Obama on the Issues of The Death Penalty, Abortion, and Gun Control

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pyOL8TxtexM

In Barack Obama’s debate against U.S. Senate Candidate, Alan Keyes, he touches briefly on the subject of the death penalty and abortion. In my opinion, Obama uses two separate statements that seem to be contradictory of each other when he is discussing the subject of the Death Penalty. When Obama was first given the chance to rebut the comments given by Alan Keyes, he said, “The death penalty is appropriate in certain circumstances. There are extraordinary heinous crimes; terrorism, the harm of children, in which it may be appropriate.” Later on in that same section of the debate, Obama said, “But I also think that it’s [the death penalty] got to be fair and uniformly applied.” My only question here is how can the death penalty be “fair and uniformly applied” if the punishment is only given on a case-by-case basis? I understand the point that Obama is attempting to make here. He has valid reasoning for his beliefs when it comes to these extremely controversial topics. Whether one may think it or not, there are obviously no right or wrong answers as to the legalization of topics such as abortion and the death penalty. Overall, the only thing that matters in the end is the moral stature of the candidate. I think it is pretty apparent that Barack Obama is a moral person. However, if his morals served him right then why does he believe that the death penalty is “ok” in some situations? In a discussion board on youtube, someone made a very good point about the death penalty and why it should not be legalized. Say a person shoots and kills someone. They are now in their car being chased by the cops. Suppose the killer comes to a school zone where there are small children crossing the street. In the case that the death penalty is legal, this person knows that he or she is going to receive capital punishment anyways; therefore he or she will not be fazed by running over the small children, in order to flee the police. Now, suppose the death penalty was not legalized. This person comes to the school zone, sees the small children, and will now think twice about running them over. Perhaps this is a bit overdramatized, but it still gets the point across.
As for the topic of gun control, I think Obama has a legit idea on how to monitor who has guns, what guns they have, and how they plan on using their guns. He brings up a good point when he is questioned about gun control. He says that there are still people who own guns for traditional reasons such as hunting, sportsmanship, and to protect their families. Obama reasons that there is no point in taking the guns away from the people who are simply trying to carry out some traditions. We all know that there are people who own guns who are not dangerous and who do not, in any way, shape, or form, plan to harm any other human being with their guns. Obama is not trying to piss these people off. He is an understanding man, in my opinion, and he knows what he is doing. Of course, then there are always those other people who have guns for the sole purpose of killing or harming other human beings. Obama makes it evident that these are the people he wants to take guns away from. It makes perfect sense that Obama wants to take the guns away from criminals and killers. The main principles that Obama supports on the topic of gun control are: “ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons, increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms, and require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.” I believe that if Obama is able to implement these principles in his hopeful future presidency, then the level of crime will certainly go down.