment does the same thing.

Is it to rehabilitate where possible, punish, and remove a danger to society? If this is the logic, the system is doing a very poor job.

You really can't touch the concepts of capital punishment without also dealing with the concept of punishment and the basis of the criminal justice system.

Don't know about other states, but Texas has one out of 20 people currently involved in some form of prison / parole / probation. One of the biggest growth businesses in the state is PRISONS.

So, the conclusion I make on this is that what we are doing doesn't work.

[ewallace]

You really can't touch the concepts of capital punishment without also dealing with the concept of punishment and the basis of the criminal justice system.
Exactly.

[Merryprankster]

GLW,

True--it is more expensive.

[myosimka]

Clearly Amnesty International has a bias in their position since the abolition of the death penalty is in their mandate. Still,

1) They present their case pretty accurately so you can find a good bit of accurate info just keep in mind that you are only getting one side.

2) They are certainly no more biased than associations of trial lawyers discussing tort reform. At least, they don't have a financial interest. (Sorry had to bring it up. LOL)

[Merryprankster]

Myosimka, you must not ever have read my response to your post.

One was a national association of trial lawyers website, one was lectric law library, and the other was a bar association website.

Pretty good cross section.

[ZIM]

lawyers suck, almost as much as ninjas

I'll have you know: the Ninja Bar Association is WELL RESPECTED in NY!!!

Anyhow, we've gone off the subject: the most common death penalty is what? Simple question...

[myosimka]

Actually I did read your response
1) I don't think that the state bar association's agenda would be much different than the trial lawyers association on this issue because again it is composed of people with a financial interest in limiting tort reform. So not really a cross section there. And even though they win nothing from class actions and other suits, corporate attorneys don't want tort reform either or they'd be out of jobs.
2)And since you didn't know what lectric law was I thought I'd remind you of their source as quoted on that page. 'excerpted from ATLA fact sheet. ©1995, 1996 by Consumer Attorneys of
California'

So actually it was not a very good cross section. In your defense, I doubt one really exists as clearly this sunject is dominated by talk radio personalities playing off the sound byte and lawyers defending the suits validity and one of those groups is primarily concerned with coercing idiots to their viewpoint through emotional appeals as opposed to facts and logi...oh wait, that's both groups.

I again state, that while AI is opposed to the death penalty which they make quite clear, there is some good information. And yes, I see your point on this one and think it's quite valid. That's why I made the same point on your posting.

[Black Jack]

"Infringement on human rights..."

If one considers a murderer scumbag to be a human being than I think you have more problems to deal with than your panty-waist ideas on the death penalty and brotherly love.

Maybe...just maybe those that follow these thought patterns should take into consideration the victims in these crimes and not the animals that commited them.

:rolleyes:

[Merryprankster]

Fair enough. I'll pay more attention to the source next time. FWIW though, a state bar encompasses ALL lawyers.

It seems though, that the facts of the case aren't in question on the coffee issue. How one chooses to interpret them is the actual question.

My point here is that regardless of their stance, there is no incentive to misrepresent the findings of fact as they are readily available.

[guohuen]

I'd prefer if murderers were killed in shootouts with the police. I have no qualms about ridding the earth of someone that needs killing. Heck I'd ice bin laden myself. My problem is that I've only met a few prosecuters that didn't have their head so far up their fourth point of contact that they'll never see daylight again. Most of them only want to win their case, and somewhere in the course of events the guilt or innocence of the defendent becomes irrelevent.

[Black Jack]

I think the death penalty should also be for serial rapists and serial child molestors.

[ZIM]

I support pre-frontal lobotomies for all murderers, serial rapists and child-molesters..as an immediate penalty...thus circumventing alot of the arguments against the death penalty, yet still taking the 'pound of flesh' [tho in this case, it's more a gram] and effectively their 'lives' as they knew them.

They'd never concieve to harm another individual in their misbegotten lives, and we could put them out as streetcleaners and greeters at walmarts, point to them and say to our kids: "thats a bad man. Don't be like that."

Now, THATS a deterrent! :eek:

[David Jamieson]

The problem lies in the knowing or not knowing of the innocence of the person in question.

Immediate capital punishment used to be known as a "lynch mob". This hardly fits with todays social construct.

If a person dies in a hail of gunfire while in the act of robbery or homicide or taking hostages, i can only see that as even in some twisted way...reasonable. After all, they are caught smoking gun, they have attempted to harm more people and they have no regard for the life of the others, the Law enforcement officers or citizens who are attempting to stop them from commiting a crime.

However, if you arrest someone after the fact based on non 100% solid evidence (which is almost never the case outside of the smoking gun scenario) then this brings into question circumstantial factors that if a person does not have access to a good lawyer who understands and can iterate the evidence, then they are possibly a candidate for capital punishment.

Knowing that we do not know is enough to not send a person to their death.

Capital punishment is shown to be neither a deterent to crime and it doesn't do anything to clear up the justice system inadequacies as they now exist.

In Canada they banned capital punishment after the last man was hanged in 1962 CE. It has been shown that there has been no significant increase or decrease in murders according to cross referenced data from when capital punishment was allowed.

A greater deterent is the prison system, and even that needs work. Once you are sentenced to life in Canada, then you are doing Life. You may get paroled after 15 or 25 years, but even then you are still a lifer and subject to return for any infraction of the law. I don't necessarily 100% agree with this strategy either for a couple of reasons.

In summary, taking a life for a life is kind of biblical in it's paradigm. It is also based in revenge. Revenge is often driven by hate. Hate in a society affects it's value systems and morals. When these are driven by non factual emotional factors ethics are knocked out of the picture and society cannot grow to a higher plain of thinking.

So as long as we keep killing each other, is as long as we will continue to do so. This is detrimental to rasing the conciousness of everyone so that we can achiecve peace at all levels.

rant over

cheers

[ewallace]

Nothing works 100%. Had a couple of the following guys been executed right away, there might be one more police officer on the streets. Said officer was 29 years old at the time he was gunned down.

Anyone hear of the 7 escapees from Texas about 2 years ago? Here are their profiles:


- Joseph Garcia, 29, who was serving 50 years for murder.

- Michael Rodriguez, 38, who was serving a life sentence for capital murder.


- Randy Halprin, 23, serving 30 years for beating a baby.

- Patrick Murphy Jr., 39, in for 50 years for aggravated sexual assault with a deadly weapon and burglary.

- Larry Harper, 37, who had a 50-year sentence for aggravated sexual assault.

- Donald Newbury, 38, serving 99 years for aggravated robbery.

[GLW]

Texas is NOT a good state to use as an example.

Given the fact that one of the big booming industries in the state IS prisons and that 1 in 20 people are caught up in the judicial system.

We have the most number of executions here...and how did THAT deter the 7 you mention?

As a deterent...it does not work.

Simply put, it is a final solution for that single individual and a supreme act of vengance.

Call a spade a spade.

[ewallace]

Originally posted by ewallace
Nothing works 100%
Is that a spade?

[BeiTangLang]

Good question. Another good question would be;
How many murders would not have taken place if a previously tried & convicted would have been executed the first time?
Many of the cases That make me the sickest are those of a released murderer that gets out & does it again.

& yes, I also agree that Texas is not a great state to look for statistics on any count, because there are not enough executions of convicted murderers for the other criminals to even notice.

[ewallace]

For the record, I don't believe in deterents any more than I believe that the Police should be used for crime prevention.

[BeiTangLang]

Ask the people in Shavano park or Leon Valley if they believe in speed deterents. LOL!

[ewallace]

Ever seen folks speed thru Live Oak/UC on 1604? That's one of the dumbest things you can do around here. Yet I see it every single day.

