Aurora Colorado Violence

You have a very good and noble response. You should be cheered for your stance. I wish I could feel it in my heart to have that type of idealism. But, alas those qualities are far from me when confronted with the facts in this case. The man should be summarily executed.

I don't feel the specifics of this case should award him life of any kind. Not really a problem for me. Well, anyone opening fire in a movie theater cannot be said to be menatlly well considering. The only reason I would not want to see him get the death penalty is if he was mentally incapable of knowing right from wrong.Don't see that being the case in this one. But we'll wait and see. Or just kill him and forget about it.- Oni

Since when is money that important?

(cough) gun control (cough)I thought I'd just drop it in; you never know it may just be a minor contributing factor. Possibly.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

HUH?As I said the cost was just one factor but cost, particularly tax dollars, are a fact of life. The question to ask yourself is whether the extra cost of vengeance is where you really want to spend your money and if so, why?

It's any extra cost for punishment, not vengeance. Which it seems we can all agree he should be punished in some way, right?- Oni

All for talking about it. What do you got?- Oni

Punishment is not really an issue, both imprisonment and execution are punishment.

One form of punishment costs more than the other, which having searched it yesterday I found conflicting data on that. But let's just say it does to not drag this out. It has nothing to do with vengeance.- Oni

I think it's pretty well settled, at this point. He'd never sent anybody bombs before, you know. And everybody's account has his mental decline from genius mathematician to reclusive bomber begin almost immediately after he was subject to an incredibly harsh CIA experiment.It's not even a conspiracy theory, at this point; it's more or less settled history. People just prefer the "some guys are born bad" explanation.

I just read online that the prosecution is going to wait to see if they're going to pursue the death penalty until after speaking with the families of the victims. I think that's a good way to go about it; If the families of the victims think they'll feel better if this guy gets the death penalty, then that's reason enough for me. I, personally, would rather be put to death than sit in a small room for 50+ years... well, I guess that depends on the drugs

No it is not. Some media outlets ran with the story of his past and the experiemnts conducted at Harvard, but no authority on the matter has ever investigated or concluded such a thing.Not the thread for it, so if you have evidence maybe post a link or start a thread.- Oni

I read the same thing, and I agree. If the families want him dead then they should go for the death penalty.And I get my bloodlust satisfied. I'd ask to be allowed to overdose on heroin. - Oni

I don't know whether the reports over here are accurate, but I understand that one of the weapons used was an AR-15 assault rifle.We don't get a great deal of debate in the UK over the detail of gun control, but a member of the public legally being able to buy an assault rifle does raise the eyebrow quite high.What rationale do the NRA and other opponents of gun control offer, in support of the public being able to buy assault rifles ? (As distinct from more general rationales, in relation to pistols/single shot rifles and firearms in a general sense).

I was going to regale you with my hazy memory of the various strangeness regarding assault weapons in the USA. Then I found that wiki had summed it for me - who needs a memory these days, eh?

quote:

---

There are no federal restrictions on the ownership of AR-15 rifles in the United States. During the period 1994—2004 variants with certain features such as collapsible stocks, flash suppressors, and bayonet lugs were prohibited for sales to civilians by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, with the included Assault Weapons Ban. Included in this was a restriction on the pistol grip that protrudes beneath the stock, which was considered an accessory feature under the ban and was subject to restrictions. Some rifles were manufactured with a grip not described under the Ban installed in its place. Those AR-15s that were manufactured with those features were stamped, "Restricted Military/Government/Law Enforcement/Export Only" as well as the accompanying full capacity magazines. The restrictions only applied to guns manufactured after the ban took effect. It was legal to own, sell, or buy any gun built before 1994. Hundreds of thousands of pre-ban ARs were sold during the ban as well as new guns redesigned to be legal.

​

Since the expiration of the Federal AWB in September 2004,[21] these features became legal in most states.[22] Since the expiration of the ban the manufacture and sale of then-restricted rifles has resumed completely.

---

I think, the argument goes, roughly, but they're not technically assault rifles (ie., they are only semi-automatic), in their own words:

quote:

---

The gun-banners did not use the term assault rifle in the proper technical sensethat is, an intermediate power combat rifle that has a selector switch so that the gun can fire either automatically or semi-automatically. Instead, the prohibitionists tricked legislatures into banning guns that could only fire as semi-autos, but which looked like selective-fire military rifles.

---

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.