Discussion in 'World News & Politics' started by RxCowboy, Apr 24, 2012.
You are being racist now.
If guns kill people, I guess that means
Pencils mispell words
spoons make people fat
cars make people drive drunk
Quick execution of second time offenders. Everyone may make a mistake once.
How about the death penalty for any felony involving a gun? (when life is threatened)
I doubt any country in the world has that for a penalty. The U. S. already executes more people than most other countries, so wouldn't be surprised that would work as much of a deterrent.
The simple truth is that guns amplify the consequences of anyone's decision to commit violence.
We, as a society, have decided that the freedom to own guns, and their resulting easy availability, is more important than the increase in consequences of violent decisions.
Yeah I gone past through the areas surrounding in and around the Eagles' stadium, driving from the west and I could easily tell the difference just from driving through.
But that's like that almost every major metro city. There will always be that juxtaposition of wealth and poverty, and everything in between. I grew up on the more depressing and rougher part of the city in Dallas. But on the bright side, I was just a couple of miles on either side I could drive down to the old Cowboys stadium or the Rangers' stadium (was never fortunate enough to go to either though )
That truth is not so simple. Can't it also be true that guns can limit the consequences of another persons decision to commit violence when they attempt to do so against a person who is also armed? I believe it's actually just the opposite of what you stated, take away this particular freedom and you'll really see an increase in the consequences of violent decisions.
This is a great link on this subject because it seems the only stories you hear in the media about guns are the negative ones even though there are plenty of positive ones out there.
Nope. They make it better!
(I was going to post a pic of a shotgun blast victim here, but it's just too damn gross.)
I can run from a knife. Bullets will catch me.
We're only losing to China, Pakistan, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Congo. Texas is doing all it can, people. It's time to pick up the slack. Do we really want to lose to Pakistan and the Congo? Thank God we incarcerate more of our population per capita than they do or I might be really embarrassed.
USA! USA! USA!
Who is in jail you would rather see on the streets?
Maybe the fact that we have more people incarcerated than those country's is an indication that our prisons aren't nearly as much a punishment as their's are.
So the answer to the gun violence problem in this country is longer prison sentences. That was easy.
Non-violent drug offenders.
Oh, and hot hetero female rapists, if there are any.
"You just licked off the part that forbids cruel and unusual punishment."
"Sweet!" (pulls out brass knuckles)
So how many non-violent drug offenders are in jail?
And exactly what would you call non-violent? A mother selling drugs out of her trailerhouse with a child present, should she be in jail?
Reducing the Non-Violent drug offenders prison population by just 50% would save tax payers $17 Billion per year and return the US to the same incarceration rate we had in 1993
Surly by only reducing it by 50% you could identfy the actual non-violent drug offenders who really need to be in Jail...just like the mother you spoke of
I still want to hear of a few examples of those in jail who are non violent drug offenders. What are they in jail for?
I've shown the statistics before that it's a lie that people are in jail for simple possession in any significant numbers....
From the DOJ. It's old, but it gives you an idea:
The same thing the courts do. Here's the FBI's definition: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/index.html
Not saying it isn't correct. But that was written in 1994 and I don't see where they laid out exactly what was "low-level".
Separate names with a comma.