Will the Colorado Shooting make mandatory bag checks at theaters?

@Uno_Oscuro said:

@AweSam said:

@Uno_Oscuro: Wouldn't solve it, but it would help it.

But it would produce more problems, is it really worth it in the long run?

I'm not one to quote people, but "the night is darkest just before the dawn". It's true though. The problem is, people are afraid of the dark, so how can we expect the dawn? Instead of facing problems directly, we just try to delay them because we're afraid of the process, not the outcome. Believe me, people will adapt if firearms are banned. It's happened before and it'll happen again.

@AweSam said:

@Uno_Oscuro said:

@AweSam said:

@Uno_Oscuro: Wouldn't solve it, but it would help it.

But it would produce more problems, is it really worth it in the long run?

I'm not one to quote people, but "the night is darkest just before the dawn". It's true though. The problem is, people are afraid of the dark, so how can we expect the dawn? Instead of facing problems directly, we just try to delay them because we're afraid of the process, not the outcome. Believe me, people will adapt if firearms are banned. It's happened before and it'll happen again.

Maybe, but I'm just not seeing how it would truly solve it.

It is time for change.

@Nefarious said:

It is time for change.

We had that four years ago.

@RazzaTazz said:

@PsychoKnights: This argument is a fallacy. You can't on one hand describe how great the constitution is for providing the right to bear arms, but then on the other hand say that the constitution (which many consider to be the greatest document ever written) is ineffective of providing its own checks and balances peacefully (which is what it was intended for.) The right to bear arms was designed as a measure to protect against foreign threats, not to guard against the government. The guard against the government is everything else which is written into the document. The constitution is not only the second amendment, though a lot of people seem to think that it is.

Read these quotes from the Founding Fathers and try to tell me that the First Amendment is not for every free citizen and for intention of keeping the government from abusing power.

http://rense.com/general2/right.htm

Pay special attention to Henry, Mason, and Lee. That's just the best out of the first six. It goes on.

Constitutioned!

@PsychoKnights said:

"almost in broad daylight, he could have easily added to the carnage, it was an unarmed bystander that stopped the gunman, the armed guy would have made it worse."

He could have. He didn't. If you are saying that guns should be more heavily regulated because a mistake could be made with them, then why allow anybody to have guns? Why should cops have guns? If they had entered the convenience store they could have easily shot the wrong guy. In the movie theater, they could have easily shot the wrong. guy.

Cops could have more easily shot the wrong guy because there would have been multiple people shooting guns off inside the theater, adding to the chaos and confusion. Cops are trained to use guns, and I think if you are going to allow your average citizen to carry guns in public than they should have to go through the same amount of training.

"Under your logic everyone would have a gun to protect themselves."

(buzzer sound) Wroooong! Everyone who wants a gun would have one. That would be a considerably smaller part of the population, but it is really not relevant. Just pointing out the mistake.

Everyone who wants one? Even schizophrenics and ex-convicts, etc? I was reading a story about how easy it is to lie about your own mental health problems to obtain a gun. The New York Times did an article about how a paranoid schizophrenic women was able legally buy a gun simply by lying and then went on to shoot up a post office, killing one person and wounding others. Do you not agree that laws should be put in place that would make it more difficult for people like that to obtain guns?

As I already mentioned, there is no difference in the average citizen having a gun in this situation and a police officer having a gun in this situation. Now, you are going to say that there is a difference because police officers are trained. Well, yes, this is true, but honestly, police officers have very little training in combat. I've seen the accuracy test given to police officers, and you could probably pass it even if you had never shot a gun before in your life. We all know the many, many stories of police officers shooting someone reaching for a cel phone. The average cop does not have significant training for combat. Furthermore, in a perfect world, civilians would be trained. We teach students about their first amendment rights in school, why not teach them about their second amendment rights (under strict supervision obviously. Also on this note, I have no problem restricting gun carrying rights until adulthood. You don't get your right to vote until you are eighteen. You shouldn't have the right to carry a concealed gun until then either)? It would take at most a few days to give students the same training as police officers.

Except for the tiny difference that police officers require training and a part of their job is dealing with crisis situation, your average citizen is not required to go through any of that. I know that you say it doesn't matter but it does. Police work in cohesion with other officers, and it is more than just simple shooting accuracy that counts. It is knowing what to do in a crisis situation being able to control your nerves. Do you think there is no difference between a random group of people all having guns to stop a shooter than a group of cops dispatched to stop it?

I think the fact that you point out that cop make mistakes and shoot innocent people only helps my point. If people who are trained in the use of firearms and in working in situations dealing with gunmen, etc can make so many mistakes, imagine how many a non-trained average person would make.

If someone wants to be able to carry a gun in public they should have to at least go through all the training a cop does and have frequent background checks. I think it seems we agree on that?

I'll just take all this at face value because I've already spend about forty-five minutes replying to you, and I don't feel like doing a half hour's research on Canadian crime statistics and gun laws. Maybe later. So, for the moment, let's assume that is all true. I thought you did not agree in violating the Constitution and violating personal freedoms in exchange for greater security. Isn't that why you object to the Patriot Act? There is that famous quote by (I believe) Benjamin Franklin that says something to the effect of, "Those that are willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both." What is the difference in invading someone's privacy to control guns and invading someone's privacy to stop terrorism? They are both good goals with bad means. The ends don't justify the means in my book.

I don't think having stricter gun laws would violate the Constitution, the Second Amendment is pretty vague and open about the idea of the right to bear arms, it being attached to need for a "well regulated militia". We don't allow certain people to vote because of being mentally impaired, etc, we shouldn't allow certain people the right to own guns.

Your analogy of the invasion of privacy of gun regulation and stopping terrorism doesn't make sense. In the case of fighting terrorism the government has blurred the lines of a right to a fair trial and has circumvented the justice system. In the case of regulating gun I think is similar to mandating that people have a driver's license to drive a car. Isn't the state ensuring that the only people allowed to have a driver's license are those who have passed a driving test and meet the other criteria not the same thing as the state regulating who can and can't have guns?

Interesting idea, but not particularly relevant. Remember, you don't want to ban guns anyway so those people will still be shooting themselves in the leg. Furthermore, if somebody broke into my home unarmed, I would shoot them just the same. I'm not going wait around to see if they are carrying something and endanger my life further. Point being, guns can be used in defense even when the other person is not armed, so that statistic (which may or may not exist) is probably not reflecting the actual need for guns.

If someone wants to have a gun in there home I really couldn't care less, just posing it as a counterargument to your belief that the solution to gun violence is more people with guns.

"What do you propose the solution to the rampant amount of gun violence in the US to be if not for stricter gun laws?"

More guns. It is the criminal element who does not care about the law which is committing the crimes against citizens who are usually unarmed. They would think twice if they knew that every potential victim also had a weapon.

We already have more guns than any other industrialized nation in the world and because of that we have the most gun accidents, violence and homicides. Our abundance of guns have not deterred violent shooters. If anything more guns would lead to more accidental shootings, like the statistic I talked about.

The criminals are not going to stop getting guns or committing crimes because of stricter gun laws. You know that

Actually it seems the opposite is true. In the US, we have the most lax gun laws and most guns per capita than any other industrialized nation. We have the highest amounts of gun violence because of this. The evidence points in the direction that stricter gun laws means less gun deaths/injuries.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/ This shows gun violence in countries throughout the world.

@RazzaTazz said:

@PsychoKnights: That is my point, why the need for guns to protect from the government, when it is enshrined that this is the job of the government anyway?

You obviously didn't read the quotes or you would have seen that guns in the hands of the citizens is the way to prevent our own government from taking too much power. Remember, these guys had just overthrown their own government a few years prior to the Constitution. They understood the value of having to oppose their own government.

George Mason: "To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

@PsychoKnights said:

I already provided a link that refutes that, but of course there is data on both sides of the argument. Again, everybody knows that people do not wish to die. Obviously, the death penalty would deter crime. If you disagree, you will have to explain to me the mindset wherein no criminals are concerned about staying alive.

True but there are also those who do not fear death. Both brave people who are willing to put their lives on the line for whatever reason as well as psychotic maniacs that seem to lack any emotion about dying due to neurological conditions or other factors. I've provided data in the above point for that. Obviously some criminals do fear death but that doesn't make it the right form of punishment. It's cruel and barbaric and does not deserve to be inflicted on any human being.

@PsychoKnights said:

Okay, so you don't believe that all killing is the same since it is justified in your mind if there is no other option. In my view, it is perfectly acceptable to kill anyone that physically threatens you or yours.

I'm not sure what you mean by the last part "that physically threatens you or yours." Do you mean family? In any case I would make sure that I defended my family against anyone who'd threaten it. If needs be I would lay my life on the line for them. However I would not take the assaulter's life unless there was no other way of incapacitating him. A bullet in the legs or arm would be enough to stop the majority of murderers. Unless every other option I had tried failed, I would not take that person's life.

@PsychoKnights said:

A life for a life is perfectly balanced. Who is being treated unfairly in this situation? I would say it much more unfair for citizens to pay for a criminal to live a moderately comfortable life because he killed someone.

A life for a life is not morally correct. It's driven by vengeance and is a brutal process. If the criminal has been captured, there's no need to kill him. Admittedly prisons can be too comfortable for some and the life inside can benefit some inmates. However life imprisonment is not only a more humane, morally correct form of punishment in that it doesn't involve taking a life, it can be downright boring.

@PsychoKnights said:

Not all life has equal value. The life of a murderer is worth nothing. There is no clearer way to demonstrate the sacredness of an innocent life than by destroying those who would end it.

No that merely defiles the life of another human being and shows how easy it is to become like them. The fact that there is no better way to deal with murderers than using their own tactics demonstrates the vicious cycle of an eye for an eye philosophy.

@PsychoKnights said:

I get it. Ghandi was wrong. It is poetic nonsense. An eye for an eye does not lead to endless killing. It leads to the death of murderers. End of story.

That doesn't sound wrong to me in the slightest. It's a ridiculous way of living if the only answer to murder is murder. That is not the way humanity should be living and I'm still surprised that you would think of treating another human being in that way. You're doing the exact same thing to the murderer as they did to the innocent person. How is that killing any better than their killing?

@PsychoKnights said:

In your opinion it doesn't call for it. There are no methods more effective or less costly (if we streamlined the whole appeal process).

Read my first comment. Plus another statistic suggests it costs $4 million per execution compared with $500,00 per prisoner. These executions don't come cheap you know. Prison is a far more financially viable option than the death penalty.

@PsychoKnights said:

Not for regular crimes, but once you've been convicted of first degree murder, yes, you do, or rather, you should.

The death penalty violates the right to life as declared in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It also violates the right not to be subjected to torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. Furthermore, the death penalty undermines human dignity which is inherent to every human being.

@PsychoKnights said:

It is not hypocritical at all to kill murderers for there is a world of difference between taking rights away from an innocent and taking rights away from a guilty person. You don't having a problem with imprisoning (taking away someone's freedom) a person for kidnapping (taking away someone's freedom), do you?

Yes it is. Suggesting that the answer to a murderer is to kill them themselves is a completely hypocritical punishment. As for the last part, taking away someone's freedom is a much better form of punishment. It is a suitable punishment as it involves a degree of consequence for the criminal's actions and for some is only temporary depending on the crime. In Britain a lot of focus is on rehabilitation of the criminals as well. A loss of freedom is a far more moral and human punishment than a loss of life.

@PsychoKnights said:

"You killed someone? Death it is."

Yep.

"You're a rapist? Get ready to be raped."

I don't care in the slightest if a rapist is raped.

"You tortured someone? Prepare to be tortured."

Sounds good.

What you've said here is just another example of how wrong it is to blindly follow an eye for an eye philosophy. It truly bemuses me as to how you could desire to inflict that kind of suffering on another human being.

@PsychoKnights said:

I disagree entirely. Those who violate others rights deserve to have the same directed at them. This is justice.

And I oppose this with a passion. The rights we have created are for all humans. There deserves to be a punishment for criminals but not the same method as they used on the criminals themselves. What you're talking about is retribution. That is not justice. Justice is about enacting a punishment based on ethics, rationality and equity. Which is why I'm glad we've mostly done away with the medieval punishment of the death penalty.

How's this for standing my ground you self righteous prick?

"Very well. You're acting far too smug over an issue I care far too much about. You want a response? You got one."

Genuine thanks for taking the time to write me back.

"When North Carolina repealed its death penalty, the number of police homicides did not increase through the lack of the death penalty."

Correlation is not causation. Just because two things are true does not mean one caused the other. In other words, there are a multitude of factors which affect the crime rate.To say that the crime rate is what it is because of the death penalty is making a giant leap and requires yo to ignore a multitude of other factors.

Just because the crime rate in Texas is higher does not mean it is because of the death penalty. For example, two factors that you did not consider are Mexico and heat. All the states on the Mexican border have big problems with Mexican gang cartels. It is not uncommon for gangs to kidnap Americans and keep them for ransom. These could easily lead to many

"In fact the the Connecticut death penalty costs $4 million to maintain annually.So it's a financially costly form of punishment as well as a life costing punishment."

I believe I already mentioned that the appeals system needs to be streamlined. It is ridiculous that murderers can sit on death row for decades eating decent meals, reading, and working out on the taxpayers dollar.

"Texas has twice the murder rate of Wisconsin, a state that doesn't have the death penalty. Not really much of a deterrent now is it?"

Again, correlation is not causation. Texas has many factors which contribute to its crime rate. Two of the factors you did not take into account is Mexico and heat. Mexican gangs are a constant problem for states bordering Mexico. Obviously, that is a problem Northern states do not have. Violent crimes always go up in the Summer because heat has a way of making people more active and angry. Things are hot in Texas.

Now, I am not saying that either Mexican gangs or heat are the cause of Texas' high homicide rate. To do so would be to make the same mistake you made, to think correlation means causation. However, Mexican gangs and heat do serve to illustrate how many factors affect a statistic.

"True but there are also those who do not fear death. Both brave people who are willing to put their lives on the line for whatever reason as well as psychotic maniacs that seem to lack any emotion about dying due to neurological conditions or other factors. I've provided data in the above point for that. Obviously some criminals do fear death but that doesn't make it the right form of punishment."

It is true that sociopaths show very little fear of death, but even in the prison population, sociopaths are the vast minority (20% if I remember the stats from the episode of This American Life I heard the other day. I can check on that if you want me to) That being said, there is still eighty percent of the population which should be scared by the threat of death for their crimes.

You did give one study which shows the death penalty does not discourage crime. I gave a study which showed that it did. Why don't we just pretend like we both made the following arguments: http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000983 and agree that the jury is still out as far as statistics are concerned. With that in mind, you will have to explain to me how the death penalty would not discourage eighty percent of people from committing murder.

Oh, and as far as the insane people, I don't want to kill them. They are not responsible for their crimes like regular murderers. They can spend their life in an asylum or trying to get help.

Well, I have to go to bed. More later.

A mandatory bag check or metal detector is not going to stop someone from killing people if they want to kill people.

What will undoubtedly stop is dressing up and cosplaying to the theater.

What else we may see (and is probably a good idea for reasons other than shootings) is fire exits at the back of the theater.

Seriously, after how many mass shootings in the USA now, HOW ARE GUNS STILL ALLOWED FOR ALL!?!?!?!?!? NO offence to Americans, but your government and your country are seriously ridiculous on this matter.

In Australia, after a horrific mass shooting in Tasmania, the government immediately implemented that all semi automatic weapons be handed in and no person would be allowed a license to own one. AFTER ONE INCIDENT! how is America that slow!?!?!

Didn't he go into the theater, go out the exit (after propping it ope), go to his car, and then get his stuff?

Exactly how would bag checks have stopped that from happening?

@jloneblackheart said:

A mandatory bag check or metal detector is not going to stop someone from killing people if they want to kill people.

What will undoubtedly stop is dressing up and cosplaying to the theater.

What else we may see (and is probably a good idea for reasons other than shootings) is fire exits at the back of the theater.

Agreed on bag check not fixing anything, but we have essentially the same thing happening at airports now. Granted, those checks are thorough enough to actually find things, but that does not stop the government from banning liquids and nail clippers. Stopping cosplay is equally stupid.

How many of our liberties will people allow to be taken away before they say, "Enough."

Regarding fire exits, there are government regulations on those. I'm not sure what exactly those regulations are, but I would not be surprised if it is required that there be one in each theater.

@JediXMan said:

Didn't he go into the theater, go out the exit (after propping it ope), go to his car, and then get his stuff?

Exactly how would bag checks have stopped that from happening?

It would not change a thing, but the government will never pass up the chance to add more regulations and declare victory over a problem. Many people think of government as their god, therefore it must be involved in every aspect of life, and it is the one that must solve all our problems...even if that means making a token gesture which will solve nothing.

@PsychoKnights said:

@JediXMan said:

Didn't he go into the theater, go out the exit (after propping it ope), go to his car, and then get his stuff?

Exactly how would bag checks have stopped that from happening?

It would not change a thing, but the government will never pass up the chance to add more regulations and declare victory over a problem. Many people think of government as their god, therefore it must be involved in every aspect of life, and it is the one that must solve all our problems...even if that means making a token gesture which will solve nothing.

I've seen multiple headlines saying something like "How many more have to die?" and addressing the president. What in the world is Obama or any president supposed to do to prevent this? The only way to completely prevent it is to eliminate free thought completely.

@JediXMan said:

Didn't he go into the theater, go out the exit (after propping it ope), go to his car, and then get his stuff?

Exactly how would bag checks have stopped that from happening?

Sorry I needed a Stand out title for the topic, Shameless I know.

@PsychoKnights: The reason bag checks and metal detectors work at the airport is they have armed security. If some guy pulls a piece at the airport, someone is nearby to drop him. A 15 year old at the movie theater cannot stop a gunman.

There are regulations for fire exits, but no one has ever considered it for any reason besides fire. Essentially, with fire exits at the front of the theater, everyone was pinned in by the shooter with no chance of escape.

Since metal detectors and bag checks are not going to work, they have to come up with better ways to avoid the same thing from happening again. Eliminating cosplay decreases the odds of someone hiding firearms on them self or movie patron believing a gunman may be part of some show they are unaware of (as was they case here). Exits in the back would give people an alternate route for escape.

What we need to say "enough" to is the media attention we give these psychos. Soon we will know everything about this POS. His writings, his beliefs, his motives, his family life. We need to stop sensationalizing these types of people. We need to stop showing their faces and giving them the infamy they so desire. Report it (blandly), give him his trial and once he's found guilty, execute him the next month.

I'll ignore the second comment from 'Libertarian Man' to prevent another outburst

@PsychoKnights said:

Correlation is not causation. Just because two things are true does not mean one caused the other. In other words, there are a multitude of factors which affect the crime rate.To say that the crime rate is what it is because of the death penalty is making a giant leap and requires yo to ignore a multitude of other factors.

What I was saying here is that despite the threat of death in place as a punishment in spite of all other factors since in your words, most people seem afraid of dying that this does not appear to be the case. If people were afraid of dying, then there should be a dramatic decrease in the crime rate. If the result of the causation of crime in Texas is the death penalty then it should be able to reduce the crime rate. That's what punishments are for and incarceration has a much lower crime rate than those on death row.

@PsychoKnights said:

Just because the crime rate in Texas is higher does not mean it is because of the death penalty. For example, two factors that you did not consider are Mexico and heat. All the states on the Mexican border have big problems with Mexican gang cartels. It is not uncommon for gangs to kidnap Americans and keep them for ransom. These could easily lead to many

Obviously crime syndicates and circles play a factor as they do everywhere but the fact is the whole argument for the advantageous use of the death penalty is that it is supposed to act as a permanent solution to criminals. Yet I sense it does little more than what Hercules or Heracles as his name was originally in Greek mythology achieved against the Hydra. Cut off one head and another sprouts. Someone will take advantage of the power vacuum if a group of criminals is captured and executed. Crime still rises not just in Texas but in other countries that use the death penalty. Hence the argument that it is a good permanent solution is invalid. That is why imprisonment is not only morally correct, it keeps criminals in a definite place where their kind can't do any more wrongs in society.

@PsychoKnights said:

It is true that sociopaths show very little fear of death, but even in the prison population, sociopaths are the vast minority (20% if I remember the stats from the episode of This American Life I heard the other day. I can check on that if you want me to) That being said, there is still eighty percent of the population which should be scared by the threat of death for their crimes.

Thankfully you are correct in this regard. Sociopaths are a minority in prison. However it is a cruel society that uses fear to punish those who have committed wrongs in society. You seem eager to sweep away the rights of the murderer to life with the knowledge that the innocent person/people they may have killed also had a right to life. How can it be proven that they have a right to life if the murderer is executed? These rights apply to everyone who lives in our society and honoring the life/lives of those taken from us can be best done by showing the same kind of strength of will to spare the lives of those who have abused its value.

@PsychoKnights said:

You did give one study which shows the death penalty does not discourage crime. I gave a study which showed that it did. Why don't we just pretend like we both made the following arguments: http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000983 and agree that the jury is still out as far as statistics are concerned. With that in mind, you will have to explain to me how the death penalty would not discourage eighty percent of people from committing murder.

I just have in the prior paragraphs.

@PsychoKnights said:

Oh, and as far as the insane people, I don't want to kill them. They are not responsible for their crimes like regular murderers. They can spend their life in an asylum or trying to get help.

Well, I have to go to bed. More later.

Well at least you have some sense of mercy. And I'd like to end by quoting what CrimsonAvenger has said as I was about to write something like this myself but he's put it in a brilliant way and Lao Tzu is now one of my new favourite philosophers:

@CrimsonAvenger said:

@PsychoKnights: I have to disagree with everything you've said. If you believe a person who kills should be executed then by your own logic executioners should be put to death. You don't seem to understand that what Gandhi meant by his iconic quote is that using violence to combat violence leaves everyone morally blind. Executing a killer doesn't solve anything because it makes the executioner no better than the person they put to death. It takes a stronger man not to kill than to kill. Two wrongs simply don't make a wright because like the great philosopher Lao Tzu said "Violence, even well intentioned, always rebounds upon oneself".

I'll be interested to see if you can think of a response to this.

One last thing about the advantage of imprisonment over the death penealty. As is always the case in the justice system and trials, sometimes innocent people are convicted of crimes they did not commit. Maybe they share a striking similarity to the criminal. Now if that person was just impriosned as they always are in Britain, where I live, if evidence were found to the contrary, that person could be released. Now admittedly they may have lost several years of their life in prison but this evidence gives them a chance to return to society and live the rest of their life fully as a productive citizen. However if an innocent person was convicted of a crime and sentanced to capital punishment, there's no bringigng them back. Dead is dead. I've seen plenty of stories such as the one about Carlos DeLuna in 1998 who was sentenced to death for looking almost like another murderer. If he were imprisoned, he could have been released later and would not have had to suffer the ultimate price for another man's crimes. As it happens, this man did suffer the ultimate price of losing his life. How can capital punishment be a viable form of punishment when innocent people are at risk of losing their lives as well as murderers? If DeLuna were imprisoned, this would not be a problem.

