Before I see that here, it did not occur to me that being anti guns and for death penalty for killers could be divided into two opposing camps. Things like these always constructed one whole to me and would feel contradicted otherwise.

Also until I paid attention to that here, the only thing that was coming to my mind as the reason for having or not having a death penalty is the possibility of killing an innocent person. The point which some make regarding the sacredness of life of someone who himself took the life of another person unjustly is to me so unacceptable mentally that it cannot sit in peace even with mere comprehension of existence.   

Wasn't that a joke? Why even bother to have a death penalty if it is not applied even on a case like that in Colorado? What more was needed? 

I on the other hand was thinking if it would be just to keep medically reviving the guy while shooting him until he got shot as much as he shot those people then leave him to die at the end. 

Those who oppose the death penalty on killers are more for human life than those who do not as much as those who take into account the value of a variable only on one side of the equation are the better mathematicians.  

The Colorado movie theater shooting guy got life in prison penalty despite actively shooting all those people. The marathon bomber, on the other hand who less actively participated and killed much less people got the death penalty. Although I think that all criminal killers should be killed, I thought from the beginning that different application for discrimination and/or identity complex caused the difference in the marathon case but waited for this ruling to test that.