DC Sniper Executed

Post Reply New Topic

I just received a breaking news alert that he had been executed. Just wondering how others felt about the death penalty.

Incidentally we were talking about the sniper incident and Fort Hood in my Topics in Anth. class, discussing and ruling out motives.

I have mixed feeling. Most 1st world countries have done away with the death penalty. The US is third in the World on the number of people executed... Iran & Saudi Arabia are ahead of us.

Combine this with the fact that the US has a larger percentage of it's population behind bars then any other country in the world... makes me have my questions about capital punishment.

I think this medieval form of punishment reflects poorly on a country that once was a world leader.

I'm all in favor of the death penalty, and the DC sniper is a prime candidate for it.

Hey its what happens when you play with guns. one less raving lunatic gun nut.

I had no idea who this person was until I looked him up.

What took them so long? Good riddance

For the death penalty in this case.

Last edited by DenvrDave on 10 Nov 2009, 10:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I find it difficult to express my conflicting opinions on the death penalty, but I will try in bullet points:

*The loss of their life isn't important to me, so why not...

*Why do we have the right to take their lives? They are being punished for ruining/taking the life of another person, how are we right to do the same to them?

*Death is too easy. Why should their misery be ended while those they have hurt continue to live in pain? (assuming they are miserable...)

I've always thought that if they are going to do the death penalty, they should then harvest the prisoner's organs for those in need. That way the prisoners are making reparation!

Not all 2nd amendment supporters are like that. My Uncle Lee is a certified NRA firearms instructor in 5 states. He may like guns, but he's not a nutcase. He's actually well-educated on the subject of gun laws, and while he is quick to respond to a burglar or other intruder by flashing some steel, he would never shoot anyone unless it was absolutely required in the situation. And I'm sure he'd agree that guys like the DC sniper is the reason why guys like him are looked down upon.

The only objection I have to capital punishment as it's practised in the US is the manner of execution... it's too clinical, and the person administering the injection has no personal stake in the outcome... to do it right, it needs to be carried out by one of the guy's victims, or a loved one of a victim, and using the same weapon he used to do the killings... A firing squad made of of the surviving victims, and the dead victims' next of kin, all armed with the same bushmaster rifle, unloading into him until his final twitch, now THAT would make for some interesting television, as well as provide the victims and their families some closure and/or revenge...

In a case like this one, where there is literally zero chance of the accused being innocent, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who objects to the death penalty... the ones who like to be viewed as being more enlightened will say that the purpose of capital punishment is not revenge, but rather to deter future offenders from committing the same crimes...

Looks to me like the deterrent effect is functioning properly... we know for sure that John Allen Mohammed will never be tempted to kill anyone ever again... so maybe he's the only one deterred, and maybe some future miscreant will decide to kill all the witnesses as a way of reducing his own chances of getting convicted and ultimately receiving the death penalty, thereby accomplishing the opposite of the deterrent effect... still, this one dead guy is thoroughly, and permanently, deterred. The revenge factor, while having been satisfied, is merely a side effect...

As for the unfortunate schmuck who had to sit through it, if he was a little more creative, he might have lived longer... if he'd thought to ask for the all-you-can-eat chinese buffet for his last meal, he could have taken years to finish his last meal...

or he could have used the ploy that didn't work for Ted Bundy- confessing other crimes right up to the moment of execution... didn't work so well for Bundy, but still worth the effort on the off chance that it might work...

Then again, if he was more creative and/or imaginitive, he'd probably have found a better way to express his displeasure with society than gunning people down at random...

Isn't gun nut synonymous with NRA

Not all gun nuts are NRA members. The DC sniper was not an NRA member and I'm not aware of him owning any other guns besides the Bushmaster AR-15 he used in the shootings so I'm not sure he would qualify as a gun nut either. It's unfair to associate mass murderers with the NRA because none of them have ever been NRA members.

You can't judge everyone by the organization they belong to (except Autism Speaks). Sure, a lot of NRA people are gun nuts, but without responsbile voices of reason like my uncle and myself (even though I don't personally own a gun, I support private gun ownership), they wouldn't have half the credibility they have now, and we'd probably already have our guns jacked by the government.

There are several reasons why I support the 2nd amendment, incidents like the DC sniper notwithstanding. Firstly, banning guns wont help at all. Ever heard the saying "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns?" I mean drugs are illegal too, and yet they still proliferate our society thanks to smugglers and the drug cartels in Mexico. If guns are banned, it would be an easy step for the cartels (who have tons of guns already, they have their own private armies for Pete's sake) to start shipping in guns and ammo along with their usual shipments of marijuanal; that way, the criminals who buy the drugs can buy the guns too.

And again with the above statement; there is a country in Europe (I think it's Sweden but I may be wrong, it does exist but I can't think of the name) that not only allows handguns, but also REQUIRES them for men ages 18 and up. Yet their gun crime is significantly lower than the US, because a criminal knows that if he pulls a gun on somebody, he's liable to have a gun pulled on him. It's mutually assured destruction - the same concept that kept America and Russia from nuking each other during the Cold War.

And finally, guns help regulate the wildlife population of the US through hunting. You know how you have to buy a tag to go hunting, and you can only kill an animal that you bought a tag for? They do that to keep people from overhunting and wiping out a species, but it also serves to keep wildlife populations from growing too large and becoming nusiances, like deer that are forced out of their territory by too many other deer, and end up in people's yards chewing up their gardens and such. Without guns, there would be no hunting, and without hunting the agencies responsible for regulating our national parks and such would be without their greatest tool for keeping wildlife populations under control. And while you COULD go hunting with bows, it's a lot harder. Plus, if guns get banned, bows are the next to go, seeing as they are also deadly weapons. Before the invention of gunpowder, the bow was the lethal weapon of choice for most societies. Plus, you can trace a bullet back to the gun that fired it because of the grooves on the inside of the barrel that give the bullet its spin. They are like fingerprints - no two guns leave the same pattern on the bullet. However, it doesnt work that way with bows and arrows, so it would theoretically be easier to kill someone with a bow and get away with it, rather than using a gun.

I don't mean to go on and on like that, but just like there are gun nuts in the NRA, there are also anti-gun nuts that are constantly saying, "Guns are bad, ban them!". But they aren't just used in crime, however; they are an indispensable tool for hunting, and a lot of people use them for self defense. Real life is not like the kung-fu movies: Even if you're a tenth dan black belt in three different styles, if you go up unarmed or with a knife against a guy with a gun, you are going to die 99% of the time. The best defense against a gun is to have one yourself, which is why the mandatory gun policy in Sweden I mentioned eariler works so well.

Hopefull you'll understand that pro-gun people aren't all raving redneck idiots waving AK-47's, that there is actuall thought behind the 2nd Amendment.

Heheh... no offense John, but I couldn't help but notice your signature right underneath your post. You really aren't helping the 'gun nut' case here

Good riddance!

ruveyn