On capital punishment I guess I am somewhat from the Canadian POV. IMO the defense for a Death sentence shouldn't lie in 'punishment' but in public protection against re-offending. If crimes are sufficiently egregious I think you can make the argument that the rights of the convicted are outweighed by the need to protect society given society may have reasonable cause for mistrust of the future actions of someone who's already committed something particularly heinous.

"[capital punishment] is said to be a deterrent. I cannot agree. There have been murders since the beginning of time, and we shall go on looking for deterrents until the end of time. If death were a deterrent, I might be expected to know. It is I who have faced them last, young men and girls, working men, grandmothers. I have been amazed to see the courage with which they take that walk into the unknown. It did not deter them then, and it had not deterred them when they committed what they were convicted for. All the men and women whom I have faced at that final moment convince me that in what I have done I have not prevented a single murder."
-- Albert Pierrepoint (autobiography)

That said, there appears to be some dispute over his eventual position on capital punishment.

He didn't have full auto, he used a bump fire stock.
Full auto fires around 20hz. Well practiced bump firing is around 10hz. Well practiced semi auto pull is around 6hz.

Bump firing also sprays so bad it's not aimable beyond a few feet distance. The gun community is even more surprised than other people, most considered the bump stock as a joke doo dad for making noise and wasting money.





All vendors, even at a gun show, must do background checks.

All private sellers, regardless of where (at home, gun show, on the street, wherever), are not required to do checks - but are in practice held liable for subsequent gun crimes if they can't prove they had no idea the buyer was shady.

There is absolutely nothing special about gun shows. The gun show loophole is an entirely imaginary issue (I explained this earlier).




A traceable gun is just as capable of shooting a person as an untraceable gun.



Yes, anyone can put together that arsenal.
Especially anyone with a squeaky clean record who qualifies to be a gun owner no matter what the restriction - like the Vegas shooter.

Hence why *nothing proposed* would have had *any impact* on the Vegas events, short of confiscation raids nation wide and capital punishment for possession.





The reply was to : "You are more likely to be killed by a criminal if you have a gun than if you don't."

I have two interpretations of that chart

1) (my initial thought)
Assault understood as the legal meaning (brandishing, threatening, not necessarily killing).
Discharge understood as firing.
This is what the original math was based on.
But yes, it seems senseless because how can you die to brandishing?

You are correct regarding the "per year".
The original math does include the mistake of thinking it was cause of death, not per year chance of death.
That alters the result from 350'000 lifetimes for a 50/50 chance, down to 350'000 years for a 50/50 chance. AKA 4600 lifetimes worth of years for a 50/50 chance in the next year.

2) (your [likely correct] thought)
Assault understood as being fired upon.
Discharge understood as accidental (what else could it mean?)
This variant is computed below.
However, this challenges conventional assertion, because the common assertion is that accidents kill more than intentional. Maybe that assertion is crap.

1/24974 as caused by assault
That's a 99.995995835669095859694081845119% chance of dying by a cause OTHER than firearms.
Which requires around 17'000 trials for the chance of the next death to be 50% by firearm.
I.E. 99.995995835669095859694081845119% ^ 17'000 = 50.625%, or about 50/50.
AKA 226 lifetimes worth of years to have a 50/50 chance of death by firearm in the next year.

Referring to the study I linked earlier :
http://service.prerender.io/http://polstats.com/?_escaped_fragment_=/life#!/life
#2 version has a similar death chance to the polstats link, so the #2 variant is likely the appropriate understanding (not my initial understanding).

-schehearzade

Morello doesn't seem to understand that the majority victimizing the minority is a bad precedent and should be fought against, not merely used now that he's in the majority.

Especially not against someone who is merely wrong.

Find him lynching a black man for getting "uppity"? I'm full on immediate capital punishment for that shit, but this is erroneous opinion and zero fashion sense.

Edit, lulz, auto correct said "zero fascist sense".

I'm not sure if this is anti-zionist, anti-semitic, anti-SJW, anti-islam, antiquated, antipodean or just anti-everything.

What's with the esjew and esjudaism stuff? I'd love to know what point you were making by it - was it just something you found darkly funny, or do you think there's a link between SJWs and jews?

Also an Islamist in the traditional sense ('someone who promotes Islamic politics') shouldn't share much of their ideology with an 'SJW'. Depends on what group or particular muslim you're talking about, but an 'Islamist' and SJW should disagree on homosexuality, women's rights and capital punishment to name a few. I'd have thought strictly traditional muslims would be diametrically opposed to SJWs.

You're right. I don't remember every conversation I have ever had.

Besides, people can change their mind.

So I go by what they say.

