OK fair enough.
now talking about only mass shootings, taking into account population differences why does the US appear to have proportionally more than other western countries.
other countries have movies, other countries have sensationalist media, other countries have mentally unstable people. So why is America so different on this?
Its OK to say rather flippantly that its one in a million, but if other countries come up with 1 in 30 million, one in a hundred million or once in a blue moon when the wind comes from the north and south the geese fly backwards and Tuesday becomes Sunday it shows that your problem is vastly greater.
Is it more crazies, crazier crazies or crazies having too easy access to firearms?

Maybe because we're swimming in the dirtiest gene pool on the planet?
That would explain it.
'merica:up:

Hey, guns don't kill people -- people kill people...

...guns just make it easier...


<O>

Here we go again...
 

Neal is in Texas atm :hmmm: :)

It's ok, I have cover. :)

You know, when they were building the Panama canal, workers were dying by the hundreds of Yellow fever and malaria. The brightest scientific minds at the time blamed it on miasma and vapors from waste and jungle mud. No one had an inkling it was being carried by a certain breed of mosquito. In the present, I wonder if there is some new phenomenon that is causing people to go crazy... something that has developed around the same timeline as these mass killings, like the saturation of radio waves from cell phones, wifi, etc. Yeah, I know, sounds crazy, but I cannot recall there being anything at all like this kind of killings when I was a boy.

"Like political terrorism, the mass shooting is a crafted public spectacle, a theater of violence in which we are the unwitting yet compliant audience. The report describes the shooter’s obsessive interest in prior massacres. But among its many inconclusions is that it finds “no clear indication why Sandy Hook Elementary School was selected.” Perhaps the answer is too sickening to be sayable: the shooter deliberately chose a target that would maximize the horror and ensure his place in the pantheon of anti-heroes." Additionally: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/342150/what-motivates-mass-murderers-john-r-lott-jr ..."the media should stop giving these killers the attention that they crave, especially by mentioning their names. Some countries, including Canada, put legal embargoes on information about pending criminal cases. Only after trials have occurred may the news media go into the case’s details. The main reason is to protect the jury from bias, but it also limits the notoriety the killers can accrue.":hmmm:

Would those media embargoes work?
Often the pathetic loser is dead so there is no trial to bias.
I think the the media should always preface the name of the loony with some choice derogatory names.
For example all media reports should read like ....
"The extremely stupid sexually inadequate idiot Dylan Klebold murdered some kids today because he was a spoilt brat with the intelligence of a retarded goldfish":hmmm:

I like that strategy!

Reminds me of years ago when I was poor and living in the ghetto section of Freeport, TX, a gang spraypainted their name on my garage-- chantajistas

I took a can of paint and added FAG chantajistas love big ****




Texas Shooter Kicked in Door, Tied Up Kids, Executed Them


So, anyone wanna argue against the Death Penalty?

Yes, with the usual well tried and unopposable argument.
You can't offer guarantees.
You could list a thousand dickheads like that murderer, all would be trumped by a single example of a screw up.

"unopposable argument"

I guess that ends that discussion.

It does, unless you can come up with a guarantee.
Since the guarantee would appear impossible you really have your work cut out if you want to try and oppose it.
Feel free to try though.

There are no guarantees in the criminal justice system. Examples from my country: David Milgaard, Guy Paul Morin, Donald Marshall, Steven Truscott to name a few. Milgaard spent 23 years in prison before his conviction was overturned.

There are no guarantees in life. The surgeon operating on you might be having a bad day. The guy you are meeting on the highway might be falling asleep....and so on.

On the other hand crimes like the one mentioned in Texas are pretty clear cut. Eye witnesses, video tape evidence and confessions. What then?

Again, my country. Justin Bourque shoots 5 RCMP officers in an ambush, killing 3. Death penalty candidate: check yes. I wouldn't lose any sleep on that one.

The guarantee is impossible to give but the solution is not unworkable.

Which is why such a final and permanent punishment cannot be applied if you are seeking justice.

Convictions usually are pretty clear cut, if they were not pretty clear cut there wouldn't be a conviction.

Like I said, you can provide thousands of examples, they mean nothing as they can all be trumped by a single example(and you already supplied 4 of those yourself)

It is the attempts to make a workable solution which makes the dealth penalty so expensive.
Not wanting to put a price on justice of course, but a lot of capital punishment advocates do fixate on costs of imprisonment without realising the finances involved in executions..

Hmm.. if the criminal confesses, if there are multiple witnesses, video tape or DNA evidence, why not? I guess it depends on what kind of justice you are seeking. What is justice for the murder of innocents? Opinions vary obviously.

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Is a wrongful conviction a clear cut conviction every time? In the examples I mentioned, shoddy police work, witnesses that lied, prejudiced (Donald Marshall) and the unavailability of a real perpetrator led to the arrest and wrongful conviction of these men.

There would be many cases that would not be part of a 'workable solution'. On the other hand, Justin Bourque's case is not one of them and will be easily proved in court.

That's not my argument. :smug:

Multiple string to that bow.
Should be safe enough.
Yet any or all can be faulty.

Justice that can be put right when it is found to be not justice.
A posthumous pardon doesn't really cut it.

They were clear cut enough to be beyond reasonable doubt.

Yes, and each screw up was applied as part of a workable solution.
So how to differenciate?
So which part is part and which part is only "part"?
There is no shortage of cases where it definitely fitted the bill, until of course they later found out they was wrong.

Yep, still against it.
I'm too busy huggin' trees as to understand the importance of a state executing people to get "justice" (revenge) while at the same time they hold up the oh so holy bible that teaches...the opposite. (revenge=bad, don't do it!)

Besides a moral point, there are many others, even financial ones as well. (shouldn't matter when we talk peoples lives... oh the idealist I am...)

But... I did share my viewpoint about this in a dedicated thread about CP, IIRC and since those discussions end the same way as the guns: 'nay or yay' discussions where, mostly, some under-educated jerks come along and argue for it without even knowing the facts about CP but only repeating the same bs-propaganda they heard or maybe read... I'll just better not participate other than stating that CP is wrong, end of story. :yep:

Milgaard was exonerated and given 10 million dollars in compensation. No one on this earth can give him back those 23 years.

I think you are making my argument for me. There are obviously cases where there is no doubt of guilt. Bourque is one of them.

Glad I don't have to.:03:

The cases that I mentioned were not like that. In fact they were the opposite.

He was freed wasn't he, would he have had any free life at all if they had killed him?

So was Milgaard, he wouldn't have been convicted if they doubted he was guilty.
How long did you say he was in prison before the police and courts said ooops?

That is without argument.

What would you take in exchange for 23 years in maximum security for a crime you didn't commit?

There is not the slightest comparison between these two cases and that has been my point all along. Milgaard was convicted at age 16 with sketchy forensics and unreliable witnesses. He insisted in his innocence. It took his mothers' public confrontation with politicians to get some action. Justice Edward MacCallum, the Alberta judge who headed the inquiry that eventually freed him concluded that "The criminal justice system failed David Milgaard".

Justin Bourque on the other hand...

http://i.imgur.com/O2eaVcy.jpg

...that was shortly before 3 RCMP officers were murdered.

I was always opposed to CP but I think there could be instances where it would have merit. This guy will get life imprisonment and be fêted by fellow criminals as a 'cop killer'. Not much of a deterrent and could possibly lead to copy cat crimes. Like I said, I wouldn't lose any sleep.