Comic Fury Webcomic Hosting - Horrific murders at Dark Knight Rises premier

yes, without doubt people will find weapons with stricter gun regulations, and without doubt they will still use them to kill - but that doesn't mean we should just make it as easy as possible for them. A lot of people won't get weapons, or won't get assault rifles (but "just" a gun), or be caught in the process of trying to get one.

People seem to have a very black and white view about this, as if that validated their view. If one person still dies from a gunshot in a society where guns are banned, then legalize guns, because the laws are pointless.

I was being facetious as plenty of people are shot every day for any reason in the African /Arab culture of the AK-47. I don't think any civilian should own anything more complex than a simple semi-automatic magazine rifle with nothing more than a seven round clip, ideally an M1 Garand as the US government did with the surplus weapons after WWII. In the 1950s-60s one could take a government sponsored class and at the end get a certificate which entitled them to a surplus rifle.

But even that won't keep criminals from getting all kinds of illegal weapons. When I worked in a crime ridden neighborhood as a teacher I knew of an old furniture store where anything was available for a cash price including anti-tank rockets and fully automatic machine guns like a PKM or M-60. Hardly practicable for the average gang-banger drive-by but always nice to have just in case.

People aren't taught that the real American Wild West had a sort of mutually assured destruction with everyone carrying pistols in the open. Most people back then knew that if you're stupid enough to pull a gun on someone you better use it and make sure he's dead so he can't dispute that it wasn't self-defense. With everyone having a gun in the open only criminals or drunks used them because anyone with sense knew they'd be dead otherwise either from return fire or a hangman's knot.

Anybody, particular when drunk, who willingly gets into a serious street fight, will pull out a gun if it is still fashionable for everyone to wear a gun on the hip.

In that scenario, instead of two guys missing a few teeth and being all bruised/cut in the face, it's two guys with bullets in them. And probably in some innocent bystanders too.

I said this a couple of days ago, but a thought occurs... Miyamoto Musashi would disagree.
(For those that aren't familiar with the reference, The Book of Five Rings)

But I digress...
Aside from the accessibility of the weapons in question, (expensive, but available), and even disregarding what weapons he used... One does tend to wonder what drives an unemployed doctorate student with a bright future into a $10,000+ homicidal rage. This is what I'm focused on.
Not the tool, but the man.

How many people agree with the death penalty? Not just in this case, I mean, but in general.

I feel that the death penalty should not be given in this situation. At what point in time does this man suffer more than the victims by being placed to death. Keep him in prison. See how tough he is with no guns in yard with the guys who killed their exs, robbed banks, and beat children. That'll show him. Make him suffer a little bit here on earth before making face his fate in the afterlife. It's too easy to just kill him. He gets off way to easy.

ugh, i hate that attitude that prison should be about punishment/making criminals suffer. Prison should be about rehabilitation, turning people into functioning parts of society again.

But what about in this case? I agree that our goal with prison should be rehabilitation but someone does something as gruesome as this, people want the death penalty. I dont believe the death penalty is at all a winning solution. Its just morbid.

When punishment is deserved as voted by the people, prison sounds to me like the absolute best option.

Or a desk job in a cubicle working 9 to 5 monday through friday staring at a computer screen all day with 30 minute lunch break day in and day out for ever!

I don't. As much as I'd like to, sometimes.

Ignoring the fact that you've had frame jobs of innocent people, mishandling of forensics and drawing incorrect conclusions, there have also been studies done that show that a Jury might return a not-guilty vote for someone facing the death penalty where they would have found them guilty if the sentence was more likely to be life in jail.

I'd rather dangerous individuals be off the street than some walking free because the jury didn't want to kill them.




My problem with your position is that I'm missing the deterrent factor. They act on their impulse, they get rehabilitated, and then they return to society... What's stopping them from acting on their impulse in the first place?

I'd rather the pedophile know that he's got a long stint in a prison with a bunch of men who don't appreciate that sort of thing so that he has to balance that reality against taking my child.

However, what of those that outlive their sentences? Do we really want a felon serving 20 years of time and only being worse by the time he gets out? Personally, I'd rather see that felon serve his time, and when he gets out, be rehabilitated, not just tougher, meaner, and with an apathy about going back to prison.