All the various Christian sects go back to the same book. Well, the Mormons have their extra bit, but they read the bible too.

There are plenty of Muslims who interpret their holy book in different ways.

I stand by my downvote as perpetuating harmful stereotypes.

PS Plenty of smiting and capital punishment in the Bible. No different than the Quran.

And this is the brilliance of Louis -- that he lays bare the humanity of even pedophiles. The truth of pedophiles.

(They are doing research now that supports the idea that sexual attraction towards children is indeed hard-coded and a "natural" part of the human sexuality spectrum. If that turns out to be true... that opens up a huge can of worms that reflects back on our historical treatment of homosexuals. Chemical or actual castration? Permanent imprisonment? Creating more communities like that place in Florida that is populated with convicted child sex offenders? If there is no "cure," is capital punishment the only solution? I feel paralyzed by the implications.)

You're wrong about virtues of Christianity
And you're wrong if you agree with Sean Hannity
If you think that pride is about nationality, you're wrong

You're wrong when you imprison people turning tricks
And you're wrong about trickle down economics
If you think that punk rock doesn't mix with politics, you're wrong

You're wrong for hating queers and eating steers
If you kill for the thrill of the hunt
You're wrong 'bout wearing fur and not hating Ann Coulter
Cause she's a cunted cunt

You're wrong if you celebrate Columbus Day
And You're wrong if you think there will be a Judgement Day
If you're a charter member of the NRA, you're wrong

You're wrong if you support capital punishment
And you're wrong if you don't question your government
If you think her reproductive rights are inconsequent, you're wrong

You're wrong fighting Jihad, your blind faith in God
Your religions are all flawed,
You're wrong about drug use, when its not abuse
I hope you never reproduce

You're getting high on the downlow
A victim of Cointelpro
You're wrong and will probably never know

Love this song *promote

@newtboy
well,that certainly would be ironic.

but capital punishment?
i do not think there is grounds for that.
criminal consequences for their actions? maybe a wee bit of time donated to the government?
ok...i think that is reasonable.laws have been broken and they should be held accountable for their actions.

but death?
naw.you would just make them martyrs and confirm the more "fringe" element that their actions are justified.

capital punishment? like actually hanging these people?
for what exactly?

look,i think their whole protest is mired in ignorance and hyper-patriotism with little or no basis in reality.

i find them to be a bunch of hypocritical right wing zealots,who should be called what they actually are:terrorists.

i find their circular logic and lack of integrity infuriating,and those who support them to be equally frustrating.that when they stated they would leave if the community asked them to leave,and when the community ASKED them to leave..they refused.

i also find the federal governments response to be a brilliant tactic:hang back and allow this gaggle of retards to self-implode.which is EXACTLY what is happening.their support is dwindling incredibly fast,because they are being exposed for the hypocritical radical fascists they are,bunch of assholes with guns.

but to actually hang them? to end their existence?
or am i just missing the sarcasm in your comment?

because the way things are going,and the exposure they are receiving,which was fairly positive at one time in some circles,is creating an atmosphere where these nimrods will never been taken seriously again...ever.

so no need to end their lives.they have effectively destroyed their own credibility as some kind of arbiter of freedom and justice.they are quickly becoming a joke.

that is a form of death isn't it?
and far more satisfying in my opinion.

if i misunderstood your comment,please forgive.

@Jerykk
capital punishment much?
look,i get it,eye for an eye,choices have consequences,violence should be responded to with violence.

i do not necessarily agree with that premise but i can understand why someone would adopt that premise, but YOU....you take it to a whole new level.

"You threaten to stab someone, you are executed"

really?
you really feel that this is a justifiable stance?
in your world merely threatening violence should be countered with actual execution?

have you even considered the gravity and weight of what you are proposing? the implications alone are horrifying.

i struggle to understand your commentary.
you consistently seem to promote an extremely fascist worldview.i wonder if you are even aware of this facet.

I'm sure parents would feel safer if pedophilia came with mandatory capital punishment.

It's easy to cherry pick from a bygone era - bypassing the racism and sexism of post war britain, not to mention capital punishment, the lack of a national health system and terrible childhood death rates , shocking dental health and the fact that many couldn't afford glasses.

Oh America (the private dinner party for which an inhuman few have placards and a place setting reserved at the bloodfeast for) knows exactly what it's doing: Creating the problem and providing a pathetic solution by orchestrating an ever-burgeoning and increasingly violent criminal element in the general population, then providing the solution: Institutionalization through an exclusive prison/enforcement/business/slavery model.

Capital punishment should be meted-out to the individual at the time of the witnessed infraction, legalize homicide. Begin with the perpetrators and complicit thugs who created the machine described above.