@Lvenger

"It's cruel and barbaric and does not deserve to be inflicted on any human being."

Cruel: "Causing pain or suffering"I believe murderers should feel pain and suffering for their crimes. Why do you believe that murderers should be spared pain and suffering?

Barbaric: "Savagely cruel, exceedingly brutal"

I'm not saying we should torture the criminals. A bullet through the head is not overly painful. Lethal injection is, if anything, overly merciful.

"I'm not sure what you mean by the last part "that physically threatens you or yours."

I mean that people forfeit their right to life when they attack an innocent person, so if someone tries to attack me, my family, my friends, or heck, even an innocent person I do not know, I would defend them with lethal force if necessary. I also mean that if somebody tries to steal my possessions, and the only method I have for stopping them is a bullet, they have earned a bullet.

"Do you mean family? In any case I would make sure that I defended my family against anyone who'd threaten it. If needs be I would lay my life on the line for them."

Sincerely, I commend you. Though we obviously disagree on much, I am glad to see that you are willing to defend your family using whatever means necessary. I have come across people for which even this value is lost. I'm glad you are not one of these.

"However I would not take the assaulter's life unless there was no other way of incapacitating him. A bullet in the legs or arm would be enough to stop the majority of murderers. Unless every other option I had tried failed, I would not take that person's life."

That is a noble attitude that I once held myself. That changed when I heard of countless stories where a person shooting an intruder in their home did not fatally wound the intruder, and then the intruder later pressed charges of excessive force against the home owner. People have gone to prison and been sued successfully for lots of money because some scumbag thief complained that he would never walk again and he was only robbing the house to feed his family. Another thing I realized since I had your view was that these situations happen ridiculously fast. It sounds well and good to shoot someone in the leg, but in practice, this raises lot of problems. First of all, its probably dark and difficult to see the intruder. It would be a lot easier to see the intrude's body than it would be to see his leg. Second, shooting a leg is a skilled shot especially under stress and/or while the leg is moving. You could easily miss, and an intruder can close a ten foot gap by the time it takes you to fire twice. Police are trained to aim for the center of mass, and that is what I would do. Third, how do you know if the other person is an immediate lethal threat or not? It is dark. You probably would not clearly see a gun. If you turn on the light or shout a warning, you greatly increasing your chances of being shot. Even if you can clearly see the intruder is not holding a gun, that does not mean he does not have one stashed somewhere. You turn away for a second to make a call and bang! Fifth, unless you are shooting something very high powered (which would likely kill anyway), people do not magically stop moving when they are hit in the leg. People have a knack of using "Final Stand."

If someone breaks into my home, I shoot to kill.

"A life for a life is not morally correct."

You did not answer how the death penalty is unbalanced or unfair to anyone as I asked you to explain in my previous comment. I will assume you are conceding those points

As for a life for a life being morally incorrect, that is your opinion.

"It's driven by vengeance and is a brutal process."

I've already shown it is not particularly brutal...especially if you do lethal injection. Murderers would be experiencing a more peaceful death than they would probably experience naturally.

Vengeance: "Punishment inflicted or retribution exacted for an injury or wrong."

Sounds good to me. Vengeance it is!

"If the criminal has been captured, there's no need to kill him."

I would say that the scales of justice need to be balanced. I would say that people need to know you cannot murder and then live a semi-comfortable life on the taxpayers dime.

"Admittedly prisons can be too comfortable for some and the life inside can benefit some inmates. However life imprisonment is not only a more humane, morally correct form of punishment in that it doesn't involve taking a life, it can be downright boring."

No doubt prison is not preferable to freedom, but imagine that someone kills your parents, gets sent to jail, and you have to realize that with every dollar you makes, some of your money is going to pay for that scumbag to eat decent meals, watch television, read, and work out. It is wrong.

"No that merely defiles the life of another human being and shows how easy it is to become like them."

There is a world of difference between murder and killing. One is taking an innocent life the other is taking a guilty life. They are nothing alike.

Let me make a comparison. Let's say a guy named Joe Bob runs a con cheating the elderly out of money that earns him ten thousand dollars. He is caught, convicted, and goes to jail for a couple of years. When he gets out, he is sued by his victims for twenty thousand dollars worth of damages. The court finds in favor of those suing Joe Bob, and Joe Bob has to pay up. Now both Joe Bob and the victims got money from someone against their will, but there is a world of difference between their actions. Joe Bob was hurting innocent people. The victims were hurting the guilty. That is the same difference between murder and the death penalty.

"The fact that there is no better way to deal with murderers than using their own tactics demonstrates the vicious cycle of an eye for an eye philosophy."

Again, world of difference, but more to the point I wish to make here, where do you guys get the idea of a "vicious cycle?" A cycle is continuous and feeds on itself. This is not a cycle. You murder, you are convicted, you get executed, end of story. That's not a vicious cycle, that is a not-so-vicious line.

"That doesn't sound wrong to me in the slightest. It's a ridiculous way of living if the only answer to murder is murder."

Not all killing is murder. You already agreed that killing was not murder in the case of self-defense. The death penalty is a type of societal self-defense. It removed the cancerous cells of society (remember, murderers are frequently released), and signals to all those afraid of death that they will suffer if they murder.

"That is not the way humanity should be living and I'm still surprised that you would think of treating another human being in that way. You're doing the exact same thing to the murderer as they did to the innocent person. How is that killing any better than their killing?"

I've already answered that above. Let me ask a question in turn. Do you really see no difference in killing an innocent person and killing a guilty person?

"Plus another statistic suggests it costs $4 million per execution compared with $500,00 per prisoner. These executions don't come cheap you know. Prison is a far more financially viable option than the death penalty."

I'll claim a little ignorance on this point. My understanding is that the appeals process is what makes executions so costly, and I've already mentioned that the appeals process needs to be streamlined. However, if you are telling me that it costs four million to stick a needle in a guy's arm, then I will gladly save the nation some money. All I need is the price of one .223 round. Heck, we could strangle or drown murderers for free, but personally, I think a bullet would be less painful.

"The death penalty violates the right to life as declared in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

Who cares? What relevance does the UDHR have on American government? Did we sign on to that or something?

Regardless, criminals give up their rights when they commit crimes. According to the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the rights of individuals are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and if you read Jefferson's original draft and notes, you will find that "pursuit of happiness" was actually meant to be "property." However, Jefferson decided to remove that word (even though he and the other Founders fully believed in it to be a right) because he did not want the idea of a "right to property" to be used as a defense of slavery. With this in mind, imprisoned criminals already lose their basic human rights of liberty, happiness, and property when they commit crimes. Therefore, you do agree that most human rights go out the window when you commit crimes. I simply believe that the right to life goes as well if you commit first degree murder.

"It also violates the right not to be subjected to torture"

Oh please, it's not torture. It's over in a flash.

"and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment."

You're worried about degrading murderers? You know what else is degrading? List of degrading prison realities follows: having to wear a brightly colored uniform so we know you are a bad guy, having to poop in plain view of other people, showering in a room with other men, having your cheeks spread and your bum hole searched for prison shanks. Prison is already plenty degrading. (eyeroll) Criminals do not have a right to feel undegraded.

"Furthermore, the death penalty undermines human dignity which is inherent to every human being."

Oh my gosh! You mean the poor little murderer might feel indignant! (gasps) How terrible! I certainly hope he doesn't feel bad about killing people or anything! Do you think he might be embarrassed for people to know he beheaded a woman and then raped her body, or could that poor girl feel like we are judging her for drowning her baby in the bathtub!??! I never imagined.

Seriously?

"Yes it is. Suggesting that the answer to a murderer is to kill them themselves is a completely hypocritical punishment."

So it is not hypocritical to use, as you put it, "criminal methods to punish criminals" by taking away the freedom of a kidnapper or taking away the money of a thief, but for some reason it is completely hypocritical to take away the life of a murderer.

"As for the last part, taking away someone's freedom is a much better form of punishment. It is a suitable punishment as it involves a degree of consequence for the criminal's actions and for some is only temporary depending on the crime. In Britain a lot of focus is on rehabilitation of the criminals as well. A loss of freedom is a far more moral and human punishment than a loss of life."

After a murderer kills both your parents so he can rob their house, how long do you feel they should be locked up before being released? I mean, for me, I would want them dead, but you seem to think that prison is better because they can get back out. To me, that just seems like another reason to kill them, but please explain how your parents lives are only worth twenty years of punishment.

"What you've said here is just another example of how wrong it is to blindly follow an eye for an eye philosophy. It truly bemuses me as to how you could desire to inflict that kind of suffering on another human being."

I have no desire to torture or rape anybody, but I would put a bullet through the head of anybody who commits first degree murder. I don't know if I would enjoy it or not. There are some, like this bastard at the movie theater, that I would really like to see hang, but on the other hand, taking a life is not a happy thing. Regardless, the death penalty is not about enjoying death, it is about justice.

"And I oppose this with a passion. The rights we have created are for all humans."

Two things. First, I've already proven that you are fine with removing most of the human rights from criminals, so you are wrong on that count. Second, according to the Declaration of Independence, God gave humanity rights, not man. He was also the one who came up with the whole eye for an eye concept.

"There deserves to be a punishment for criminals but not the same method as they used on the criminals themselves."

I thought you wanted to imprison kidnappers. Change your mind?

"What you're talking about is retribution."

Retribution: "Punishment that is considered morally right and fully deserved."

Sounds good to me! (gins)

My computer just tried to eat my words again in the exact same place it crashed yesterday. Weird. Thankfully, I had saved this time.

"That is not justice. Justice is about enacting a punishment based on ethics, rationality and equity. Which is why I'm glad we've mostly done away with the medieval punishment of the death penalty."

We have different fundamental ethical values. That is why we probably will not come to an agreement on this. I believe that a criminal sacrifices their right to life when they kill an innocent. You do not.

Regarding rationality, I have been completely logical and rational in my arguments.

Regarding equity, my view is much more equitable than yous: a life for a life. Your method has people losing their freedom for a couple decades while they get free room and board. This is not near equitable to the amount that they took.

"How's this for standing my ground you self righteous prick?"

Now, now. None of that, or I will have to report you.

However, I will thank you again for taking the time to respond.

We seem to be rehashing a lot of the same ground. The next time I write, I will be more brief unless you add a lot of new thoughts to the discussion.

@Ebbm

Before I respond to your comments, I noticed that you failed to respond to two fairly large comments from me. If you do not respond, I will assume that you either could not think of a rebuttal for my points or you are in agreement with me. If not, then please respond to the following.

I can easily prove without a shadow of a doubt that the Second Amendment was meant to give every free man the right to carry firearms. Before I do that though, please tell me if that matters to you because if the Constitution holds no weight with you, then I would be wasting my time pointing out the truth, and we would have a completely different issue to discuss.

And...

How would they be more heavily regulated? Already in most places, you cannot carry a loaded gun in your car, you cannot have a gun anywhere in your car except your trunk, you cannot wear a gun openly in public or it is considered "terroristic threatening," you cannot wear a gun in secret without a license (a license you have to pay for to have the privilege of accessing your second amendment rights), and even if you do have a license, there are all sorts of places you are not allowed to take it such as schools and government buildings, in many big cities, you can't have a gun at all, and in your own house if someone breaks in, you are not allowed to shoot the person until you retreat to the furthest room of your house and wait to shoot until you are physically threatened. If you hear your wife being raped in the room next door, you are supposed to let it go. How the Hell should we regulate guns further? They are already practically useless in most places!

