Death Penalty Opponents, This Is Who You Champion

Washington DC has the toughest gun laws and other such restrictions as anyplace in the country and has one of the highest crime and murder rates in the country. The same is similar for neighboring communities in that area.

The State of Utah has some of the most lenient gun laws and other such restrictions and one of the lowest state crime rates in the country.

Catron County NM passed a county ordinance making it mandatory that all the residents own at least one hand gun or rifle. Murder rate. Zero. Crime rate, virtually zero.

I think the prevalance of weapons has little or nothing to do with it. I think it is values, culture, and tolerance for human misbehavior that makes the difference.

Old Europe - I agree - lowering the amounts of weapons would lower murder and in most areas are a major factor. There just are other factors that contribute to the rate of murder than just simply amounts of weapons. And I am a proponent of weapon bans especially certain types of fire arms that have no other purpose than to kill other people.

The problem with strict gun laws is that does ensure these guns are not available. It just makes them illegal.

making it mandatory to own a gun? What would be the purpose of that? Really, I've got no clue

The United States Crime Index Rates Per 100,000 Inhabitants went from 1,887.2 in 1960 to 5,897.8 in 1991. By 1991 the crime rate was 313% the 1960 crime rate. In 1996 your risk of being a victim of a crime in the United States was 5.079%, and of a violent crime 0.634%.
In 1960 these rates were 1.89% of being a victim of a crime and 0.161% of becoming victim of a violent crime.

Our Index of Crime Statistics cover the period from 1960 to 2000. They cover the total reported crime, and compare population to the total crime reported by Index. Categories include Property, Murder, Forcible Rape, Robbery, Aggravated assault, Burglary, Larceny-theft, and Vehicle theft.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

Considering this, it would seem there are more factors at play than gun ownership. The prevalence of illegals in the southern border states has been a significant factor in the crime rate. And so has the prevalence of gangs and a 'victim mentality' born of the 60's. Some believe it is a factor that religious values that once provided a degree of checks on antisocial behavior are almost extinct in the public sector.

But it's really hard to make a case that it is the guns.

And yes, we have guns in the house and we know how to use them.

OE, that the right to own firearms is a constitutional right no doubt accounts for a prevalence of guns here and the sheer prevalence no doubt accounts for that being the weapon of choice by those who have it in mind to commit crimes, including murder. I don't know of any statistics showing that crime would be any less if there were no hand guns or firearms in general; there would just be less crime committed with guns. I feel safer in a society where law abiding citizens are allowed to have them rather than only the criminals having them. I would just as soon be shot as firebombed or dynamited or knifed or bludgeoned or many other creative ways that people can be attacked or murdered.

In fact, very few of our more notorious murders are committed with a firearm.

Oh, and OE, I almost never shoot anybody unless they play really obnoxious loud music. It's perfectly safe to come around.

MysteryMan it sounds as if you want to re-define murder.

If reckless behaviour begets the death penalty then that means that the offence of manslaughter will be repealed.

So if A kills B recklessly then it's murder and the death penalty will follow.

Is that it?

goodfielder wrote:

MysteryMan it sounds as if you want to re-define murder.

If reckless behaviour begets the death penalty then that means that the offence of manslaughter will be repealed.

So if A kills B recklessly then it's murder and the death penalty will follow.

Is that it?

Let me make this as simple as I can.
If you are over 16,and you commit a crime,ANY CRIME,that either accidently or intentionally results in the death of an innocent person,then you deserve the death penalty,period.
The only exception would be a person under duress,or the mentally retarded.

By duress I mean that if your family is being threatened with harm if you dont commit a particular crime,thats duress.

Maybe they should.
After all,the best way to eliminate crime is to eliminate criminals.

If ... you commit a crime, ANY CRIME, that either accidently or intentionally results in the death of an innocent person, then you deserve the death penalty,period.

mysteryman wrote:

If ... you commit a crime, ANY CRIME, that either accidently or intentionally results in the death of an innocent person, then you deserve the death penalty,period.

so does the crime accidentally cause the death ?

or are you trying to suggest that accidentally causing a death is a crime ?




Neither makes sense, but it's interesting trying to figure out how you're thinking.

If you dress up at Halloween and your grandpa dies from a heart attack upon seeing you, you get the death penalty.

If you spill your Coke in a McD's and somebody slips and breaks his neck, you get the death penalty.

...