Ted Nugent on Gun Control

I wasn't against capital punishment until I did a report on it a few years ago and found out that it's not a deterrent. If it won't keep more people from dying, then what is the point? Revenge? That's a pretty useless reason for the government to kill someone. I just don't see the point in it. I do think there are people who do things that deserve to have them killed, I would have killed Saddam and I would kill Usama if given the chance, but they have committed far more atrocity than most people on death row.

Now, what people will misunderstand (and probably try to imply) is that, in no way, am I saying we should be softer on crime. However, if capital punishment is not a deterrent, what is the point? Plus, capital punishment is ridiculously expensive, the following is from a Duke University study:



So, it costs more and doesn't deter crimes. What is the advantage again?


I would be interested to know what the determination is as to the lack of a "deterrent". One thing for sure the person executed will not commit another heinous crime. It would also be very interesting to see what the cost breakdown on the 2+ mil is?

While at it's current rate, I can understand your point. However, we're talking about the scum of the scum. So if it costs 2+ mil after 10-15 years on death row, what would it cost if the man or woman after 40 or 50 years. Obviously they are too dangerous to let out, so they will be in prison for life and we're paying for that.
Also, like I said, we need to execute them right away, but even at the current way of doing this, he should still be executed. 1- he did something so vile that he deserves death, 2- justification for the vitims family, 3- they are a leech on society, and don't deserve the life they get in prison. What is the reason for keeping him alive? If death isn't a deterant, then keeping him in prison is not a deterant either.

I think those are dangerous reasons; I don't believe that the government should be in the business of sponsoring revenge, personally. I can certainly understand your argument and your point, but I don't know that that is something the government should be doing.

I would be interested to know what the determination is as to the lack of a "deterrent". One thing for sure the person executed will not commit another heinous crime. It would also be very interesting to see what the cost breakdown on the 2+ mil is?

I did a case study that focused on states who have the death penalty vs. a state that borders it and does not. There was a lower percentage of murders in the bordering states who did not have the death penalty. However, most of the states who had the death penalty had the larger cities (I don't remember all of them and won't look them up). There was an exception to that rule, though, Massachusetts, who has the death penalty had a lower murder rate than a neighboring, much smaller state.

However, we're talking about the scum of the scum. So if it costs 2+ mil after 10-15 years on death row, what would it cost if the man or woman after 40 or 50 years. Obviously they are too dangerous to let out, so they will be in prison for life and we're paying for that.

I used to be all for the death penalty. But then it occured to me that it's actually the easier way out. All they feel is the slight pinch of a needle, and they gently fall off to sleep. To me, it would seem more of a punishment to know that you'll be in a cage for the rest of your days.

Now, as to the financial burden of incarcerating someone for life? Too bad. That's a legitimate function of government and it's one of the costs of maintaining a civilized society to put away the people who infringe on individual rights. It's no different than having to pay up for the costs of the military or building roads.

You missed the point. I am not going to bother trying to argue with you, because you took it to a whole new extreme.

No, I got your point and then used the rhetorical tool of hyperbole to demonstrate the absurdity of it if carried to its logical extreme.

I understand your point - You have a right to carry guns. My point is that the public has the right to regulate inherently dangerous things such as guns.

Wow, so you think the Saudi justice system is one to be emulated?


Did I say that?
Nothing like taking a post out of context eh?

ps- we used to have public hangings here in the good ole USA.

I think those are dangerous reasons; I don't believe that the government should be in the business of sponsoring revenge, personally. I can certainly understand your argument and your point, but I don't know that that is something the government should be doing.

Fair enough.
I just feel we as a society has gotten waaaay too lax on our punishment, and it's time to make criminals fear their evil ways.

Fair enough.
I just feel we as a society has gotten waaaay too lax on our punishment, and it's time to make criminals fear their evil ways.

See, I have conflicting opinions. Because if a person (say Jim so it's more clear). Jim kills Mike's family member. If Mike goes out and kills Jim, I don't really feel sorry for Jim and am not outraged by it in anyway. I do, however, take issue with government putting people to death. I know that I should not advocate people taking the law into their own hands, but that's how I feel on that subject. (Keep in mind, I said I had conflicting ideas.)

See, I have conflicting opinions. Because if a person (say Jim so it's more clear). Jim kills Mike's family member. If Mike goes out and kills Jim, I don't really feel sorry for Jim and am not outraged by it in anyway. I do, however, take issue with government putting people to death. I know that I should not advocate people taking the law into their own hands, but that's how I fee on that subject. (Keep in mind, I said I had conflicting ideas.)

I understand.
I have felt for a long long time, that for instance if a woman gets raped and or killed, that woman's immediate family should be allowed to enter a room with the raper / killer and have their way with him. Anything goes, and if they come out of the room and he's dead, then so be it. That's justice.

I did a case study that focused on states who have the death penalty vs. a state that borders it and does not. There was a lower percentage of murders in the bordering states who did not have the death penalty. However, most of the states who had the death penalty had the larger cities (I don't remember all of them and won't look them up). There was an exception to that rule, though, Massachusetts, who has the death penalty had a lower murder rate than a neighboring, much smaller state.
Do you remember if you did any compare on apple to apples like comparison? Such as NY and Cal (but they don't have the DP, I don't think)??