Hand Gun Ban

[cyyz]

Putting more young offenders in jail will force the provinces to spend more on youth custody centres..

Funny how that misconception came about, all created by a Bleeding Heart...

Long story short, china throws about 10-15 guys into one cell that houses bernardo... they get 1 crapper... The criminals family used to(until the stupid bleeding hearts complained) pay for the bullet that was used in the execution....

"spend more money," no good sir, we're gonna CHANGE the system... You're an animal out in society, @#$! you, you're gonna be treated like an animal in the slammer.

*You as in the criminal not you literally...

[LH]

Excuse me folks, but how old are you all? I'm 61 and I'm here to tell you that ALL Parties in Canada, both Provincially and Federally, have had a hand in making the laws such as they are today because not ALL laws to do with criminal activity are Federal. To dump the largest proportion on any one Party, regardless of their political stripe is pure, unadulterated bullshit of the nth degree. EVERYBODY had an equal hand in it and it will take EVERYBODY to fix it. God Almighty, I sure love it if chaging political Parties in Ottawa would change what we are talking about, but sorry folks, Canadian political history of the actions of all the parties does not back you up. You quote what the Liberals did that lessoned penalties over their reign and then you can turn around and do EXACTLY the same for the Conservatives. This country was going "off the rails" in this regard before some of you could spell the world "liberal". So when you are smearing any one Party across Canada with that shitty paintbrush. leave lots left for the other political Parties. I'm also sorry to report, that long, long before there ever was a Reform Party, people were protesting stupid sentences and those protests came from both coasts and in between.

[cyyz]

Excuse me folks, but how old are you all? I'm 61...you could spell the world "liberal". So when you are smearing any one Party across Canada with that shitty paintbrush. leave lots left for the other political Parties. I'm also sorry to report, that long, long before there ever was a Reform Party, people were protesting stupid sentences and those protests came from both coasts and in between.

Hey, I just wrote "bleeding heart," I was actually gonna change it because I thought I may have put "bleeding heart liberals" but I just put "Bleeding Hearts." How rude...

PS. You're right many parties are the same and most in the past have eroded our judicial and prison system.

But honestly, we need to get back to the roots, why bother giving someone a "harsher" sentence, when the only harshness they'll get is extra free room and board in "club mimico" where they're surronded by their ilk, where they can rejoice in each others stories about how they hurt others.

Those "part of our heritage commercials" where the broad walks into the office and whips a padel on the desk and rants "is this justice?" We need to bring back that kind of justice, lashings 20-50 for shop lifting and a few days in prison, about 100 a day for about 100 days for drug/gun dealing and about 1000 lashings a day for use of a weapon in a crime for about 3-5 years, oh and we just throw you back into your cell, clean yourself up..

PSS, Even though some of you don't think the death penalty is a deterent, which I don't understand it's kinda hard to commit a crime from beyond the grave, but anyhoot, trust me, people will be scared of a whipping/flogging/lashing...


PSSS. Funny how "death penalty" isn't a deterent because crime is up in death penalty states, funny how crime is up in Canada too, and we don't have the death penalty either...

[justplanecrazy]

Ok, so the Reform Party which made up what 90% of BC when the YOA and YJCA was being introduced. You say they were in agreement with the Act despite their crys for the public to stand up against it? Am I missing something here or was that Act not federally imposed on the west even though the west was screaming bloody murder? Kind of like how the Gun Control was not agreed upon by the west, yet it was imposed. Kind of like how Koyoto was signed when the west was not in agreement. Do you want me to go on? If the majority of citizens of Canada, east of Alberta, want a certain action put into place by the government in power, it will be put in place. It doesn't matter what BC and Alberta want. This is exactly what happend with the YOA and YJCA when the Act's were put through. The Reform party and their transformations were the partys in power in the west and they wanted nothing to do with these acts. They warned everyone that they would cause an outbreak in crime and that we couldn't simply eliminate sentencing for young people. Now when they may actually become the National Party, you somehow don't think that they'll be able to reverse the very policies that were put in place by the National Party of that time? THE FACT IS THE RIGHT WING PARTIES HAVE ALWAYS HAD A TOUGH APROACH ON CRIME, IT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT DEFINES THEM AS THE RIGHT WING. IF YOU THINK THAT IT'S BULLSHIT TO SAY THAT THEN SHOW ME ONE TIME THE LIBERALS COMPLAINED ABOUT THE RIGHT WINGS "SOFT STANCE ON SENTENCING". LH I take it you're a Liberal looking for an excuse as to why you're not in the wrong when you hand in your red colored voting ballot.

