Death Penalties - Does It Deter Crime?

[Isaac-Saxxon]

I say outlaw Banjos Yep I read where a guy used not one but two different Banjos go beat his wife to death. If there were no Banjos then the murder rate would go down

[BrainSmashR]

Originally Posted by Al Swearengen

Domestic disputes usually occur at a couple's or family's home, where there are all sorts of household objects that can be used as weapons

Hey, I know lot's of women that can outrun a knife wielding maniac, not one that can outrun a bullet.

...anythin from ash trays to guitar strings, bicycle chains, skillets, bug spray, screw drivers, golf clubs, liquor bottles, drain cleaner, pencils, keys, clothin irons, bowlin trophys, dogs, kitchen knives, baseball bats, compound bows, rat poison, panty hose, frozen leg-o-lamb and on and on and on...all have been used to kill, cripple, or maim!

but not one specifically designed to kill, like a gun for instance. Each and every one of those "weapons" you mentioned requires significantly more effort then pulling a finger in order to kill someone.

Besides, you're talkin about people who physically abuse those they supposedly love...irrational, violent people. If somebody's gonna cross that line, they're gonna cross it regardless of their proximity to a gun.

If that's true, then how come every domestic dispute doesn't result in a murder?

My hypothesis is that every beating (not a slap or kick in the family jewels)) would have resulted in murder had the perp actually had a murder weapon within his immediate proximity....say a gun in his pocket for instance.

Remember guy, I'm relating personal experience here, not just an opinion. One of my X girlfriends was murdered and it is believed believed raped as well (her clothes were cut rather than "removed" as would be the case in the "alleged" consensual sex). I fully believe, due to my own experiences with orgasm, that this murder would not have taken place if the guy didn't have a gun. The rape probably wouldn't have either because a 21 year old 5'9" 140lbs woman isn't exactly a push-over either.

Fortunately, the majority of heated family arguments do not escalate to broken bones and new orifices. For most folks, yellin, cussin, and slammin doors is about as bad as it gets.

Yeah, that's really nice, but last time I checked, slamming doors wasn't a punishable offense, and I'd even go as far as to say the police have never responded to a simple "door slamming" call.

I realize those are probably the most common types of family fights, but that hardly qualifies as spousal abuse, or any other punishable crime that could result from a domestic dispute....and those are the cases I'm referring to. Not the guy in the normal, stable relationship who gets pissed off and simply slams the door on his way out, I'm talking about the guy who catches his wife out on a date with her lover, and the guy who "thinks" something is going on because his wife spent to much time at Wal-Mart.

Demonizin guns is just the sort of knee-jerk scare-tactic the gun-control maggots typically use to advance their agenda. They blame the weapon, not the criminal that wields it! And if that criminal's chosen weapon just happens to be a gun? Well we've all seen how effective the laws are at preventin that, right? So maybe if more of the rational, sane, law-abidin folks at the theater, grocery store, cafe, post office or where-ever are armed when the disturbed mad-at-the-world homicidal loser starts randomly shootin people...well maybe there'll only be two deaths before its over includin the afore-mentioned murderous bag-o-schit instead of ten, twenty or thirty innocents whose final, fatal mistake was that they failed to arm themselves.

Great story, but HISTORY tells a rather different version. Lot's of people got shot for no reason what so ever in the wild west when everyone was packing heat. And think about all the gangbangers who hit 4 kids trying to get 1 person. You want EVERYONE in that crowd to just start shooting back at whoever they think shot first?

Sorry, in my opinion, that's a terrible idea on so many levels that I'm not even really sure where to begin citing examples.

To my way of thinkin, its pretty cut and dried...there are still more honest, hard workin taxpayers (good guys) on the street than killers, robbers, rapists, muggers, whatever...the bad guys'll always be the minority. So more guns on the street equals safer streets IMHO.

That's assuming everyone carrying a gun operates with a cool head while under fire. A pretty unreasonable assumption, if you ask me, considering the majority of "good guys" also have 0 experience being shot AT.

Its nice to be in general agreement on the issue.

Yes it would be, but I believe society as a whole is safer under our current system with firearms only being carried in public by authorized personal and those with special permission in the form of a permit.

So let me ask you this, since we're on the subject. Every adult American, not previously convicted of a felony, has a Constitutional right to own a gun if they so choose, AND the right to seek a permit allowing them to carry said weapon in public as long as they meet all qualifications and complete all tasks.

Are you implying that we should eliminate said tasks and qualifications?

I mean, exactly how do you intend to put a gun in the hands of more citizens when every citizen already posseses, not just a right, but a Constitutionally protected right, to bare arms?

[joepole]

>our current system with firearms only being carried in public by authorized personal and those with special permission in the form of a permit.