[Ben Gash]

Black Jack, the victims are dead. They really don't care. All this "think of the victim" stuff really means "think of us". Some people find it comforting to know that these people are executed. Is it really justifiable to kill someone so that it makes you feel better? Does this really make us any better than them? Is it a comfort to the victim's family? Probably not. I mean it feeds their understandible hatred, but does it bring their loved ones back? Will it bring them to the table at Christmas?
And what of the families of the executed? It's acceptable to put them through the same anguish?
At the end of the day the US is the only Western nation to make regular use of the death penalty. Congratulations guys! You're really winning the battle against crime! I mean you just feel so safe walking downtown in a major US city at night.
I would suggest that ending poverty, clearing drugs off your streets and working to dissolve racial tensions would probably do wonders for your murder (and rape, burglary, GTA, assault) rates. Oh, and reviewing the gun situation MIGHT help just a little.
I mean OK, my POV is skiewed. I'm against capital punishment for personal and religious reasons, but it just doesn't make sense to me. It plain doesn't work (well, except for that individual). I think people's views on rapid sentencing etc may well change if they were falsely accused of murder.
"The the scribes and the pharisees brought to him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do you say?"
This they said , testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear. So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them,
"He who is without sin amongst you, let him throw a stone at her first."
And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last."
John 8:3-9

"Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written "vengeance is mine, I will repay" says the Lord. Therefore
"If your enemy is Hungry, feed him;
If he is thirsty, give him a drink;
For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head."
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."
Romans 12:19-21

[Black Jack]

Unless you have been there you don't have a clue.

Are the victims families dead. What about the loved one's that were left behind because of a violent attacker. What about those that have to deal with the fall out as the criminal gets 3 squares, cable tv, to read, listen to music, work out, be social with other scumbags, free education........

Why should they not have access to justice? Who are you to dictate what these true victims should be entitiled to? Step down from your high horse Gash....not everyone believes in your absurd dogma...the world is a lot bigger than your pov buddy. I am not even going to bite your gun bs. I would blow you out of the water. Comments like those show you have your head stuffed up your own arse.

[BeiTangLang]

For another example of deterence, look at the UAE or Saudi Arabias murder rate( sans goverment/political numbers I'm sure).

And yes, the victims are dead, what do they care. True.
What about the next victime of the same murderer next time?
" Sorry, but we thought he was rehabilitaded"? Close down a whole state & make it a prison to hold all the criminals?

I have a better one, "lets pray they won't visit my house".

[Laughing Cow]

BJ.

I see you still subscribe to the old:
Eye for an eye
Life for a life
etc.
form of punishment.

Kinad funny since that is the same form that Islam practices and yet islamic punishments are being condemned.

Capital punishment is a Human rights offense by international standard.
Same as Torture and many other things that unfortunately are still widely practiced.

Death Penatly is not a deterrent for me, as the death is too easy and final.

What would put me more of a murder would be having to live the rest of my life in a US prison (with all their ongoings) than get an injection.

Cheers.

[BeiTangLang]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Laughing Cow
[B]BJ.



Kinad funny since that is the same form that Islam practices and yet islamic punishments are being condemned.
_
Punishments? condemed mostly by those that also support life sentences!
-

Capital punishment is a Human rights offense by international standard.
Same as Torture and many other things that unfortunately are still widely practiced.

Death Penatly is not a deterrent for me, as the death is too easy and final.
-
Once again, you wouldn't have to worry about the same person doing the same crime again, would you?
(As they can still commit murder in the prison system even if you do not get out)

What would put me more of a murder would be having to live the rest of my life in a US prison (with all their ongoings) than get an injection.
-
Loosing a hand for stealing, genitalia for rape & public execution for murder just might change your outlook. However, if we went to a prison system that did not provide t.v., schooling, air-conditioning, recreation facilities etc.,....made it hell on earth for those convicted of murder, then you would have a prison deterent!

Cheers indeed!

[Laughing Cow]

BTL.

What I ment was that both the US and the islamic Justice system are based on the same fundamental principles.

But to a certain degree I think that the Islamic method has more of a deterent factor with instant public punishment.

Cheers.

[Oso]

ok, so let's change the sentencing part of the process:

Once a jury finds the defendent guilty of a crime let the victim
decide the punishment. Or the victim's family in the case of
murder or child molestation.

People who do certain things do not have the right to any sort
of life. Murderers; Rapists; Child Molesters are the top three in
this category. Most certainly if it is a repeat offense and probably
still so if they have a long list of other offenses deemed illegal
by society.

[Oso]

Loosing a hand for stealing, genitalia for rape & public execution for murder just might change your outlook. However, if we went to a prison system that did not provide t.v., schooling, air-conditioning, recreation facilities etc.,....made it hell on earth for those convicted of murder, then you would have a prison deterent!

agreed, convicted felons are given better living conditions then
a lot of people live under WORLDWIDE. It's not a vacation, it's
frikken prison.

[Ben Gash]

If those punishments have such a great deterrent factor, then why do the arabs have to carry them out so regularly?
BJ, I believe that I addressed those points in my earlier post:confused:
And BJ, you don't know the first **** thing about me yeah? So where do you get off talking to me like that? Did I somewhere ask for rudeness and aggression? How can you attack my right to an opinion while championing your own right?
You can believe what you like, and I respect your right to do so.
If Prison's so great, why are people so desparate not to go there? I mean the loss of freedom, the loss of privacy, the inability to form relationships with the opposite sex, never having children, never being able to plan a future or have dreams, never being able to fulfill your potential. I mean who wouldn't want that? The only thing they've gained over the victim is that they're still breathing.
Just how are you going to shoot me down exactly? The USA has the least gun restrictions in the developed world, and it also has the highest gun crime. Where am I leaving myself open ? Here you can't walk into a sports store and buy an M16, and we manage to have a mostly unarmed police force? Do you think there may be some kind of connection somewhere?

[Laughing Cow]

One thing I would like to point out.

Death Penalty only works as a deterent if the Person convicted is afraid of Death.

Problem is with many Countries:
Kill 1 = Death Penalty
Kill many = Death Penalty.

Thus the punishment is the same for a murderer and a serial killer.

Hmmm.

[Ben Gash]

Woa, the language filter's really strict:o yet you can link to sites of women in their underwear :confused:

[GLW]

"Another good question would be;
How many murders would not have taken place if a previously tried & convicted would have been executed the first time?"

And by the same token, how many would not have taken place if the convicted person sentenced to LIFE had actually served that sentence and NOT been released. If you send a person to prison in Texas for life and that is defined as ..say 40 years.... They typically get Good Time...2 days for 1. So they get out in 20 - time fully served. Unless they are sentenced "Without Parole" , they come up eligible for parole in somewhere around 7 or 10 years. THIS is NOT allowed to be known by the jury sentencing them. THIS is one of the big flaws of the system.

If you lock up the murderer for life...he is still no longer a threat. Escapes may happen....but NOT with those guys if you put them in a separate facility and make sure that ANY escape attempt means you die.

"Are the victims families dead."

Well, unless you are among those that have been touched by this type of loss, you CAN'T say how you would feel. As for me, I can say I THINK that knowing the person who did it was killed would NOT make me feel any better....Now being able to take the killer's life myself....that MIGHT...but even then, I don't know.

Personally, I don't think you have a right to be for capital punishment unless you KNOW that you can walk up to the convicted and pull the trigger yourself....NOT the injection but a messy death. If you CAN do this, at least you can take the responsibility for it.

[Brad]

Capital punishment is against my religion. I thought generally, revenge is considered wrong not just in our religions, but also in the justice system.

[WinterPalm]

Hahahaha!
Well, I just needed to know for a debate.

It's a funny topic and as far as I'm concerned stastics can go both ways. In fact i've seen a lot these past couple days that states white people are killed more than other minorities in America.

[BeiTangLang]

Originally posted by GLW
"Another good question would be;
How many murders would not have taken place if a previously tried & convicted would have been executed the first time?"

