NationStates Jolt Archive

Due to the nature of this topic I'm going to lay some ground rules first. Please be serious, we are talking about the lives of the the victims and convicted. Respect the opinions of other, even if you do not agree with them acknowledge their right to hold them. Debating is fine, but remain calm. If you become emotional or offended take and break and then reply. No flamming or spamming. And last but not least, no person attacks

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On average one (1) out of every seven (7) people are found innocent of capital murder while awaiting execution. That is one (1) out of every seven (7) inmates on deathrow are found to be innocent. Now if you had an Airline inwhich one (1) out of every seven (7) planes crashed, would you fly it?

This is not a war. There is no acceptable rate of loss, we are talking about killing innocent people. We are talking about justice failing. Surely the death of one innocent person negates any benifit gained from the deaths of the guilty.

Even ignoring the whether it is ever right to take another human biengs life, the fact that we could be executing innocent people has to make us think that perhaps this is not the best system.

Please note the figures quoted at the start are those provided by the Innocene Program as those cleared by DNA evidence. Just think how many innocent people are on deathrow or in prision in cases where there is no DNA evidence at all. Especially from times when we did not use DNA evidence and cases were built on very much less.

Due to the nature of this topic I'm going to lay some ground rules first. Please be serious, we are talking about the lives of the the victims and convicted. Respect the opinions of other, even if you do not agree with them acknowledge their right to hold them. Debating is fine, but remain calm. If you become emotional or offended take and break and then reply. No flamming or spamming. And last but not least, no person attacks


Firstly, thanks for this, it's nice to see someone setting up a proper debate forum for once and I hope (though I have to say I'm not that confident) that people will respect this basic ground rules that make up the necessary structure.

If I were to have started this argument off I suspect my arguements would have run pretty much along the lines of yours Rotovia so I won't bother repeating what you've said. Only one thing I'd add to that;

As a Christian I believe that God has the only authority to decide when we die, we are not here to ultimately judge others. I accept that there is a need for a criminal justice system but we have no right to take another person's life.

I have always wondered why it is that the US seems to have a far higher rate of capital punishment than anywhere else in the world.

I am Australian. We have not had the death penalty for a considerable time (I think late '60s). We still have crime, of course, but I really do not believe we have more crime than we would if we still had the death penalty.

I also do not understand why the US seems to think that the death penalty works.

In England of 17th and 18th century, the death penalty was common for theft. It did not reduce the crime rate.

Sorry, dp.
Damn derver.

The death penalty does not deter crime, unless an armed citizen dispences it on the spot. The death penalty only prevents future crimes being committed by the same person. When you look at it this way, the criminal is being executed for crimes that he has not yet comiited. I myself have wanted to kill certain persons, therefore I am as guilty of the crime that a criminal has been executed for.

Just an interesting Idea.

Jim

I always viewed the death penalty as a way to give the offender the supreme punishment, as opposed to a deterrant.

I always viewed the death penalty as a way to give the offender the supreme punishment, as opposed to a deterrant.

I always viewed the death penalty as a way to give the offender the supreme punishment, as opposed to a deterrant.

Indeed, it is just government endorsed revenge.
An eye for an eye, a life for a life.
It is stupid, archaic, pointless, and has no place in civilised society.

I have always thought life imprsinment to be far worse than the death penalty.....though the death penalty does save the overnement money.

Beyond the issue that it is impossible to right the wrong of a death penalty if the person is subsequenty found to be innocent, I've just always found it hipocritical to use the argument that "killing is wrong! So we're gonna kill you!"

And for those that call it a deterent, statistics just don't back that up. I do not believe that murder rates have ever fallen as a result of this sentancing possibility.

That being said, I would have to admit that if someone were to rape and murder my child - I would want that person dead!! And I'd want to be the one doing it. However the government should not be in the business of revenge.

I want my government to set a higher moral bar.

-Z-

I always viewed the death penalty as a way to give the offender the supreme punishment, as opposed to a deterrant.

Indeed, it is just government endorsed revenge.
An eye for an eye, a life for a life.
It is stupid, archaic, pointless, and has no place in civilised society.

The place in modern (note I did not say civilized) society, of vengeance, should be in the hands of the wronged. Hence: the victim or their family. I personnaly believe that if everyone was armed then there would be far less crime through both deterence and attrition.


http://www.angelfire.com/tx6/jimp/images/jim1004a.jpg
Ave Satanis!
Rege Satanis!
Hail Satan!