That is not the current system. Firearms are legally allowed to be carried in public (except specifically designated areas like schools, courthouses, airports, etc.) by anybody that's not otherwise from owning a firearm (convicted felons, people with restraining orders, etc.). That is what is allowed. What actually happens is that firearms are carried in public by anyone that wants to, regardless of whether or not it's legal.

[Al Swearengen]

Yes, I do believe that people who are issued CWP's should have to undergo minimal trainin, and it so happens that is a pre-requisite. Handguns are no more difficult to operate than powertools. Applicants are instructed on the basic rules of gun safety, familiarized with the two basic types of handgun, briefed on the rules of deadly force and the restrictions on when and where they may legally carry their guns, and given a token amount of range time to actually fire their guns. Most firearms instructors will also advise that permit holders practice regularly and what types of ammo are suitable for defensive purposes...and thats about it. Its not rocket science, and the average citizen does not require more advanced trainin. Thats good enough for me!

The people who actually apply for and and are granted permits are honest, law-abidin, hard-workin folks who cherish their Second Amendment Rights and universally reject the culture of victimhood and helplessness that society pushes. They understand how foolhardy it is to rely on the police for protection from the criminal element, and that the personal safety of their families and loved ones ultimately rests with themselves.

[joepole]

I wonder what % of concealed weapons are carried by actual permit-holders. I'd guess around 10%.

I wonder what % of concealed weapons are carried by people who aren't even legally allowed to own a gun. Probably upwards of 50%.

[Al Swearengen]

Originally Posted by joepole

I wonder what % of concealed weapons are carried by actual permit-holders. I'd guess around 10%.

I wonder what % of concealed weapons are carried by people who aren't even legally allowed to own a gun. Probably upwards of 50%.

Those are excellent questions, Joe. And a bit of a quandry, as there are many otherwise law-abidin people who carry concealed weapons sans permits. These are solid citizens who would easily qualify for the permits if they applied for them, but for whatever reason (philosophical objections, expense, hassle, etc) believe they do not need permission to exercise rights that are theirs to begin with. Much as I personally agree with their sentiments, I nevertheless feel its just plain stupid not to obtain the permit. Unfortunately, the law, where enforced to the letter, considers this segment of gun-toters to be criminals. Then we have those who possess and carry concealed weapons that would not qualify for the permits...the convicted criminals or others who do not meet the qualifications.

[BrainSmashR]

Originally Posted by joepole

>our current system with firearms only being carried in public by authorized personal and those with special permission in the form of a permit.

That is not the current system. Firearms are legally allowed to be carried in public (except specifically designated areas like schools, courthouses, airports, etc.) by anybody that's not otherwise from owning a firearm (convicted felons, people with restraining orders, etc.). That is what is allowed. What actually happens is that firearms are carried in public by anyone that wants to, regardless of whether or not it's legal.

O I'm sorry, did I forget to put you back on ignore for arguing moot points?

[BrainSmashR]

Originally Posted by Al Swearengen

Yes, I do believe that people who are issued CWP's should have to undergo minimal trainin, and it so happens that is a pre-requisite. Handguns are no more difficult to operate than powertools. Applicants are instructed on the basic rules of gun safety, familiarized with the two basic types of handgun, briefed on the rules of deadly force and the restrictions on when and where they may legally carry their guns, and given a token amount of range time to actually fire their guns. Most firearms instructors will also advise that permit holders practice regularly and what types of ammo are suitable for defensive purposes...and thats about it. Its not rocket science, and the average citizen does not require more advanced trainin. Thats good enough for me!

The people who actually apply for and and are granted permits are honest, law-abidin, hard-workin folks who cherish their Second Amendment Rights and universally reject the culture of victimhood and helplessness that society pushes. They understand how foolhardy it is to rely on the police for protection from the criminal element, and that the personal safety of their families and loved ones ultimately rests with themselves.

and everything that you have just stated is already perfectly legal except the majority of American's aren't scared of being victimized every time they step out the door.

I guess the only problem I have here is that there's really nothing preventing your utopia from actually existing other than the majority of Americans lacking the desire or the fear required for an average citizen to carry a gun in public

[joepole]

>O I'm sorry, did I forget to put you back on ignore for arguing moot points?

No, you forgot to put me back on ignore for correcting you.

[Isaac-Saxxon]

Originally Posted by joepole

>O I'm sorry, did I forget to put you back on ignore for arguing moot points?

No, you forgot to put me back on ignore for correcting you.

joepole I got to hand it to you everywhere he turns you are standing there with the correct answer. I wish he would put this web sit on his ignore list and keep it there. Each and every time he post he is letting everyone see just what a paper tiger he really is.

[BrainSmashR]

LAF

and there you are to pat him on the butt cuz you "think" he's doing a good job too.








BTW, we all know criminals break the law....no need to clarify that one for us peons, Einstein.