And in the American West they were hanged or shot by those by-standers and that was the end of it.

Fighting drunks wielding guns don't live long where the by-standers are also armed.

Sadly prison as rehabilitation is almost a myth of liberal reform movements of the 19th Century. It doesn't work. A habitual offender will not be rehabilitated and will come out usually a more proficient criminal than when they went in. The casual offender will be scared straight by what they see in prison but others will be hardened and keep the justice system busy with their illegal antics. Or I could have spent too much time talking to prison guards, cops, social workers and prosecutors and not enough time reading stuff about the justice system.

Here is what I think about the death penalty:

Ultimately, it should be up to the families who were victimized. If it makes them sleep better at night knowing the guy who murdered their relatives has been put to rest, then so be it. The guy is probably too far gone to contribute anything else useful to society anyway.

But I do think that suffering in prison is a much worse punishment. Death would probably just feel like a release to someone who has to live with the fact that he killed so many innocent people in cold blood. But some could argue that even prison is too luxurious for someone who commits such brutal crimes. I mean they do get a free room and meals.

For those that are for the death penalty, I would ask this... Could you be the guy to pull the switch? Would you be able to take another human life? Even if his crimes were worthy enough?

Also, if you were in the theatre when this happened, and you had the chance to attack this guy before he killed more people, would you go for the kill? Or would you just try your best to apprehend him? If he deserves to die in the moment of the incident in order to prevent more deaths then doesn't he deserve the same fate under penalty of law?

Do you believe that there is a point where a man can become so far gone he is incapable of being rehabilitated?

Lack of freedom is still a deterrent. No one likes being locked up, even if the conditions are not inhumane. I mean it seems to work for european prisons. Besides, most criminals don't let the punishment deter them either way. Being locked up with no freedom or real outside communication is still a severe punishment. Being mistreated just makes prison foster this "us vs. them" culture that makes criminals feel like there is no way to reconcile.

I am totally against the death penalty in all cases. I just don't feel like the right action for anything is killing another person. I am ok with the life in prison without the possibility of parole for certain repeat violent offenders and other aggressive people and the idea of allowing these people the option of assisted suicide essentially, but not for the death penalty.

And in this situation, I mean you have to think this guy is insane, not to say that should suggest that he deserves no punishment or response, but it seems to me that the right thing is not to kill him, but to make him a functioning person. Yeah, he probably should never leave jail...who knows at this point, but killing him is not right.

For me, I guess it would depend on the severity of the crime and whether or not there is irrefutable evidence.

I think taking another human life is one of the greatest sins we can commit. So I agree with you on that part. It's something that we will always question even if we kill in self defense. The greatest punishment to taking a person's life is then having to live with the fact. But what if the person who took a life has no remorse for their actions? Making them a true psychopath? If they show no remorse do they still deserve to live even though living with the fact they killed someone is no longer a punishment because they don't feel sorry for it? Are they now basically just getting a free room to stay in and three square meals a day along with protection from the rest of society who probably wants to see him physically maimed or worse?

They never let Charles Manson out, and he never actually killed anybody. The top psychopaths are in high positions of influence and brainwash or pay others to do their killing for them. They must be what the vampire myth is based on.

Suppose we had a way of screening psychopaths with some degree of certainty, hopefully before they commit some crime or fraud. Wouldn't it be great if we could send them to their own island, like in Escape from New York. Then we could proudly rehabilitate the normal criminals it would actually work on.

This guy brings up some freaky-ass coincidences.

http://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/was-the-batman-shooting-a-ritualistic-murder-carried-out-by-mind-controlled-patsy/

www.vancouversun.com/news/Christian+Bale+visits+victims+Colorado+shooting+with+photos/6983363/story.html

I think that's really cool of him. He didn't cause it, it wasn't his fault, but he could (and did) make it a little better for some of the people involved.

I agree, that is really cool of him. He didn't have to do anything other than move on with his life but he went out of this way to drop in and give his condolences and a "Get well" or sixty. I respect that.