Quote Originally Posted by MMI View Post
Having let the question simmer in my mind a while, I have decided I am still 100% against the death penalty. I can see no reason for it. None. I push the doubts I expressed earlier aside completely.
I knew I could drive you back into your shell!

The idea of untrained members of the public carrying weapons in public is horrifying.
Absolutely! That's why I support mandatory training, with frequent refresher courses.

There are no longer any new frontiers where savages and outlaws are liable to swoop down any second and massacre us for our trinkets.
Obviously you've never strolled through a city park after sundown. In most cities I wouldn't recommend it without Kevlar and an assault rifle.

There is no danger of redcoats swooping down from Canada to steal hard-won liberties.
One thing you have to give the British credit for: they learn from their mistakes. After getting their butts handed to them twice they're not likely to try again; and they eventually got rid of those silly red uniforms!

No-one has the right to take another person's life, not, to my way of thinking, even in self-defence unless there is no other way to save oneself,
What about to save someone else? If I see a man walking into a daycare center carrying a large machete, say, and I have the opportunity to take him out, but not the ability to reach him before he enters the building, should I pop him in the back and save countless kids? Or should I dial 911, wait on hold for 3 minutes, then have the police summoned? I know what I'd do!

and anyone who does take life must show inthe cold light of day and beyond reasonable doubt that his fear of immediate death was real and that there was no other reasonable alternative to save himself.
And just who is to define reasonable? You? The criminal? His family? These things happen in seconds! There's no time for reasonable, only for reaction, which is why training is so important.

Failure to demonstrate these conditions should lead to a presumption of manslaughter at least.
All killings are investigated as manslaughter. The difference between the US and England seems to be that the victim (the person attacked) is not presumed to be guilty because he defended himself.

And because no-one has the right to take another life, except in the most extreme circumstances, it follows that judicial murder is also unacceptable.
Except in the most extreme circumstances, of course.

It seems to me that the answer must be tougher controls and restrictions on the manufacture, sale, importation and exportation, and possession of offensive weapons of all kinds, and heavy penalties for transgressing the law.
These controls already exist. They are ineffective.

OK - it won't stop criminals, but what law ever did?
Laws allowing citizens to take action in their own self defense certainly stops a lot of criminals.

Tighter controls will stop people who are not professional lawbreakers from becoming killers by accident or any other cause.
But these people are not the source of the problem. Sure, accidents do happen, but they are very rare, and can result in charges of criminal negligence when they do occur. An average citizen who, for whatever reason, goes off his rocker and decides to kill his whole family will find a way to do so with or without guns. Regardless of the controls, the professional criminals will still get hold of weapons, and still use them, because they will know that their victims will not be able to fight back effectively.