Death by firing squad.
- Thread starter photog212
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If I was going to get put down I think I would opt for a firing squad over an injection or gas chamber. I would die on my feet, and with a bang rather than a whimper.
I am against the death penalty in any form, however this doesn't contribute anything to the topic so...
Lethal injection has been proven to be unreliable, and even if it is we have no way of knowing how painful it is because the victims are paralysed and cannot express any pain or emotion. Suffering the pain of cardiac arrest whilst still fully conscious is not a nice way to go.
Hanging, electric chair, gas chamber are unreliable in the humaneness for an assortment of gruesome reasons which I shall not go into.
Given the choice I would die by firing squad. Having 10 or so bullets hit you in the head at once ensures a very quick death, no doubt about it unless all the shooters are retards and hit other areas instead. Notice how I said head. I don't know why they aim for the heart, surely destroying the brain is the most humane way to go?
Edit: Just remembered the blanks. Surely a way could be devised to employ executioners that are not cowards hiding behind the fact that "it may not be me!", or a gun hooked up to an electrical firing system would remove some of the perceived guilt (like a guy hitting some switches for lethal injection).
Lethal injection has been proven to be unreliable, and even if it is we have no way of knowing how painful it is because the victims are paralysed and cannot express any pain or emotion. Suffering the pain of cardiac arrest whilst still fully conscious is not a nice way to go.
Hanging, electric chair, gas chamber are unreliable in the humaneness for an assortment of gruesome reasons which I shall not go into.
Given the choice I would die by firing squad. Having 10 or so bullets hit you in the head at once ensures a very quick death, no doubt about it unless all the shooters are retards and hit other areas instead. Notice how I said head. I don't know why they aim for the heart, surely destroying the brain is the most humane way to go?
Edit: Just remembered the blanks. Surely a way could be devised to employ executioners that are not cowards hiding behind the fact that "it may not be me!", or a gun hooked up to an electrical firing system would remove some of the perceived guilt (like a guy hitting some switches for lethal injection).
I would like to be executed the easy way. right after conviction get an hour with family then go out in the alley and get a bullet in the back of the head. cheap and easy. america should adopt this method. It would lower jail costs exponentially.
firing squad is pretty badass. i would go out that way. i would hope that when they shoot me, they break my ropes and i can bust out and take them all down and escape in pretty much the most badass action sequence ever. at least thats my plan after i get captured for the horrible crimes imma commit when i am 90
edit: like this but as an old man with no knives.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKrTjd4iPSI&feature=related
edit: like this but as an old man with no knives.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKrTjd4iPSI&feature=related
That is some balls for this man and i'd rather go in a big way than boring ol lethal injection that takes way too long.
Lethal Injection is on the top of my list of "worst ways to die"
I just couldn't sit there waiting to die. At least a firing squad is quick, especially if they get you in the head.
In fact look at the electric chair and lethal injection, both are (in my opinion) slower and more traumatic ways to die than being hung or guillotined (0.0 I spelled that right = D ) which would be instant (if done right). Talk about humane ways to kill someone, the old fashioned "barbaric" ways are fine for me thanks.
I just couldn't sit there waiting to die. At least a firing squad is quick, especially if they get you in the head.
In fact look at the electric chair and lethal injection, both are (in my opinion) slower and more traumatic ways to die than being hung or guillotined (0.0 I spelled that right = D ) which would be instant (if done right). Talk about humane ways to kill someone, the old fashioned "barbaric" ways are fine for me thanks.
I have no compunction against my tax dollars paying for their defense, and seeing as EVERYONE should be afforded every opportunity to obtain their freedom by proof of innocence, the only way your statement of "it is cheaper just to give them a life sentence" could be true would be to eliminate all possibility of appeal. I'm pretty sure you didn't mean that.maddawg IAJI said:
Death by firing squad is the best way to go, as long as you have people who can aim a rifle. It's cheap, I assume they're using M-4's or AR-15's so with seven shooters you have a cost of about $1.50. The only additional cost is the setup and wages for the people present, seems quite a bit more sensible than the spectacle of lethal injection. And if done right, a bullet to the brain stem will kill faster than lethal injection. I can't quite see the difference between a doctor injecting a criminal with a lethal cocktail that will kill them slowly, and a person shooting them in the head and ending their life quickly and painlessly. Get someone who is willing to shoot the condemned in the head with a .45 handgun, sever the brain stem, and the state has lost 23 cents on the execution, plus wages. Shooting someone in the head is no different from someone injecting them with lethal chemicals, they die either way, and one of the solutions costs quite a bit more.
