It would be safer. One less Gertie doesn't both me. Thousands of death due to illegal guns bothers me. I am not missing the point, you are making a different point. There still would be due process. There still would be extenuating circumstances. There still would be bench trials or jury trials. The Heritage foundation, which is a conservative think tank, states that approximately 80% of gun violence is caused using illegal guns. In 2018 aproximetly 80,000 gun related deaths. So approximately 64,000 gun related deaths were caused by illegal guns. I can't give you a statistical representation of what my idea would do if a law were impacted so let's use an extremely conservative estimate. Use the supposition that my idea eliminates 10% of the deaths due to illegal guns. That would equate to 6,400 people annually would not die due to illegal guns.
As to Gertie, I seriously doubt that any jury would convict her. But let's make an outrageous assumption. 100 Gerties are executed annually. Not so good for the Gerties, but you would have an annual net gain of 6,300 lives saved. So our world would be a safer place. I do think there would be a learning curve for the Gurties, the number executed would decrease hyperbolicly annually. So by year 3 say 4 Gurties are executed. Now approximately 6, 400 net lives are saved. I am good with the Gurtie executions.
If you want to debate the morality of executing the Gurties that would be a very valid debate that could be looked at from multiple dimensions that would lead to different conclusions.
Speyside wrote:
