Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Death Penalty and Gun Control

ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 1:49:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The shooting in Colorado is naturally opening up all sorts of questions about these two topics. First of all liberals are crying for more gun control (of course).

Gun control is stupid. Criminals and crazies will always obtain guns if they're illegal or not. This man booby trapped his apartment with tripwires and explosives meant to kill the first police officers to enter the building. Obviously the man was deranged. A man like that wouldn't be like "I want to mow down dozens of innocents, too bad guns are illegal." Wrong. Gun control only puts guns in the hands of men like these.

Colorado has the death penalty but rarely uses it only executing one person in the past 40 or so years. Does this man deserve the death penalty? I say yes. The guilt and premeditation is obvious. He deserves to die as soon as he's sentenced but that's not the case. In many states there is no death penalty and then he would be sitting in jail and the expense of the tax payers he just tried to massacre. The death penalty takes too long to implement and is clearly needed in extreme cases. If it were up to me he'd be in the electric chair a week after his sentencing.

Anyways, discuss.
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 2:02:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The problem in with the death penalty in the US is that it's applied too inconsistently, just like Obama said. What I would do in cases such as this (and others with overwhelming evidence) would be a quick trial and immediate execution upon conviction. I would prohibit the death penalty for cases that don't have overwhelming evidence (such as large numbers of witnesses, DNA or forensic evidence, extremely compelling circumstantial evidence, ect).

With gun control I can see why someone would be for it. Like it or not guns do often cause tragedies, and I imagine it would be hard to overlook a family member or friend dead at the hands of gun violence. Of course that doesnt justify the position, but yeah
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 2:07:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No-one think the man was insane for thinking he was the Joker, and that should have some degree of impact on the penalty?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 2:10:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 2:07:52 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
No-one think the man was insane for thinking he was the Joker, and that should have some degree of impact on the penalty?

In my opinion no. It doesnt matter if hes crazy or not, he still committed the crime and should hang for it. It's the only safe way to go about these things, keep him alive and hes a threat to others
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 2:11:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Thett, why do you support the death penalty from a moral basis?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 2:17:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 2:02:03 PM, thett3 wrote:
The problem in with the death penalty in the US is that it's applied too inconsistently, just like Obama said. What I would do in cases such as this (and others with overwhelming evidence) would be a quick trial and immediate execution upon conviction. I would prohibit the death penalty for cases that don't have overwhelming evidence (such as large numbers of witnesses, DNA or forensic evidence, extremely compelling circumstantial evidence, ect).

With gun control I can see why someone would be for it. Like it or not guns do often cause tragedies, and I imagine it would be hard to overlook a family member or friend dead at the hands of gun violence. Of course that doesnt justify the position, but yeah

This is a great point, and is pretty much how I feel about guns. If everyone carried them, then the deterrence would be maximized, and the risks of a monopoly minimized. While if they're incredibly limited (by proscription, say), then that's fine too (with respect to citizen-citizen interactions), as the chance of either having a gun is very low. However, the current situation, of maybe there being a gun is the worst of both worlds, because the impact of deterrence is reduced by those who don't carry them, however, it exists enough that the criminal, out of a sense of self-interest, is safest when he acts as though firearms are credibly present (and therefore will be more "jumpy", more violent than he would be if only he had the weapon).
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 2:18:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 2:11:54 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Thett, why do you support the death penalty from a moral basis?

Oh, I'll admit it's a bit shaky since my entire moral system is yet to be defined and my opinions on these things are generally knee jerk reactions. Still, I'll try to explain:

Murderers (and rapists) commit crimes that cannot be repaid, ever. To me, the purpose of the criminal justice system should not be to rehabilitate criminals but to help provide vengeance and repayment for the victims. When you kill someone, it cant be taken back. Its not like "oh you destroyed 3000 dollars of property so you have to pay 3000". There isnt a semi-objective value of life like there is for property. I guess for murder I would support eternal slavery to the victims next of kin, but thats impossible under the current situation and runs into the problem of multiple victims as well. Basically death seems like the only safe, plausible, and remotely just form of punishment we have in our system (imprisonment is forcing the victims to pay for their offenders wellbeing), so it's what I'll support
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 2:21:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 2:18:06 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 7/21/2012 2:11:54 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Thett, why do you support the death penalty from a moral basis?

Oh, I'll admit it's a bit shaky since my entire moral system is yet to be defined and my opinions on these things are generally knee jerk reactions. Still, I'll try to explain:

Murderers (and rapists) commit crimes that cannot be repaid, ever. To me, the purpose of the criminal justice system should not be to rehabilitate criminals but to help provide vengeance and repayment for the victims. When you kill someone, it cant be taken back. Its not like "oh you destroyed 3000 dollars of property so you have to pay 3000". There isnt a semi-objective value of life like there is for property. I guess for murder I would support eternal slavery to the victims next of kin, but thats impossible under the current situation and runs into the problem of multiple victims as well. Basically death seems like the only safe, plausible, and remotely just form of punishment we have in our system (imprisonment is forcing the victims to pay for their offenders wellbeing), so it's what I'll support

If it can't be repaid then killing doesn't exactly have any just effect by your own conception.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 2:23:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 2:21:08 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 7/21/2012 2:18:06 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 7/21/2012 2:11:54 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Thett, why do you support the death penalty from a moral basis?

Oh, I'll admit it's a bit shaky since my entire moral system is yet to be defined and my opinions on these things are generally knee jerk reactions. Still, I'll try to explain:

Murderers (and rapists) commit crimes that cannot be repaid, ever. To me, the purpose of the criminal justice system should not be to rehabilitate criminals but to help provide vengeance and repayment for the victims. When you kill someone, it cant be taken back. Its not like "oh you destroyed 3000 dollars of property so you have to pay 3000". There isnt a semi-objective value of life like there is for property. I guess for murder I would support eternal slavery to the victims next of kin, but thats impossible under the current situation and runs into the problem of multiple victims as well. Basically death seems like the only safe, plausible, and remotely just form of punishment we have in our system (imprisonment is forcing the victims to pay for their offenders wellbeing), so it's what I'll support

If it can't be repaid then killing doesn't exactly have any just effect by your own conception.

Killing provides vengeance and keeps them from doing more harm. Thats good enough for me when theres no plausible alternative. I would not support the death penalty if it was against the wishes of the victims family
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 2:27:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I still can't get over how prepared this guy was. He dressed up in full combat armor, that could have been from the movie, chose a time when a lot of gun fire was going off, made it look like it could be something a movie theater would do for a big midnight premier movie, tripwires his apartment, used smoke grenades.........

Who the hell sits around and PLANS that out?!
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 2:28:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 1:49:07 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
The shooting in Colorado is naturally opening up all sorts of questions about these two topics. First of all liberals are crying for more gun control (of course).

Gun control is stupid. Criminals and crazies will always obtain guns if they're illegal or not. This man booby trapped his apartment with tripwires and explosives meant to kill the first police officers to enter the building. Obviously the man was deranged. A man like that wouldn't be like "I want to mow down dozens of innocents, too bad guns are illegal." Wrong. Gun control only puts guns in the hands of men like these.

Actually, proper gun control wouldn't have stopped this, but it may have meant the difference between him having the M&P15 and just an additional handgun.


Colorado has the death penalty but rarely uses it only executing one person in the past 40 or so years. Does this man deserve the death penalty? I say yes. The guilt and premeditation is obvious. He deserves to die as soon as he's sentenced but that's not the case. In many states there is no death penalty and then he would be sitting in jail and the expense of the tax payers he just tried to massacre. The death penalty takes too long to implement and is clearly needed in extreme cases. If it were up to me he'd be in the electric chair a week after his sentencing.

Electricity is too expensive, and as people like to complain, doesn't always kill on the first attempt. Shotgun slugs cost about $2 each, labor costs would be a lot lower, and cleanup just takes a power hose and bucket.


Anyways, discuss.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 3:42:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If you really think killing is wrong, if you punish the killer by killing it basically makes us lose the moral high ground. You cannot show that killing is wrong by using killing to punish somebody.

True, there are some horrible people who deserve the death penalty, but make it highly restricted.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 4:08:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 3:42:33 PM, Contra wrote:
If you really think killing is wrong, if you punish the killer by killing it basically makes us lose the moral high ground. You cannot show that killing is wrong by using killing to punish somebody.

I don't think killing is wrong, I think murder is wrong. There are justified killings, and unjustified. You can't throw them all into the same bucket.


True, there are some horrible people who deserve the death penalty, but make it highly restricted.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 4:22:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 3:42:33 PM, Contra wrote:
If you really think killing is wrong, if you punish the killer by killing it basically makes us lose the moral high ground. You cannot show that killing is wrong by using killing to punish somebody.

True, there are some horrible people who deserve the death penalty, but make it highly restricted.

The death penalty isn't about the moral high ground. It's about setting an example and getting rid of a deranged man. Sitting in jail is a punishment sure but it costs the tax payers money to keep a man alive who is a monster. It would force the families of the 12 dead to pay for the man who killed their relatives. THAT is sick and immoral.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 4:25:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 4:22:44 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/21/2012 3:42:33 PM, Contra wrote:
If you really think killing is wrong, if you punish the killer by killing it basically makes us lose the moral high ground. You cannot show that killing is wrong by using killing to punish somebody.

True, there are some horrible people who deserve the death penalty, but make it highly restricted.

The death penalty isn't about the moral high ground. It's about setting an example and getting rid of a deranged man. Sitting in jail is a punishment sure but it costs the tax payers money to keep a man alive who is a monster. It would force the families of the 12 dead to pay for the man who killed their relatives. THAT is sick and immoral.

How's that?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
mark.marrocco
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 4:35:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 1:49:07 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
The shooting in Colorado is naturally opening up all sorts of questions about these two topics. First of all liberals are crying for more gun control (of course).

Gun control is stupid. Criminals and crazies will always obtain guns if they're illegal or not. This man booby trapped his apartment with tripwires and explosives meant to kill the first police officers to enter the building. Obviously the man was deranged. A man like that wouldn't be like "I want to mow down dozens of innocents, too bad guns are illegal." Wrong. Gun control only puts guns in the hands of men like these.

Colorado has the death penalty but rarely uses it only executing one person in the past 40 or so years. Does this man deserve the death penalty? I say yes. The guilt and premeditation is obvious. He deserves to die as soon as he's sentenced but that's not the case. In many states there is no death penalty and then he would be sitting in jail and the expense of the tax payers he just tried to massacre. The death penalty takes too long to implement and is clearly needed in extreme cases. If it were up to me he'd be in the electric chair a week after his sentencing.

Anyways, discuss.

Totally agree with you about gun control and totally disagree with you about the death penalty. Yes it was premedidated and yes it was horrible, but you have to understand that he actually believed he was the Joker, and was actually mentally disconnected from reality. So he isn't evil (which I don't believe in) but he is sick. Even Batman would try to help him before he killed him.

The alternate interpretation, in light of all of the eqipment he possessed and this: http://www.forbes.com... is that it might have been a "false-flag" operation. I know that sounds crazy, but that doesn't imply that it's necessarily wrong.
"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 5:03:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The fact that he called himself the Joker (as in, the evil counterpart to Batman) heavily suggests he understands that what is he doing is generally appropriated to the "evil" side of things.

The insanity defense is only viable if the defendant is incapable of knowing that what he did was "wrong." If God told Bob to kill, and Bob knows you go to prison/it's bad to kill, the insanity defense won't work. Same thing goes for someone who knows killing is against the law but philosophically denies morality.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 5:08:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 4:25:02 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 7/21/2012 4:22:44 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/21/2012 3:42:33 PM, Contra wrote:
If you really think killing is wrong, if you punish the killer by killing it basically makes us lose the moral high ground. You cannot show that killing is wrong by using killing to punish somebody.

True, there are some horrible people who deserve the death penalty, but make it highly restricted.

The death penalty isn't about the moral high ground. It's about setting an example and getting rid of a deranged man. Sitting in jail is a punishment sure but it costs the tax payers money to keep a man alive who is a monster. It would force the families of the 12 dead to pay for the man who killed their relatives. THAT is sick and immoral.