Well, the big alternative is Lethal Injection. Turns out, Lethal Injection in humans doesn't fit the criteria for humanely euthanizing pets. There's a high to middling chance that people who experience lethal injection are simply paralyzed, incapable of informing everyone of the unbearable pain they are experiencing as their organs shut down. It's more to make the killers feel better. So while you're more likely to feel SOME pain from a firing squad, you are less likely to feel prolonged pain. It's a fairly rational decision.
Also, because we are talking about the Death Penalty on a site filled with geeks, allow me to take this opportunity to quote Gandalf the Grey.
"Deserve death? I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."
Also, because we are talking about the Death Penalty on a site filled with geeks, allow me to take this opportunity to quote Gandalf the Grey.
"Deserve death? I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."
Personally I think they should bring back the death penalty, either way is fine but I think we should kill the bastards who've killed lots of people "Kill one, save hundreds" also they'd actually have to deserve it, not just like one murder but maybe a whole bunch
The Ghandi and Gandalf quotes are falsely used here for one simple reason: the death penalty is not the act of an individual taking revenge on someone for his or her crimes. The death penalty is enacted by a system made up of many individuals after due process has been followed. It is the action of a government that says that some crimes are repulsive enough that it is not enough to merely separate the perpetrator for the public safety, but that in the interest of deterrence and denunciation they must be put to death.
The legal system is intended to rely upon three factors when considering sentencing: rehabilitation ("Will the sentence provide an opportunity for the criminal to learn how to become a productive member of society?"), deterrence ("This sentence will serve as a warning to other criminals."), and denunciation ("The sentence will demonstrate that a civilized society does not tolerate crime."). Unfortunately, rehabilitation has become the key word, and denunciation and deterrence have been forgotten. (Incidentally, people love to use re-offend statistics to prove that harsher sentences don't work; well those who have been served the death penalty have a perfect 0% re-offence rate.)
Finally, the argument that a government has no moral authority to kill people when it expects its citizens not to is patently false. The government does a great number of things that citizens are not to do, with no one crying foul. The government takes our money, and yet calls theft committed by an individual a crime. The government prints currency, yet when a man does it on a laser printer in his basement, it's a federal crime. The government legalizes drugs for public consumption, but will not allow a person to take marijuana or cocaine. Government vehicles (fire, police, ambulance) are allowed to speed and run red lights, but individuals are ticketed when they try the same. Are all these examples of government hypocrisy? Of course not; they're examples of the government exercising its role: to provide a basic level of service and provision for all citizens, and to protect the public good.
The legal system is intended to rely upon three factors when considering sentencing: rehabilitation ("Will the sentence provide an opportunity for the criminal to learn how to become a productive member of society?"), deterrence ("This sentence will serve as a warning to other criminals."), and denunciation ("The sentence will demonstrate that a civilized society does not tolerate crime."). Unfortunately, rehabilitation has become the key word, and denunciation and deterrence have been forgotten. (Incidentally, people love to use re-offend statistics to prove that harsher sentences don't work; well those who have been served the death penalty have a perfect 0% re-offence rate.)
Finally, the argument that a government has no moral authority to kill people when it expects its citizens not to is patently false. The government does a great number of things that citizens are not to do, with no one crying foul. The government takes our money, and yet calls theft committed by an individual a crime. The government prints currency, yet when a man does it on a laser printer in his basement, it's a federal crime. The government legalizes drugs for public consumption, but will not allow a person to take marijuana or cocaine. Government vehicles (fire, police, ambulance) are allowed to speed and run red lights, but individuals are ticketed when they try the same. Are all these examples of government hypocrisy? Of course not; they're examples of the government exercising its role: to provide a basic level of service and provision for all citizens, and to protect the public good.