And by the same token, how many would not have taken place if the convicted person sentenced to LIFE had actually served that sentence and NOT been released. If you send a person to prison in Texas for life and that is defined as ..say 40 years.... They typically get Good Time...2 days for 1. So they get out in 20 - time fully served. Unless they are sentenced "Without Parole" , they come up eligible for parole in somewhere around 7 or 10 years. THIS is NOT allowed to be known by the jury sentencing them. THIS is one of the big flaws of the system.

***********
I agree with this to an extent except that they still have the capability to kill on prison....
***********

If you lock up the murderer for life...he is still no longer a threat. Escapes may happen....but NOT with those guys if you put them in a separate facility and make sure that ANY escape attempt means you die.

***********
Same as above.
***********

"Are the victims families dead."

Well, unless you are among those that have been touched by this type of loss, you CAN'T say how you would feel. As for me, I can say I THINK that knowing the person who did it was killed would NOT make me feel any better....Now being able to take the killer's life myself....that MIGHT...but even then, I don't know.

Personally, I don't think you have a right to be for capital punishment unless you KNOW that you can walk up to the convicted and pull the trigger yourself....NOT the injection but a messy death. If you CAN do this, at least you can take the responsibility for it.

*******
I guarantee that if someone killed a member of my family, flat out clear cut & convicted, I could without question follow a courts allowance for execution done by my own hands.

[BeiTangLang]

Originally posted by Brad
Capital punishment is against my religion. I thought generally, revenge is considered wrong not just in our religions, but also in the justice system.

I'm curious as to what religions, according to their founding doctrines, are against capital punishment?

[David Jamieson]

BTL-

Christianity does not have any doctrine supporting capital punishment per se within the new testament or the gospels.

Buddhism does not have anything that supports capital punishment in it's sutras. (Rather, karma will get you in the end)

In fact, there are very few religions that support the idea of killing someone for their actions.

Now, if you wanna talk "laws of man" that have been absorbed into religions, well, that's a whole new can of worms.

cheers

[BeiTangLang]

New testiment would not be a founding doctrine or document...

Genesis 9:6:

"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." (KJV)

& thats just the begining, but religion like you said is a whole other can of worms. Sorry to alter the converstion to that path.
Back to the pre-religion conversation.

[Black Jack]

Don't let me stand in the way of your elitism Gash. I am not a champion of my viewpoints-just a defender of your untruths weakly backed by your pointless biblical rantings that you started spewing out as if this is some kind of universally shared assumption.

LOL...You are the one telling others how to live. You hint at how they should respond and feel through your religous pov. I know all I need to know about you. You sum it up in your uniformed media bias on what you believe to be American's gun problem.

The only gun problem American has is that we have elitist liberal politicans and fat *****es like Rosie O' Donnel who want to validate their own existance by banning the ownership of more guns. Who wish to turn more men, women and children into easy government guaranteed prey for criminals. You want to look at rising crime problems, look at the UK or Canada where their citizens do not have the inalienable right to protect themselves from crime. Check out the increase in home invasions in Canada alone.

For some information though I know it will go into one ear and fly out the other. According to Proffessor Gary Kleck from the Florida State University's School of Criminology firearms are used to prevent crimes approximately 1 to 1.5 million times a year. In the landmark 1996 study done by Proffessor John Lott and David Mustard called "Crime, Deterrence and the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns" they proved how owning and carrying a firearm makes you safer. They did this by undergoing a massive investigative research project on the 31 states which allow a CCW and found it a major factor in the reducing violent crime.

By examining more than 3,000 U.S. counties and their records from 1977 to 1992 they discovered CCW laws reduced murders by 8.5 %. Rapes by 5% and aggravated assualts by 7%

Those are 8.5% more murders. 5% more rapes and 7% more aggravated assualts you and others would rather see on the books. I don't know how many times it can be said but get it into your skull-CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW GUN LAWS!

In 1900 there were very few gun laws in the U.S. New York nor Chicago had no handgun laws and Cali had no waiting period. Firearms of ALL types could be ordered by mail and without background checks. The homicide rate was one-sixth of what it is today. Homicide rates continued to greatly climb only following the Gun Control Act of 1968. Though this fell in the 1980's when anti-crime/pro-self defense laws were passed but no new anti-gun laws were passed.

Back to the death penalty-Yes I believe in an eye for an eye. You murder people you should be put to death, you rape people you should serve serious time and if you are a repeat offender it should be death.

[ZIM]

The only thing left out of that "Let ye who is without sin cast the first stone" story is that the Virgin Mary walked up and beaned the wh ore with a rock, killing her instantly..

"And then Jesus spake, saying: "Mom, sometimes you really pi ss me off."

[David Jamieson]

In 1900 there were very few gun laws in the U.S. New York nor Chicago had no handgun laws and Cali had no waiting period. Firearms of ALL types could be ordered by mail and without background checks. The homicide rate was one-sixth of what it is today. Homicide rates continued to greatly climb only following the Gun Control Act of 1968. Though this fell in the 1980's when anti-crime/pro-self defense laws were passed but no new anti-gun laws were passed.

In 1900 they didn't really collect statistical data regarding gun deaths. So, we will never know how many gun related deaths there were anywhere at that time.

There is also the issue of sheer population differences between 1900 and now. In all of North America.

When I was born (1964) there were just over 19 million people in Canada.
Now, according to our latest census stats, there is over 30 million.

I think that criminal statistics will be reflected in the higher numbers of people and the fact that statisitics are now being gathered for just about everything and anything.

Most statistical methods are only used in periods greater than 10 years and using an entire populace in segments according to geographical location, immigration records, etc etc. And so, statistics for Canada anyway are fairly accurate (or as accurate as any stat can be :D )

There is also the consideration of the gap that is increasing between the "haves" and the "have nots". The more that there are "have nots" the more likely it is that laws will be written to keep the "haves" safe from them.

This doesn't really weigh on the white collar crime which has increased leaps and bounds with the advent of computerized financial systems, the implementation of brokers who sell financial services and what have you, and the overall point of "haves" carrying out criminal acts against other "haves".

The constitutional message of having the right to bear arms was written during a time of colonial strife and the very real possibility of having only a citizen army to defend against the british soldiers who would come and take back the lands from the new nation of America.

Good thing the french were there to form the greater part of Washingtons army eh. (Ever wonder why there are so many places in the states called "Lafayette"? :D

To this, I don't understand why many americans diss the French. If it wasn't for Frenchy there wouldn't be a USA and there wouldn't be a Canada either. And that's a fact Jack.

Anyway, regarding the gun thing, yes criminals don't regard handgun laws and they steal the guns from law abiding citizens.

Now, if those guns weren't there to rip off, then the criminals would still commit crimes for sure, that's just a fact of life, but they wouldn't be doing them with Glocks and 357 Pythons they lifted from the neighbours.

There is a strong argument for the containment of personal handguns anywhere. There is just as strong an argument to limit the controls of the police systems that would curtail any citizens ability to live freely and with liberty and without having to fear the police systems that are in place because of the firepower they have.

Really, I think it would be a better place if attitudes changed and people just put the **** guns in the crusher. Get rid of the things, they're only for killing other humans anyway (as much as people will say "I need a handgun when I'm hunting" or "I need a handgun for my target shooting club")

One day, perhaps they (guns) will be as reviled as crime itself and we can all get on with our lives.

cheers

[BeiTangLang]

Originally posted by Kung Lek

<snip>
To this, I don't understand why many americans diss the French. If it wasn't for Frenchy there wouldn't be a USA and there wouldn't be a Canada either. And that's a fact Jack.

<snip>
cheers

With over 63 THOUSAND American soldiers occupying several memorial Cemetaries _IN France_ I'd say that France would not be exiting if it were not for Americans giving their lives as well.
I seriously doubt there is a debt on the American side considering the initial soldeier loss & Post War dollars that were spent bolstering Frances ecconomy that were never payed back;
And _that_ is a fact Jack.