How's that?

Having the families pay for and support the killer of their loved ones is sick.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 5:09:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 4:35:41 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/21/2012 1:49:07 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
The shooting in Colorado is naturally opening up all sorts of questions about these two topics. First of all liberals are crying for more gun control (of course).

Gun control is stupid. Criminals and crazies will always obtain guns if they're illegal or not. This man booby trapped his apartment with tripwires and explosives meant to kill the first police officers to enter the building. Obviously the man was deranged. A man like that wouldn't be like "I want to mow down dozens of innocents, too bad guns are illegal." Wrong. Gun control only puts guns in the hands of men like these.

Colorado has the death penalty but rarely uses it only executing one person in the past 40 or so years. Does this man deserve the death penalty? I say yes. The guilt and premeditation is obvious. He deserves to die as soon as he's sentenced but that's not the case. In many states there is no death penalty and then he would be sitting in jail and the expense of the tax payers he just tried to massacre. The death penalty takes too long to implement and is clearly needed in extreme cases. If it were up to me he'd be in the electric chair a week after his sentencing.

Anyways, discuss.

Totally agree with you about gun control and totally disagree with you about the death penalty. Yes it was premedidated and yes it was horrible, but you have to understand that he actually believed he was the Joker, and was actually mentally disconnected from reality. So he isn't evil (which I don't believe in) but he is sick. Even Batman would try to help him before he killed him.

The alternate interpretation, in light of all of the eqipment he possessed and this: http://www.forbes.com... is that it might have been a "false-flag" operation. I know that sounds crazy, but that doesn't imply that it's necessarily wrong.

He called himself the Joker. He was attacking Batman fans. He knew full well what he was doing.

Also, the insane don't booby trap their homes in the hopes that you'll kill the cops coming to investigate your apartment.

This man was not insane and is not sick in the way you're thinking. He is just evil. I believe that.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 5:12:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 5:08:19 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/21/2012 4:25:02 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 7/21/2012 4:22:44 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/21/2012 3:42:33 PM, Contra wrote:
If you really think killing is wrong, if you punish the killer by killing it basically makes us lose the moral high ground. You cannot show that killing is wrong by using killing to punish somebody.

True, there are some horrible people who deserve the death penalty, but make it highly restricted.

The death penalty isn't about the moral high ground. It's about setting an example and getting rid of a deranged man. Sitting in jail is a punishment sure but it costs the tax payers money to keep a man alive who is a monster. It would force the families of the 12 dead to pay for the man who killed their relatives. THAT is sick and immoral.

How's that?

Having the families pay for and support the killer of their loved ones is sick.

By what standard, your mere preferences?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
mark.marrocco
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 5:22:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 5:09:37 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/21/2012 4:35:41 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/21/2012 1:49:07 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
The shooting in Colorado is naturally opening up all sorts of questions about these two topics. First of all liberals are crying for more gun control (of course).

Gun control is stupid. Criminals and crazies will always obtain guns if they're illegal or not. This man booby trapped his apartment with tripwires and explosives meant to kill the first police officers to enter the building. Obviously the man was deranged. A man like that wouldn't be like "I want to mow down dozens of innocents, too bad guns are illegal." Wrong. Gun control only puts guns in the hands of men like these.

Colorado has the death penalty but rarely uses it only executing one person in the past 40 or so years. Does this man deserve the death penalty? I say yes. The guilt and premeditation is obvious. He deserves to die as soon as he's sentenced but that's not the case. In many states there is no death penalty and then he would be sitting in jail and the expense of the tax payers he just tried to massacre. The death penalty takes too long to implement and is clearly needed in extreme cases. If it were up to me he'd be in the electric chair a week after his sentencing.

Anyways, discuss.

Totally agree with you about gun control and totally disagree with you about the death penalty. Yes it was premedidated and yes it was horrible, but you have to understand that he actually believed he was the Joker, and was actually mentally disconnected from reality. So he isn't evil (which I don't believe in) but he is sick. Even Batman would try to help him before he killed him.