Now to respond to your comments.

“Cops could have more easily shot the wrong guy because there would have been multiple people shooting guns off inside the theater, adding to the chaos and confusion. Cops are trained to use guns, and I think if you are going to allow your average citizen to carry guns in public than they should have to go through the same amount of training.”

If citizens were armed, then the guy would have been subdued long before the cops arrived and there would have been no risk of cops shooting a civilian.

I am with the Founding Fathers who believed children should be trained in firearms from a young age. It could easily be added to the public education system. With that, the average citizen would be just as capable of dealing with a crisis situation as a police officer.

“Everyone who wants one? Even schizophrenics and ex-convicts, etc? I was reading a story about how easy it is to lie about your own mental health problems to obtain a gun.

(eyeroll) I didn’t think I had to state the obvious. Clearly, if someone is so mentally handicapped that they are a risk, they should not have their right to bear arms removed just like they have their right to vote removed.

Regarding ex-cons, I haven’t given that a lot of thought. The simplest solution without violating the freedom on innocents would be to simply make it a crime for them to own guns. If they were ever caught with one, they could do five years in the pen. I’m not sure if it would be right to take away someone’s right to carry arms for any crime though. For instance, someone who commits vehicular manslaughter would probably be no more likely to abuse a gun than your average bear.

“The New York Times did an article about how a paranoid schizophrenic women was able legally buy a gun simply by lying and then went on to shoot up a post office, killing one person and wounding others. Do you not agree that laws should be put in place that would make it more difficult for people like that to obtain guns?””

No, I do not agree for you are restricting the freedoms of everybody by putting checks in place. If you required background checks before you got a gun, then the government would have records of who owned guns, and that is none of the government’s business. I’m tired of Big Brother. As I’ve said before, the answer to our problems is almost always more freedom, not less. If more people were armed, that woman probably could have been stopped faster. I can give numerous examples of civilian heroes who saved lives in situations like that.

“Except for the tiny difference that police officers require training and a part of their job is dealing with crisis situation, your average citizen is not required to go through any of that. I know that you say it doesn't matter but it does. Police work in cohesion with other officers, and it is more than just simple shooting accuracy that counts. It is knowing what to do in a crisis situation being able to control your nerves. Do you think there is no difference between a random group of people all having guns to stop a shooter than a group of cops dispatched to stop it?”

Honestly, I think a random group of civilians could do just (or almost just) as well. Also, civilians should be trained. We teach students how to use their voting rights and first amendment rights in school. Why not teach them about their second amendment rights (under careful supervision, obviously)? I just reread my last comment and realized that I have already said this, yet you appear to have simply ignored it. Why?

“I think the fact that you point out that cop make mistakes and shoot innocent people only helps my point. If people who are trained in the use of firearms and in working in situations dealing with gunmen, etc can make so many mistakes, imagine how many a non-trained average person would make.”

First, they would be trained, so this point is irrelevant.

Second, I think you vastly overestimate police officers readiness fo these situations.

Third, I think you vastly underestimate the average citizen’s ability to make smart decisions.

“If someone wants to be able to carry a gun in public they should have to at least go through all the training a cop does and have frequent background checks. I think it seems we agree on that?”

In regards to training, yes. In regards to background checks, not at all.

It is the right of every free citizen to bear arms. You do not need a background check to access any of your other rights. Why should you have a background check to have your right to bear arms? What business does the government have to track who has guns anyway? If someone is dangerous, then they should be locked up or dead anyway.

Also, what is the purpose of doing more than one background check? Either they have a criminal record or they do not.

“I don't think having stricter gun laws would violate the Constitution, the Second Amendment is pretty vague and open about the idea of the right to bear arms, it being attached to need for a "well regulated militia".”

The Founding Fathers were perfectly clear on what they meant by a militia.

Patrick Henry: “The great objective is that every man be armed…Everyone who is able may have a gun.

Thomas Jefferson: “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny of government.”

I could go on, but the point has been made. The Founding Fathers wanted everybody (okay, everybody “able”) to have guns not so much for protection against burglars but for protection against their own government.

“We don't allow certain people to vote because of being mentally impaired, etc, we shouldn't allow certain people the right to own guns.”

I agree, but we are approaching this view from two different angles. You see it as a “right” to be earned if you prove yourself worthy, trained, and responsible. In your view, it is not truly a right but a privilege. In my view, it is a right which can only be taken away if you prove yourself irresponsible or untrustworthy.

“Your analogy of the invasion of privacy of gun regulation and stopping terrorism doesn't make sense. In the case of fighting terrorism the government has blurred the lines of a right to a fair trial and has circumvented the justice system. In the case of regulating gun I think is similar to mandating that people have a driver's license to drive a car. Isn't the state ensuring that the only people allowed to have a driver's license are those who have passed a driving test and meet the other criteria not the same thing as the state regulating who can and can't have guns?”

That is a very good point. I suspect that if the Founding Fathers were alive during the time of automobiles, they would say that it is a right to drive, but alas, we will never know. Regardless though, they did know about guns, and they said that gun ownership is a right not a privilege as driving has been classified. I agree with you that the Patriot Act is abhorrent in that it takes away some people's right to a fair trial, but I find limiting gun rights to be equally horrible. If you dislike the Constitution, then you are supposed to amend it, not simply pass laws which violate it, yet Congress has passed illegal laws time and time again from the Patriot Act to the Assault Rifle Ban.

“If someone wants to have a gun in there home I really couldn't care less, just posing it as a counterargument to your belief that the solution to gun violence is more people with guns.”

I stand by that belief.

“We already have more guns than any other industrialized nation in the world and because of that we have the most gun accidents, violence and homicides. Our abundance of guns have not deterred violent shooters. If anything more guns would lead to more accidental shootings, like the statistic I talked about.”

I don’t feel like getting into a statistic war right now, but if you request it, we can go there. I would rather just focus on this thought: even if that is true, are you willing to trade your freedom for security? I am not. Even if it does mean more murders, I would rather have disrupted freedom than peaceful slavery (obviously, this is an extreme dichotomy which does not reflect reality. In other words, there is a lot of middle ground between freedom and slavery, but I want to be as close to freedom as possible).

For example, take Britain. It is true that they have a lower crime rate than the United States (for a multitude of reasons). They also have cameras on almost every street corner. Almost everywhere you go in a British city, you are being watched, monitored, and recorded, and I have no doubt that these cameras have helped solve and prevent many crimes, yet it comes at the price of losing privacy and giving the government more power over the citizen.

Let’s make an even more extreme example. If you want to really stop crime, I mean really stop it, then why don’t we just implant everyone with tracking devices. A body was found, let’s go check to see who was in the house. Ah, this person shouldn’t have been there. It must be him. Let’s retrace his steps and find the murder weapon. Surely that would discourage crime, but we would have completely sacrificed our freedom of privacy and would essentially be enslaved to the government.

The point is, even if guns do increase killing (and I’m sure I could find stats to at least shed doubt on that idea if not totally disprove it), you have to ask yourself if you are willing to give up freedom for security. Those who passed the Patriot Act are. I am not.

"Actually it seems the opposite is true. In the US, we have the most lax gun laws and most guns per capita than any other industrialized nation. We have the highest amounts of gun violence because of this. The evidence points in the direction that stricter gun laws means less gun deaths/injuries."

(sigh) I really don’t want to get into this. Here is a guy who addresses a lot of the gun statistics facts you would cite and makes a case the guns decrease violent crimes:

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html/

The issue to me is more about the rule of law and freedom than the consequences of the policy, but if I have to make the case for more guns equaling safer citizens, then I will.

This is not going to stop anything if they start doing this, because then someone will just find a way around ti to the point that then they will do TSA style pat-downs prior to entry into a theatre. It just isn't a good idea I think.

@CrimsonAvenger

"I have to disagree with everything you've said. If you believe a person who kills should be executed then by your own logic executioners should be put to death."

Not at all, for I am drawing a distinction between murder and killing. Killing is simply taking a life. Murder is the intentional taking of an innocent life. Justifiable homicide is taking a guilty life in defense of one's self, loved ones, or property (though property is my personal definition. The law disagrees with me on that point). Execution is the state taking a guilty life as a means of enacting justice.

The executioner is acting according to the law to balance the scales. A life for a life. A murderer is violating the law and acting for his own selfish interests. There is a world of difference between the two.

"You don't seem to understand that what Gandhi meant by his iconic quote is that using violence to combat violence leaves everyone morally blind."

Lvenger said nothing (as best as I recall) about the blindness being in the moral sense. I was simply pointing out that Ghandi's words, taken literally, are not true. If Ghandi meant them metaphorically, that would make more sense, but I still disagree with him. I actually think it demonstrates far more moral blindness to be unable to see that murderers deserve to die. I think it is preposterous to equate, for instance, the act of blowing up the world trade center to the act of executing those who planned the 911 attacks. They are two completely different things.

"Executing a killer doesn't solve anything because it makes the executioner no better than the person they put to death."

It solves lots of things. Most importantly, it solves the problem of him murdering in the future. As I've mentioned before, criminals who are executed have a zero percent recidivism rate. It would also save some money if they'd streamline the appeals process.

"Two wrongs simply don't make a wright because like the great philosopher Lao Tzu said "Violence, even well intentioned, always rebounds upon oneself"."

Two wrongs do not make a right, but I see nothing wrong in executing a murderer. As far as violence rebounding on itself, how does that work? If you execute a murderer, how does it rebound? It stops right there.

@JediXMan said:

@PsychoKnights said:

@JediXMan said:

Didn't he go into the theater, go out the exit (after propping it ope), go to his car, and then get his stuff?

Exactly how would bag checks have stopped that from happening?

It would not change a thing, but the government will never pass up the chance to add more regulations and declare victory over a problem. Many people think of government as their god, therefore it must be involved in every aspect of life, and it is the one that must solve all our problems...even if that means making a token gesture which will solve nothing.

I've seen multiple headlines saying something like "How many more have to die?" and addressing the president. What in the world is Obama or any president supposed to do to prevent this? The only way to completely prevent it is to eliminate free thought completely.

Don't give the government any ideas. (chuckles)

For the most part, we live in a free society. Adding additional security measures could help prevent something every now and then, but ultimately, if someone is twisted and determined enough (and hasn't set off any red flags) to do something like this, odds are they're going to follow through with it. It's unfortunate, but there's just some disturbed people out there.

In this case security checks at the entrance wouldn't have helped at all. He exited through the fire exit in the theater, propped the door, then came back in with his weaponry. I suppose having a security officer of some kind in every single theater could have potentially avoided this, but even then his plan would have been altered. If those security measures were in place, he could have just pulled the same thing at the lines going through security or even the crowded parking lot. But then what about in shopping malls? Public transportation? So on and so on. There's always a loophole and the point is there's truly no way to stop someone if they're sick enough to follow through with such a demented plan. It's messed up and depressing to realize terrible events such as this one are bound to happen, but at least having stricter regulations on weapons can help limit the damage. There's no reason why a 24 year-old student should logically be able to own an assault rifle capable of unleashing 100 bullets. Don't jump to conclusions; I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. I'm saying they shouldn't be allowed to become a one man army.

@PsychoKnights said:

Cruel: "Causing pain or suffering"I believe murderers should feel pain and suffering for their crimes. Why do you believe that murderers should be spared pain and suffering?

Barbaric: "Savagely cruel, exceedingly brutal"

I'm not saying we should torture the criminals. A bullet through the head is not overly painful. Lethal injection is, if anything, overly merciful.

Because they're still human beings. How can we prove that our morals, values and rights have meaning if we are willing to throw them aside and follow an eye for an eye method? It's like CrimsonAvenger said earlier, if murderers deserve to be executed then by that logic the executioners have to suffer the same fate and so on. By your reasoning, anyone who kills another person deserves to be killed and then they in turn have to be killed as they are guilty of the same crime as the murderer. It is an absurd notion.

@PsychoKnights said:

I mean that people forfeit their right to life when they attack an innocent person, so if someone tries to attack me, my family, my friends, or heck, even an innocent person I do not know, I would defend them with lethal force if necessary. I also mean that if somebody tries to steal my possessions, and the only method I have for stopping them is a bullet, they have earned a bullet.

As I said earlier it's all about necessary force. Lethal weapons do not have to be used in lethal manners. And in terms of people forfeiting their right to life when they kill someone, that logic can then be applied to the executioner who kills the murderer. Forcibly taking another's life is a cruel, wicked punishment and does not deserve to be inflicted on anyone. The best way to show the value of life is to deprive them of their right to be a part of society, to show that there are consequences for their actions. Demonstrating the value of life by depriving the murderer of their life is not the way to show how much life matters. In fact it only degrades its value even more.

@PsychoKnights said:

Sincerely, I commend you. Though we obviously disagree on much, I am glad to see that you are willing to defend your family using whatever means necessary. I have come across people for which even this value is lost. I'm glad you are not one of these.

Well this might be the first compliment I've gotten from you. And I can't even imagine anyone not willing to do whatever it takes to protect their loved ones by whatever means necessary.

@PsychoKnights said:

That is a noble attitude that I once held myself. That changed when I heard of countless stories where a person shooting an intruder in their home did not fatally wound the intruder, and then the intruder later pressed charges of excessive force against the home owner. People have gone to prison and been sued successfully for lots of money because some scumbag thief complained that he would never walk again and he was only robbing the house to feed his family. Another thing I realized since I had your view was that these situations happen ridiculously fast. It sounds well and good to shoot someone in the leg, but in practice, this raises lot of problems. First of all, its probably dark and difficult to see the intruder. It would be a lot easier to see the intrude's body than it would be to see his leg. Second, shooting a leg is a skilled shot especially under stress and/or while the leg is moving. You could easily miss, and an intruder can close a ten foot gap by the time it takes you to fire twice. Police are trained to aim for the center of mass, and that is what I would do. Third, how do you know if the other person is an immediate lethal threat or not? It is dark. You probably would not clearly see a gun. If you turn on the light or shout a warning, you greatly increasing your chances of being shot. Even if you can clearly see the intruder is not holding a gun, that does not mean he does not have one stashed somewhere. You turn away for a second to make a call and bang! Fifth, unless you are shooting something very high powered (which would likely kill anyway), people do not magically stop moving when they are hit in the leg. People have a knack of using "Final Stand."

If someone breaks into my home, I shoot to kill.

Well obviously there are those who use their injuries to their advantage. It is a vile sentiment when a criminal who broke into an innocent family's house sues due to damage to the limbs. And yes the situation does happen fast and it does require a skilled shot but you could always go for the foot? That's a better target than the leg for stopping the intruder walking. Also if as you say criminals are scared by the prospect of an armed person, surely they would tread carefully out of fear of sustaining an injury or death? And wouldn't you turn the lights on or shine a torch if you heard a noise downstairs in one of the rooms? And don't you Americans have burgler alarms? You know an alarm system that blares really loudly. I set it off during my childhood and my parents still haven't forgiven me for it. Wouldn't the thief try to make an escape rather than risk further confrontation due the commotion aroused by the alarm and possible shooting..

@PsychoKnights said:

You did not answer how the death penalty is unbalanced or unfair to anyone as I asked you to explain in my previous comment. I will assume you are conceding those points

As for a life for a life being morally incorrect, that is your opinion.

If you've read my other post, you've seen my response on how a life for a life is morally incorrect. The point about the executioner, Lao Tzu's quote etc. Not only is it my opinion which I am most assuredly not conceding on, it is backed up by people who share my view with well thought out reasons and arguments. The moral cons most assuredly outweigh the pros.

@PsychoKnights said:

I've already shown it is not particularly brutal...especially if you do lethal injection. Murderers would be experiencing a more peaceful death than they would probably experience naturally.

Vengeance: "Punishment inflicted or retribution exacted for an injury or wrong."

Sounds good to me. Vengeance it is!

And what about Angel Nieves Diaz who received a lethal injection only to suffer a botched job and suffered for 24 minutes. They know he was still alive because of faint signs of movement. Lethal injection gone wrong can lead to a great deal of suffering before passing. Passing 1000 or however many volts of electricity through the brain is definitely a torturous, brutal punishment. And as for gassing and shooting being used instead, let me remind you of something called Auschwitz and other concentration camps where Jews suffered excruciating pain in the Nazis' death chambers either by gas or by shooting. And retribution is not justice. Retribution is taking pleasure in the suffering of others, for trading reason for the satisfaction of baser instincts and desires. Justice is about fairness, moral rightness and acting in the best moral principles which cannot be traded for any person.

@PsychoKnights said:

I would say that the scales of justice need to be balanced. I would say that people need to know you cannot murder and then live a semi-comfortable life on the taxpayers dime.

The way you say it sounds good doesn't it? But all it means is reaffiming the notion that murder is a viable way of dealing with criminals. It simply proves that we are just as guilty and just as capable of taking life as the murderer is. It is vital that we demonstrate the moral way of dealing with criminals by showing that they are wrong and that we do not need to use the same tactics as them to deal with them.

@PsychoKnights said:

No doubt prison is not preferable to freedom, but imagine that someone kills your parents, gets sent to jail, and you have to realize that with every dollar you makes, some of your money is going to pay for that scumbag to eat decent meals, watch television, read, and work out. It is wrong.

It would go against everything my parents taught me. When news arrived that Osama Bin Laden had been killed, I was actually pleased as I imagine you would be by the news! But then my mum talked to me about it. She told me that it was wrong that Bin Laden had been killed, that she got no satisfaction out of his death and that she wanted him to be tried for his crimes the right way. I've had this discussion with my parents and I swore that I would not wish ill of the person who murdered them and that I would stick by my values no matter what the killer had done to them. Holding a death wish to the murderer would go against everything my parents raised me to believe in.

@PsychoKnights said:

There is a world of difference between murder and killing. One is taking an innocent life the other is taking a guilty life. They are nothing alike.

Let me make a comparison. Let's say a guy named Joe Bob runs a con cheating the elderly out of money that earns him ten thousand dollars. He is caught, convicted, and goes to jail for a couple of years. When he gets out, he is sued by his victims for twenty thousand dollars worth of damages. The court finds in favor of those suing Joe Bob, and Joe Bob has to pay up. Now both Joe Bob and the victims got money from someone against their will, but there is a world of difference between their actions. Joe Bob was hurting innocent people. The victims were hurting the guilty. That is the same difference between murder and the death penalty.

I don't subscribe to the viewpoint that hurting guilty people is better than hurting innocent people. At the end of the day, we are all human beings and taking life of anyone cannot be done lightly. It is a serious issue that should only be done in extreme circumstances. And your example is not one that fits the criteria. The law states that those who have unfairly had money taken from them have a right to sue and pursue the case. And at the end of the day, Joe Bob just loses his money which I find to be immaterial anyway. I don't want to be rich at all. Wealth is overrated. That is justice. The money belongs to the victims. The life of the criminal does not belong to anyone else. It would be slavery which is another injustice.

@PsychoKnights said:

Again, world of difference, but more to the point I wish to make here, where do you guys get the idea of a "vicious cycle?" A cycle is continuous and feeds on itself. This is not a cycle. You murder, you are convicted, you get executed, end of story. That's not a vicious cycle, that is a not-so-vicious line.

It's a vicious cycle because criminal commits crime, is tried, found guilty and executed. Another criminal commits a crime and so on. It just reinforces the notion of death by criminals and by the justice system.

@PsychoKnights said:

Not all killing is murder. You already agreed that killing was not murder in the case of self-defense. The death penalty is a type of societal self-defense. It removed the cancerous cells of society (remember, murderers are frequently released), and signals to all those afraid of death that they will suffer if they murder.

It would only be classed as societal self defense if the criminal posed an active threat to society. If he's captured there's no need to kill him, not when there are ways of imprisoning him. If the same results can be achieved without killing, I fully support imprisonment.

@PsychoKnights said:

I've already answered that above. Let me ask a question in turn. Do you really see no difference in killing an innocent person and killing a guilty person?

I already answered that. So no I do not see a difference. These means do not justify the end when there are better means of accomplishing the same end.

@PsychoKnights said:

I'll claim a little ignorance on this point. My understanding is that the appeals process is what makes executions so costly, and I've already mentioned that the appeals process needs to be streamlined. However, if you are telling me that it costs four million to stick a needle in a guy's arm, then I will gladly save the nation some money. All I need is the price of one .223 round. Heck, we could strangle or drown murderers for free, but personally, I think a bullet would be less painful.

Tell the Jews who suffered at the hands of the Nazis that a bullet seems like a good form of punishment. Strangulation definitely isn't humane either. Drowning's supposed to be quite a peaceful way to die but it's still taking a life so that is not a punishment I agree with.

@PsychoKnights said:

Who cares? What relevance does the UDHR have on American government? Did we sign on to that or something?

Regardless, criminals give up their rights when they commit crimes. According to the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the rights of individuals are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and if you read Jefferson's original draft and notes, you will find that "pursuit of happiness" was actually meant to be "property." However, Jefferson decided to remove that word (even though he and the other Founders fully believed in it to be a right) because he did not want the idea of a "right to property" to be used as a defense of slavery. With this in mind, imprisoned criminals already lose their basic human rights of liberty, happiness, and property when they commit crimes. Therefore, you do agree that most human rights go out the window when you commit crimes. I simply believe that the right to life goes as well if you commit first degree murder.

As I said before, life is an inalienable right that no one should have the right to take away. We no longer need to kill to survive or anything like that so we have a duty to behave as morally responsible as possible. That includes our punishment of criminals. And I'm not American so I'll take your word on the Declaration of Independence and simply agree to disagree on that.

@PsychoKnights said:

Oh please, it's not torture. It's over in a flash.

See lethal injection story above. Plus a gunshot may leave a person alive for a short while. Highly unlikely but a well placed shot can leave the bullet in the skull rather than passing straight through it.

@PsychoKnights said:

You're worried about degrading murderers? You know what else is degrading? List of degrading prison realities follows: having to wear a brightly colored uniform so we know you are a bad guy, having to poop in plain view of other people, showering in a room with other men, having your cheeks spread and your bum hole searched for prison shanks. Prison is already plenty degrading. (eyeroll) Criminals do not have a right to feel undegraded.

No but they need to be shown that breaking the laws of society have consequences. And the best way to show murder is wrong is imprisonment. If they're left out on the street, they're free to do it all over again. It's a lesser of two evils, the worst being violating the importance of life.

@PsychoKnights said:

Oh my gosh! You mean the poor little murderer might feel indignant! (gasps) How terrible! I certainly hope he doesn't feel bad about killing people or anything! Do you think he might be embarrassed for people to know he beheaded a woman and then raped her body, or could that poor girl feel like we are judging her for drowning her baby in the bathtub!??! I never imagined.

Seriously?

It's values that society share and we need to show that these values matter to all, even those who break them. Not resort to the same tactics as the murderers used.

@PsychoKnights said:

So it is not hypocritical to use, as you put it, "criminal methods to punish criminals" by taking away the freedom of a kidnapper or taking away the money of a thief, but for some reason it is completely hypocritical to take away the life of a murderer.

As I said earlier, there has to be some consequence for a criminal's actions, some way of preventing them from doing it again. And imprisonment does this without the loss of life.

@PsychoKnights said:

After a murderer kills both your parents so he can rob their house, how long do you feel they should be locked up before being released? I mean, for me, I would want them dead, but you seem to think that prison is better because they can get back out. To me, that just seems like another reason to kill them, but please explain how your parents lives are only worth twenty years of punishment.

Look I have a real gripe with the wishy washy sentence of 'life imprisonment' For those who can't repent for their crimes or have committed an atrocity so terrible, life imprisonment should be for life. They should have to sit in their cell and reflect on why they're iin this position for the rest of their life. And as for my parents, read above bit.

@PsychoKnights said:

I have no desire to torture or rape anybody, but I would put a bullet through the head of anybody who commits first degree murder. I don't know if I would enjoy it or not. There are some, like this bastard at the movie theater, that I would really like to see hang, but on the other hand, taking a life is not a happy thing. Regardless, the death penalty is not about enjoying death, it is about justice.

Nor do I have a desire to do that to anyone else. Taking a life is not a happy thing at all. And as I explained, vengeance is not the same as justice. Vengeance throws morality, fairness and rationality out the window.

@PsychoKnights said:

Two things. First, I've already proven that you are fine with removing most of the human rights from criminals, so you are wrong on that count. Second, according to the Declaration of Independence, God gave humanity rights, not man. He was also the one who came up with the whole eye for an eye concept.

Well being an atheist I feel humanity has come up with these rights ourselves without the need of some divine creator to do it for us. And the Old Testament God is another concept I dislike with a passion.

@PsychoKnights said:

I thought you wanted to imprison kidnappers. Change your mind?

Oh come on you're twisting my words now! Kidnapping at least leaves the victims alive. Imprisonment acts as the consequence for those who have committed crimes whilst the death penalty reinforces the notion of killing and makes us no better than murderers.

@PsychoKnights said:

Retribution: "Punishment that is considered morally right and fully deserved."

Sounds good to me! (gins)

My computer just tried to eat my words again in the exact same place it crashed yesterday. Weird. Thankfully, I had saved this time.

That's justice you're talking about, not vengeance.

@PsychoKnights said:

We have different fundamental ethical values. That is why we probably will not come to an agreement on this. I believe that a criminal sacrifices their right to life when they kill an innocent. You do not.

Regarding rationality, I have been completely logical and rational in my arguments.

Regarding equity, my view is much more equitable than yous: a life for a life. Your method has people losing their freedom for a couple decades while they get free room and board. This is not near equitable to the amount that they took.

True we do have different ethical values. And your libertarian man speech does undermine the rationality point but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. As for equity, the value of life matters a great deal to me and the loss of any is not an equitable standpoint.

@PsychoKnights said:

Now, now. None of that, or I will have to report you.

However, I will thank you again for taking the time to respond.

We seem to be rehashing a lot of the same ground. The next time I write, I will be more brief unless you add a lot of new thoughts to the discussion.

Next time keep Libertarian Man out of this. Arrogance is a very unattractive quality and your two comments after that were highly insulting towards me and to your attitude to this. Thus it did not help your rationality point. I agree with your last point. This took me over an hour to write. So I'll continue this tomorrow if you respond if that's alright with you?

@jloneblackheart said:

"The reason bag checks and metal detectors work at the airport is they have armed security. If some guy pulls a piece at the airport, someone is nearby to drop him. A 15 year old at the movie theater cannot stop a gunman."

True.

"Since metal detectors and bag checks are not going to work, they have to come up with better ways to avoid the same thing from happening again."

As long as people have free will, some will choose to kill. Where there is a will there is a way, and all the attempts to add regulation to stop something from happening again strips freedoms away from all citizens, good and bad. As I've said several times before in this thread, the answer to our problems is almost always more freedom not less. If other people citizens had weapons, the shooter would have gone down quickly. Instead, they were sitting ducks.

"Eliminating cosplay decreases the odds of someone hiding firearms on them self or movie patron believing a gunman may be part of some show they are unaware of (as was they case here)."

There is nothing more concealing about a cosplay outfit than normal clothes you can wear. Trying to ban cosplay in theaters is like trying to ban trench coats at school after the school shooting. The clothes are not the problem and they are not the solution.

He may have had more access because of the costume though I doubt it would have made much difference. If someone had stopped him, they would just have been the first to die. Even if it did give him more access, it is no difference than dressing up like an employee, or police officer, or maintenance man. Banning cosplay in theaters would not help anything.

"Exits in the back would give people an alternate route for escape."

Every movie theater I've ever been to has exits at front and back.

"What we need to say "enough" to is the media attention we give these psychos. Soon we will know everything about this POS. His writings, his beliefs, his motives, his family life. We need to stop sensationalizing these types of people. We need to stop showing their faces and giving them the infamy they so desire. Report it (blandly), give him his trial and once he's found guilty, execute him the next month."

I agree with you 100%. It is sad that somebody can be a nut like this and have his distorted world views proclaimed before the world while good people lack a voice all too often. If it has not been done already, we will probably soon start getting stories that tell us how this poor guy was misunderstood and didn't get the help he needed. Everybody wants to say these guys are nuts, and in many cases, they might be, but let's not discount the possibility of someone just being downright evil. Some people really do just want to watch the world burn.

I really liked how Glenn Beck treated the Virginia Tech massacre. He said something to the effect of, "I don't even want to give this guy a platform, but I'll talk about him once." He talked about him once and showed his picture once, and then he never spent any more time dealing with the psycho. Good man, that Beck.

“I'll ignore the second comment from 'Libertarian Man' to prevent another outburst”

As Thumper’s father counseled, “If you can’t say nothin’ nice, don’t say nothin’ at all.” (grins)

Seriously though, I was playing with you. Don’t you ever have other guys play around with you and make jokes? I was typing in a really bad Thor impression. It wasn’t meant to be taken as an offensive attack.

That being said, I did take a long time writing you a response, and you blew me off. That is very rude, so please don’t pretend that I am being out of line here. I was playful. You were inconsiderate.

“What I was saying here is that despite the threat of death in place as a punishment in spite of all other factors since in your words, most people seem afraid of dying that this does not appear to be the case. If people were afraid of dying, then there should be a dramatic decrease in the crime rate.”

Again, there are many factors at work in any situation. You cannot say that the lack of a decrease in crime rates means that it is because of the death penalty because there are so many other factors at work. I already showed you studies that show that the death penalty does decrease crime rates, but you ignored that without comment which is one of the reasons I’m going to be more brief this time.

Also, are you actually saying that people are not afraid of dying? Suuuuuure.

If the result of the causation of crime in Texas is the death penalty then it should be able to reduce the crime rate. That's what punishments are for and incarceration has a much lower crime rate than those on death row.

I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

Honestly, I don’t even understand what you are trying to say here.

“Obviously crime syndicates and circles play a factor as they do everywhere.”

Good point, but crime syndicates in the United States is basically limited to major cities (which have a much higher crime rate than the general population). I would contend that Mexico probably has more rampant gangs than any U.S. gangs because the gangs basically own Mexico.

“but the fact is the whole argument for the advantageous use of the death penalty is that it is supposed to act as a permanent solution to criminals.”

It is a permanent solution to those executed.

“Yet I sense it does little more than what Hercules or Heracles as his name was originally in Greek mythology achieved against the Hydra. Cut off one head and another sprouts. Someone will take advantage of the power vacuum if a group of criminals is captured and executed. Crime still rises not just in Texas but in other countries that use the death penalty. Hence the argument that it is a good permanent solution is invalid.”

Nice allusion. However, you do realize that the same thing can be said for imprisonment. By your logic, the Hydra still sprouts more heads once one organized crime family goes to jail. Then, another replaces it. Also, most murders are not tied into organized crimes. They are independent actions, and the Hydra illustration has no bearing on those actions.

“That is why imprisonment is not only morally correct, it keeps criminals in a definite place where their kind can't do any more wrongs in society.”

Actually, though mobsters in prison do not often rule families outside prison, they do almost always enforce a gang culture inside the prisons which still intimidates people, deals in the black market, and sometimes even murders other prisoners from rival affiliations. So, that whole point is wrong.

“Thankfully you are correct in this regard. Sociopaths are a minority in prison. However it is a cruel society that uses fear to punish those who have committed wrongs in society.”

Aren’t people already afraid of prison? Why shouldn't a murderer be scared of the consequences of his actions?

“You seem eager to sweep away the rights of the murderer to life with the knowledge that the innocent person/people they may have killed also had a right to life.”

???

“ How can it be proven that they have a right to life if the murderer is executed? These rights apply to everyone who lives in our society and honoring the life/lives of those taken from us can be best done by showing the same kind of strength of will to spare the lives of those who have abused its value.”

I’ve demonstrated many times that those who commit crimes have their rights taken away.

“I just have in the prior paragraphs.”

Actually, you did nothing to explain why someone would be unafraid of death. You just restated your leapt-to conclusion that death rates should be lower in Texas if people were. According to your current position, nobody in the crowd of people who were massacred the other night were scared because…apparently people are unafraid of death. (shrugs shoulders) That doesn't make sense to me,but...whatever.

“Well at least you have some sense of mercy. And I'd like to end by quoting what CrimsonAvenger has said as I was about to write something like this myself but he's put it in a brilliant way and Lao Tzu is now one of my new favourite philosophers:

@CrimsonAvengersaid:

@PsychoKnights: I have to disagree with everything you've said. If you believe a person who kills should be executed then by your own logic executioners should be put to death. You don't seem to understand that what Gandhi meant by his iconic quote is that using violence to combat violence leaves everyone morally blind. Executing a killer doesn't solve anything because it makes the executioner no better than the person they put to death. It takes a stronger man not to kill than to kill. Two wrongs simply don't make a wright because like the great philosopher Lao Tzu said "Violence, even well intentioned, always rebounds upon oneself".

I'll be interested to see if you can think of a response to this.”

I’ve already given my response to Crimson Avenger. It is on page nine or ten. I don’t recall which.

One last thing about the advantage of imprisonment over the death penealty. As is always the case in the justice system and trials, sometimes innocent people are convicted of crimes they did not commit. Maybe they share a striking similarity to the criminal. Now if that person was just impriosned as they always are in Britain, where I live, if evidence were found to the contrary, that person could be released. Now admittedly they may have lost several years of their life in prison but this evidence gives them a chance to return to society and live the rest of their life fully as a productive citizen. However if an innocent person was convicted of a crime and sentanced to capital punishment, there's no bringigng them back. Dead is dead. I've seen plenty of stories such as the one about Carlos DeLuna in 1998 who was sentenced to death for looking almost like another murderer. If he were imprisoned, he could have been released later and would not have had to suffer the ultimate price for another man's crimes. As it happens, this man did suffer the ultimate price of losing his life. How can capital punishment be a viable form of punishment when innocent people are at risk of losing their lives as well as murderers? If DeLuna were imprisoned, this would not be a problem.

This is a good point, and I’m actually rather surprised you didn’t bring it up earlier. It is definitely one of the strongest attacks you can make on the death penalty.