[LH]

justplanecrazy ---------no sir, I'm not a Liberal. I'm what you call a "Realist". People are pissed-off at the Liberals now and it wouldn't make any difference what Party they represented because people want them GONE! Unless your memory is extremely poor or you are very young, there was a Party and their leader in Ottawa before the Liberals that wasn't liked the same way either and everyone loathed their leader. Does the name Brian Mulroney ring a bell? You harp about the YOA and so now that you've done that, how about paying equal attention to what the Conservatives under Brian Mulroney enacted and what laws they "castrated". When you are done that escapade, how about focusing in on the Dave Barrett NDP government of BC........OR the various NDP governments in Manitoba. Sorry friend, but ALL the parties have to stand in line to wash their hands on this one and a few others........because they're all dirty.

The Louis St. Laurent government was warned about all this. The same for the Diefenbaker government......same for the Pearson government.....ditto for the Trudeau, Clark, Mulroney, Chretin and Martin governments. The first ones were advised strongly to either use the Death Penalty or get rid of it. After many long years they did so.......EXCEPT for the killings of prison guards and Policemen. Again they didn't use it and were advised strongly again by police to either use it or get rid of it. After many long years they did just that. Then they toughened-up the guns laws and brought in the YOA. This time they didn't enforce EITHER one of the two. Again they were advised to either use them as they were designed or get rid of them..........and we come to today......where everyone is concerned about "penalizing" the criminals or providing a "deterent" to make them think twice or perhaps we might harm them because we aren't paying enough attention to their "rehabilitation". I don't give a crap about "penalizing, deterring or rehabilitating" anyone.............I want them OFF the street, out of my face and away from any place where they can harm other good innocent people of ALL ages and sexes. I also want ALL of the offenses that they have committed against society on that particular occasion to be prosecuted and sentences passed. I no more want to hear of some murder taking place somewhere and the fact that it was caused by the use of a handgun or rifle to be ignored, dropped or "Plea-bargained away". They have a law on the books for that illegal use of firearms and I WANT IT USED!. Leave the damned old guy who goes out hunting once a year with his son for a deer or moose.....ALONE. At least ask that damned old guy what HE thinks should happen to that killer or his illegal use of a firearm. His answer will be considered by many to be very harsh and punishing I can assure you, because he considers ANY inappropriate use of a firearm to be VERY, VERY serious and not a laughing-matter as the politicians have made it..

[Dex]

Wasn't there a vote in the House or Senate about a gun law the day Quebec last voted on separation? Can someone refresh my memory on this?

[grimey]

Excuse me folks, but how old are you all? I'm 61 and I'm here to tell you that ALL Parties in Canada, both Provincially and Federally, have had a hand in making the laws such as they are today because not ALL laws to do with criminal activity are Federal.

Why do you think I'm having a hard time figuring out which candidate to vote for?