The alternate interpretation, in light of all of the eqipment he possessed and this: http://www.forbes.com... is that it might have been a "false-flag" operation. I know that sounds crazy, but that doesn't imply that it's necessarily wrong.

He called himself the Joker. He was attacking Batman fans. He knew full well what he was doing.

Also, the insane don't booby trap their homes in the hopes that you'll kill the cops coming to investigate your apartment.

This man was not insane and is not sick in the way you're thinking. He is just evil. I believe that.

How does that first line justify itself? How does that take away from the idea that he was crazy and add to the idea that he knew what he was actually doing?

And why don't the insane set intricate booby traps? Insanity in no way implies stupidity.

And, really, just evil? I find that type of belief totally useless and somewhat irrational, no offense.
"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."
mark.marrocco
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 5:27:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 5:03:17 PM, Wnope wrote:
The fact that he called himself the Joker (as in, the evil counterpart to Batman) heavily suggests he understands that what is he doing is generally appropriated to the "evil" side of things.

The insanity defense is only viable if the defendant is incapable of knowing that what he did was "wrong." If God told Bob to kill, and Bob knows you go to prison/it's bad to kill, the insanity defense won't work. Same thing goes for someone who knows killing is against the law but philosophically denies morality.

Yes, okay. However, he was allegedly involved in so-called brain-changing neuroscience research (that was his major), and he spent a great deal of time on RPGs, and immersion in technology has been demonstrated to be able to literally change your "mind." So what I'm saying is maybe he knows right and wrong, but he actually thought he was in an alternate reality where him carrying out the role of the Joker would've been the right thing to do (even though the actions were evil), because he actually believed he was the Joker.

That being said, I don't necessarily believe that. I think there is a possibility of the whole thing being staged. See my previous comment.
"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 5:33:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 5:27:23 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/21/2012 5:03:17 PM, Wnope wrote:
The fact that he called himself the Joker (as in, the evil counterpart to Batman) heavily suggests he understands that what is he doing is generally appropriated to the "evil" side of things.

The insanity defense is only viable if the defendant is incapable of knowing that what he did was "wrong." If God told Bob to kill, and Bob knows you go to prison/it's bad to kill, the insanity defense won't work. Same thing goes for someone who knows killing is against the law but philosophically denies morality.

Yes, okay. However, he was allegedly involved in so-called brain-changing neuroscience research (that was his major), and he spent a great deal of time on RPGs, and immersion in technology has been demonstrated to be able to literally change your "mind." So what I'm saying is maybe he knows right and wrong, but he actually thought he was in an alternate reality where him carrying out the role of the Joker would've been the right thing to do (even though the actions were evil), because he actually believed he was the Joker.

That being said, I don't necessarily believe that. I think there is a possibility of the whole thing being staged. See my previous comment.

Speaking as someone familiar with the extent of "mind-changing sh!t" neuroscience students will do to themselves and other participants, unless the police forgot to mention a giant Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation machine attached to his head and a nobel prize of some sort hanging from his neck, it's a safe bet that his interest in neuroscience was a result, not cause, of this kids problems.

Personally, I think the mental effects of RPGs would be less than that of a first person shooter since in RPGs you are forced to at least somewhat invest in a character(s). Even then, the most you could really argue is that first person shooters make psychos more effective through pre-meditated simulation.
mark.marrocco
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 5:59:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 5:33:13 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/21/2012 5:27:23 PM, mark.marrocco wrote:
At 7/21/2012 5:03:17 PM, Wnope wrote:
The fact that he called himself the Joker (as in, the evil counterpart to Batman) heavily suggests he understands that what is he doing is generally appropriated to the "evil" side of things.

The insanity defense is only viable if the defendant is incapable of knowing that what he did was "wrong." If God told Bob to kill, and Bob knows you go to prison/it's bad to kill, the insanity defense won't work. Same thing goes for someone who knows killing is against the law but philosophically denies morality.

