\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-utah-firing-squads-20150310-story.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Good. Never understood all this 'lethal injection' bull ****. Firing squad or hanging works perfectly well and without all the fuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Good. Never understood all this 'lethal injection' bull ****. Firing squad or hanging works perfectly well and without all the fuss. Why a firing squad? "Down on your knees!" in front of a ditch, with a single bullet to the back of the head saves a significant amount of man hours, as you only need one executioner instead of several. In fact, why not just line up multiple convicts at a time, and use the same ditch? Saves resources on digging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Why a firing squad? "Down on your knees!" in front of a ditch, with a single bullet to the back of the head saves a significant amount of man hours, as you only need one executioner instead of several. In fact, why not just line up multiple convicts at a time, and use the same ditch? Saves resources on digging. Jeez TYTT, a thinly disguised comparison of how terrorists have been murdering their victims, with a state execution of a criminal found guilty in a U.S. court and reviewed over several years Cute. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Jeez TYTT, a thinly disguised comparison of how terrorists have been murdering their victims, with a state execution of a criminal found guilty in a U.S. court and reviewed over several years Cute. . Not making that comparison at all. Who said anything about removing the American criminal justice system? I'm simply analizing cost benefits. If the ultimate goal is a dead convict, and the argument is that lethal injection is too inefficient, then I argue that a firing squad is too inefficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Why a firing squad? "Down on your knees!" in front of a ditch, with a single bullet to the back of the head saves a significant amount of man hours, as you only need one executioner instead of several. In fact, why not just line up multiple convicts at a time, and use the same ditch? Saves resources on digging. Ah, Christian mercy. "The Religion of Peace." You !@#$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Ah, Christian mercy. "The Religion of Peace." You !@#$. Perhaps you should consider the purpose of my argument, leading into the point I'm going to make, dip ****. If you're unwilling to do that, perhaps you should wait until after I've made it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Perhaps you should consider the purpose of my argument, leading into the point I'm going to make, dip ****. If you're unwilling to do that, perhaps you should wait until after I've made it. No, I saw the point you were making. You're not exactly subtle about it. But since you missed it: my point is that you're a hypocrite, you !@#$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 (edited) No, I saw the point you were making. You're not exactly subtle about it. But since you missed it: my point is that you're a hypocrite, you !@#$. You're an idiot. I take it you've never bothered to read A Modest Proposal. My position on capital punishment is well documented here: I'm against it. Edited March 11, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Can I inquire as to why the main proponent for "drive them into the sea" total war is also against capital punishment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 I believe it has something to do with the Mormon beliefs of "blood atonement". It'a along the lines of the ancient Israeli practice of infanticide. Hey, even God killed his first born son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 (edited) Can I inquire as to why the main proponent for "drive them into the sea" total war is also against capital punishment? Absolutely. It comes down to what I believe is the proper role of government. One legitimate primary purpose is the defense of citizens and state by making war against external aggressors, and ending that war as quickly and efficiently as possible, in order to protect the interests of it's citizens. I also believe that a government, entrusted by it's citizens with the power to kill, should not be empowered to kill it's own citizens. These are not inconsistent. Edited March 11, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Absolutely. It comes down to what I believe is the proper role of government. One legitimate primary purpose is the defense of citizens and state by making war against external aggressors, and ending that war as quickly and efficiently as possible, in order to protect the interests of it's citizens. I also believe that a government, entrusted by it's citizens with the power to kill, should not be empowered to kill it's own citizens. These are not inconsistent. So you would allow the state to snuff out foreigners that commit terrorists acts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Why a firing squad? "Down on your knees!" in front of a ditch, with a single bullet to the back of the head saves a significant amount of man hours, as you only need one executioner instead of several. In fact, why not just line up multiple convicts at a time, and use the same ditch? Saves resources on digging. I like the target practice aspect of a firing squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 So you would allow the state to snuff out foreigners that commit terrorists acts? I certainly would, but only after putting them through some varsity-level interrogation first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Why a firing squad? "Down on your knees!" in front of a ditch, with a single bullet to the back of the head saves a significant amount of man hours, as you only need one executioner instead of several. Deniability for individual shooters. 7 shooters but only 2 or 3 live rounds with each shooter not knowing if their round is live or blank. The Government is responsible for the killing, not any one individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Deniability for individual shooters. 7 shooters but only 2 or 3 live rounds with each shooter not knowing if their round is live or blank. The Government is responsible for the killing, not any one individual. Each of the 7 is responsible, as is the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Absolutely. It comes down to what I believe is the proper role of government. One legitimate primary purpose is the defense of citizens and state by making war against external aggressors, and ending that war as quickly and efficiently as possible, in order to protect the interests of it's citizens. I also believe that a government, entrusted by it's citizens with the power to kill, should not be empowered to kill it's own citizens. These are not inconsistent. Do you not think a legitimate primary purpose of the government is the protection of its citizens from criminals as quickly and efficiently as possible, in order to protect the interests of its citizens? Is there a quicker, more efficient and more permanent way of ensuring the protection of your citizens than the death penalty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 (edited) Do you not think a legitimate primary purpose of the government is the protection of its citizens from criminals as quickly and efficiently as possible, in order to protect the interests of its citizens? Is there a quicker, more efficient and more permanent way of ensuring the protection of your citizens than the death penalty? The criminal is also a citizen; further, the role of government in not to "protect it's citizens from domestic criminals" insomuch as it is to enforce the rule of law in order to promote a predicatable and orderly domestic economy. A government empowered to kill it's citizens will always kill it's citizens. Edited March 11, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 I certainly would, but only after putting them through some varsity-level interrogation first. You mean torture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts