You can recover from being raped. You can't recover from being murdered. While rape is certainly traumatic and can cause physical harm, it's still nowhere close to being dead.

As for rehabilitation's efficacy, how many criminals are repeat offenders? If rehabilitation worked, there would be no such thing as a repeat offender.

You are correct, though, in regards to our current implementation of the death penalty being ineffective. For one, the death penalty is very rarely handed out. You stand a much better chance of getting a life sentence. Even if you do get the death penalty, you'll likely sit on death row for years before being executed. In fact, this is often a benefit to prisoners, as they are separated from the rest and don't have to worry about being raped or beaten. Free food, free room, no threats from other prisoners and you don't have to worry about anything because you already know you're going to die. And when you are finally executed, it is done in the most humane (and unnecessarily elaborate and expensive) way possible. If you're a sociopath who has accepted or even embraced your own death, this is hardly the worse way to go.

The death penalty isn't the ultimate penalty, either. There are some people who don't care about living and therefore don't care about dying. To them, death means nothing. However, being forced to live a life of pain and suffering isn't appealing to anyone, no matter how apathetic they may be. If the penalty for any crime was to have your arms, legs and eyes removed, be hooked up to the necessary IVs to survive and then forced to endure daily torture for the rest of your life, I guarantee crime rates would drop substantially. Fear is an incredibly effective tool at keeping people in check. It's when people stop being scared of punishment that rules start being broken.

You think rape is worse than murder..? I'm not condoning rape or anything but there are worse crimes out there (like murder).

Anyway, rehabilitation simply doesn't work for the vast majority of criminals. Most were born and raised in poor conditions with negligent and/or abusive parents. They've been hard-coded to do what they do. Trying to rehabilitate them is a waste of taxpayer money.

No, what we need is for potential criminals to truly fear the consequences of their actions, to the point where they won't even consider doing them. That's the whole point of the punishment: to act as a deterrent. We want to stop criminals before they become criminals, not wait until they commit crimes and then try to persuade them to change their ways.

I think you're missing the point here. The war on drugs is ineffective because it cannot be won and making drugs illegal only puts the power in the hands of criminals. It also creates tons of drug-related violence. Similarly, banning guns would be equally ineffective, put the power in the hands of criminals and just create more gun-related violence.

Fun fact: Washington, D.C. has some of the strictest gun laws in the country (I think they are second only to New York). However, they have (by far) the highest violent crime and murder rates in the country. In addition, the majority of those crimes are committed using guns. Conversely, the states with much more lenient gun laws (Texas, Alaska, Florida, Maine, Vermont) have significantly lower violent crime and murder rates. So clearly, banning guns won't magically make them disappear, nor will it consistently reduce violent crime or murder.

The war on alcohol didn't work. The war on drugs isn't working. The war on guns won't work either. You may hate guns and love drugs but surely you can recognize the pattern here.

So you assume that all cops are corrupt and incompetent based almost entirely on anecdotal evidence. That's reasonable.

Laws only have meaning when they are actually enforced. If cops were not around, there would effectively be no law and nothing to deter people from doing whatever they want, regardless of the impact their actions have on others. There are certainly bad cops out there but the majority of cops do their jobs responsibly. Like them or not, society is better with cops around.

Being rude and belligerent to someone just because they're a cop is stupid. You shouldn't be rude and belligerent to anyone just because of their occupation. It accomplishes nothing aside from stroking your ego by "standing up to the man."

So they're against the objectification of women yet they make sure to put on plenty of make-up and do their hair when protesting...

You are aware that the research behind the lead gasoline correlation was based on statistics, right? Statistics like the ones available on the FBI website? There has already been tons of research on the correlation between violent crime and guns. This site has some interesting statistics: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

The point I've been making (and that the statistics support) is that there is no clear correlation between violent crime and gun control. The states with the loosest gun control laws (Florida, Texas, Maine, Vermont, Alaska) do not have the highest violent crime rates (in fact, Maine and Vermont have some of the lowest) and the state (DC) with the highest crime rate (by far) has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Therefore, enacting more restrictive gun control laws is unlikely to have any meaningful impact on violent crime, as there are clearly many other, more significant factors involved. The last part we can at least agree on, yes?

Out of curiosity, what exactly is your position on the topic? Do you believe guns should be banned? Do you think a ban would actually prevent criminals from getting guns? Do you think banning guns will significantly reduce violent crime? I'm pretty sure I already know your answers but confirmation would be nice.

BTW, liberals (or "progressives", as they like to refer to themselves) are no more interested in facts than conservatives are. Both are only interested in the facts that support their agendas. Such is the nature of politics. If a liberal wants to ban guns, he/she will ignore any evidence that undermines that. If a conservative wants to abolish all gun laws, he/she will ignore any evidence that undermines that desire. Willful ignorance is inevitable when people have strong beliefs.

I assume your leaded gasoline theory was sarcasm? If not, I'm intrigued and would love to hear more.

That said, I'm glad that you acknowledge that there are other factors that contribute far more to violent crime than guns do. On the other hand, you seem adamant about ignoring any statistics that hurt your position. I'm not sure why you keep fixating on the NRA either. They'll obviously try to stop anything that could potentially support gun control. Emphasis on "potentially." Similarly, gun control proponents will automatically support anything that will potentially make guns disappear. Again, emphasis on "potentially." However, doing even a little independent research on your own would at least inform you on the statistical efficacy of gun control, rather than the theoretical results of banning all guns.

Care to provide any specific counter-arguments to any of the points I made or the evidence I cited to support them? Again, do the research yourself because politicians and lobby groups have no interest in anything that undermines their agendas. If you're waiting for them to provide objective and thorough research, you'll be waiting a long time. Of course, if you're only interested in research that supports your own opinion, that will probably be easier to find.

Check out the crime statistics on the FBI website. Compare Florida's violent crime rate to DC's violent crime rate. Compare the percentage of violent crimes committed using assault rifles, handguns and melee weapons. Look at the percentage of crimes committed using legally-obtained guns. Look at the results of the ban on drugs today and the ban on alcohol during the prohibition. If you can look at all that and still believe that banning guns will significantly reduce violent crime, you clearly don't need any amount of research to support your opinions.

You can do your own research if you really want to find the answer. From the research I've done, I've already established that the availability of guns does not guarantee a significant reduction in violent crime. If that were the case, DC's violent crime rate would be significantly lower than it is because they have very strict gun laws. I've also established that a ban on assault rifles would not have a significant impact on gun-related crime because the vast majority of gun-related crime is committed using pistols, not fully-automatic weapons. I've also established that the majority of guns used in gun-related crimes are obtained illegally, either stolen or obtained through unofficial means. The facts simply don't support the idea that banning assault rifles (or even all guns) would significantly reduce violent crime.

The current fixation on gun control is a purely reactionary response to recent shooting sprees (which comprise a negligible percentage of all gun violence). The only reason people care now is because these shooting sprees generally take place in middle and upper-class areas. Nobody cares when people get killed in poor areas, where the bulk of violent crime occurs.

I'm in no way a gun nut (I don't own nor plan to ever own any guns) but I'm not going to let my opinion of guns get in the way of facts. People who blindly believe that banning guns will solve all problems are just as bad as the NRA. Do your own research and don't ignore facts that contradict your own position. The FBI website is a great place to start, as they provide annual statistics on all crime in the U.S. and they don't have any reason to skew the numbers.

That's the big question. Population density, unemployment, culture... there are any number of things to consider here. The only thing that's clear from the statistics is that strict gun control laws do not seem to have any meaningful impact on violent crime, just as banning drugs and alcohol didn't have any meaningful impact on their existence.