[Black Jack]

BeiTangLang- I was just getting to that. :D

Ahhh France...the biggest ***** nation in the world with all its lost influence in world politics. Lets not forget by the way that the frogs showcased one of the MOST cowardly acts in history by surrendering to the German government without even a shot fired. Let's also not forget the rounding up of all their jewish citizens and handing them over to Adolf and the gang for some good old genocide.

Who bailed France out of WWI-the USA. Who bailed France out of WWII-the USA. Who started Vietnam and left us to finnish it-the Frence. Who got involved in Panama because of the Frence-the USA. Who would not let us fly over their country to chase a infamous terrorist-France. Whose scientists created mad cow disease-France.

Who has over 60 billion dollars worth of oil development contracts with Iraq-the Frence. Who called Saddam one of his "dear friends"-Chirac. Who sold Nuclear technology to Iraq-France.

Here is a article about the untrustworthy and terrorist supporting nation of France in forbes.

www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/0317/037.html

Kung, your hidden agenda on gun control is so full of holes I am starting to wonder if it is made of swiss cheese. btw if those numbers don't exist then wear did I get the comparison from??

"Only thing worse than a Frenchman is a Frenchman who lives in Canada."- Ted Nugent

[dwid]

Kung Lek:

There are so many wrong things in your above statement that I don't know where to start. To address just one issue that you raise:


The constitutional message of having the right to bear arms was written during a time of colonial strife and the very real possibility of having only a citizen army to defend against the british soldiers who would come and take back the lands from the new nation of America.

This is total garbage. The constitution explicitly provides for the common defense. It would be redundant to provide for a right to bear arms if the intent was merely to provide for a military to keep Britain from taking our land back. The clear rationale is that the founding fathers realized that an armed citizenry was a strength.

Regarding your claim that the bulk of the revolutionary army was French, I'd really like to see some stats on this, as it disagrees with everything I've ever read on the subject. From my understanding the French did not provide anything resembling substantial support until the war was almost over.


There is also the consideration of the gap that is increasing between the "haves" and the "have nots". The more that there are "have nots" the more likely it is that laws will be written to keep the "haves" safe from them.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you saying permissive gun laws only benefit the "haves." Criminals represent a relatively small portion of the population of "haves" or "have nots." Most of my life, I have been part of the "have not" population, and most "have nots" get by without stealing or killing or whatever. Those that do steal don't really discriminate / only steal from the "haves." Generally they steal from whoever is convenient, which is generally other "have nots." Your description of the situation seems oversimplified to say the least.

If you dislike firearms, that is fine. Just say so. You don't have to justify your beliefs by making a lot of spurious claims. The bottom line is that the vast majority of gun owners do not commit crimes.

[Black Jack]

"Really, I think it would be a better place if attitudes changed and people just put the guns in the crusher. Get rid of the **** things, they're only for killing other human beings anyway". -Kung Lek

Boy oh boy.......now that is some warped and scary ass thinking.

Yeah. Once we chuck our means of defense away the bad guys well just stop being bad guys. All of a sudden they will want to play fair. Handicap people can fight off armed attackers with there kung fu know-how...the eldery can ward off home invasions with chi blasts and iron crotch...women can scare off gang rapists with the hung gar tiger and crane form...men can protect their families in the middle of the night with some nhb gi wrestling.

Weaker and disadvantaged individuals will all of a sudden not become weaker and disadvantaged individuals. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Lets not forget those that do like to hunt, plink or target shot. Their rights mean squat anyway.

[FatherDog]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
In 1900 they didn't really collect statistical data regarding gun deaths. So, we will never know how many gun related deaths there were anywhere at that time.

1. Nothing was said about number of gun-related deaths. The statement was that the homicide rate was 1/6th then what it is now.



There is also the issue of sheer population differences between 1900 and now. In all of North America.

Homicide rates are generally measured per capita, making the population differences irrelevant.

[yenhoi]

criminals cost money to keep around.

kill.

same with old people.

;)

[yenhoi]

The french did not form the greater part of Washingtons army. Probably the best troops he had at his disposal, and 'just-in-time' (read:late almost too-late) but hardly the greater part, lol.

Someone had a genesis quote that reads to me like, "bad people will get whats coming to them," rather then "kill bad people."

Capital punishment should be gruesome, public, and very, very painful.



:eek:

[Ben Gash]

BJ, that wasn't a rant or something that I assumed everyone believed. Indeed, the only person ranting here is you. Elitist? You're the only one who thinks that no-one else's input is worthwhile.
Britain? Yeah, we have our problems but I can't remember the last time I heard gunfire in the night. Oh, hang on, it was in the States ;) Yes, you have reached the enviable position of having guns to defend yorself from the armed criminals. Congratulations.
Anyway Black Jack, what on earth is so wrong with believing that everyone should make every effort to get on as best as possible? It's a sad world when such a viewpoint is deemed something to attack (still, the bible says that this will happen, but it still saddens me).
Basically what your viewpoint says is "if someone offends me or my sensibilities to a high degree then it is right that I should kill them" Is this a thousand miles away from the murderer's mindset?
Bei Tang Lang, the coming of Jesus marked the founding of a new covenant between God and Man.

[David Jamieson]

here's a fitting quote regarding the french.



The French are derided as cowards by people like Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican who somehow escaped the Vietnam draft. The French are accused of coveting Iraqi oil contracts, as if our insatiable need for petroleum had never influenced American policy in the Middle East. The French are accused of ingratitude, although most Americans remain ignorant of the critical role they played in our own revolution. In my hometown, there was an elementary school named for the Count de Rochambeau, yet nobody bothered to teach the children there about his gallant service to George Washington.

And,


Whatever insults are hurled at France, its views are shared by most Europeans, including the people of Britain, as well as by the majority of nations on the Security Council, not to mention many American military leaders and quite a few ordinary Americans. Vilifying the French doesn’t invalidate that position—and throwing nasty tantrums only reduces American prestige, in an era when we need allies as much as they need us.

If you want statistical information about how key France was to the American Revolution, well you can either crack a book or use the internet, it's right in front of you.

Also, The American Army liberated France in WW2? I'm sorry, but I think that is hardly the truth of the matter. The British, The Canadians, The Indians, The Australians, The New Zelanders and many others died for the liberation of Europe.

And the bit about handing over jews to Hitler for extermination? Where the hell are you pulling that tidbit from? yeesh!

As for capital punishment - I'm decidedly against it and view it as primitive in concept.

As for the removal of handguns from within society, barring the usage for law enforcement, hunting and sport. - I'm all for it.

As for your right to think that what I think is wrong. - I'm especially all for that. Afterall, if you don't take the time to think about what is said, then you just plain aren't taking the time to think.

cheers

[Black Jack]

Ben-

You are putting words into my post which were not their to distract from my points. I don't think only my info is worthwhile, nor do I feel "that if someone offends me or my sensibilities to a high degree then it is right that I should kill them."

WHERE DO YOU GET SUCH SHEER AND UTTER BULLSH!T!!!!

Instead of coming back at me with something logical you make up crap and assumptions of my personal character. Basically calling me a psychopathic murderer in the attempt to make your position stronger. Did you learn that from Fallwell???

I'm dumbfounded as to why you feel the need to do the rope-a-dope to give some illusion of credence to your viewpoints and not just call me what you think I am or represent. Back it up and come with the insults straight on. Maybe it's that good christian in you which prevents such things. An aspect of your life which for some reason you seem determined to let us all know about.

Guess what....besides hunting, plinking and time spent on the range or in training, I have never heard a gunshot fired in anger nor self defense. You need to stop watching the Shield on FX and get past the media illusion. I live by Chicago, one of the largest cities in America, I travel there all the time for business which on rare occasion even includes some real nasty spots on the South Side, I was a repo man to make bread in college, went through slum areas and trailer parks in Aurora and Joilet stealing cars at night, not once did I ever hear a shot fired either and even if a American citizen does there are vast number of other Americans which have not and never will.

Kung- I know my country's history with France so I am covered there. If you need more information on France and its occupation in WW2 as you stated the info is there if one has the time to look.

Take a look at the number of American solider deaths in WW2 during the operations of France and I think this point is made. I did not say other countries did not step up and help out but my point IMO still stands firm.

As for your gun viewpoints. We both know we will never agree but I will say that I just hope that their never comes a time when a firearm could save you or your family's life and you don't have access to one because you believe yourself to be to evolved.

As a sidenote I have always found it very hypocritical that a person who wants to call themselves a martial artist, a person who works within the theory of martial combat, from nonlethal to lethal methods of self defense, and the training of ancient weapons of all shapes and sizes would be anti-self defense from the standpoint of a firearm.

No truer martial skill if there ever was one. Makes no sense to me.

Cheers,

[Ben Gash]

Black Jack, have you been forgetting to take your meds again? You're the one who's been hurling abuse and insults :confused: :confused: :confused:
As for my religious beliefs, I brought them up in the context of why I don't believe in capital punishment, you're the one who's made a big deal out of it.
I don't know, maybe I've just hung out with a bad crowd who've taken me to the wrong kind of places when I've been in the States. Or maybe Minneapolis is just THAT rough.
WHERE DO YOU GET SUCH SHEER AND UTTER BULLSH!T!!!!

How would you qualify your view then? You believe that if someone does something that you feel is very wrong then they should die. This is an understandable point of view. I personally feel that this is wrong, and will attempt to dissuade you of it. However, I will not belittle you or attack you because of it.
Can I just ask you a question though Black Jack? How many people have you seen die?
As for ignoring things, you are not really in a position to talk.

[Serpent]

Originally posted by Black Jack
As a sidenote I have always found it very hypocritical that a person who wants to call themselves a martial artist, a person who works within the theory of martial combat, from nonlethal to lethal methods of self defense, and the training of ancient weapons of all shapes and sizes would be anti-self defense from the standpoint of a firearm.

No truer martial skill if there ever was one. Makes no sense to me.


Any complete fukwad can pull a trigger. Any brain dead, angry little pr!ck can buy a gun on the street and kill someone with it.

A martial artist is someone that spends uncounted hours in pursuit of their own personal improvement and development, training through pain and adversity to become the best they can be.

The fact that you don't see this division tells me more about your character than many of your previous posts.

[Ben Gash]

Actually, don't answer that one (might not be the kind of thing you want to discuss. My bad).

[Serpent]

Originally posted by Ben Gash
Actually, don't answer that one (might not be the kind of thing you want to discuss. My bad).

What one? Who are you talking to here?

Where am I!?

[Black Jack]

Serpent-

Talk about ignorant fukwads:rolleyes:

First off, your very first line tells me scores about your self defense assumptions, I take it you have never encountered a person who has used a firearm to defend themselves from violent crime, your absurd belief in firearms myths and lack of handgun knowledge as a martial skill. I already know about your character value.

It sucks. You are an American hating jackarse. Plain and simple. I have more respect for the turd that falls out of my dogs squatter.

Ben- Again you start with the tactics. Even though in the same post you talk about not attacking me. Give me a list of these abuses. Not retractions to your blanket statements or my viewpoints on your spewing of religous tripe as if we should all be of the same cloth, but direct abuses to you.

As for my believe in the death penalty. Again I will say it slow as you did not catch it the last post. If you are found gulity of 1st degree murder or our a serial rapist or a child molestor then the death penalty should be a just punishment if decided by a jury. If someone breaks into my home or trys to assualt me or my family I have NO problem shooting him where he stands if that is my last resort.

Where you get that I should kill people over things that offend my senseabilities is beyond me.:rolleyes:

What is it your business if I have seen people die and what does that have to do with anything and what have I been ignoring.

[Ben Gash]

Not you Serpent, I was referring to my last post.

[Ben Gash]

I'm sure 1st degree murder, rape and child molestation are against your sensibilities:confused: :confused: :confused:
I have no problems with your right to use reasonable force in self defence.

[Serpent]

Ben, that's cool. I was confused. Not an unusual state for me!

BlackJack, you crack me up.

[Serpent]

Actually, BlackJack, here's a serious question. Have you ever used deadly force to defend yourself? Have you ever used a firearm in defence or malice? Or is all your talk on the subject rhetoric?

[Black Jack]

:confused: -wtf????

What do you think. Read the post. If I suggest that murderers, rapists and child molestors get the death penalty don't you think they are againist my senseabilities.:rolleyes:

Kinda switching guage's aren't we and pretending you did not mean basically anything I did not agree with. You are the one that seems to believe that murderers, rapists and child molestors should get room and board, running water, food-turkey on the holidays, free education, access to computers, books, cable, and all that good jazz, you want to keep scumbags alive.

I would rather see them six feet under where they belong.

[Ben Gash]

Comments like those show you have your head stuffed up your own arse.
Seriously BJ, your tone has been way off throughout. I appreciate that this is an emotive topic but come on.
I have stated my beliefs, given a list of structured arguments and you have basically just attempted to shout me down. I may be a Christian and against the death penalty, but this is still a martial arts forum. I'm not going to be bullied into submission.

[shaolin kungfu]

Cause we all know how fun jail is...:rolleyes:

Seriously, everyone should just calm down a little bit.

[Ben Gash]

That was always the intention of that statement. You however correctly highlighted the problem with that train of thought.
No, I'm the one who believes that I don't have a right to take another's life except in self defence. Yet again you are ignoring my earlier comments about prison.

[shaolin kungfu]

I was taliking to BJ. You got your post in there a little bit before me ben.

[Black Jack]

Serpent- So you are saying a person has to have used deadly force to be allowed to speak on it. Utter garbage and very typical. Just so you do not think I am dodging I will answer your question. I have not used deadly force though I have been at the ready to defend myself to that point during a few times in my life that got a little hairy, the point being that I had the tool at my disposal should that need come, better than not having at all.

My uncle was murdered in Dallas when a burglar broke into his home and beat him near death and set him on fire. This happened only a mere six years ago. It is all I need on the subject. You can keep your fantasy's and liberal claptrap.

I could give you plenty of current information/real life cases on people who have used firearms to defend themselves both lethal and non-lethal, though since you will never "get it" anyway it would be a waste of my time, I am sure yours is better spent crying over your serious envy of the U.S..

Ben- It's not my fault you have been trying to twist and turn the arguement over and over again untell you get your way. Go off in the corner and cry buddy because you have not made a lick of sense. Just accusations.

List of structured arguements. You have to be kidding. Religous edict is considered a structired arguement nowadays?? Whatever.

[Ben Gash]

Black Jack, you are a very angry man, and I'm sorry for your loss.

[Mr Punch]

With the swinging between Ben Gash's and Black Jack's fanaticism, it seems that there is no chance of reasoned opinion on this thread anymore...:rolleyes:

So here's my unsubstantiated opinion...!:D

Black Jack, I've never had anyone close to me murdered, so thankfully, I can't understand your opinion. But I'm addressing this to you... especially the first bit. Don't let them get away!!!

1) There should be no death penalty because;
a) The ****ers should be made to live with what they did, and to understand the consequences.
b) If you kill them, they will have contributed nothing to society: they will have ****ing escaped for chrissakes!

Never seen any stats on this one, but I bet a lot of these people, when their lame-assed appeals have failed, ask, or in some cases beg to be put out of their misery.

2) People should get life sentences for one murder.

a) They should have a room. Alone. One bed. One blanket. One ****pot. One sink with cold water. A breakfast with the right nutritional requirements to keep them functioning. Then labour, preferably alone, certainly in silence. Then a late lunch, of the bare minimum to keep them functioning. Then water for the rest of the day. They should be allowed one supervised hour of recreation (between 6 and 7, access to books, access to pen and paper, access to chess/checkers/board games... er, that's it).

b) No mirror in the cell. No letting out for any reason after rec . No pictures in the cell. No music. No TV. No video. No seasoning for food. No cigarettes. No stimulants. No choice in lights out.