Yes, okay. However, he was allegedly involved in so-called brain-changing neuroscience research (that was his major), and he spent a great deal of time on RPGs, and immersion in technology has been demonstrated to be able to literally change your "mind." So what I'm saying is maybe he knows right and wrong, but he actually thought he was in an alternate reality where him carrying out the role of the Joker would've been the right thing to do (even though the actions were evil), because he actually believed he was the Joker.

That being said, I don't necessarily believe that. I think there is a possibility of the whole thing being staged. See my previous comment.

Speaking as someone familiar with the extent of "mind-changing sh!t" neuroscience students will do to themselves and other participants, unless the police forgot to mention a giant Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation machine attached to his head and a nobel prize of some sort hanging from his neck, it's a safe bet that his interest in neuroscience was a result, not cause, of this kids problems.

Personally, I think the mental effects of RPGs would be less than that of a first person shooter since in RPGs you are forced to at least somewhat invest in a character(s). Even then, the most you could really argue is that first person shooters make psychos more effective through pre-meditated simulation.

Hmmm... this all true, but again I have an alternative theory, and I don't necessarily believe it, but many things about this particular incident have a "false-flag" operation ring to them. For instance, the timing: http://www.forbes.com...

People have also noted that he was unemployed and thus questioned how he could afford all of the equipment and weaponry. Also where he learned to create such intricate booby-traps (although I admit this would be the easiest to rationalize/explain.) And then finally the calmly surrendering to the police even though he was still armed to the teeth, as well as the telling them about the the bombs when they were ostensibly set to kill the police.
"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 6:01:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Pro gun control, Con death penalty. I'm such a bleeding heart.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 6:14:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 2:27:59 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I still can't get over how prepared this guy was. He dressed up in full combat armor, that could have been from the movie, chose a time when a lot of gun fire was going off, made it look like it could be something a movie theater would do for a big midnight premier movie, tripwires his apartment, used smoke grenades.........

Who the hell sits around and PLANS that out?!

Dobby.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 6:35:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 1:49:07 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
The shooting in Colorado is naturally opening up all sorts of questions about these two topics. First of all liberals are crying for more gun control (of course).

Gun control is stupid. Criminals and crazies will always obtain guns if they're illegal or not. This man booby trapped his apartment with tripwires and explosives meant to kill the first police officers to enter the building. Obviously the man was deranged. A man like that wouldn't be like "I want to mow down dozens of innocents, too bad guns are illegal." Wrong. Gun control only puts guns in the hands of men like these.

Colorado has the death penalty but rarely uses it only executing one person in the past 40 or so years. Does this man deserve the death penalty? I say yes. The guilt and premeditation is obvious. He deserves to die as soon as he's sentenced but that's not the case. In many states there is no death penalty and then he would be sitting in jail and the expense of the tax payers he just tried to massacre. The death penalty takes too long to implement and is clearly needed in extreme cases. If it were up to me he'd be in the electric chair a week after his sentencing.

Anyways, discuss.

For the gun control issue, the second amendment clearly states the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

For the death penalty issue, the 5th amendment states that "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".... Since they were given due process of law, and found guilty, it is constitution to execute them, just as it would be constitutional to imprison them or fine them.

The purpose of our prison system is to rehabilitate; when someone is unable to be rehabilitated, they should be executed. Exile would be an alternative to execution, but such practices are much harder these days.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 7:37:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 1:49:07 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
The shooting in Colorado is naturally opening up all sorts of questions about these two topics. First of all liberals are crying for more gun control (of course).

Gun control is stupid. Criminals and crazies will always obtain guns if they're illegal or not. This man booby trapped his apartment with tripwires and explosives meant to kill the first police officers to enter the building. Obviously the man was deranged. A man like that wouldn't be like "I want to mow down dozens of innocents, too bad guns are illegal." Wrong. Gun control only puts guns in the hands of men like these.

Colorado has the death penalty but rarely uses it only executing one person in the past 40 or so years. Does this man deserve the death penalty? I say yes. The guilt and premeditation is obvious. He deserves to die as soon as he's sentenced but that's not the case. In many states there is no death penalty and then he would be sitting in jail and the expense of the tax payers he just tried to massacre. The death penalty takes too long to implement and is clearly needed in extreme cases. If it were up to me he'd be in the electric chair a week after his sentencing.

