I don't know if killing would make the "reward" disappear for some shooters--I may underestimate the influence of a death row inmate.
Again, you are not listening[reading] and focusing only on one thing like a broken record. I will say you do it out of convince, because you don't want me to say other possible reason.
We do simple report on the shooting and don't talk about it, thus removing the reward. Then with death penalty we remove the problem from society.
I get the idea to convince/persuade them they're just wasting their life.
You do not. Good luck trying to convince this type of mental disorder.
I would approve of a society that managed to do that. However I'm not sure about how to get to that point without having conflicts with human rights (death penalty) and freedom of speech (media censorship). Media is something you can't control (for the better of for the worse) while death penalty is. But just because you can only act on the latter doesn't mean you have to risk doing so.
Considering their actions, doesn't sound to me like they need human rights. You are saying this now, but you would quickly change tune if it affected you in person, that's how weak it is. As for media censorship, kinda true. We still let them report but not talk about it over and over and over. Wrong, media is something you can control, they are not outside of the law, same with death penalty. Now, if you sentence him to 200 years in prison, it will be like death penalty, just very long and sucking up people's money to keep him around.
As for Trump not saying more guns were needed. You are correct, he didn't say that, but you're also nitpicking.
I am not going to ignore things because they are convenient to you. This is not how it works.
He spoke of guards, borrowing an old NRA idea that if you have someone armed you're safe(r)--with that "someone" being a guard.
Again, not aware of NRA ideas. Now, did they made this out of thin air? Are you less safer if there is armed guard around? It's stupidly basic logic and I don't see your counterargument to it, only "it's wrong!". I already see few counterarguments to this and some supporting/disagreeing ones to those. We are not children, saying something "is dumb" does not work.
I made the shortcut this was about having more guns because you suggested the debate was going to be about having less guns in America (which is, I agree, a pointless debate over something that will not necessarily benefit the US) and that I wanted to stop you there.
Wrong. I made a general statement, you assumed what it's going to be. This is what you get for not reading or ignoring what we call reading comprehension with then being certain you are correct anyway.
Now if you're honest, you know that when it starts with a NRA argument it ends if the need for more guns.
If I will start being honest with you, this will end up with you crying. Now, I said two times already, I do not know their arguments, I have my own. By what I learned so far, seems they support some of my own arguments. Will it end in more guns argument? No idea, but I see you really want it to.
You also know that those guards will need guns and that those guns will be more guns.
Based on what? Just because it's said so? You could at least give some logic to this. Easiest one would be: supply and demand - more guards means need of more guns as one citizen now may require two, one for work, second one for private use. That's however a basic economy. Now, this raises a question: What's the problem? Just because there are too many of them? Well, there are 10 million more phones than citizens in US, should the country stop bringing more phones from China? You do have to provide some fundamentals to your argument, otherwise you are just saying random words.
You really like nitpicking do you? Because if I was concerned about false positives, i-e guards killing innocent, you seemed concerned about true-negatives, the guards actually failing to protect with a hostage situation. But I still think you understood if you used the same talent to find fault to actually understand the point that was being made.
Yes, but you are the one letting me to do it. Not sure how a guard killing innocent is a false POSITIVE but let's roll with it. Well, if a guard does some crap, company that hired him will have it's image torn to shreds, that's why they do screen potential employees. It's not 100% sure method, but removes a lot of unwanted elements. My example showed that even with an armed guard, there are cases where they won't help.
Well, you said yourself, "I made the shortcut", you are assuming everyone has the same points and views. Again, "assuming" as you do it a lot. This is what fails you. Either be clear right away what you want to suggest or don't just say things without supporting them. Just because you say things, doesn't make them an argument.
I'm not a fan of Trump but I don't have the same point of view on him than you. You are ready to defend him and I understand that it's not because you like him but because you think the end justifies the means: even if he has bad judgment he can make good decisions.
Yup, you hate/dislike him, I don't care about him. No, I had to correct you because you weren't telling what he actually said. You made things up because you don't like someone. It's a shit thing to do. He did it so people like you talk about him in this exact way. You know why? Because it actually makes him look better. He wanted a reaction and he got one, that's why I don't bother with what politicians say, but with what they actually do, as not even half of their words turn into action.
Based on the video, he didn't seem to have a proper reasoning as he went straight up with the flow, borrowing ideas here and there (Armed guard: one of the most popular and widespread NRA pro-gun argument; death/pay the ultimate price: any grumpy old man about any murderer that should be killed on spot if not fed to the dogs). This was essentially Trump acting like himself.