I don't see how it's a poor comparison at all. Anti-gun people seem to think that banning guns will significantly reduce violent crime. This isn't really the case, as the statistics show. If your logic was valid, then Florida would have a higher violent crime and murder rate than DC simply because it's much easier for criminals to get guns. However, the factors that lead to violent crime and murder extend far beyond the availability of guns, so trying to ban all guns is kind of missing the point. It's like putting a Band-Aid on a gaping wound.

As for your drug analogy, I'm not really sure what you were trying to say. I think your attempt at sarcasm overshadowed the clarity of your message. That said, it's a good thing you brought up narcotics because they also kill significantly more people than guns. They are also banned, yet drug-related deaths and crime continue unabated. It's amusing that the same people who decry the War on Drugs are so quick to demand a ban on guns when the former shows how ineffective bans actually are. If a junkie can get his hands on drugs, a homicidal sociopath can get his hands on guns, legally or otherwise.

Sure. Alcohol, for example, clearly does more harm than it does good if alcohol-related death statistics are accurate. The question is whether or not guns actually do more harm than good and that's a difficult question to answer. There are certainly other countries with strict gun laws but those are different countries with different populations, different economies and different cultures. In an ideal world, banning guns would solve all our problems. Crime rates would decrease and nobody would have anything to fear. Unfortunately, I don't think that would happen in reality. Criminals would still get guns (because they don't care about laws) and there would still be gun-related deaths (albeit fewer), in addition to all the unrelated violent crimes. I'd be surprised if overall crime didn't increase to compensate for the lack of guns and the inability for civilians to protect themselves.

It just seems to me that the recent uproar about gun laws is a reactionary response to the occasional shooting spree. The vast majority of gun-related crimes are committed using pistols (such as the one used in this story), yet everyone is focused on assault rifles which are almost never used. Then everyone is ignoring the fact that smoking and alcohol cause significantly more deaths than guns do. Why is no one trying to ban those? Oh, right, we've tried that already and it failed. Banning liquor during the prohibition only resulted in criminals getting the upper hand, just as banning guns would do today.

A good way to judge the effectiveness of gun laws is by comparing Florida to Washington D.C. Floria basically has no gun laws. You can buy assault rifles in garage sales. No licenses or registrations required. It's essentially the Wild West. Conversely, D.C. has strict gun laws. No assault rifles, no automatic weapons, no concealed carry, no open carry, an extensive registration and permit process, etc. However, despite all this, D.C. had more than double the violent crime rate of Florida in 2011 and more than triple the murder rate.

Source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-5

Would the absence of guns have prevented this murder? Maybe, maybe not. The killer could have used a knife, a hammer, a lead pipe, a screw driver, a frying pan or any other potentially lethal object instead. Granted, it would have been harder, but considering that the majority of violent crimes are committed with melee weapons, it's not improbable.

The issue here is what lead to the killing and how such incidents can be avoided in the future. Banning guns isn't going to suddenly rid the world of paranoia, racism, PTSD, senility, irresponsibility, psychosis, poverty, desperation, ignorance or any of the multitude of human conditions. People who want to hurt other people will always do so unless you address the root of that desire.

As an aside, there is a practical reason for civilians to own guns. Although the gun was misused in this particular case, criminals do exist and there are many who like to rob/mug/rape/murder innocent people. If there weren't, we wouldn't need laws. All weapons, especially guns, are equalizers. They allow physically inferior people to defend themselves against physically superior people who want to abuse their superiority. They allow a single person to defend themselves against multiple assailants. Melee weapons can do the same but are far less effective due their dependence on physical prowess. To claim that guns serve no purpose is short-sighted and ignores these facts.

Never really understood the point of benchpressing. Wouldn't pull-ups and push-ups accomplish the same thing while requiring significantly less equipment and far less risk?

If you sleep with someone solely for their money, then that technically does make you a whore. Granted, we don't know the motivations of women who get involved with rich men and then break off the relationship with a hefty sum of money in pocket, but to pretend that there aren't gold-diggers out there (male or female) is silly.