Big Jim P!
SC!

http://www.magickalshadow.com/daca/

http://www.shelterfordarkness.com/dadv/index.html

But still, I believe that the death penalty should be abolished. As has been said, a life prison sentence is far worse than the death penalty could ever hope to be.

Gives the offender time to mull over his crimes and be consumed by guilt.

Gives the innocent time to have his name cleared.

I always viewed the death penalty as a way to give the offender the supreme punishment, as opposed to a deterrant.

Indeed, it is just government endorsed revenge.
An eye for an eye, a life for a life.
It is stupid, archaic, pointless, and has no place in civilised society.

The place in modern (note I did not say civilized) society, of vengeance, should be in the hands of the wronged. Hence: the victim or their family. I personnaly believe that if everyone was armed then there would be far less crime through both deterence and attrition.

This is just as ridiculous. People are stupid. This is a fact. You cannot expect everyone to be responsible with guns, and it is damned near impossible to only let the responsible get hold of guns.
As such, it is far better to ban guns outright. They have one purpose; to kill. You do not discourage killing by giving out the easiest means to kill there is.
Look at the murder rates per capita between the US and the UK. Australia and Switzerland.
Guns == bad. There are no two ways about it.

I always viewed the death penalty as a way to give the offender the supreme punishment, as opposed to a deterrant.But they aren't being punished. For punishment to work you have to learn a lesson from it.

Perhaps archaic, yes.....Before the coming of the European to my people, the Cherokee system of jurisprudence dictated that if one member of a clan killed another..that clan was honor-bound to apprehend the alleged killer and hand him/her over for justice. If the individual was indeed the guilty party, the victims family were allowed to exact revenge...justice... call it what you will...end result..that person no longer kills another individual..it is the ultimate punishment...

I take issue in that one must learn a lesson from punishment..but just before death you can definitely assume the killer learned his lesson.

Myrth..and when all the guns are taken away...what is to prevent a tyrant from assuming power?....Our 2nd Amendment ensures that all the other Amendments are kept safe...it also ensures that power remains with the people...and in need, every able-bodied man could be in the militia. Weapons also ensured meat on the table (I still hunt deer with a .50 Hawken replica black powder rifle).

Perhaps archaic, yes.....Before the coming of the European to my people, the Cherokee system of jurisprudence dictated that if one member of a clan killed another..that clan was honor-bound to apprehend the alleged killer and hand him/her over for justice. If the individual was indeed the guilty party, the victims family were allowed to exact revenge...justice... call it what you will...end result..that person no longer kills another individual..it is the ultimate punishment...

I take issue in that one must learn a lesson from punishment..but just before death you can definitely assume the killer learned his lesson.

Myrth..and when all the guns are taken away...what is to prevent a tyrant from assuming power?....Our 2nd Amendment ensures that all the other Amendments are kept safe...it also ensures that power remains with the people...and in need, every able-bodied man could be in the militia. Weapons also ensured meat on the table (I still hunt deer with a .50 Hawken replica black powder rifle).

How does the possession of firearms prevent the rise of a tyrant ?

Iraq obviously has plenty of weapons, yet Saddam reigned as a tyrant for twenty years.

Is every firearm owner a member of a militia? I think not.

Meat on the table? In Australia we have butchers and supermarkets.

There are people who kill others, people who enjoy doing so and will attempt to do so as long as they live. They're called psycopaths. You cannot rehabilitate them, you cannot deter them. They are literally born killers. You have no choice but kill a psycopath if you wish to protect the people around them.

Perhaps archaic, yes.....Before the coming of the European to my people, the Cherokee system of jurisprudence dictated that if one member of a clan killed another..that clan was honor-bound to apprehend the alleged killer and hand him/her over for justice. If the individual was indeed the guilty party, the victims family were allowed to exact revenge...justice... call it what you will...end result..that person no longer kills another individual..it is the ultimate punishment...

I take issue in that one must learn a lesson from punishment..but just before death you can definitely assume the killer learned his lesson.

Myrth..and when all the guns are taken away...what is to prevent a tyrant from assuming power?....Our 2nd Amendment ensures that all the other Amendments are kept safe...it also ensures that power remains with the people...and in need, every able-bodied man could be in the militia. Weapons also ensured meat on the table (I still hunt deer with a .50 Hawken replica black powder rifle).

How does the possession of firearms prevent the rise of a tyrant ?

Iraq obviously has plenty of weapons, yet Saddam reigned as a tyrant for twenty years.

Is every firearm owner a member of a militia? I think not.

Meat on the table? In Australia we have butchers and supermarkets.

Big difference...arab cultures have always preferred one-man autocratic, charismatic leaders...kings, caliphs...they fear and respect strong leaders who have traditionally stifled dissent thru the use of terror...in the US, the people have a history, governments change every 4 yrs....civilian oversite of the military, there are multitude of reasons..but I know that if a government rose to tyrany in this country we would not succumb as sheep to the slaughter, hence my right under the Constitution protects the very freedoms I have.

As for butchers and supermarkets...it's cheaper for me to kill my own venison, strip it, butcher it, and salt it myself....plus there is the satisfaction that I was the one who "brought home the bacon" so to speak.

Beyond the issue that it is impossible to right the wrong of a death penalty if the person is subsequenty found to be innocent, I've just always found it hipocritical to use the argument that "killing is wrong! So we're gonna kill you!"

And for those that call it a deterent, statistics just don't back that up. I do not believe that murder rates have ever fallen as a result of this sentancing possibility.

That being said, I would have to admit that if someone were to rape and murder my child - I would want that person dead!! And I'd want to be the one doing it. However the government should not be in the business of revenge.

I want my government to set a higher moral bar.

-Z-

Well, by that logic we couldn't imprison people either- forced detention is a crime when not used by the state. While I agree that as a deterent, capital punishment is basically ineffective, I don't necessarily see why in certain cases, from a moral perspective, the state execute certain people. By commiting any crime, you effectively put yourself outside the rights and obligations of society and government- you forfeit your rights to the state. Perhaps if a crime is grevious enough, and very clear cut in the sense that there was no chance for error whatsoever, the death penalty might be acceptable.

I have always thought life imprsinment to be far worse than the death penalty.....though the death penalty does save the overnement money.

Actually, it's the death penalty which costs more (http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/cost.html) than life imprisonment, in every state in the US. The average cost for a single death penalty case, from the point of arrest to execution, ranges from $1 million to $3 million, and can be as high as $7 million per case. However, cases resulting in life imprisonment average approximately $500,000, including the cost of incarceration.

There are reasons to give up the death penalty besides the economic ones. First, there in the inevibility of sending an innocent man to his death - one of the most famous being the Christy case in the 1940s.

It offers no more deterance than life inprisonment, mostly due to the fact that most criminals do not think they will get caught, otherwise they would not have committed the crime in the first place.

"An eye for an eye makes everyone blind" - Ghandi.

Perhaps archaic, yes.....Before the coming of the European to my people, the Cherokee system of jurisprudence dictated that if one member of a clan killed another..that clan was honor-bound to apprehend the alleged killer and hand him/her over for justice. If the individual was indeed the guilty party, the victims family were allowed to exact revenge...justice... call it what you will...end result..that person no longer kills another individual..it is the ultimate punishment...

I take issue in that one must learn a lesson from punishment..but just before death you can definitely assume the killer learned his lesson.

Myrth..and when all the guns are taken away...what is to prevent a tyrant from assuming power?....Our 2nd Amendment ensures that all the other Amendments are kept safe...it also ensures that power remains with the people...and in need, every able-bodied man could be in the militia. Weapons also ensured meat on the table (I still hunt deer with a .50 Hawken replica black powder rifle).

How does the possession of firearms prevent the rise of a tyrant ?

Iraq obviously has plenty of weapons, yet Saddam reigned as a tyrant for twenty years.

Is every firearm owner a member of a militia? I think not.

Meat on the table? In Australia we have butchers and supermarkets.

Big difference...arab cultures have always preferred one-man autocratic, charismatic leaders...kings, caliphs...they fear and respect strong leaders who have traditionally stifled dissent thru the use of terror...in the US, the people have a history, governments change every 4 yrs....civilian oversite of the military, there are multitude of reasons..but I know that if a government rose to tyrany in this country we would not succumb as sheep to the slaughter, hence my right under the Constitution protects the very freedoms I have.

As for butchers and supermarkets...it's cheaper for me to kill my own venison, strip it, butcher it, and salt it myself....plus there is the satisfaction that I was the one who "brought home the bacon" so to speak.

Guns for hunting, can't really argue with that.

But guns for keeping tyrants away? We in Australia plus other countries such as New Zealand, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, well, the rest of the western world, have managed to keep despots from power without having to arm ourselves. From what I see, it's more about voter participation then if I have a .22 in my closet.

Death Penality - We don't have it here and have a lower crime rate than the US. Might have something to do with gun control too.

I think much of it is to do with gun culture. Not the right to have one, but the necessity to educate all around it that it must not be used unless absolutely necessary, or hunting. "Absolutely necessary" should be explained clearly. The following seems to be a peculiar American belief. That if you have a gun, you are protecting democracy. It does not seem to me that having guns banned has made Britain a less democratic place. I also heard a statistic, as far as crime goes, is that, if you have a gun in your house, to protect from burglaries, you are more likely to be shot during a burglary, as the thief picked up your gun before you realised he was there. I've nothing against hunting, as long as its humane, and a bullet to the head, seems far more humane than traps and suchlike.

Abolish the death penalty:

The total number of murders in Canada in 2001 was 554, just eight more than in 2000, but 167 fewer than in 1975, the year before capital punishment was abolished.

Murder rates are generally at least three times lower in Canada than in the United States. In 1999, Canada's murder rate was 1.8 per 100,000 population. In that same year, the U.S. homicide rate was 5.7 per 100,000 population in the United States, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

personally, im in favor of the death penalty.

and with DNA testing, multi trials normally going as high as the Supreme Court of the said State, there is very little chance nowdays of an innocent being found guilty.

my reasons for it are this: if someone is stupid enough to kill someone then they deserve to die for that crime, UNLESS they are insane or it was in self-defence.

also, although it cost to damn much to execute someone due to the legal process, its still cheaper than us having to pay for their lifetime in prison. Id rather my tax dollars go to EDUCATION for kids than to helping a criminal whos going to spend their life in prison(i am for prison schooling, but not for those who are on life sentences or death row)

and finally, if someone knows they only have a short time to live, then there is a greater chance of them confessing and recieving Grace. if you ever seen the movie "Dead Man Walking" you know what im talking about. do you really think Penns character would have confessed if it was not for his impending death? Sometimes it takes extreme measures for folks to wake up and realize the severity of their actions and the price they have to pay.

whats most unfortanate about the whole thing is the victims family and loved ones have to go through all the trials, pardon requests, hearings, etc. lets not forgert: a criminal is one who has COMMITED a crime. I do not weep for them. I weep for the victem and their families. Of course, i feel bad for the criminal and wonder why they got themselves in that situation, but again, unless your insane, we were all born with the ability to respect others and their lives. If you loose that respect and take a life, you have no right to your own.

I have always thought life imprsinment to be far worse than the death penalty.....though the death penalty does save the overnement money.
Even though it executes innocent people huh?

There are people who kill others, people who enjoy doing so and will attempt to do so as long as they live. They're called psycopaths. You cannot rehabilitate them, you cannot deter them. They are literally born killers. You have no choice but kill a psycopath if you wish to protect the people around them.Yes you do. You lock them away for life, actual life.

Ask yourselves this about the death penalty, those who live where it hasn't been abolished:

Do you really want to live in a society that does not respect fundamental human rights?

I have always thought life imprsinment to be far worse than the death penalty.....though the death penalty does save the overnement money.
Even though it executes innocent people huh?


That is unfortunate.....I guess the government just has to spend the extra mnoey....

just flip the switch and get it over with

personally, im in favor of the death penalty.

and with DNA testing, multi trials normally going as high as the Supreme Court of the said State, there is very little chance nowdays of an innocent being found guilty.

my reasons for it are this: if someone is stupid enough to kill someone then they deserve to die for that crime, UNLESS they are insane or it was in self-defence.

also, although it cost to damn much to execute someone due to the legal process, its still cheaper than us having to pay for their lifetime in prison. Id rather my tax dollars go to EDUCATION for kids than to helping a criminal whos going to spend their life in prison(i am for prison schooling, but not for those who are on life sentences or death row)

and finally, if someone knows they only have a short time to live, then there is a greater chance of them confessing and recieving Grace. if you ever seen the movie "Dead Man Walking" you know what im talking about. do you really think Penns character would have confessed if it was not for his impending death? Sometimes it takes extreme measures for folks to wake up and realize the severity of their actions and the price they have to pay.

whats most unfortanate about the whole thing is the victims family and loved ones have to go through all the trials, pardon requests, hearings, etc. lets not forgert: a criminal is one who has COMMITED a crime. I do not weep for them. I weep for the victem and their families. Of course, i feel bad for the criminal and wonder why they got themselves in that situation, but again, unless your insane, we were all born with the ability to respect others and their lives. If you loose that respect and take a life, you have no right to your own.