I think that alot of the light sentences may have to do with nervousness over having another guy wrongfully convicted, like Milgaard or Marshall, or questionably so like Truscott. If Milgaard's case had happened in the US and he was released, we'd hear about it for a couple months or a year, he'd be compensated, and it would go away from the public eye after a year or two. Here, Truscott is still in the news, and he was originally convicted in 1959 for christ sake, Milgaard in 1969, and Marshall in 1970. People in this country have to realize and accept that our justice system will make mistakes for time to time, and that's the price you have to pay if you want to have a justice system that works at all. The media could help it out a whole lot by not covering every freaking aspect in excrutiating detail long after the affair is over. Due to the huge amounts of press coverage these cases get, if we have light sentences, then when the guy is aquitted later, it doesn't seem so bad. If we have harsh ones, especially to teens, then the cases of those aquitted seem terrible, and we never remember those who got rightfully convicted. Truscott got the death penalty at 14(commuted to life later), Milgaard got life at 16, and Marshall got life at 17. And so instead of correcting the problems with the courts, which is hard, we lower the sentences, which is easy, and then go on a decades long binge of finger pointing. Does our legal system need work? Sure. But where it needs work is in the quality of the evidence used in trials, the biases of the courts, and the integrity of the justice department. Alot of this has already been done. It does not need much work as far as the sentences go, provided the courts lean towards the maximum sentences available when the cases warrant.

I'm 28 btw.

[grimey]

THE FACT IS THE RIGHT WING PARTIES HAVE ALWAYS HAD A TOUGH APROACH ON CRIME, IT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT DEFINES THEM AS THE RIGHT WING. IF YOU THINK THAT IT'S BULLSHIT TO SAY THAT THEN SHOW ME ONE TIME THE LIBERALS COMPLAINED ABOUT THE RIGHT WINGS "SOFT STANCE ON SENTENCING".

I know that you're talking about the Reform party and the current Conservative party, but you do realize that the Progressive Conservatives weren't exactly right wing, don't you? The Reform party had very little influence before Kim Campbell's PC's got killed.

[Wilbur]

I don't really think a few wrongful convictions are influencing sentencing patterns. Rather, it is a judiciary loaded with Liberal appointments; Judges who share the Liberal's views on crime and punishment. In sentencing, the courts always consider what the criminal wants, rarely society, and never the victims. A few years back they did introduce victim impact statements, but judges do not consider them in sentencing. They are nothing but a farcical attempt to help someone feel a little better after some criminal has destroyed their family or given them a life in rehab.

Marshall's treatment after his murder conviction was overturned provides a good example of Liberal dogma applied. That puke deserved no compensation, but he was given plenty. He and his dead cohort were committing an armed robbery when the victim got the better of them and stabbed the one criminal to death. Marshall wasn't wrongfully imprisoned, he was only imprisoned for the wrong crime. The amount of time he spent in prison was entirely deserved and he should have told to pound salt. I wonder if his murder conviction would have occurred if he had told the truth about what he was really doing?

There is little more than a weak connection between punishment and deterrence. If you don't think you'll be caught and convicted, and in Canada that chance is remote, you don't care about the penalties. In reality, the most powerful deterrent to crime is certain apprehension and conviction. We need a lot more cops on the street and loosened rules on the admissibility of evidence. For most criminals, corrections programs should be focused on treatment, and rigourous confinement should be reserved for the habitual and/or untreatable. As LH has stated several times, we need enforcement of our laws. This, and only this, will reduce the occurence of crimes.

[2R]

Actually knew a woman who shot dead three men who had tried to abduct her .Three dead bad guys one woman alive that knows how to defend herself.
When women were allowed to carry concealed weapons in Texas crimes against women fell overnight.
Wanna take back the night ladies get night vision goggles and laser sighting.
Some of the most violent countries in the world have very few legal hand guns,and everone lives in fear of the criminals that have guns.
What would you do if an armed criminal started shooting at you and your family ? Returning fire for some is not an option.
No tears for gangsters killed or their families that profit from the drug trade/pimpin dogs and monkey's.

[justplanecrazy]

Excuse me folks, but how old are you all? I'm 61 and I'm...

Well my Oma has 25 years on you and she believes that man hasn't been to the moon yet, so what's your point?

Unless your memory is extremely poor or you are very young, there was a Party and their leader in Ottawa before the Liberals that wasn't liked the same way either and everyone loathed their leader. Does the name Brian Mulroney ring a bell? You harp about the YOA and so now that you've done that, how about paying equal attention to what the Conservatives under Brian Mulroney enacted and what laws they "castrated". When you are done that escapade, how about focusing in on the Dave Barrett NDP government of BC........OR the various NDP governments in Manitoba.