The only answer I can give you is this: that is not the point. True, someone could be wrongfully convicted and executed, and that would be a horrible thing, but you are mixing problems. The problem we are discussing is what should be done with murderers. The problem you bring up is that some people are wrongfully convicted. I will grant that life imprisonment does have the advantage of being reversed, but I still believe that an eye for an eye is a better system and that it would save more lives in the long run.

@SC said:

Possibly could happen. Unfortunately when anything makes a lot of noise, and this is an extremely horrific and tragic incident, and so its going to make noise, lots of people rush to address it and rush to give opinions and make points about the circumstances or aspects of and just plenty of general discussion and action, and sometimes this can be to sincere effect like prevention or sometimes this can be to insincere effect, as in pushing agendas. Safety and peoples safety is a huge subject and one that unfortunately that can be more about perception of safety sometimes more than actual safety. Now peace of mind is something thats very real as well, so one could suppose instead of having educated and knowledgeable people, having the perception of safety is something worth having, so there's that, but I don't think it can hurt to emphasis on facts and unfortunately given how large and complicated societies are, sometimes bad things will happen, and the solutions and preventions to such bad things won't be as simple as many might suggest. Not just that but studies show that humans develop a disproportionate understanding of how often bad things actually occur based on how they are presented things from the media and news. Studies also show that when people are reminded of their mortality, that despite what they may think, they are typically more prone of thinking irrationally and from emotion and fear, which means they are ripe for exploitation from those who know this, and finally there is also confirmation bias inherent within all of us. I personally do not think mandatory bag checks are necessary and may create more problems than solve them, but then again I am also ignorant on the ratio of incidents involving violent and deadly actions in movie theaters, as in the objective info. The need for bag checks could be there, but this particular incident would have still happened from what I know of it. I do know that life can be pretty hard and that many societies structurally are more likely to provide conditions for individuals to be able to cause such damage, and so my preference will always be there in trying to address the problem before its a problem. Naturally thats easier said than done, but for some reason some peoples ideologies and politics tend to become a factor, because you know, its way more important being right right?

I completely agree with what you said in the sense that a lot of people will use this to push their own agendas. Maybe bag checks isn't the way to go, but better security in itself, definitely is. There shouldn't have been the opportunity for this exit door to have been and remain open. My best friend worked at the SilverCity by my old house as a teen and I remember there was always soooo much staff, especially on opening night, and security. In fact, there were always employees milling about under the screen between theatre doors and whatnot, sometimes just cleaning up or whatever. Either way, the point remains that a really horrific event occurred that may or may not have been prevented had their been better security measures. Do I think that every theatre needs a metal detector and armed guards every night of the week? No. But there definitely needs to be better awareness and prevention measures in areas like this where large groups are gathering...

I also think that the US needs better gun control though. Maybe amending the second amendment is more appropriate then completely abolishing it. Of course, given the amount of lobbyists in Washington... highly doubt something to that effect will ever happen.

@jloneblackheart said:

A mandatory bag check or metal detector is not going to stop someone from killing people if they want to kill people.

What will undoubtedly stop is dressing up and cosplaying to the theater.

What else we may see (and is probably a good idea for reasons other than shootings) is fire exits at the back of the theater.

Agreed on bag check not fixing anything, but we have essentially the same thing happening at airports now. Granted, those checks are thorough enough to actually find things, but that does not stop the government from banning liquids and nail clippers. Stopping cosplay is equally stupid.

How many of our liberties will people allow to be taken away before they say, "Enough."

Regarding fire exits, there are government regulations on those. I'm not sure what exactly those regulations are, but I would not be surprised if it is required that there be one in each theater.

@Lvenger:

“Because they're still human beings. How can we prove that our morals, values and rights have meaning if we are willing to throw them aside and follow an eye for an eye method? It's like CrimsonAvenger said earlier, if murderers deserve to be executed then by that logic the executioners have to suffer the same fate and so on. By your reasoning, anyone who kills another person deserves to be killed and then they in turn have to be killed as they are guilty of the same crime as the murderer. It is an absurd notion.”

I’ve demonstrated the difference between killing and murder many times over. It is unfortunate that you cannot see the distinction.

Though murderers are certainly human beings, they are human beings who made horrible choices and should suffer the consequences of their actions. With Libertarian politics, it is all about personal responsibility. You suffer the consequences of you actions. With Progressive politics, it all about collective responsibility. Sure, this person is a murderer, but how did society contribute to him becoming this way? How can we reform him?

“As I said earlier it's all about necessary force. Lethal weapons do not have to be used in lethal manners. And in terms of people forfeiting their right to life when they kill someone, that logic can then be applied to the executioner who kills the murderer. Forcibly taking another's life is a cruel, wicked punishment and does not deserve to be inflicted on anyone. The best way to show the value of life is to deprive them of their right to be a part of society, to show that there are consequences for their actions. Demonstrating the value of life by depriving the murderer of their life is not the way to show how much life matters. In fact it only degrades its value even more.”

Again, taking an innocent life and a guilty life are worlds apart. I don’t know why you can’t see that.

As far as how to show the value of life, we apparently disagree. As I said before, the life of a murderer holds little value in my eyes.

“Well this might be the first compliment I've gotten from you. And I can't even imagine anyone not willing to do whatever it takes to protect their loved ones by whatever means necessary.”

I hold much antagonism for your ideas, but I have no desire to hurt you personally. I did jab at you (though I meant it to be partially in jest to try to nudge you towards responding), but I was not trying to hurt you emotionally or “affront your honor” as Libertarian Man would put it.

Some pacifists say they do not believe any violent action is justified. I’ve dealt with some. They are idiots, but…what can you do?

“Well obviously there are those who use their injuries to their advantage. It is a vile sentiment when a criminal who broke into an innocent family's house sues due to damage to the limbs.”

We agree.

“And yes the situation does happen fast and it does require a skilled shot but you could always go for the foot? That's a better target than the leg for stopping the intruder walking.”

A foot is a smaller target than a leg.

“Also if as you say criminals are scared by the prospect of an armed person, surely they would tread carefully out of fear of sustaining an injury or death?”

You seemed to say before that statistics show people are not scared of death.

“And wouldn't you turn the lights on or shine a torch if you heard a noise downstairs in one of the rooms?”

Good question. After thinking about it for a few seconds, I’m thinking probably not. From being in the dark all night, my eyes would be adjusted to the dark while the burglar would have come from a lighted hallway to enter my apartment (and most people’s dwellings would probably have some sort of light outside). That means I would have the advantage with the lights off. If I turned on the light, I would probably be much more blinded than the intruder.

“And don't you Americans have burgler alarms? You know an alarm system that blares really loudly.”

In Arkansas, we have guns. (grins) I’m sure some wealthier people have them, but it is not a luxury us lower middle class crowd can afford.

“I set it off during my childhood and my parents still haven't forgiven me for it. Wouldn't the thief try to make an escape rather than risk further confrontation due the commotion aroused by the alarm and possible shooting.”

(laughs about childhood story) Nice.

I’ve set off the burglar alarm at work, and I have no doubt that I would high tale it out if I was a criminal and heard that sound…unless I had some sort of master plan which took that into account, but it would take nerves. On an instinctual level, people are scared of big sounds.

“ If you've read my other post, you've seen my response on how a life for a life is morally incorrect. The point about the executioner, Lao Tzu's quote etc. Not only is it my opinion which I am most assuredly not conceding on, it is backed up by people who share my view with well thought out reasons and arguments. The moral cons most assuredly outweigh the pros.”

I don’t think I have anything to add which I haven’t already said on this.

“And what about Angel Nieves Diaz who received a lethal injection only to suffer a botched job and suffered for 24 minutes. They know he was still alive because of faint signs of movement. Lethal injection gone wrong can lead to a great deal of suffering before passing.”

That was a fluke, but seriously, a couple bullets though the head would be much less painful if you are that concerned. We can give them a sedative first. No big.

Also, I really don’t see why you care about murders suffering.

“Passing 1000 or however many volts of electricity through the brain is definitely a torturous, brutal punishment.”

My understanding is that when that amount of electricity hits you, you are dead instantly, but it is irrelevant anyway since the electric chair is not used anymore in the U.S. unless I am mistaken.

“And as for gassing and shooting being used instead, let me remind you of something called Auschwitz and other concentration camps where Jews suffered excruciating pain in the Nazis' death chambers either by gas or by shooting.”

So? I gave you the definition of cruel. It is not to cause pain, it is to cause excessive pain or suffering. Give someone a sedative to put them under, shoot them a couple times in the head, they shouldn’t feel a thing. The fact that the Nazis did the same thing (without the sedative) doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use the same methods. Nazi men put their pants on one leg at a time. Should we do two legs just to use different methods? The thing that makes the Nazis so bad is that they were killing innocents.

Honestly, I would prefer for murderers to be put to death without pain because I’m not a sicko who gets off on suffering, but if they do suffer a little bit, I'm not shedding any tears. They’ve earned it.

“And retribution is not justice. Retribution is taking pleasure in the suffering of others, for trading reason for the satisfaction of baser instincts and desires. Justice is about fairness, moral rightness and acting in the best moral principles which cannot be traded for any person.”

I have nothing that I have not already said.

“The way you say it sounds good doesn't it?”

Yep. All my ideas are good. If you don’t believe me, just ask me. (winks and grins)

“But all it means is reaffiming the notion that murder is a viable way of dealing with criminals. It simply proves that we are just as guilty and just as capable of taking life as the murderer is. It is vital that we demonstrate the moral way of dealing with criminals by showing that they are wrong and that we do not need to use the same tactics as them to deal with them.”

For the zillionth time, killing and murder are two different things.

“It would go against everything my parents taught me. When news arrived that Osama Bin Laden had been killed, I was actually pleased as I imagine you would be by the news! But then my mum talked to me about it. She told me that it was wrong that Bin Laden had been killed, that she got no satisfaction out of his death and that she wanted him to be tried for his crimes the right way. I've had this discussion with my parents and I swore that I would not wish ill of the person who murdered them and that I would stick by my values no matter what the killer had done to them. Holding a death wish to the murderer would go against everything my parents raised me to believe in.”

I appreciate your respect for your parents, but I disagree with them.

If it is any consolation, the U.S. troops gave Osama a chance to surrender, and he refused. I believe he was armed, so there was no good alternative except to shoot him. I guess you could say we could have used knock out gas, but the more time you spend on a military operation, the more time you leave for something to go wrong. There could have been support in one of the other buildings or he could have had an escape route, or he could have had a gas mask. Killing him was the safest option for the U.S. troops.

“I don't subscribe to the viewpoint that hurting guilty people is better than hurting innocent people. At the end of the day, we are all human beings and taking life of anyone cannot be done lightly. It is a serious issue that should only be done in extreme circumstances. And your example is not one that fits the criteria. The law states that those who have unfairly had money taken from them have a right to sue and pursue the case. And at the end of the day, Joe Bob just loses his money which I find to be immaterial anyway. I don't want to be rich at all. Wealth is overrated. That is justice. The money belongs to the victims. The life of the criminal does not belong to anyone else. It would be slavery which is another injustice.”

Well, we disagree, but I have nothing to add really.

“It's a vicious cycle because criminal commits crime, is tried, found guilty and executed. Another criminal commits a crime and so on. It just reinforces the notion of death by criminals and by the justice system.”

It is not a cycle because killing criminals does not cause another to rise in his place. With a cycle, each step causes the next step to occur. There will always be murders, but neither execution nor imprisonment cause them.