I am saddened (well, not really) to find you completely glance over my earlier post. Please go read it. In fact, I'll save you the trouble:

Actually, it's the death penalty which costs more than life imprisonment, in every state in the US. The average cost for a single death penalty case, from the point of arrest to execution, ranges from $1 million to $3 million, and can be as high as $7 million per case. However, cases resulting in life imprisonment average approximately $500,000, including the cost of incarceration.
There's a link to cite in the post.

Innocent men being convicted to death is not a possibility, it is inevitable. Here's some food for thought:
http://www.spectacle.org/0600/death.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99nov/9911wrongman.htm
http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/factsinnocence.html

The list goes on and on.

just flip the switch and get it over withI ask you delete this post please. It is not in the spirit of this thread and may even be considered flamebait.

Life is unfair.
And justice is indeed, blind.

Perhaps archaic, yes.....Before the coming of the European to my people, the Cherokee system of jurisprudence dictated that if one member of a clan killed another..that clan was honor-bound to apprehend the alleged killer and hand him/her over for justice. If the individual was indeed the guilty party, the victims family were allowed to exact revenge...justice... call it what you will...end result..that person no longer kills another individual..it is the ultimate punishment...

I take issue in that one must learn a lesson from punishment..but just before death you can definitely assume the killer learned his lesson.

Myrth..and when all the guns are taken away...what is to prevent a tyrant from assuming power?....Our 2nd Amendment ensures that all the other Amendments are kept safe...it also ensures that power remains with the people...and in need, every able-bodied man could be in the militia. Weapons also ensured meat on the table (I still hunt deer with a .50 Hawken replica black powder rifle).

How does the possession of firearms prevent the rise of a tyrant ?

Iraq obviously has plenty of weapons, yet Saddam reigned as a tyrant for twenty years.

Is every firearm owner a member of a militia? I think not.

Meat on the table? In Australia we have butchers and supermarkets.

Big difference...arab cultures have always preferred one-man autocratic, charismatic leaders...kings, caliphs...they fear and respect strong leaders who have traditionally stifled dissent thru the use of terror...in the US, the people have a history, governments change every 4 yrs....civilian oversite of the military, there are multitude of reasons..but I know that if a government rose to tyrany in this country we would not succumb as sheep to the slaughter, hence my right under the Constitution protects the very freedoms I have.

As for butchers and supermarkets...it's cheaper for me to kill my own venison, strip it, butcher it, and salt it myself....plus there is the satisfaction that I was the one who "brought home the bacon" so to speak.

Guns for hunting, can't really argue with that.

But guns for keeping tyrants away? We in Australia plus other countries such as New Zealand, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, well, the rest of the western world, have managed to keep despots from power without having to arm ourselves. From what I see, it's more about voter participation then if I have a .22 in my closet.

Death Penality - We don't have it here and have a lower crime rate than the US. Might have something to do with gun control too.

Crikey.
Good post, mate.
As for the "arab cultures have always preferred one-man autocratic, charismatic leaders" what a lot of rot. Hitler and Mussolini both managed to come to power in countries that did not restrict gun control. In fact, both used "street violence" and its threat to assist them in their rise.
Guns usually assist the tyrant, not stop them.

Perhaps archaic, yes.....Before the coming of the European to my people, the Cherokee system of jurisprudence dictated that if one member of a clan killed another..that clan was honor-bound to apprehend the alleged killer and hand him/her over for justice. If the individual was indeed the guilty party, the victims family were allowed to exact revenge...justice... call it what you will...end result..that person no longer kills another individual..it is the ultimate punishment...

I take issue in that one must learn a lesson from punishment..but just before death you can definitely assume the killer learned his lesson.

Myrth..and when all the guns are taken away...what is to prevent a tyrant from assuming power?....Our 2nd Amendment ensures that all the other Amendments are kept safe...it also ensures that power remains with the people...and in need, every able-bodied man could be in the militia. Weapons also ensured meat on the table (I still hunt deer with a .50 Hawken replica black powder rifle).

How does the possession of firearms prevent the rise of a tyrant ?

Iraq obviously has plenty of weapons, yet Saddam reigned as a tyrant for twenty years.

Is every firearm owner a member of a militia? I think not.

