Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes.

No.

Only for certain crimes. (Name please)

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The three combined, I believe. War on drug is not an option, since we wage it as well . There are countries with high gun ownership and very low criminality, so I take it gun ownership is only a problem when murder rate is already high (which is pretty logical).

There's never been any conclusive evidence that gun ownership leads to crime rates, Phmcw. Gun laws in the US have gotten significantly more lax since the 1980's, and in that time period the rate of all violent crimes has dropped like a lead zeppelin. There's no correlation.

Your country almost certainly does not put the same amount of zeal into the War on Drugs that the US does. The US started it, and has remained at the head of it since it began. As for social security, I have no clue what makes you think that's involved.

[Max White]

NOTE: I do not in seriousness support firing squads, and voted No to the death penalty in general. This is mostly devils-advocating.

What? You never put a disclaimer when playing devils advocate! It takes all the fun out of the task! You dig a bit of a hole then see if you can climb out or get buried! For your sake I am going to ignore that and continue on with our merry dance.

Okay, yeah, posting that alone would just be shitposting. Anyway, if we first assume excellent aim and high-quality rifles built onto a wall-mounted swivel (to steady the shot), and can thus safely assume that the bullets will hit the correct target, then that would ensure an essentially 100% instant-kill rate.

What? No we can't. Even Olympic athletics with very high quantity equipment are sometimes off the mark, sometimes enough to not kill, just inflict a lot of pain.
We can't just assume that we are so big and tough that if we get really cool guns then we can kill with a 100% success ratio. I mean that sounds like the reasoning of a five year old kid raised by George Bush.

[Flare]

Use hollow-points. NEXT OBJECTION, PLEASE.

I think a rifle grenade would be far more effectual.

EDIT: They do. Lethal injections typically include sodium thiopental, which causes unconsciousness well before any of the other drugs involved start to cause problems, and can actually kill on its own.

Ah, thanks for that.

That still does not ensure instant death in 100% of cases.
Also, you didn't address the prior point of mental harm to the firing squad. Please finish what is on your plate before you ask for seconds.

Can't you just lie to them? Put them in a different room and give them some sort of switch?

[kaijyuu]

Traditionally, firing squads aim for the heart, not the head.

Bullet to the brainpan is pretty quick, but not instantaneous. Imagine turning off an old TV; there's that moment of static. Lethal injection is just going to sleep, though obviously it takes longer.


Anywho, as I stated earlier, no death penalty is supported by me. As far as euthanasia goes, I dunno if it'd be worthwhile to give the person an option on how they die, but firing squad seems like a reasonable one to list if so.

[Neonivek]

You know lets not dance around the issue

We should ban the use of Firing Squads and replace them with just one rifleman. That would be a lot less silly in my mind.

Can't do it? well then don't COLLECTIVELY kill someone. ARG!!! Firing squads make me so mad in their horrible logic.

[ggamer]

NOTE: I do not in seriousness support firing squads, and voted No to the death penalty in general. This is mostly devils-advocating.

What? You never put a disclaimer when playing devils advocate! It takes all the fun out of the task! You dig a bit of a hole then see if you can climb out or get buried! For your sake I am going to ignore that and continue on with our merry dance.

Okay, yeah, posting that alone would just be shitposting. Anyway, if we first assume excellent aim and high-quality rifles built onto a wall-mounted swivel (to steady the shot), and can thus safely assume that the bullets will hit the correct target, then that would ensure an essentially 100% instant-kill rate.

What? No we can't. Even Olympic athletics with very high quantity equipment are sometimes off the mark, sometimes enough to not kill, just inflict a lot of pain.
We can't just assume that we are so big and tough that if we get really cool guns then we can kill with a 100% success ratio. I mean that sounds like the reasoning of a five year old kid raised by George Bush.

See my earlier post.

And max, please don't relate this to my political and geographical upbringing please. That's for 4chan and the sad thread.

[Vector]

Now, before Vector uses her superhuman hearing powers and crucifies me for it, I have some reasons.

I'm sorry, but what?

Fuck if I know anything about how to kill a person, other than the best places to cut him in half with a sword.  Jeez.

If we're going to go with the death penalty for sake of argument, I can't say that I know a damned thing about it!

On the other hand, I will say that the electric chair is pretty damned disgusting.

[Phmcw]

As for social security, I have no clue what makes you think that's involved.

If you have absolutely no other resources you will turn to criminality. It's only logical. I expected social security to be the obvious one.

[ggamer]

_{called it}

That I can agree with. both hanging and the electric chair just sound really gruesome.

It'd be like- "Hey, you can either be burned to death, or suffocate until you die in seven minutes!"

[Neonivek]

I know what in some countries surviving your execution is grounds for being let go.

I think the USA don't have laws like that.

[Max White]

We should ban the use of Firing Squads and replace them with just one rifleman. That would be a lot less silly in my mind.

But then somebody would need to take responsibly for a death on an operational level, and we can't have that! We have large systems built up to ensure nobody has responsibility for anything because they can hide behind legislation made by people long dead.

And max, please don't relate this to my political and geographical upbringing please. That's for 4chan and the sad thread.

Did I? I apologise. I'm not very sure where I did do this, but I am sorry either way. I mean I did mention that somebodies reasoning (And that person wasn't even you) were on the level of a little kid raised by a war monger. That doesn't exactly relate to political or geographical. It does, however, discriminate against age, and if there are any five year old out there who feel offended, then please tell me.

[Neonivek]

But then somebody would need to take responsibly for a death on an operational level, and we can't have that! We have large systems built up to ensure nobody has responsibility for anything because they can hide behind legislation made by people long dead

But they are ALREADY responsible... They are just using idiot logic to object.

[Max White]

But they are ALREADY responsible... They are just using idiot logic to object.

Crap, I forgot my sarcasm tags again.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

As for social security, I have no clue what makes you think that's involved.

If you have absolutely no other resources you will turn to criminality. It's only logical. I expected social security to be the obvious one.

It's not really all that logical, true or false. If you get arrested you'll never get out of your resourcelessness.

I know what in some countries surviving your execution is grounds for being let go.

I think the USA don't have laws like that.

There are indeed laws like that here, they just don't really get used due to the effectiveness of modern methods. Back in the 1800's, if you survived being hanged anywhere between one and three times, they'd declare that God wishes you to live and release you, lest they call down the wrath of their deity.

[Neonivek]

But they are ALREADY responsible... They are just using idiot logic to object.

Crap, I forgot my sarcasm tags again.

Dang my tendency to take EVERYTHING seriously.