“It would only be classed as societal self defense if the criminal posed an active threat to society. If he's captured there's no need to kill him, not when there are ways of imprisoning him. If the same results can be achieved without killing, I fully support imprisonment.”

Murderers can get released and kill in prison. The death penalty is more effective.

“I already answered that. So no I do not see a difference. These means do not justify the end when there are better means of accomplishing the same end.”

I don’t believe the end justifies the means either. I simply see nothing wrong with killing a murderer.

“Tell the Jews who suffered at the hands of the Nazis that a bullet seems like a good form of punishment. Strangulation definitely isn't humane either. Drowning's supposed to be quite a peaceful way to die but it's still taking a life so that is not a punishment I agree with.”

The Jews were innocent. Murderers are not. World of difference.

I’ve actually heard that drowning is a horrible way to die, but who really knows since dead men tell no tales. The point I was making (if I recall my previous train of thought correctly) was not that these were particularly great ways to go, but that they were cheap. Execution need not be expensive.

“As I said before, life is an inalienable right that no one should have the right to take away. We no longer need to kill to survive or anything like that so we have a duty to behave as morally responsible as possible. That includes our punishment of criminals. And I'm not American so I'll take your word on the Declaration of Independence and simply agree to disagree on that.”

Again, people lose rights to freedom and all sorts of other things. Your rights can be alienated if you commit a crime.

“See lethal injection story above. Plus a gunshot may leave a person alive for a short while. Highly unlikely but a well placed shot can leave the bullet in the skull rather than passing straight through it.”

Fluke and shoot them multiple times.

“No but they need to be shown that breaking the laws of society have consequences. And the best way to show murder is wrong is imprisonment. If they're left out on the street, they're free to do it all over again. It's a lesser of two evils, the worst being violating the importance of life.”

We disagree. Also, you said they had an inalienable right to be undegraded before. Just another example of how criminals lose their rights when they commit crimes.

“It's values that society share and we need to show that these values matter to all, even those who break them. Not resort to the same tactics as the murderers used.”

I don’t care about murderers dignity. That’s my value.

“As I said earlier, there has to be some consequence for a criminal's actions, some way of preventing them from doing it again. And imprisonment does this without the loss of life.”

Therefore, it is okay to use some “criminal methods” to deal with criminals.

“Look I have a real gripe with the wishy washy sentence of 'life imprisonment' For those who can't repent for their crimes or have committed an atrocity so terrible, life imprisonment should be for life. They should have to sit in their cell and reflect on why they're iin this position for the rest of their life. And as for my parents, read above bit.”

So, you are saying that you don’t want murderers to ever go free or just some murderers? I have no agenda with this question; I'm just a little confused on your meaning.

“Nor do I have a desire to do that to anyone else. Taking a life is not a happy thing at all. And as I explained, vengeance is not the same as justice. Vengeance throws morality, fairness and rationality out the window.”

I believe the two concepts go hand in hand.

Well being an atheist I feel humanity has come up with these rights ourselves without the need of some divine creator to do it for us. And the Old Testament God is another concept I dislike with a passion.

I believe in God, but I don’t much like him.

Oh come on you're twisting my words now! Kidnapping at least leaves the victims alive. Imprisonment acts as the consequence for those who have committed crimes whilst the death penalty reinforces the notion of killing and makes us no better than murderers.

(grins) I was not meaning to equate your acceptance of imprisonment as an acceptance of execution. I was merely showing that the methods of criminals are not necessarily bad when applied to criminals…such as with locking up kidnappers.

That's justice you're talking about, not vengeance.

That was retribution actually.

“True we do have different ethical values. And your libertarian man speech does undermine the rationality point but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.”

(grins) Man, you really let that get under your skin, didn’t you? Look, I didn’t make any political points while talking as Libertarian Man. All I did was point out that you were doing the equivalent of starting a fight and then running away. It was meant as comedy, and it has no bearing on the rationality of my argument. (still grinning)

As for equity, the value of life matters a great deal to me and the loss of any is not an equitable standpoint.

You do realize that equity means being equal, right? You don’t get any more equal than an eye for an eye.

“Next time keep Libertarian Man out of this.”

Libertarian Man will make an appearance if he is needed. As long as you are respectful and don’t try to bail on a conversation, I don’t see why he would make an appearance.

“Arrogance is a very unattractive quality and your two comments after that were highly insulting towards me and to your attitude to this. Thus it did not help your rationality point.”

I concur that arrogance is unattractive. Any statements about my “mental might” were jokes. I realize I am quite fallible and I make mistakes every day. My intelligence is well above average, but I am no genius, and I can often be an idiot about things.

As far as being insulting, I will apologize if you can show me any comments which were underserved. I don’t think you will find any.

Also, let’s not forget your arrogant statements while we are on the topic. I will not rehash them unless it is needed.

I agree with your last point. This took me over an hour to write. So I'll continue this tomorrow if you respond if that's alright with you?

Absolutely. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts with me. Now, I do have a busy week coming up, so if I don’t get back to you in a couple days, send me a message and remind me.

@RazzaTazz said:

@PsychoKnights said:

@jloneblackheart said:

A mandatory bag check or metal detector is not going to stop someone from killing people if they want to kill people.

What will undoubtedly stop is dressing up and cosplaying to the theater.

What else we may see (and is probably a good idea for reasons other than shootings) is fire exits at the back of the theater.

Agreed on bag check not fixing anything, but we have essentially the same thing happening at airports now. Granted, those checks are thorough enough to actually find things, but that does not stop the government from banning liquids and nail clippers. Stopping cosplay is equally stupid.

How many of our liberties will people allow to be taken away before they say, "Enough."

Regarding fire exits, there are government regulations on those. I'm not sure what exactly those regulations are, but I would not be surprised if it is required that there be one in each theater.

Not cosplaying would not be a liberty that is taken away. Unless you are being forbidden from doing it outside or on public property. If you are in a private business and someone wants to restrict you from entry they are allowed to do so, as it is their business.

Sorry, I thought you were talking about the government requiring these checks. Anytime someone talks about an entity taking token measures which do not actually help anything, I assume that person is talking about the government.

A private entity can do whatever they want with their own business. If they wanted to require everyone to wear Joker costumes before attending, that would be their prerogative.

I may skip out some bits that we've gone over before:

@PsychoKnights said:

Again, there are many factors at work in any situation. You cannot say that the lack of a decrease in crime rates means that it is because of the death penalty because there are so many other factors at work. I already showed you studies that show that the death penalty does decrease crime rates, but you ignored that without comment which is one of the reasons I’m going to be more brief this time.

Also, are you actually saying that people are not afraid of dying? Suuuuuure.

And I also showed you studies where in spite of the death penalty being in place, crime rates still increased even though people are afraid of dying. I shall be brief here too as all that can be said about this has been said.

@PsychoKnights said:

I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

Honestly, I don’t even understand what you are trying to say here.

What I was saying here is that if the death penalty acts as the resulting punishment of crime, which is causation then it should be able to put a stop to the cause, which is crime. But the death penalty does not act as a deterrent to crime. Crime rates are still on the increase in spite of the death penalty. So the point that it deters crime is moot.

@PsychoKnights said:

It is a permanent solution to those executed.

Permanent yes I'll grant you. Morally right? No. Incarceration executed (no pun intented) properly does the same job. If you can find a better way of doing something, in this case dealing with criminals then we have a moral responsibility to do just that.

@PsychoKnights said:

Nice allusion. However, you do realize that the same thing can be said for imprisonment. By your logic, the Hydra still sprouts more heads once one organized crime family goes to jail. Then, another replaces it. Also, most murders are not tied into organized crimes. They are independent actions, and the Hydra illustration has no bearing on those actions.

Damn you've made a good point here. But what I meant to say is that the death penalty has no effect on circumstantial things like position in society, upbringing, childhood experiences and other factors that may drive people to become murderers. Unless those issues are tackled, murderers will still be around in spite of a death penalty or whatever lethal punishment can be concocted to deal with criminals.

@PsychoKnights said:

Actually, though mobsters in prison do not often rule families outside prison, they do almost always enforce a gang culture inside the prisons which still intimidates people, deals in the black market, and sometimes even murders other prisoners from rival affiliations. So, that whole point is wrong.

I've done psychology, I'm aware of studies conducted into research about gang cultures in prison. And such things need to be more strictly enforced on the prisoners. What I meant is they cannot do any more harm in normal society, where they originally carried out their crimes.

@PsychoKnights said:

Aren’t people already afraid of prison? Why shouldn't a murderer be scared of the consequences of his actions?

Let me rephrase my original point. It is a cruel society that has to rule by using death as a form of punishment. I should have thought out that point better. Admittedly prison does have an effect of fear on criminals to an extent and they should be fearful of the consequences of their actions. But using death to intimidate criminals is not the way to show true justice on the crimes they have committed.

@PsychoKnights said:

I’ve demonstrated many times that those who commit crimes have their rights taken away.

Well there's no point in debating this point any more. We have different standpoints on the value of life so I'll leave this be.

@PsychoKnights said:

Actually, you did nothing to explain why someone would be unafraid of death. You just restated your leapt-to conclusion that death rates should be lower in Texas if people were. According to your current position, nobody in the crowd of people who were massacred the other night were scared because…apparently people are unafraid of death. (shrugs shoulders) That doesn't make sense to me,but...whatever.

OK people are afraid of death. The way in which that man came in and callously slaughtered the people in the cinema was barbaric and utterly inhumane. However my point that I've made before is that firstly the death penalty doesn't successfully reduce crime rates and secondly if murder truly is a horrible, cold crime, why is it then repeated remorselessly once again with the death penalty? How can you prove killing is wrong by killing the murderer? It's like telling a child, "Make sure you're polite and kind to everyone" then shouting abuse in another person's face. How will the child know that something is right if you don't do it all the time?

@PsychoKnights said:

I’ve already given my response to Crimson Avenger. It is on page nine or ten. I don’t recall which.

I'll find it after I post this.

@PsychoKnights said:

This is a good point, and I’m actually rather surprised you didn’t bring it up earlier. It is definitely one of the strongest attacks you can make on the death penalty.

The only answer I can give you is this: that is not the point. True, someone could be wrongfully convicted and executed, and that would be a horrible thing, but you are mixing problems. The problem we are discussing is what should be done with murderers. The problem you bring up is that some people are wrongfully convicted. I will grant that life imprisonment does have the advantage of being reversed, but I still believe that an eye for an eye is a better system and that it would save more lives in the long run.

I'll stay off the innocent wrongly convicted topic but I will say that it shows disrespect for the principles we value so highly. How can we show murder is wrong if we use it as a punishment. It doesn't elevate our society, doesn't bring back the lives of those lost and proves nothing more than we are capable of the same weakness as any other murderer. Imprisonment allows us not to stoop to the level of the murderers and acts as an effective deterrent to any criminal. Execution is by far the easier way out. It doesn't take much to pull a trigger, inject a needle or trigger a switch. Capital Punishment doesn't allow the criminal time to contemplate on his actions and properly demonstrate to criminals that there are severe consequences to their immoral actions.

I'll post my response to your other comment later. I have a few other things to do today.

My thing is this someone had to have noticed this guy/asshat was acting strange before the shooting his parents, friends, or someone. It just seems to me that this all could have been avoided is somebody just spoken up.

@utotheg38 said:

Do you think It's possible or It will happen?

Would you like to see It now?

Would you like to see Mandatory Bag Checks/Metal Detectors?

I think it is possible.

You expect someone to say yes?

You expect someone to say yes?