Do you really think that the Conservative party of today represents the Conservative party of that time? The fact is that the majority of the Changes in laws that have made the system the farse that it is today have come into effect within the last 20 years. The problem is that every election we continue to vote more and more left wing nutjobs into power. They don't have any clue how the system should work and continuously bring in more acts like the YOA or YJCA. The Liberals are the ones that have to shoulder most of this blame. It was not the provinces but the Federal Liberals that put this into place. To say that re-electing them will be no different than electing the Conservatives, is to say that we really don't care what Act you impose on our system, do with it what you like.

The Louis St. Laurent government was warned about all this. The same for the Diefenbaker government......same for the Pearson government.....ditto for the Trudeau, Clark, Mulroney, Chretin and Martin governments. The first ones were advised strongly to either use the Death Penalty or get rid of it. After many long years they did so.......EXCEPT for the killings of prison guards and Policemen. Again they didn't use it and were advised strongly again by police to either use it or get rid of it. After many long years they did just that. Then they toughened-up the guns laws and brought in the YOA. This time they didn't enforce EITHER one of the two. Again they were advised to either use them as they were designed or get rid of them..........and we come to today......where everyone is concerned about "penalizing" the criminals or providing a "deterent" to make them think twice or perhaps we might harm them because we aren't paying enough attention to their "rehabilitation".

Well you've gone from removing the Death Penalty to the YOA. Removing the death penalty in my mind is a good thing. With the appeal processes involved and the payouts for wrongfull deaths, the penalty costs more than incarceration. Simply take these guys and remove them from society, death doesn't deter and it doesn't make any difference whether these guys are dead or locked away as long as a life sentence is a life sentence.

This is where the problems take place. Acts like the YOA and YJCA which by the way have been used and I don't see how you'd enforce the YOA or YJCA when they were ACTs allowing the courts to be more lenient not strict. The courts have adapted these acts and have used them routinely on a day to day basis dealing with young offenders. At the same time Conditional sentecing and Parole limits were reduced significantly to the point where we have murderers being sent home after a few years in the pen in the name of rehabilitation. This is not rehabilitation. Their home environment let them kill someone to begin with, why would sending them home right away be effective in fixing the problem. This is not soley the Liberals fault, as you've stated the once left wing conservative party is responsible too. The fact is, is that the Conservative party of today is going to change this and for you to take the stance that it doesn't make a difference whos in power is bogus.

I don't give a crap about "penalizing, deterring or rehabilitating" anyone.............I want them OFF the street, out of my face and away from any place where they can harm other good innocent people of ALL ages and sexes. I also want ALL of the offenses that they have committed against society on that particular occasion to be prosecuted and sentences passed. I no more want to hear of some murder taking place somewhere and the fact that it was caused by the use of a handgun or rifle to be ignored, dropped or "Plea-bargained away". They have a law on the books for that illegal use of firearms and I WANT IT USED!.

How can you have that attitude? What do you suggest we do with someone who commits armed robbery, manslaughter or murder? Put them away for the rest of their lives? What about Fraud, Assault, Auto Theft, DUI? Where do we draw the line with who will be released and who won't? The guys that are going to be released, should they be rehabilitated so they don't harm innocent people again or do you not care?

As Wilbur pointed out and as numerous studies have proven, there are very effective rehabilitation programs available to convicted criminals. The problem is that they are allowed to go before the program has any effect and the sentences that are being handed out aren't allowing the criminals to be exposed to any of these programs. Wilburs last point hit it on the money... more police and less strict evidence admissibility rules, although that one will be a hard one to pass in todays society. If you ever see the amount of paper work that the police are required to file in order to put one person into prison for 10 years, it'd blow your mind. There are way to many techincalities that let guilty people off but don't affect the publics right to privacy etc.

