What's this? Gun laws don't save lives......

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Fred

and CB... really...

if the appeals system was a little shorter and criminals were actually executed within a few months, rather than 10+ years of their conviction, you can bet there would be less capital crimes.

---Fred

Then alot more innocents will die.

IDE, what is the rate of murderers killing people once they are in jail for life, and stay in until they die?

To get this back on topic from my statement to show the onesidedness of people's arguement.

I agree with officergoat. You have to change the children, they are the future. No matter how many guns you take away, people will still get them.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
IDE, what is the rate of murderers killing people once they are in jail for life, and stay in until they die?

Look up Thomas Trantino!!! Learn about him then get back to me!

Oh and how many more do they kill if left in jail for life. Only other inmates, but those don't count eh? Ask Robert "Mudman" Simon about that. Oh right you can't, he was killed by another inmate. (Of course in that case, I was in favor of a medal for the inmate instead of another trial). Or you could ask that priest up in boston who got killed in jail. Dead murderers NEVER kill again.*


*with the exception of Jason, Freddy, Michael Meyers, etc.....

[Konigballer]

1stdeadeye, I think you would have really had fun living in ancient Rome with your penchent for speedily enforced executions and "dead criminals". You like football, you could even be entertained while your at it at the coloseum. Sure lots of innocents would die by mistake but I'm sure you know what the ceasars all knew, "if you wanna' make an omlet yah gotta break a few eggs". Oh well, yer gonna' have to snag a DeLorean to make that trip happen:)

[Python14]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
Dead murderers NEVER kill again.*


*with the exception of Jason,

He wasn't a murderer. He was an artist with Blood and machetes.

[Collegeboy]

Thomas Trantino should not have been paroled. Clearly something that needed to be fixed and something that did get fixed. Notice in my statement they shouldn't be allowed parole and should be keep seperate from other none murderers.

1de while I looked up your person why don't you look up 23 for me.

Adams, James
Anderson, William Henry
Applegate, Everett
Bambrick, Thomas
Becker, Charles
Becker, Frank ("Dago") Cirofici
Collins, Roosevelt
Dawson, Sie
Garner, Vance
Grezchowiak, Stephen
Grezchowiak, Max Rybarczyk
Hauptmann, Bruno Richard
Hill, Joe
Lamble, Harold
Mays, Maurice
McGee, Willie
Nicola, Sacco
Bartolomeo, Vanzett
Sanders, Albert
Sberna, Charles
Shumway, R. Mead
Tucker, Charles Louis
Wing, George Chew

[Mango]

We need more carry permits. People have a legal right to own guns for thier personal protection and it's proven to lower crime.

England is learning the hard way that taking the guns away from the law abiding public is NOT the answer.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Konigballer
1stdeadeye, I think you would have really had fun living in ancient Rome with your penchent for speedily enforced executions and "dead criminals". You like football, you could even be entertained while your at it at the coloseum. Sure lots of innocents would die by mistake but I'm sure you know what the ceasars all knew, "if you wanna' make an omlet yah gotta break a few eggs". Oh well, yer gonna' have to snag a DeLorean to make that trip happen:)

Wasn't me that said make them speedy!

I don't want to see any innocents executed, but I do want to see the guilty knocked out of the game. I think they drag on too long now. With all the modern technology we have now, I can't see why it should take 15 years to execute anyone. 5-7 years tops! Or is that too speedy?

Also big no no on public executions! I want to see blood and gore, I'll go see the Texas Chainsaw Massacre!

[Lohman446]

Unfortunately I have to agree with CB on this one... thought not for any of the moral reasons he would like me to.

I was in favor of capital punishment, and beleive in a system where capital punishment is available, but we are assure we do not execute the innocent. With some exceptions (I would expect the names CB listed, though I have no intention of looking up a point I will concede to) the system as it is currently used, basically assures we do not execute the innocent.

However, the system as it is now, costs more to execute someone than it does to put them in prison for life (WITHOUT PAROLE). I beleive that if we started making our laws mean what they say - life in prison being life, not 25 years, we would gain more than we would with capital punishment, considering the cost (I do realize that this hurts prison control some as there is no "merit system" to encourage behaviour).

I also beleive that those convicted to such terms should be housed away from other prisoners, with stricter security - it may even require solitary confinement as done in some Texas private prisons.

:) Just had to chime in

[Lohman446]

BTW - I do not beleive the federal government has the legal standing to limit what I can own in the way of firearms.... though I would support a law that allowed individuals to only possess those weapons generally defined as small arms in military jargon (and you would be surprised at whats there). The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to insure a strong public.

BTW - Stalin and Hitler both had strict gun control in place when they came to power, I wonder how far their reigns of terror would have gone with a well armed public.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by SprayingMango
We need more carry permits. People have a legal right to own guns for thier personal protection and it's proven to lower crime.

England is learning the hard way that taking the guns away from the law abiding public is NOT the answer.

Amen to that brother!!!

Check out the crime rates in Florida before and after they became the most liberal concealed carry state in the nation. Pull the FBI repoort as it is all the facts and only the facts. Makes for some interesting reading! You love to read CB, enjoy!!!

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Lohman446


BTW - Stalin and Hitler both had strict gun control in place when they came to power, I wonder how far their reigns of terror would have gone with a well armed public.

It is not my belief that the militia mentioned in the second amendment is the same idea of any person in the country, as it is now defined. A quick look into what was defined as a militia back then, as defined by many military historians today is not what we think they are.


But that IMO doesn't matter. Taking away guns does not stop murders. Neither does owning guns IMO too. But to each his own. I even own a gun, though it is a over and under 12 gauge that I shoot trap with.

There is a society problem we have has a nation that causes these murders. Something needs to be done about it.

As to your statement about Stalin and Hitler. The same thing would have happened. They had a psychological backing around them. The public was behind them until it was too late. Gun or no gun, the same thing would have happened.

[fire1811]

gun control is irrelevent if your wacko enough to want a person dead your going to find a way gun or not.

[Python14]

Moral of the argument at hand?


Paper laws do not make good bullet proof vests.

A gun law can only go so far, hell, if someone wants you shot, you WILL be shot.

[bornl33t]

Originally posted by Lohman446

BTW - Stalin and Hitler both had strict gun control in place when they came to power, I wonder how far their reigns of terror would have gone with a well armed public.

yeah, but they had the death penalty. You get caught with a gun you die...you can pick which one you like...either, death penalty or few gun laws. Either way....it's going to have the same effect on small crimes....

[Matt_mg]

I live in a pretty strict country (Canada), No automatics, no semi-auto clips over 5 bullets, no pistols unless youre an olympic shooter (or training for that)...

The crime rate actually augmented since we have that law...