Death Penalty: For or Against

Death Penalty: For or Against

  • I'm for the Death Penalty

    Votes: 96 65.8%
  • I'm against the Death Penalty

    Votes: 41 28.1%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 9 6.2%

  • Total voters
    146
I guess that the problem in the US is that the genie is already out of the bottle. Your country is awash with weapons. However, just because something is difficult, doesn't mean you shouldn't try.

For the record, I used to shoot as an RAF cadet to quite a high standard. Target rifles and assault weapons so I am not inherently fearful of them. However, I don't think that the vast majority of people should be allowed anywhere near them. I have the same opinion about cars too though :D
Non military people don't need automatic weapons and they have been hard to obtain legally in the United States since the 1930's. My personal handgun that I have a permit for is an HK VP70z, I like it because it has a stiff trigger pull. It isn't going off accidentally. It holds 18 rounds (1 more than the Glock). It has a unique shadow effect front sight that allows for accurate aiming in low light. But one of the biggest reasons is that HK produced a weapon out of composites 12 years before Glock did. I have had fun with that on more than one occasion. And it fires first time every time I have never had a jam. This same basic frame was available in a military trim with a detachable stock and burst capability. I have no need or desire for that. But I like the reliability and the ability to handle nearly any 9mm ******* round that is out there.

Switzerland has a highly armed populace. It is one of the reasons they have been successfully neutral through two world wars and a host of European conflicts is that they have been ready the deal with anyone that doesn't respect their neutrality.

One of the major problems with gun controls is that the bad guys don't obey the law.
 
Non military people don't need automatic weapons and they have been hard to obtain legally in the United States since the 1930's. My personal handgun that I have a permit for is an HK VP70z, I like it because it has a stiff trigger pull. It isn't going off accidentally. It holds 18 rounds (1 more than the Glock). It has a unique shadow effect front sight that allows for accurate aiming in low light. But one of the biggest reasons is that HK produced a weapon out of composites 12 years before Glock did. I have had fun with that on more than one occasion. And it fires first time every time I have never had a jam. This same basic frame was available in a military trim with a detachable stock and burst capability. I have no need or desire for that. But I like the reliability and the ability to handle nearly any 9mm ******* round that is out there.

Switzerland has a highly armed populace. It is one of the reasons they have been successfully neutral through two world wars and a host of European conflicts is that they have been ready the deal with anyone that doesn't respect their neutrality.

One of the major problems with gun controls is that the bad guys don't obey the law.

Civilians don't really need weapons either do they? We don't. Neither do our police in the main.

Switzerland neutrality has been because everyone needs somewhere to keep their money...
 
Civilians don't really need weapons either do they? We don't. Neither do our police in the main.

Switzerland neutrality has been because everyone needs somewhere to keep their money...
There are plenty of people that aren't particularly interested in obeying the laws. They have guns, knives, clubs and other tools of mayhem. If someone wants to rob, assault, or ******* me I really would rather not let them succeed. Of course I can call 911 and there will be police there within a few few minutes, most likely shortly after the bad guys have done what they wanted. I would much rather have the ability to defend myself.

As to the Swiss Militia they are required to keep all assigned weapons in their home until 2007 they were also required to keep ammunition for those weapons. They have shrunk the size of the their military around 2003. Until then they had a ******* of 400,000 which is pretty formidable for a country as small as Switzerland. Their military is still around 200,000 total which is still a substantial ******* for a country that size. They haven't maintained their neutrality solely because of the banks and their chocolate factories. You might want to take a little closer look at the history of Europe to have a bit of a better understanding
 
Civilians don't really need weapons either do they? We don't. Neither do our police in the main.

Switzerland neutrality has been because everyone needs somewhere to keep their money...

The Swiss banking industry developed because of its neutrality in WWI, not the other way around, and it developed further in response to the rise of the Third Reich as a safe haven for the assets of German citizens. Though many German Jews were able to safeguard their assets, Switzerland did have strict immigration laws that hampered the ability of many Jews, German and otherwise, to seek asylum. Their financial dealings with the Nazis were largely a deal with the devil in order to avoid an invasion, which Hitler and the OKW had drawn up plans for (Operation Tannenbaum).
 
There are plenty of people that aren't particularly interested in obeying the laws. They have guns, knives, clubs and other tools of mayhem. If someone wants to rob, assault, or ******* me I really would rather not let them succeed. Of course I can call 911 and there will be police there within a few few minutes, most likely shortly after the bad guys have done what they wanted. I would much rather have the ability to defend myself.

