Not really. In the US, each driver has to carry liability insurance.

Classic lazy ad hominem. The usual method of "argument" resorted to by the intellectually lazy and craven nanny statist. An assertion without any evidence, pure empty rhetorical BS. Which you know, which is why you're posting as the coward you are.

The most unhinged people in gun conversations are the ones who have no idea what they're talking about, but do it anyway. Thanks for being today's example.

Though you're (deliberately, of course) not counting the thousands and thousands of cases each year where defensive brandishment stops an attack. That number hugely exceeds the number of deaths by any method. I'd be more than happy to fetch out a handgun in such a situation, but would not be happy to find that it can't ultimately work because I've got gloves on, or my fingertips are dirty, or a battery is low, or it's too cold out, or I forgot my magic bracelet. Or it happens to be my wife's gun, since her's was handier than mine.

Be specific. What degree of responsibility do you have for the decisions made by another person who is driving your car? Are you talking about handing your keys to someone who tells you in advance that they intend to drive it into a crowd of people at SXSW? Or are you talking about someone who borrows your car to run to the grocery store, but who freaks out along the way and kills some pedestrians? What is your (the car owner's) responsibility for the deaths of those people in the second scenario? What is Ford's or Audi's responsibility for that person's unforeseen irrational act? Be specific.

And here, I see another person who is fantasizing that other people want to be murderers. It's really sick.

If you can't draw a moral distinction between murder and self defense, then I sure you never vote and absolutely never serve on a jury.

I hope you're right. Individuals can't even learn to use apostrophes or spell correctly, let alone manage upcoming energy/mass-conversion-capable smart phones.

And still are. What's your point? Tools are tools.

No, we worked with that country's northern alliance to overthrow the defacto government of Afghanistan (at the time, essentially the Taliban) because they harbored and supported Al Queda before and after the attack, refusing to act against them. They wouldn't act against them because, of course, they (the retrograde religious thugocracy that was ruling most of Afghanistan through murder and terror) actually agreed with their world view, and were running Afghanistan in exactly the model that Al Queda said (says, still) that they think is appropriate for the entire world.

The then-government of Afghanistan supported their favorite in-country guest/client organization's careful efforts to use aircraft to kill thousands of people in the US not very long ago. So you don't have to imagine what would happen.

Yes, but at least the screenwriters for the original series knew the difference between "your" and "you're" - an important measure of intellect, don't you think?

Nah, but your post makes it clear that you may have a sociopathic lack of empathy, or perhaps a strange affection for people like the guy in question - you know, the guy who deliberately raped, tortured, shot, and then buried alive the woman he was using for entertainment. Your pleasure at preferring him alive but in a cage for decades is, Mr. Coward, a surer sign of someone who needs help and some introspection.

Stop projecting. I didn't say anything about "closure." I'm talking about whether or not someone who has made the conscious decision that other known to be innocent people do not deserve to live their lives, and who seeks out an opportunity to rape and torture them to death (and showing no remorse whatsoever, and every indication that he'd do it again) should be the recipient of any of your day's labor or mine, let alone that of the family of the person he decided to rape and torture and murder in front of the shallow grave he made her watch him dig. Keep your pop-psychobabble "closure" crap for people who like to ruminate about such things.

This is about whether or not to reward someone like that with continued life after they've decided that you, or your daughter or wife, don't themselves deserve the same. And that since she doesn't, he's going to end it after some recreational violent rape and torture before blowing big holes in her with a shotgun.

If you can't see that feeding and housing someone like that for decades and asking his victims - among others - to pay the ticket day in and day out ... if you process that in your head and arrive somehow at that being a good thing, then you're the one that needs some help. Because you've got a seriously bad case of mixed premises resulting in toxic moral relativism.

Don't confuse Gandalf/Tolkien's admonishment about eagerness with ruling out that ultimate punishment when it's appropriate. Not to mention the concept is a little muddled anyway. Of course we can't "give life" to some innocent who was, for example, killed by a violent sexual predator. Our inability to do that sort of magic doesn't mean we should let cruel, predatory violent killers carry on with life, either. Such people have stated - often verbally, but always through their actions - that they consider any social contract regarding the value of other's lives to be out the window. He has said, "I get to decide on a whim - and without any consideration of how you live your life - if you live or die ... and when you die, if I get to rape you to death in the process before choosing my next victim."

Our inability to "give life" back to you after he's raped you to death isn't a sign that we're unable to realize he's waived his own claim on life. We don't have to be "eager," in Tolkein's parlance, to deal with such a person. But nor should we nurse him along in a cage for the next 50 years.

It's called justice. Imagine your (for example) daughter was raped and murdered by this kind of guy. Every morning, you wake up and he wakes up. Your daughter will never wake up, join you for breakfast, or carry on with life. You, on the other hand, get to go to work and spend a little of each day earning some money that will be taken from you and used to feed your daughter's rapist HIS breakfast, clean his teeth, put clothes on him, and the rest. You get to think every day about how the guy who shows no remorse for raping your daughter to death gets to re-adjust to a lousy but very alive new life. He can watch the TV shows she'll never see, read the books she'll never read, correspond with and get visits from family members and other things that your raped, dead daughter will never get to do. Your never to be born grandchildren won't get to do them, either.

A guy who raped her to death, on the other hand, shows every sign of being happy to do exactly the same to the next person that comes into reach, and has no moral qualms about considering the people around him to be fair game. His moral code is that other people's lives are disposable, and that he is entitled to end those lives with his deliberate, purposeful cruelty and violence while getting off on that sexually. Your raped, murdered daughter is just one of his amusements, and lacking physical restraint he'll just do it over an over again. Whole teams of people will spend their waking hours, on your dime, making sure he can't carry out his chosen hobby on the next person's daughter or wife or mother. He will be kept in that cage, alive when your dead sexual plaything of a daughter is not, for decades and decades.

Or, he can be put out of everyone's misery like the savage, deliberately evil, remorseless animal he actually is, and you don't get to think - as you drink your first cup of coffee every morning, missing your murdered daughter - that he's down the road in the facility cafeteria you're buying to feed him, having his morning coffee, too. You're both thinking about your daughter. You, how you miss the life that was stolen from her, and him, how much he enjoyed raping her and taking it away from her and her family.

That's why we have the death penalty.

There is no moral equivalence. The state, in removing that man from existence, isn't preying on some randomly chosen innocent stranger with rape and murder in mind. That you find the two to be equivalent removes you from the pool of people who should ever weigh in on such subjects.