Meat on the table? In Australia we have butchers and supermarkets.

Big difference...arab cultures have always preferred one-man autocratic, charismatic leaders...kings, caliphs...they fear and respect strong leaders who have traditionally stifled dissent thru the use of terror...in the US, the people have a history, governments change every 4 yrs....civilian oversite of the military, there are multitude of reasons..but I know that if a government rose to tyrany in this country we would not succumb as sheep to the slaughter, hence my right under the Constitution protects the very freedoms I have.

As for butchers and supermarkets...it's cheaper for me to kill my own venison, strip it, butcher it, and salt it myself....plus there is the satisfaction that I was the one who "brought home the bacon" so to speak.

Guns for hunting, can't really argue with that.

But guns for keeping tyrants away? We in Australia plus other countries such as New Zealand, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, well, the rest of the western world, have managed to keep despots from power without having to arm ourselves. From what I see, it's more about voter participation then if I have a .22 in my closet.

Death Penality - We don't have it here and have a lower crime rate than the US. Might have something to do with gun control too.

Crikey.
Good post, mate.
As for the "arab cultures have always preferred one-man autocratic, charismatic leaders" what a lot of rot. Hitler and Mussolini both managed to come to power in countries that did not restrict gun control. In fact, both used "street violence" and its threat to assist them in their rise.
Guns usually assist the tyrant, not stop them.Correct me if I'm wrong, but Hitler took the guns away from the Jews. Sounds like gun control to me.

Perhaps archaic, yes.....Before the coming of the European to my people, the Cherokee system of jurisprudence dictated that if one member of a clan killed another..that clan was honor-bound to apprehend the alleged killer and hand him/her over for justice. If the individual was indeed the guilty party, the victims family were allowed to exact revenge...justice... call it what you will...end result..that person no longer kills another individual..it is the ultimate punishment...

I take issue in that one must learn a lesson from punishment..but just before death you can definitely assume the killer learned his lesson.

Myrth..and when all the guns are taken away...what is to prevent a tyrant from assuming power?....Our 2nd Amendment ensures that all the other Amendments are kept safe...it also ensures that power remains with the people...and in need, every able-bodied man could be in the militia. Weapons also ensured meat on the table (I still hunt deer with a .50 Hawken replica black powder rifle).

How does the possession of firearms prevent the rise of a tyrant ?

Iraq obviously has plenty of weapons, yet Saddam reigned as a tyrant for twenty years.

Is every firearm owner a member of a militia? I think not.

Meat on the table? In Australia we have butchers and supermarkets.

Big difference...arab cultures have always preferred one-man autocratic, charismatic leaders...kings, caliphs...they fear and respect strong leaders who have traditionally stifled dissent thru the use of terror...in the US, the people have a history, governments change every 4 yrs....civilian oversite of the military, there are multitude of reasons..but I know that if a government rose to tyrany in this country we would not succumb as sheep to the slaughter, hence my right under the Constitution protects the very freedoms I have.

As for butchers and supermarkets...it's cheaper for me to kill my own venison, strip it, butcher it, and salt it myself....plus there is the satisfaction that I was the one who "brought home the bacon" so to speak.

Guns for hunting, can't really argue with that.

But guns for keeping tyrants away? We in Australia plus other countries such as New Zealand, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, well, the rest of the western world, have managed to keep despots from power without having to arm ourselves. From what I see, it's more about voter participation then if I have a .22 in my closet.

Death Penality - We don't have it here and have a lower crime rate than the US. Might have something to do with gun control too.

Crikey.
Good post, mate.
As for the "arab cultures have always preferred one-man autocratic, charismatic leaders" what a lot of rot. Hitler and Mussolini both managed to come to power in countries that did not restrict gun control. In fact, both used "street violence" and its threat to assist them in their rise.
Guns usually assist the tyrant, not stop them.Correct me if I'm wrong, but Hitler took the guns away from the Jews. Sounds like gun control to me.

Noooo, that was the Weimar Republic. It's irrelivant anyway, whether the population was armed or not had nothing to do with how Hitler gained power.

Hitler also banned abortions, why doesn't anyone bring that up in arguements.
:roll:

The Death Penalty is a waste and completly unneccessary.

If the only way someone can feel justice is served is by killing another person, then that is a fairly sad state of affairs.

The state makes mistakes, and this should be done away with to prevent the waste of human potential.

Besides, if you kill them then you can't use them as forced labor.