"After he was turned loose, Gene Allred was among those who were enraged. He later recalled, "I was numb....We could have shot him out there in that alley. That would have been the best for Mr. Smith and for his victims." In this paragraph, Gene Allred states this after the fact. However, he had not known that Mr. Smith would have raped 83 (yes it is horrendous) others later on… after Mr. Smith had been detained. Thus he is essentially admitting that he could care less whether Mr. Smith would or would not commit a crime, Gene would still murder him.

Frodo, like Gene, you can’t possibly know ahead of time if this convicted criminal was going to rape again after undergoing chemical castration (by the way, a jury… made up of people… decided this: "His attorney convinced the court that he was a candidate for a new procedure called "chemical castration.""). Nor can you claim that any criminal would, after being released, commit a crime again. Nobody is born a criminal, honest citizens become them. So are you suggesting everyone should be detained/killed on the basis of what you think they are capable of? Does that mean you are advocating a Minority Report style government? However, instead of mere incarceration without due process or even determining whether the crime WOULD have occurred, as in that movie, you are suggesting killing on mere suspicion. Take our own current justice system. For all the times we successfully convict and incarcerate/punish the correct criminal, we have quite a few trials in which the individual being charged is innocent, yet serves out time. This is the entire issue with capital punishment: you risk killing innocent people. Yet that is what you are advocating: that citizens kill or maim people on suspicion of guilt. The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world, at 737 individuals per 100,000. The Russian Federation has roughly 600, and South Africa, the third largest… is 320 ish. That article claims the “system” failed in this case, where it dares not point out how many people we actually put away. Is that the right method? (After all, we have such a high percentage of violence in the U.S., yet our incarceration rate is so high… gee, too bad putting more “criminals” in jail doesn’t just make the problem vanish).

So basically what it boils down to is that most of the gun advocates here are saying that they want to completely do away with habeas corpus, one of our amendments (just like the 2nd), and create in essence a Wild West style system: whoever has the biggest gun, the most bullets, and the quickest draw wins…. Or maybe I misunderstood you in particular Frodo? Perhaps you’d prefer the People’s Republic of China’s form of policing which is… detain, interrogate, incarcerate, and usually. .. execute… no matter whether the accused is actually innocent or guilty. There, one is guilty until proven innocent: just as in the system you are advocating from the article you cited. Either way, you would just like to do away with due process … and that is all ever what enabling every individual to own a firearm will accomplish (laws after all, will have to be created to protect civilians who use their firearms and accidently kill bystanders while trying to hunt criminals… or when they mistakenly kill criminals-yes that is still murder-or when they mistakenly kill people they believe are criminals).

Well, I am happy to say that our criminal JUSTICE system doesn't work in the way you want it to. However, I definitely believe we need to change our current system.

Fixed it for you

I did not say it would nor do I think it will I said is that what you stand for or do you stand for more guns...

Just so I get this right buy removing weapons that can are used in militaries to kill groups of people would be a drop in the ocean what kind of world do you think we live in?

I don't get the rain part. Please clarify.

 A firearm is simply a tool .It has no brain. the Operator should.  It has no reasoning capacity. THe operator shoul be  cognicant of the dangers  inheriant   of the use of a firearm.It  does what it is designed to do by its operator. So it is not the firearms fault someone dies.It is OPERATOR ERROR!!!   NO matter what the tool is  MAN WILL STILL KILL MAN.  Be it a knife,  a car , Posion,  baseball bat  , brick , bare hands , crowbar, ect.

Yes, to reiterate what Ewm said (and what I have repeatedly posted), to simply state that a firearm is a tool is a misnomer: a hydrogen bomb mounted on an ICBM is a tool as well (essentially a big gun), and when we argue about “operator error”…  The fact remains that we are not discussing whether guns are dangerous, we are discussing whether people in the possession of these weapons are more dangerous than if they did not have access to them (and by association, who should have the right to wield them). Likewise we are arguing about how dangerous firearms are compared to other weapons, as well as how they change the face of violence. Although you state that “MAN WILL STILL KILL MAN.  Be it a knife,  a car , Posion,  baseball bat  , brick , bare hands , crowbar, ect” what changes is how Man kills. Firearms allow a type of easy killing that is utterly different from any of the above items.

…and although I am sure we can all pull useless articles out of our arses about firearm “good and evil” here is a wonderful little snippet of an average Joe using his shotgun for self protection … against his lawnmower: Cranky man shoots balky lawn mower  - Criminal weirdness - MSNBC.com . People do stupid things, but I prefer not to have them do them with objects that can maim or kill without conscious intent.

They are both tools for distorting life and they have no place in a world of peace unless you can make money of selling them....... But then do we live what we preach we ask former malicious give there weapons in to us. Wile we arm our citizens.

ewm90, I think here we all have become too entrenched in retoric. Responsability  is the key of a good hunter  and a firearm  user. Knowing  what your target is and what lies beyond s a paramount of a responsiible  firearm user. Responsable  owners are probilally  one of the safest groups  not the chuckle head gang bangers  and thugs, and plain disturbed folks  that  you hear about in the news. Yes there should be places you should not be able to carry a firearm. Bars,  courthouses, nightclubs, schools.  and concealed they should be not openly carried.By receiving  training on proper  firearm carry and use  I see no problem allowing properly licensed  citizens   to be able to carry a firearm if they  want to . 
Posted on: August 16, 2008, 04:39:01 AM

---

A longs as Man has the ability to shape metal  we will have tools of destruction . It is  how and if we use them  that is the  question we all should be debating. Acountability and responsability  of  knollage  is the key. As long as there are  metal shaping tools  and the knollage of how make  them there will be  no way  to restrict the  flow of them to those who  should not have access Ie crooks  children and mentally disturbed folks.   

Well if you can't make the link, you should go stare at a history book.

We didn't disarm them any more then our own government disarms us. In fact they can probably pack an automatic weapon a lot easier then someone like I could.