[LH]

Justplanecrazy --------you are still not getiting my point, so I'll try again. I do not are what the crime is, where it was committe or the age, background of the person doing it. What I DO CARE about is when the person is convicted of whatever, that the appriate sentence be awarded and if the crime involved violence of ANY sort, that the sentence should be the MAXIMUM. If, according to the YOA, a youth is liable for up to a maximum 3 year sentence, then make that a 3 year sentence then if it involved violence or a repeat affense. Seldom, with the YOA or ANY OTHER offence involving violence is the maximum sentence peassed down. THAT SIR, is my point. I too, do not agree with the YOA NO MATTER what Party brought into vogue, but if you have the provision to use the maximum........then USE IT for Christ's Sake. If you dont ever use it, then GET RID of it because the youth don't fear it AT ALL if you keep doing that. If you m,ake the threat through law that someone may get a certain maximum sentence if they commit a certain crime, than at least demonstrate that you are willing to reach for the maximum when the crime is serious or has been repeated.

When me and my brother were being raised there were rules with penalties involved. Cross certain serious lines and the "maximum penalty" took place. Do it again and the 'screws got even tighter". If the warnings of severe punishment for certain deeds was made, but not enforced, then it would have been me and my brother who laughed about it and WE would have ruled the house. You make a rule or law with the penalties for same announced for even dummies to understand. Once they are broken, you enforce that rule or law. You MUST do that or the respect for that law or rule and the person(s) who made that rule or law is gradually diminished until there's no apprehension or respect left at all. This is not "rocket science" at all and just requires the understanding that before you introduce a law or rule, that the day may come when you have to enforce it........and when it does arrive......ENFORCE the damn thing or get rid of it if you ain't going to enforce it.

You may also talk about "yeah, but that was 20 years ago". Sorry, but that line was used back then too about the previous 20 years before that. I questioned those posting because life did not begin when I was born not did it begin when you were born. There's no "new history" here and it wasn't started by ANY Party. It's all a repeat of what has gone on before and just added to over the years......until we've reached this point. If we don't stop now, it will continue on as it has in the past and when YOU are 61, you'll be having the conversation that I am now. -

Capt Sweet 'n Juicy ------ "stir that pot" with someone else if any part of your comment was directed towards me because you're wasting your efforts trying to "stir my pot". Whatever "turns your crank", though.

[Dust Devil]

Excuse me folks, but how old are you all? I'm 61 and I'm here to tell you that ALL Parties in Canada, both Provincially and Federally, have had a hand in making the laws such as they are today because not ALL laws to do with criminal activity are Federal. To dump the largest proportion on any one Party, regardless of their political stripe is pure, unadulterated bullshit of the nth degree. EVERYBODY had an equal hand in it and it will take EVERYBODY to fix it. God Almighty, I sure love it if chaging political Parties in Ottawa would change what we are talking about, but sorry folks, Canadian political history of the actions of all the parties does not back you up. You quote what the Liberals did that lessoned penalties over their reign and then you can turn around and do EXACTLY the same for the Conservatives. This country was going "off the rails" in this regard before some of you could spell the world "liberal". So when you are smearing any one Party across Canada with that shitty paintbrush. leave lots left for the other political Parties. I'm also sorry to report, that long, long before there ever was a Reform Party, people were protesting stupid sentences and those protests came from both coasts and in between.

Being 61 is not a qualifying attribute to be all knowing I'm sorry. Most of the people in power are people in your age range and obviously have no idea on how to move this country forward. This is not ment to be a personal attack on you or our "senior citizens" <-----tounge in cheek, sorry) but just to make a point that age should not be used as an issue in a political debate. No wonder young people don't like to get involved in politics when the "older generation" says "you young people don't know anything, listen to me cause I'm old" real productive!! I think the country needs new young blood. the same old stuff doesn't work anymore.

[LH]

Dust devil --------my statement was not made with that thought in mind because that type of thought or statement that you alluded to was the VERY one that I heard also when I was younger.....and I detested it THEN and I still do.