I could say the same about you. You just went straight up with the flow, borrowing ideas here and there without providing any reason to those. He says things to get controversial reaction, you fell for it.
Well, you are paying for every single prisoner with your taxes. Many of those mass killers will not change, no matter how much therapy and fixing you try to apply, real world is not some fairy tail. But, majority of society agreed to keep them in tiny room until they are dead to have their hands clean, this is basically it. They just have to wait much longer for their death penalty. But boy oh boy, it soothes the conscience.
I might have also be tempted to let it go if I approved of a more systematic death penalty. It just happens that he proposes to stiffen up the death penalty for a reason I can't approve (disgust) and that completely fails to convince me. Of course, you see it another way with a very different reasoning (you didn't need to see the video) that leads you to perceive a benefit (prevention).
You are aware, that even if stiffening death penalty will be a thing, it won't be based on disgust, this is not how law works. Disgust can be a spark, but actual changes will take tons of time and adjustments as not every crime is, well, good enough to get ultimate prize. So yeah, in the end it will be systematic. Then again, he just blabs out things for people who want to hear it, nothing more until it becomes a thing.
You might think you're pragmatic but having a proper reason is, IMO, as important as making a correct decision. We already exposed our point of view about death penalty for mass shooters so I won't talk about it again. Just know that things will always evolve. You'll look back at the reasons you wanted it to be that way to begin with. If the reason for death penalty is to punish rather to dissuade, then you'll walk a wrong path. There is a man that just wants a punitive death penalty, he didn't consider how to dissuade murders, and if he leads change with his point of view you can't expect your current attitude to serve your interests.
"You might think you're pragmatic"
"If the reason for death penalty is to punish rather to dissuade"
I laughed a bit. If I am pragmatic, then my reason for death penalty can't be punishment. And it isn't. If I wanted to punish someone, it would require for them to be alive. Now, semantics game. While word punishment can and is used for death penalty, my reasoning is not to punish but to remove rotten apple that proved it can't function in society and is a danger to others. Keeping such vermin for next 20-60 years is just going to be a strain for society. In California, one prisoner costs around $70'000 each year. Let's say he lives in prison for next 50 years. That's $3'500'000. This money could be spent on building parks, playgrounds and things like that. I am aware that idea for you may seem horrific, but that guy is not going to get fixed. It's not some dude that got into argument with another one and went too far, it's not some robber that fucked up and tried to get away. It's someone who was ready to die and take as many as he can with him, don't expect any remorse, they are incapable of doing so.
Maybe this time it will click:
Death penalty is not to stop such extreme elements from popping out in society but to remove a strain they would bring. Prevention is done by not talking so much about it and not creating a reward for such people.
Death penalty can work as prevention method in some cases. In example of copycat crimes such as one that started this discussion, it's not going to work.
So yeah, good thing if you know ideas to make mass shooters lose motivation, bad point on nitpicking though. For the rest, I understand you better now and don't think you are more of a jerk that me. Then, I understand but I disagree with your way to be unbiased to politicians by just looking at their results.
You know... You are bothered by nitpicking because your so called "arguments" are full of holes. Do you know what it really is? Pointing out certain inability that bothers you but it's still a "you-problem", not mine.
Considering words you are using, methods of "arguing" and saying "understand you better" with "less of a jerk than me"... Well, you do not understand better, what you do have is need of guilt which is a reason for that last sentence. If you wish, I can show you what a real dickhead looks like and it's nothing like you can imagine.
Next, I am not unbiased, there is no such thing as unbiased human. I am looking at the results, because politicians say whatever is need to be said to gain voters. Their words are worth shit most of the time. Want example? Trump used death penalty many times in the past, yet I don't see drug dealers being sentenced to death. He is literally throwing shit and you are picking it up to play with it. If you honestly believe that whatever he says will become a reality, because he said it, you have no damn idea how things work. Or do you want me to go through every of his promise and idea that didn't happen?
Before you will even try saying that what he says could become reality or we shouldn't ignore what he says. Until it's actually being worked on, it's just an empty promise, often not even that much. Commenting on it is a normal thing to do, but assuming it's going to happen right away is just a proof that one lacks understanding of how things work.
And to poke a little bit of fun, so what about me or topic on hand will you assume next without any fundamental reasoning behind it? Or maybe we will go with "I'm offended, bye!"?