NO RELEASE.

c) Special dispensation:
They can apply for:
A cell with a window.
Music/a movie up to once a month.
Educational projects. This would be of their own choosing but would not grant them any creditation from an outside body, nor any publishing/publicity rights. It would entitle them to a table, pen and paper in their cell for the duration of the project, and they would be able to take books into their cell from the library.

d) Testing.
They should receive psychological profiling. For the the first few months they should receive analysis, including psychoanalysis and analysis of brain chemical levels, etc, the whole gamut every day. This would be compulsory, but only for the first six months (unless the psychologist believes it would be more benefit to society to continue), so it would end soon enough to reduce the risk of significant institionalization factors creeping into the analysis, and also to reduce the risk of it becoming useful or entertaining to the prisoner.

This would be expensive, but the rest of the sentence would be saving a lot of money on food etc.

e) Visits.
They should get no visits from their own family. They should be allowed to send one letter to their family a month, but should only be allowed to read replies once every six months.
The families of the victim should be allowed to visit the murderer whenever they want to. Of course they should receive counselling.

f) They should be allowed to receive a religious service once every two months or so.




The result: No danger to the public. No life. No death.
Long, dark pleasureless nights. No satisfaction of work. No satisfaction from family. No religious freedom. No comfort from anyone. Little human contact. No satisfaction in being able to sound off to anyone, or produce anything for anyone.
Productive use to society through labour. Possible benefit to society through social, psychological testing.
No recidivism. No redemption. No release (through parole or death).
A very, very, long, slow realisation of the consequences of your actions.




Death is a release. It is also a waste of potential socio-economic gain. So I say no to capital punishment.

Just my opinion of course.

[Ben Gash]

Fanaticism? Not me. Just responding to some unfair criticism from someone who has an uncanny ability to ignore 99.9% of what I've said while honing in on 0.1% as if it was the main thrust of my posts. Not surprising that he felt that I kept changing my mind, he can't have read most of what I said.

[dwid]

Serpent:

Any complete fukwad can pull a trigger. Any brain dead, angry little pr!ck can buy a gun on the street and kill someone with it.

This line of thinking enrages me. The fact that it is predicated on a total failure to understand the subtleties of handling firearms is minor in light of the fact that it suggests that the only people with a right to defend themselves are those physically able to engage in a high level of training, not to mention those with access to or who can afford such training.

It's the worst kind of elitism, bordering on social darwinism.

[Serpent]

Originally posted by Black Jack
Serpent- So you are saying a person has to have used deadly force to be allowed to speak on it.


No, that's not what I'm saying. I just asked if you had. I wondered if all your posturing was purely intellectual or not.



My uncle was murdered in Dallas when a burglar broke into his home and beat him near death and set him on fire. This happened only a mere six years ago. It is all I need on the subject. You can keep your fantasy's and liberal claptrap.


I'm sorry for your loss. This does go some way to explaining your attitude, however.

As Ben said, you are a very angry person. I hope you find some peace in yourself one day. Railing against societies scumbags might not help in the long run. Anyway, I'll keep my "liberal claptrap" o myself from now on as it will no doubt only wind you up further.

[Serpent]

Originally posted by dwid
Serpent:

This line of thinking enrages me. The fact that it is predicated on a total failure to understand the subtleties of handling firearms is minor in light of the fact that it suggests that the only people with a right to defend themselves are those physically able to engage in a high level of training, not to mention those with access to or who can afford such training.

It's the worst kind of elitism, bordering on social darwinism.

You're contradicting yourself.

the subtleties of handling firearms

suggests that the only people with a right to defend themselves are those physically able to engage in a high level of training

You're saying that it takes training to use a firearm and then accusing me of claiming that only those with training have a right to self-defence.

If you think that a person needs a lot of training to kill someone with a gun, then you're the one that's being elitist. Sure, they may not be good at it and they may miss at anything over three feet away, but that is somewhat beside the point.

[Black Jack]

I love that when a person defends his position he is termed angery because he simply will not role over and accept the other persons position.

Whatever:rolleyes:

Actually I am a pretty nice and peacefull gent.

Serpent- You misread to much into that post. I believe that is not what he is saying at all. Subtleties does not automatically mean having a masters rank as a shooter and spending years on years of tactical training and diving into the martial craft of firearms. At least not in comparisson to the believe that only people who have the money and access to attain a certain level of empty hand training are only entitled to defend themselves.

Meaning, the poor, the handicap, the elder, actually anyone who falls into a weaker situation. Is firearms training needed? I would say if you want to become proficient and excell in its use than of course, training goes a long way than just target shooting, it goes into the element of gun safety, and your responsibilites as a gun owner. But as you said any f@ckwad can pick up a gun and kill some body and that in a nutshell is what makes it the ultimate tool for self defense. The fact that ANYBODY can use it. Which means anybody in a wheelchair, any women, any man, any elderly person.....ANYBODY and that is fact that makes it so vital.

You are a gun bigot. Your viewpoints make you a person who believes themselves to be a elitist and that only the select few should have the right be armed to protect themselves. Which in essence makes you anti-self defense and anti-rights.

If you claim to be a martial artist how can you be anti-self defense at the same time?

That is the real question and I have yet to ever receive a real answer on the subject from the anti-self defense crowd that has made a lick of sense.

[Serpent]

Not at all.

I don't think it's elitist. I think everybody should learn self defence. I think everybody should take classes in how to defend themselves with the style/techniques that best suit them. They should also learn about de-escalation techniques and everything that goes into the whole conflict resolution thing. If everyone had some knowledge of how to defend themselves, then a lot less people would be messed with.

If a person is completely unable to learn self-defence due to a physical or age related issue then sure, perhaps a gun is a good option. But there are other options that are far less deadly and volatile, such as Mace type sprays and the like. After all, old people driving cars can be deadly enough. Old people with guns?! *shudder*

(BlackJack, calm down. That last bit was a joke.)

Also, you confirm that some kind of training is needed to be safe with a gun, yet you agree that any fukwad can use one to kill someone. My point exactly. Equally, you don't have to be a martial arts master to defend yourself. Some basics of self-defence, practised a decent amount, will usually serve you right in the majority of dodgy situations you might find yourself in. Also, the added confidence of knowing that you have a bit of self-defence knowledge would make you less of a victim.

There is really nothing like the necessity for guns that so many of you seem to think there is. It's becoming culturally ingrained, which is rather frightening and sad.



If you claim to be a martial artist how can you be anti-self defense at the same time?


This is possibly the most non-sensical thing you have said yet, which is some going given your track record thus far.

But I'm just full of "liberal claptrap" in your mind, so I doubt you'll give any of what I've said any serious thought at all.

[Laughing Cow]

Something that I learned.

Guns are OFFENSIVE Weapons NOT defensive, they are also a distance weapon.

In many of not most attack situations you cannot bring a gun to bear due to circumstances.
i.e.:
1.) Old Lady carrying the gun in her Handbag,
2.) Can't draw as the movement will result in an atack by the mugger
3.) etc.

IMNSHO, guns are overrated as a self-defense weapon.

Yes, anybody can pick up a gun and use it, just the same they could pick up a sword and chop away.

Yet, we ban Swords, MA weapons and similar but guns are readily available.

Personally, if I would want to kill someone, I would rather use a crossbow than a Gun.
Near silent, legal and just as deadly if not more so with the right tip on it.

Feel free to fire away, got my Thai Bullet proof vest on.

Better, lighter and cheaper than kevlar, plus based on a concept that dates back to the Mongol warriors.

Seeya,

[Black Jack]

Just because you are to tarded to understand the question is not my fault pal.

It's pretty easy to get when your head is not up in the clouds. If a person is the sort who wishes to ban the public right to own and carry firearms than that person is anti-self defense. It can not be put any more simple for you. You are against the use of a firearm as a self defense tool. You are for disarming law abiding citizens and leaving only the criminals to have access to firearms which means you are taking away one of their tools for protection.

Because of ******* viewpoints like this you might of seen these cases end up a lot different.

http://fox40.trb.com/news/ktxl-030503shooting,0,1658788.story?coll=ktxl

http://www.clickondetroit.com/detnews/stories/news-2003171200302251

http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/local_news/article/0,1406,KNS_347_1759


It's ok if you don't want to accept reality. Kids do the same thing.

Cow- You should do some research on the topic before writing.

Some points:

1. A gun can be both a defensive weapon and a offensive weapon. It is all about the case at hand. Take into account the cases above or any other where a person uses a firearm to DEFEND themselves.

The key word here is DEFEND.

2. Guns are not just distance weapons. A good number of civilan firearm situations are fought out within 7 feet or so. Which means close quater shooting is at hand. There are many tactical training schools, instructors and certain systems like point shooting which stress this aspect of real world self defense.

3. You do not know when you can or can not get a weapon. It is all based on the individual case. I have one above where the defender pulled his weapon and shot the attacker just fine. Do you have any specific data to back up this often re-used comment? Your point is valid on weapons though, with any weapon its all about awareness and your ability to deploy.

4. That is your opinion and we all have one. I believe the complete and utter opposite. They are not rated high enough in many traditional martial art schools. Why would they....it ruins the mysticism.

5. Swords and ma weapons are not banned where I live. I am given free choice as to what I purchase.

6. This one is a hoot. Both firearms and crossbows are legal instruments untell you kill somebody with them. If you can buy a firearm it's legal. Oh...ever heard of silencers?

7. This one is better. Crossbows are more deadly than a gun?????? Where do you get that bogus info from?? Come on dude you pulled that one right out of yer arse.....crossbow bolt vrs .45. Yea that blends. I see military units and cops the world over arming themselves with crossbows....to keep up with the crossbow bad guy situation.....where do you live....Lankmar or Grayhawk?

8. Thai bullet proof vest. Was that a joke.

[Serpent]

Originally posted by Black Jack
Just because you are to tarded to understand the question is not my fault pal.

It's pretty easy to get when your head is not up in the clouds. If a person is the sort who wishes to ban the public right to own and carry firearms than that person is anti-self defense. It can not be put any more simple for you. You are against the use of a firearm as a self defense tool. You are for disarming law abiding citizens and leaving only the criminals to have access to firearms which means you are taking away one of their tools for protection.


This is completely wrong, particularly the bit in bold. You're laying your own blinkered perception and claiming it applies to everyone.

Look at countries where firearms are illegal. How come everyone isn't dead at the hands of thousands of criminals with guns?

:rolleyes:

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Black Jack

Some points:

1. A gun can be both a defensive weapon and a offensive weapon. It is all about the case at hand. Take into account the cases above or any other where a person uses a firearm to DEFEND themselves.

The key word here is DEFEND.


Wonder why it than classed as an offensive weapon??

BTW, I can DEFEND myself with ANYTHING, does that make it a DEFENSIVE weapon??



2. Guns are not just distance weapons. A good number of civilan firearm situations are fought out within 7 feet or so. Which means close quater shooting is at hand. There are many tactical training schools, instructors and certain systems like point shooting which stress this aspect of real world self defense.


Sorry, 7 feet in my book is beyond touching range and thus considered medium distance range.



4. That is your opinion and we all have one. I believe the complete and utter opposite. They are not rated high enough in many traditional martial art schools. Why would they....it ruins the mysticism.


As an ex-gun owner I talk from some experience. I was involved in a mugging where if i carried a gun I wouldn't be here anymore.
As the muggers were after guns too and shot ANYBODY they mugged that carried.

The world is bigger than your little corner and often way nastier.



5. Swords and ma weapons are not banned where I live. I am given free choice as to what I purchase.
[QUOTE]

Meaning what??
Your locality is not everybodies locality.

[quote]
6. This one is a hoot. Both firearms and crossbows are legal instruments untell you kill somebody with them. If you can buy a firearm it's legal. Oh...ever heard of silencers?


Ain't sliencers illegal and outlawed in some states??



7. This one is better. Crossbows are more deadly than a gun?????? Where do you get that bogus info from?? Come on dude you pulled that one right out of yer arse.....crossbow bolt vrs .45. Yea that blends. I see military units and cops the world over arming themselves with crossbows....to keep up with the crossbow bad guy situation.....where do you live....Lankmar or Grayhawk?
[/B/]

Come crossbow hunting with me and it might change your Opinion.
Ever heard of "Flesh tearer" tips designed to bring down a 350kg Wild Boar or similar.

But be warned we shoot from about 40~50 yards.

BTW, check up on British special forces during WW II and their uses of Cross-bows.


[b]
8. Thai bullet proof vest. Was that a joke.

Obvsiously you are not up on current trends, when it comes down to protective gear.
:)

Cheers.

[Black Jack]

I can tell this is over because you are now not even trying to make a valid counterpoint plus you are attempting to get me into a circular arguement on facts that you have not checked into yourself.

If you want to take a look at something interesting take a look at the rising crime in those countries in which the government deemed there citizens to stupid to own firearms.

My points as before are still clear. Those perceptions stand firm and they don't change.

Take a look at the cases above, links should be fixed now, where a firearm was used to defend oneself from a attacker, if one was to follow some of emotional content around here, that guy would of had to ward off empty handed a guy with a lead pipe intent on bashing his head in, from a different view put into that victims place your grandmother or your wife or if you are honest even yourself, picture them going mano-a-mano with a bar swinging psycho, you are just jerking yourself around if you think going that route is the right way.

You said you were against guns. That means anti-self defense. If the anti-rights crowd could have its way then that dude would of had to go mano a mano, which means a much higher chance of getting crippled, maimed or killed, instead of just pulling his weapon and putting him down.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Black Jack

You said you were against guns. That means anti-self defense.
Make you a deal.

You meet me and attack me and see HOW anti-self defense I am.

Simply, because I don't rely on a gun to defend myself DOES NOT mean that I am anti-self defense.

Want to know the REAL reason why I don't own a Gun, because they were too much hassle & uncomfortable for me and I found that with my lifestyle it was overkill.

I am NOT against gun, just don't believe the hype that they are the best Self-Defense weapon.

BTW, rather than citing those sources as the final answer/solution, ask yourself if it would have ended differently if there was no gun.

Have a nice day.

P.S.: I have given up trying to argue with you it is pointless and a waste of time, like with so many other posters here.

[Laughing Cow]

Quote from a friend (Ex-Special Ops):

"Large Calibers and large clips are for people that can't shoot properly."

;)

[Black Jack]

Laughing Cow- Your answers make as much sense as Micheal Jackson dangling his baby over a railing.

You also seem to lack the ability to comprehend. It is either that or you like manipulating my questions or statements into something different than what was posted. I could show examples on your last two posts but why bother as I am almost certain you have some sort of mental condition.

I am not going to go wading through your bizzare come-backs to my questions or points. Questions btw you never answered. But I will point out one of the many made up tidbits.

If you consider 7 feet to be medium distance and beyond touching range than you must either be in a wheelchair or just be obese. I guess your ex-speacial op buddy never told you of the LEO 21 foot rule. Using standard draw and sighted fire techniques it is the minimum distance believed necessary to survive a edged weapon attack with a armed response.

A study conducted from 1995 to 1997 for the American Society of Law Enforcement Training titled "Is 21 feet Enough" from the June 1998 issue of the Law Enforcement Trainer showcases this in great detail. Which is why it is important to understand that 7 feet in not medium distance. :rolleyes:

That is what point/instinct shooting and contact shoots are for.