Anyways, discuss.

There is this most remarkable trend among people these days, especially news reporters/pundits where the immediate response to a tragedy is not to mourn the loss of life or ponder the significance of a tragedy, much less extend a helping hand to the families who lost loved ones.

But rather, to immediately politicize catastrophe to advance policy objectives. On the far right, Rush Limbaugh did it. On the far left, Piers Morgan did it. It is fortunate that both Obama and Romney had the dignity to resist the temptation.

Politicizing catastrophe -especially the variety witnessed in Colorado- bastardizes the event and cheapens the legacy of the victims. It is shallow and tasteless, no matter how righteous any individual may think their message to be.

I'm not really sure what is more sickening though; either that the overwhelming media response is to jump directly to the political narrative or that the American people do the same. I would like to think that the reason the American people haven't taken issue with the media response is because they take their cues from the talking heads on the telly, but it demonstrates a peculiar callousness that we hold tragedy at a distance by refusing to even entertain the discussion of loss.

DDO is a -largely- political website so on here it's one thing, but the policy implications to take precedence over the public loss is remarkable. Although, perhaps it could be that we as a nation are just desensitized. Public shootings (in schools, and apparently now in movie theaters) aren't unheard of. In almost every news story I read that covered the latest Colorado shooting, the close proximity of this latest ground zero to Columbine was at least noted.

What worries me is the potential for copycat offenders. In Columbia, SC today a man walked into a drug store claiming to have a bomb. No one was injured and the man was actually unarmed, but is this the new norm?

My theory is that the more this nonsense is publicized the more common it will be, and the more we as a nation respond like -somehow- mass shootings are no big deal, the more commonly the will occur. (Jumping to the policy discussion is perhaps the single most effective "dismissal" of the significance of events like that in Colorado.)
Tsar of DDO
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 8:37:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 7:37:22 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/21/2012 1:49:07 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
The shooting in Colorado is naturally opening up all sorts of questions about these two topics. First of all liberals are crying for more gun control (of course).

Gun control is stupid. Criminals and crazies will always obtain guns if they're illegal or not. This man booby trapped his apartment with tripwires and explosives meant to kill the first police officers to enter the building. Obviously the man was deranged. A man like that wouldn't be like "I want to mow down dozens of innocents, too bad guns are illegal." Wrong. Gun control only puts guns in the hands of men like these.

Colorado has the death penalty but rarely uses it only executing one person in the past 40 or so years. Does this man deserve the death penalty? I say yes. The guilt and premeditation is obvious. He deserves to die as soon as he's sentenced but that's not the case. In many states there is no death penalty and then he would be sitting in jail and the expense of the tax payers he just tried to massacre. The death penalty takes too long to implement and is clearly needed in extreme cases. If it were up to me he'd be in the electric chair a week after his sentencing.

Anyways, discuss.

There is this most remarkable trend among people these days, especially news reporters/pundits where the immediate response to a tragedy is not to mourn the loss of life or ponder the significance of a tragedy, much less extend a helping hand to the families who lost loved ones.

But rather, to immediately politicize catastrophe to advance policy objectives. On the far right, Rush Limbaugh did it. On the far left, Piers Morgan did it. It is fortunate that both Obama and Romney had the dignity to resist the temptation.

Politicizing catastrophe -especially the variety witnessed in Colorado- bastardizes the event and cheapens the legacy of the victims. It is shallow and tasteless, no matter how righteous any individual may think their message to be.

I'm not really sure what is more sickening though; either that the overwhelming media response is to jump directly to the political narrative or that the American people do the same. I would like to think that the reason the American people haven't taken issue with the media response is because they take their cues from the talking heads on the telly, but it demonstrates a peculiar callousness that we hold tragedy at a distance by refusing to even entertain the discussion of loss.

DDO is a -largely- political website so on here it's one thing, but the policy implications to take precedence over the public loss is remarkable. Although, perhaps it could be that we as a nation are just desensitized. Public shootings (in schools, and apparently now in movie theaters) aren't unheard of. In almost every news story I read that covered the latest Colorado shooting, the close proximity of this latest ground zero to Columbine was at least noted.