My point was that when someone makes a statement that is not obviously made based on actually witnessing or living the events and are not backed-up by recorded historical fact, then something else is "at play" then. So I say again, that there is really very little "new history" at all, but just the same old crap that we keep committing over and over again, with a few details changed and some new players on the "program".

If people are expecting some sort of wholesale change if Harper attains power, then I remind them of many previous elections before this and how people expected some of the same. A ton of changes were expected when Mulroney was tossed from power and there were a few, but overall it was the same old story all over again only this time it was a different Party, with different "players". The statement that "Yeah, but that was 20 -30 years ago" doesn't change the "track record" of our expectations over the eons when we change Parties in power. No one Party has the monopoly on "stupid", "corrupt" or "arrogant". We just kick them out of power every once in awhile, after they've been there too long, so as to teach them a lesson. We don't prevent the type of thing that they did, but hust "tone-it-down" for awhile at least by electing a new gang..

[grimey]

Also, with a minority government being likely, they'll have a hard time passing much of anything that is at all controversial.

[LH]

With the way things are going in Ontario of late and what the polls are reporting out of Quebec, I wouldn't count on that. Conservatives had NO support in Quebec a few months ago and now they are at 26%, so hold on tight.

[Dust Devil]

My point was that when someone makes a statement that is not obviously made based on actually witnessing or living the events and are not backed-up by recorded historical fact, then something else is "at play" then. So I say again, that there is really very little "new history" at all, but just the same old crap that we keep committing over and over again, with a few details changed and some new players on the "program".

Ok let's just throw our hands up in the air and give up!

[shimmydampner]

PSS, Even though some of you don't think the death penalty is a deterent, which I don't understand it's kinda hard to commit a crime from beyond the grave, but anyhoot, trust me, people will be scared of a whipping/flogging/lashing...


PSSS. Funny how "death penalty" isn't a deterent because crime is up in death penalty states, funny how crime is up in Canada too, and we don't have the death penalty either...

Yes, it is hard to commit a crime from beyond the grave, but with that statement you only prove you do not comprehend that definition of the word "deterrent." It is something that delays or prevents an action from occurring in the first place. (On a side note: are you the second coming of Capt'n S&J??)
Interesting you should mention that, however, after the evening of new programs I watched last night. The author of Freakonomics who is an acclaimed statistician/economist was on Hot Type. He addressed that very issue in his book and on the show. Statistics prove that the death penalty is a very ineffective deterrent. Later on (different show) a criminologist was discussing the crime/punishment platforms of the parties, specifically the mandatory minimum sentences proposed by the Conservatives. Mandatory minimum sentences, regardless of their severity, are also ineffective deterrents to crime. That's not to say they should not be in place, but they're not going to solve the problem.

"If consequences dictate my course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught."
--Maynard James Keenan

[justplanecrazy]

Statistics prove that the death penalty is a very ineffective deterrent. Later on (different show) a criminologist was discussing the crime/punishment platforms of the parties, specifically the mandatory minimum sentences proposed by the Conservatives. Mandatory minimum sentences, regardless of their severity, are also ineffective deterrents to crime. That's not to say they should not be in place, but they're not going to solve the problem.

I think the big thing here is that in crimes of passion the severity of the punishment doesn't deter the crime. I think almost all criminologists will agree with that one. When you shoot at someone because he's enraged you, you're not thinking of the consequences. On the other hand, carrying a weapen everyday is not a crime of passion, and if you're not carrying you may be cooled off enough by the time you go back home and get your piece. Also, the reason he is saying that they should be put in place is because rehabilitation for criminals have been proven effective as long as they are put through a full course, which a mandatory min. sentence would allow for. It also does remove them from society for that period of time. With Mandatory Sentences, even if they still commit the crime in the first place, they will still be in prison for 5 years not commiting crime and they have less of a chance of recomitting on exit from prison, given the right treatment programs. I think he's saying that it won't solve the problem by itself and that other things need to be looked at besides throwing people into prison, but that's not to say that we shouldn't impose the min. sentence among other things.