As to the Swiss Militia they are required to keep all assigned weapons in their home until 2007 they were also required to keep ammunition for those weapons. They have shrunk the size of the their military around 2003. Until then they had a ******* of 400,000 which is pretty formidable for a country as small as Switzerland. Their military is still around 200,000 total which is still a substantial ******* for a country that size. They haven't maintained their neutrality solely because of the banks and their chocolate factories. You might want to take a little closer look at the history of Europe to have a bit of a better understanding

We have criminals here. Some of them are armed, but really not very many and the same for the police and the general population. The UK population is far less likely to die as a result of crime than those in the US, so what's the reason? It can't just be that we're more polite :)

I was being a little facetious about Swiss neutrality, but just making the point that there a lot of strategic decisions that take into account non military factors.

The Swiss have conscription so have military training (only 5% of the total armed forces are professional). Does it really matter where their weapons are kept though?
 
Last edited:
.... The UK population is far less likely to die as a result of crime than those in the US, so what's the reason? It can't just be that we're more polite :)
One of our Republican candidates for the 2016 Presidential Election (Rick Perry) recently said more honest citizens need to carry guns to confront the bad guys, and carries a ******* himself. Of course he's currently fighting a felony charge for abuse of power when he was a Texas' Governor.
And, the Republican general assembly in my state (NC) just passed a "concealed weapons" law, and is relaxing the current background checks on individuals purchasing handguns in our state. So, Republicans, here, want to not have restrictions on the types of weapons they can have, allow citizens to carry concealed weapons, and not have extended background checks on those purchasing side-arms.
Of course their argument is that the more honest people carrying guns, the fewer gun deaths ... well, duhhhhhh!
 
One of our Republican candidates for the 2016 Presidential Election (Rick Perry) recently said more honest citizens need to carry guns to confront the bad guys, and carries a ******* himself. Of course he's currently fighting a felony charge for abuse of power when he was a Texas' Governor.
And, the Republican general assembly in my state (NC) just passed a "concealed weapons" law, and is relaxing the current background checks on individuals purchasing handguns in our state...

Funny, no mention of "relaxed background checks" or "not having restrictions on what type of weapon they can have":



http://yanceycountysheriff.org/index.php/news/60-new-changes-to-nc-gun-laws

http://civitasreview.com/legislation/new-nc-gun-law-explained/
 

No she isn't, but I'm sure a man of your intelligence has heard the phrase "you can indict a ham sandwich".

And what exactly makes Rick Perry a nutcase- because his stance on guns isn't exactly the same as yours, or because he threatened to withhold funding for a county's department of public integrity because that county's district attorney wouldn't resign after she had been arrested for ******* driving?
 
No she isn't, but I'm sure a man of your intelligence has heard the phrase "you can indict a ham sandwich".

And what exactly makes Rick Perry a nutcase- because his stance on guns isn't exactly the same as yours, or because he threatened to withhold funding for a county's department of public integrity because that county's district attorney wouldn't resign after she had been arrested for ******* driving?
There you go with those damn facts again!;)
 
This is not a tricky question but I would like to know what would you do if this happened? I am sure it did happen in the past or probably it will happen again, but I hope not again.

Someone in his/her mind (I am not going toward insanity) went out on a shooting spree somewhere, lets say a fast food chain and intended to ******* or killed so many innocent people and this person got caught, then what? Life or death and why?

If undecided, what if one or more of those who were killed are your family or relatives, would you have a second thought?

I am undecided, but I would probably be toward death penalty if he/she/they killed any of my family...
 
something has to break in this country there is no fear of going to jail it needs to be restructured the justice system in our country i know crime goes on everywhere but from traveling outside the usa our justice system is a joke
 
This is not a tricky question but I would like to know what would you do if this happened? I am sure it did happen in the past or probably it will happen again, but I hope not again.

Someone in his/her mind (I am not going toward insanity) went out on a shooting spree somewhere, lets say a fast food chain and intended to ******* or killed so many innocent people and this person got caught, then what? Life or death and why?

If undecided, what if one or more of those who were killed are your family or relatives, would you have a second thought?

I am undecided, but I would probably be toward death penalty if he/she/they killed any of my family...
It's a good question. A lot depends if the person is capable of understanding the implications of their actions. For instance Schizophrenics often don't have a grasp on reality. Regardless I am against the death penalty because the criminal justice system isn't perfect and at some point we have to create a message that killing people isn't OK. Revenge is a bad motive, it can result in an endless cycle of violence. However for those that are found incapable of functioning in civilized society I don't see the point of wasting a lot of resources beyond basic food and housing.
 
Back
Top