I can't pass this up. Here is another one and a good example of your selective reading. I never said because you don't own a gun or rely on a gun to defend yourself you are anti-self defense. I said that if you are against an armed citizenry like some of the gun bigots hear than you are part of the anti-self defense movement. Just to make sure those reading understand what I mean so THEY do not confuse themselves as you seem to have done.

Anti-Self Defense Movement-It is the belief that people have little or no right to defend themselves if attacked by the use of a firearm or other politicaly incorrect deemed weapon because social order may only be imposed by an authority.

If you are against the public ownership of firearms, the right to carry, the bill of rights, then you believe in anti-self defense, you think their is no difference between criminals and a armed citizenry.

Last.....why don't YOU ask yourself how those situations would of ended up different if those victims did not have the right to carry. Reality is already in my corner as those cases are real and not made up garbage. My answer is simple. Instead of unharmed victims and dead criminals you might be seeing dead victims and unharmed criminals.

[BeiTangLang]

http://www.dispatch.co.za/1999/09/16/easterncape/AAATTACK.HTM

http://www.fightthebias.com/Resources/gundebate/britain&guns.htm

When firearms are banned, the only people having them will be crimials.

Sooner than later, the rest of the world could be seeing this type sensario. I'd rather have, than have-not.

[yenhoi]

How, pray tell, is any "weapon" defensive in anyway what-so-ever?

Patriot missles (etc) are exempt.

[yenhoi]

Also, as "martial artists", how do you expect to 'deal' with a firearm "in the street" if you dont address the problem in your kwoon first?

:confused:

[BeiTangLang]

Originally posted by yenhoi
How, pray tell, is any "weapon" defensive in anyway what-so-ever?

Patriot missles (etc) are exempt.

What is "self-defence"? If someone attacks you with the threat of killing you, you defend yourself in a likewise fashion.
I would not be inviting hostiles into my house just to blow them away, that would be offensive. But if he breaks into my house with ill intent, whatever force I use to defend my family would be defensive. A defensive shotgun works well for this.

If someone were to attack me outside of my home & I fear for my life (or my families lives), whatever I use to defend myself would be defensive. Aside from martial arts training (which most people _DO NOT HAVE_), a firearm is a _VERY GOOD_ Defence ( I advocate firearms training of course). With few acceptions depending upon the ammo used I'd reccomend no less than a .380 or a 9mm. Prefferably .40 or .45 caliber.

Those are just two instances where one can see a firearm being used as a self defednce tool.

Your prayer has been answered.

[BeiTangLang]

Originally posted by yenhoi
Also, as "martial artists", how do you expect to 'deal' with a firearm "in the street" if you dont address the problem in your kwoon first?

:confused:

As a martial artist, I am trained in how to deal with the problem.
Once again, most people are not trained whatsoever in martial arts.

Dealing with an armed attacker at medium range is simple(unless you already have your weapon at ready), give them what they want. Close range depending on the circumstances you either give them what they want or if the opportunity arises, kick their rears & that their gun away. At longer range, get a shot off first & do not miss.
These senarios of course will differ depending upon the circumstances at the time & your location at the time.

Besides that, what would make you think that kwoons do not address this issue??

[yenhoi]

The difference between a offensive shotgun and a defensive shotgun is the person pulling the trigger. Nothing else.

Weapons are for hurting people.


Besides that, what would make you think that kwoons do not address this issue??

This thread, mainly.

If you do not train specifically with firearms in your kwoon or what not, then you are not prepared to deal with firearms anywhere else. Same with a knife, a sword, a stick, a belt, or a fist or leg.

:eek:

[Serpent]

Originally posted by Black Jack
If you want to take a look at something interesting take a look at the rising crime in those countries in which the government deemed there citizens to stupid to own firearms.


OK, well let's look at Australia. (Ignoring your ignorant comment about being "to[sic] stupid to own firearms".)

From here: (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2002/facts_and_figures_2002.pdf)



Homicide involving firearms as a percentage of total homicide:

1915 - 30%
2001 - 18%

"The percentage of homicides committed with a firearm continued its declining trend since 1969. In 2001, 16% of homicides involved firearms. The figure was 18% in 2000."


While crime may well be on the increase due to a large number of factors, as it is in most developed and undeveloped nations, we're looking at gun ownership here.

I don't really think you will understand this post at all, BlackJack, but it's worth a try. If you still refuse to see another viewpoint, then I'm out. Someone else can explain it to you.

[Laughing Cow]

Serpent.

IMHO, you are wasting your time.

BJ like many other here will never concede to others viewpoints or data.

We will be told that the facts are not true, that our sources are shoddy, etc.

And in the end will will only be labeled as trolls, anti-US, anti-freedom, etc.

Just my thoughts naturally.

[Serpent]

Yeah, I agree.

But I am anti-US! ;)

[Laughing Cow]

I am anti-US Administration and People that been brainwashed to think that they are the best and greatest and got it all.

:p :p

People I hate the most are fanatics, no matter what shape, size or colour they come in nor does it matter what they are fanatic about (politics, religion, human rights, animal rights, etc.)

[Serpent]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow
I am anti-US Administration and People that been brainwashed to think that they are the best and greatest and got it all.

:p :p

People I hate the most are fanatics, no matter what shape, size or colour they come in nor does it matter what they are fanatic about (politics, religion, human rights, animal rights, etc.)

I agree completely. I am anti-US, but not necessarily anti-American people. I'll judge each person on their merits as an individual, and I'd expect everybody else to judge me similarly. Unfortunately, a lot of American people embody the arrogant, ignorant, superior attitude that I hate so much from the US administration.

And talking of fanatics (I agree with you there too), have you ever noticed how so many Americans are so against "religious fundamentalists" when so many of them are the most fundamentalist Christians you could imagine?

Anyway, this thread is drifting here and I'm sure eveyone knows this stuff about us (certainly about me!) already.

[Merryprankster]

People I hate the most are fanatics, no matter what shape, size or colour they come in nor does it matter what they are fanatic about (politics, religion, human rights, animal rights, etc.)

I ran the above through the LC-English translator at AltaVista. --

"People I hate most are those on the other side of the political spectrum who won't agree with me, no matter what shape, size or colour they come in, nor does it matter what they disagree with me about (politics, religion, human rights, animal rights, etc."


LC Wrote

Just my thoughts naturally.

Which is exactly why we only take them as opinion, as opposed to the unvarnished truth, no matter how many opinion columns, pundits, or agenda websites you show us links to as "information," on the subject--vice one side of the story. Something you seem to be perpetually annoyed by.

[yenhoi]

LC

:rolleyes:

Talk about ROTFLMAO. Now I am of the opinion that LC is a huge conglomeration of randoms with a hive mind they call the cow.(Or some such... :) )

most fundamentalist Christians you could imagine?

Wouldent this more likely apply to the european warmongers who attempted to take over the middle east et all several times hundreds of years ago?

Surely American fundamentalist Christians are not that bad, yet.

Give us a chance man, whats the use of running the race if you dont even get tired?


:confused: :confused: :confused:

[Laughing Cow]

MP & Yenhoi.

Here is something for you guys:

Miaaoowww (http://www.e-budo.com/vbulletin/attachment.php?s=&postid=171195)

[dezhen2001]

ROFLMAO at that pic! :D

dawood

[Merryprankster]

I love cats.

[Serpent]

I'm a dog man, through and through. I always used to hate cats. Then, several years ago, I was living in a share house and a stray old mog decided to adopt us. At first I was a bit p!ssed about it, but as time went by I began to develop a new found respect for cats. They are certainly interesting characters and can be right bloody funny sometimes.

For a real laugh, sticka small Post-It note to a cat's paw. Hilarious! ;)

[dezhen2001]

u nasty man! :D

dawood

[yenhoi]

Lol, how cute.

:D