What worries me is the potential for copycat offenders. In Columbia, SC today a man walked into a drug store claiming to have a bomb. No one was injured and the man was actually unarmed, but is this the new norm?

My theory is that the more this nonsense is publicized the more common it will be, and the more we as a nation respond like -somehow- mass shootings are no big deal, the more commonly the will occur. (Jumping to the policy discussion is perhaps the single most effective "dismissal" of the significance of events like that in Colorado.)

It's called the Columbine Effect and while it might not be the new norm shootings like this tend to set off a chain reaction of similar shootings in subsequent months. Either this gives crazies out there hope or ideas or something but when an event like this hits the news there is a slew of other similar incidents that arise immediately following.
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2012 8:40:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/21/2012 8:37:27 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/21/2012 7:37:22 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/21/2012 1:49:07 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
The shooting in Colorado is naturally opening up all sorts of questions about these two topics. First of all liberals are crying for more gun control (of course).

Gun control is stupid. Criminals and crazies will always obtain guns if they're illegal or not. This man booby trapped his apartment with tripwires and explosives meant to kill the first police officers to enter the building. Obviously the man was deranged. A man like that wouldn't be like "I want to mow down dozens of innocents, too bad guns are illegal." Wrong. Gun control only puts guns in the hands of men like these.

Colorado has the death penalty but rarely uses it only executing one person in the past 40 or so years. Does this man deserve the death penalty? I say yes. The guilt and premeditation is obvious. He deserves to die as soon as he's sentenced but that's not the case. In many states there is no death penalty and then he would be sitting in jail and the expense of the tax payers he just tried to massacre. The death penalty takes too long to implement and is clearly needed in extreme cases. If it were up to me he'd be in the electric chair a week after his sentencing.

Anyways, discuss.

There is this most remarkable trend among people these days, especially news reporters/pundits where the immediate response to a tragedy is not to mourn the loss of life or ponder the significance of a tragedy, much less extend a helping hand to the families who lost loved ones.

But rather, to immediately politicize catastrophe to advance policy objectives. On the far right, Rush Limbaugh did it. On the far left, Piers Morgan did it. It is fortunate that both Obama and Romney had the dignity to resist the temptation.

Politicizing catastrophe -especially the variety witnessed in Colorado- bastardizes the event and cheapens the legacy of the victims. It is shallow and tasteless, no matter how righteous any individual may think their message to be.

I'm not really sure what is more sickening though; either that the overwhelming media response is to jump directly to the political narrative or that the American people do the same. I would like to think that the reason the American people haven't taken issue with the media response is because they take their cues from the talking heads on the telly, but it demonstrates a peculiar callousness that we hold tragedy at a distance by refusing to even entertain the discussion of loss.

DDO is a -largely- political website so on here it's one thing, but the policy implications to take precedence over the public loss is remarkable. Although, perhaps it could be that we as a nation are just desensitized. Public shootings (in schools, and apparently now in movie theaters) aren't unheard of. In almost every news story I read that covered the latest Colorado shooting, the close proximity of this latest ground zero to Columbine was at least noted.

What worries me is the potential for copycat offenders. In Columbia, SC today a man walked into a drug store claiming to have a bomb. No one was injured and the man was actually unarmed, but is this the new norm?

My theory is that the more this nonsense is publicized the more common it will be, and the more we as a nation respond like -somehow- mass shootings are no big deal, the more commonly the will occur. (Jumping to the policy discussion is perhaps the single most effective "dismissal" of the significance of events like that in Colorado.)

It's called the Columbine Effect and while it might not be the new norm shootings like this tend to set off a chain reaction of similar shootings in subsequent months. Either this gives crazies out there hope or ideas or something but when an event like this hits the news there is a slew of other similar incidents that arise immediately following.

There has been some interesting literature on the "columbine effect" (especially in psychology journals), but I'm on the fence. Cause and effect can be sketchy, but I do think that the likelihood of this nonsense is likely to go up as we become more culturally desensitized. One thing is for sure: this is a social and a cultural problem, not a political one.
Tsar of DDO