[cyyz]

The author of Freakonomics who is an acclaimed statistician/economist was on Hot Type. He addressed that very issue in his book and on the show. Statistics prove that the death penalty is a very ineffective deterrent.

Mandatory minimum sentences, regardless of their severity, are also ineffective deterrents to crime.

That's not to say they should not be in place, but they're not going to solve the problem.

"If consequences dictate my course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught."
--Maynard James Keenan

Exactly, so if jail time ain't gonna stop someone from shooting another and neither will the death penalty, its safe to assume that a quick bullet to the head of a criminal is the cheapest and MOST effective way to stop crime.

It is something that delays or prevents an action from occurring in the first place.

Exactly, so once you EDUCATE criminals about not being able to get arrested 17 times like our boxing day shooter, they wouldn't be commiting crimes? Obviously you don't understand how the REVOLVING DOOR judicial system works..

You kill someone, you get out and you kill again = NOT DETERRENT

You think about killing someone cause you don't want to get killed but you kill someone anyways, you get killed you don't get to kill another.

The only real deterrent in your obvious definition is something like from Minority Report where they just go and stop it before it happens, and that my friend is called discrimination and racial profiling and a bit hitler/stalin-esq.


And yes I'm a bit CptSweet&Juicy on topics like these... You people always want to have a solution, but the solution you guys conjure up are just so useless and impossible and costly, just go back to friggin basics, arrest him and shoot him on the spot for committing a crime, j-walking snipers bang their dead, fraudsters, bang their dead insurance premiums go down. Speeders, bang they're dead... Got an illegal gun, not anymore cause you're dead...

OH and by the way, statistics show that everyone was living in paranoia under the Gestapo and KGB and guess what, fear of death did deter crime.

You want a safe world you need to give up some of your rights, OR, give more rights to the people, if a ganster HAS a gun I bloody well be able to carry a gun of my own...

Like the idiot in England, two guys went into his house during the night to rob him and he beat the sh8t out of them he went to jail for 1 year and they sued him.... What kind of half-ass backwards world do you people want to live in?

Here, You want to know what the best way of not getting robbed is, go and give your money to the poor, why don't all you scared shits give them your money so they don't rob you so they don't live a life of poverty? Oh wait, you want to keep your money and tax my money and take my gun away from me so they can get a "social program" and still rob me, and if I beat them up they'll get a free operation in the hospital on my coin and go to jail to get more free housing and food on my coin????

Thanks... And "you" as in "people" not refering to "you" you literally....

[shimmydampner]

Exactly, so if jail time ain't gonna stop someone from shooting another and neither will the death penalty, its safe to assume that a quick bullet to the head of a criminal is the cheapest and MOST effective way to stop crime.

Entirely incorrect. It may be the cheapest penalty for crime but it will not stop it. Thinking that punishment is a form of deterrent or a way to eliminate crime is fundamentally flawed. It is punishment, nothing more. It is entirely necessary, I do not dispute that fact. But if you think that punishment is a deterrent to crime think of this. Every time someone commits a crime and is caught and punished it proves that the punishment for that crime is not a deterrent, otherwise the crime would not have been committed. Once again, take the example of the death penalty. Everyone living in a death penalty state knows that if they kill someone they could face the death penalty. Yet every year, people are executed, proving that the threat of death was not a deterrent to their actions. If it was, their would be no more executions in these states because there would be no more murders. That's not to say that extreme punishments would not deter most people from committing some crimes. If the penalty for speeding was a year in prison, most people wouldn't speed. But we all know, there will always be those who break the law because, more often than not, it's easy enough to get away with. Hence my previous quote, "If consequence dictate my course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught." To use punishment as a deterrent is self-defeating because everytime a person is punished, it would only be proof that it doesn't work. That may seem a little too abstract for some, but it doesn't mean that it's not correct.

**This post in no way is meant to insinuate that appropriately strict punishment is not necessary**

[cyyz]

Once again, take the example of the death penalty. Everyone living in a death penalty state knows that if they kill someone they could face the death penalty. Yet every year, people are executed, proving that the threat of death was not a deterrent to their actions. If it was, their would be no more executions in these states because there would be no more murders.

But is it not possible that the criminals ARE scared of the death penalty, but have things that CALM them? Like say, legal defense? Which takes years, and with 1 wrong move by the cops the case is thrown out.

If you are convicted and are fortunate to get the death penalty, which is lucky, because death penalty states don't carry it as a MINIMUM sentence, so criminals are still banking on the fact they won't get it. Anyways, they get it and what happens, death row, 10+ years of appeals and even at the very last moment a criminal who has cost the legal system millions in housing and judicial "due process" still has that one chance of redemption he can get his clemency, and some of these guys may have begged 3-4 governors for clemency over their stay on death row, and they know all it takes is one governor and they can be reduced to life...

I'll agree with you that the fear of death isn't instilled in people so they commit crime. But if you made a legal system that really really catered the death penalty, just recently 3 "thugs" robbed an 80 year old, well I'm sure they wouldn't be so darring if they knew that once caught they'd be killed, regardless if it was the "others boys idea, and they just tagged along."

If you had 1 minimum and 1 maximum sentence and it was Immediate DEATH, people would wake up, people wouldn't rush out and do careless things. No more appeals, no more trials, no more chances, just death. No more weasling your way out of a murder/drug charge with "oh they caught me only because of racial profiling, they caught me, but they didn't dot the I and cross the Ts." No more excuses.

Crime would go down, because many many many criminals would just be dead, being a member of a gang, instant death, 1000's of Hell's Angels would be killed, right there, 100's of those guys were probably doing something illegal, not anymore, you've just reduced crime...

Once the pathetic criminals are killed you're left with people that commit crimes of passion("postal") they were gonna do something regardless of society "caring about them."

and the really really really, deep mob/organized crimesters, and again, you'd just need to infiltrate their network and kill them all to, so it would just be a hunt for them.

You could even give nice little "educational" demonstrations in school, since schools don't go on field trips to prison to see what it's like, you could now drag a gang-banger to a grade 6-8 class and show the kids, see what happens when you join a gang and you blow his brains right out in front of the class/school and the kids will see what it's like to die they'll know what's in store for them if they shop lift or steal or fight or join a gang.

and we should be giving out $1000 dollar rewards to people who snitch out gun owners, drug dealers brothel runners/pimps, whores etc. And we just kill the criminal.

[justplanecrazy]

Just when you thought the discussions were getting more realistic. No appeal process, bullet to the head right away. Hmmmm... I definately can't see any possible wrongful death suit there.

[cyyz]

I definately can't see any possible wrongful death suit there.

As mentioned, we'd give up some of our freedoms to have a better and safer society... "The lives of the many outweigh the lives of the few", not "it's better to let 9 criminals go free so one "innocent" man isn't convicted" and as we've noticed, we just usually let the guilty ones go, milgaard sat.

And if you think giving up your rights/freedoms is bad, guess what, sorta, giving up the right to have a gun is a freedom/right being taken away from you, and I'd be much happier knowing that a bunch of criminals will die for my lost rights.. =)

[Dust Devil]

I definately can't see any possible wrongful death suit there.

As mentioned, we'd give up some of our freedoms to have a better and safer society... "The lives of the many outweigh the lives of the few", not "it's better to let 9 criminals go free so one "innocent" man isn't convicted" and as we've noticed, we just usually let the guilty ones go, milgaard sat.

And if you think giving up your rights/freedoms is bad, guess what, sorta, giving up the right to have a gun is a freedom/right being taken away from you, and I'd be much happier knowing that a bunch of criminals will die for my lost rights.. =)

Sorry man but I gotta say this. I'm against the gun registry and all but gun ownership is not a right. The only rights you have are those in the charter and it says nothing about guns. I still think the registry is a load of crap though