welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

More gun laws = fewer deaths, 50-state study says
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Snorri



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 10878
Location: hiding the decline.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
part of why those of us who are over 21 worry about the drinking of those under 21 is that we have, in fact, been there, and are aware of the bad things that can happen. hoping that others can learn from your experience without significant cost to them is not hypocritical.

and if you were a woman living in a neighborhood where there had been a series of break-in rapes and you were awakened by someone breaking into your house at 2 am - would you think it worth the risk to stand around talking to the intruder? how about if you had small children in the house? not everyone is physically capable of winning a struggle with an intruder - are you really going to call all those people cowards?

look, this is a tragic situation. it would be nice if we had phasers or something that we could set to 'stun', so you could disable an intruder but still leave him in good condition. but until then, there are very definitely cases where people have genuine reason to be in fear of their lives, and if some of them choose to have a gun, i can't really fault them (if they choose to have an assault rifle, i can). if they use that gun in a legal fashion against someone who is actively committing a crime (intentionally or not) - i can't fault that, either.

i gotta say it - in this case, the victim _is_ at fault. he did at least two things he knew he shouldn't be doing, and as a result, found himself in a situation that resulted in his death. this is not a kid walking around in a public space, like trayvon martin. this is not a woman who is accused of causing her own rape because she dared to wear a dress. this is a kid who knew he was supposed to be home, but chose to sneak out; who knew it was illegal for him to be drinking, but chose to drink until he was inebrated; and who then chose to try to sneak back in - and in the process, caused another person to fear for his own safety. yes, knowing everything, i wish the householder hadn't had a gun. if i had been the householder, in the same situation, i probably would have wished for one.


The problem with this is that if he had been 21 and drinking he somehow wouldn't have been less at fault. Which is retarded.

The kid wasn't at fault for sneaking out or drinking, he is at fault for drinking way too much and stupidly going into the wrong house.

If I get hella drunk and drive a car into a bus full of nuns I am not at fault for getting drunk, I am at fault for getting into that fucking car. Even if getting drunk was illegal!
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17169
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

well, no, he is at fault for sneaking out and drinking. he made conscious decisions to do things he knew he wasn't supposed to do.

if he had stayed home, as his parents had directed, he wouldn't have been out drinking, he wouldn't have gotten drunk, he wouldn't have been trying to find his way home when drunk...it all builds on the previous steps.

true, if he had been 21, he probably wouldn't have been grounded, and it would have been legal for him to drink, but yeah - once he got drunk, then he's on the path of really bad decisions. just because thousands of people get away with those bad decisions doesn't mean they weren't at fault for making them, or that they weren't bad decisions - it just means they got lucky.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3315

PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
part of why those of us who are over 21 worry about the drinking of those under 21 is that we have, in fact, been there, and are aware of the bad things that can happen. hoping that others can learn from your experience without significant cost to them is not hypocritical.

and if you were a woman living in a neighborhood where there had been a series of break-in rapes and you were awakened by someone breaking into your house at 2 am - would you think it worth the risk to stand around talking to the intruder? how about if you had small children in the house? not everyone is physically capable of winning a struggle with an intruder - are you really going to call all those people cowards?

look, this is a tragic situation. it would be nice if we had phasers or something that we could set to 'stun', so you could disable an intruder but still leave him in good condition. but until then, there are very definitely cases where people have genuine reason to be in fear of their lives, and if some of them choose to have a gun, i can't really fault them (if they choose to have an assault rifle, i can). if they use that gun in a legal fashion against someone who is actively committing a crime (intentionally or not) - i can't fault that, either.

i gotta say it - in this case, the victim _is_ at fault. he did at least two things he knew he shouldn't be doing, and as a result, found himself in a situation that resulted in his death. this is not a kid walking around in a public space, like trayvon martin. this is not a woman who is accused of causing her own rape because she dared to wear a dress. this is a kid who knew he was supposed to be home, but chose to sneak out; who knew it was illegal for him to be drinking, but chose to drink until he was inebrated; and who then chose to try to sneak back in - and in the process, caused another person to fear for his own safety. yes, knowing everything, i wish the householder hadn't had a gun. if i had been the householder, in the same situation, i probably would have wished for one.


And when we were growing up that might ...MIGHT have qualified him as a bad seed, with an embarassing perp walk to jail, or home in handcuffs. Shooting at random shapes without knowing what you're shooting at is fucking terrible. Being a stupid non violent teenager shouldn't end in a death sentence and a culture where shooting at shit you don't recognize is why this stupid teenager died.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Snorri



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 10878
Location: hiding the decline.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 2:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
well, no, he is at fault for sneaking out and drinking. he made conscious decisions to do things he knew he wasn't supposed to do.

if he had stayed home, as his parents had directed, he wouldn't have been out drinking, he wouldn't have gotten drunk, he wouldn't have been trying to find his way home when drunk...it all builds on the previous steps.


Yo I don't want to accuse you of victim blaming but this is victim blaming.

He was responsible for doing all that, but he isn't at fault until he does something wrong. If he had stayed home instead of going out in a short skirt and wearing those heels he wouldn't have been raped.

Linear regression of actions has you end up with the position that he was at fault for being born. (Or faulting the big bang.) We don't do that because it's silly. This guy's fault was going into a house that was not his. Because it is at that moment that he involved another party in his actions. Which is what makes you at fault. It is at the point that your actions dictate another person's actions that you're at fault.


Quote:

true, if he had been 21, he probably wouldn't have been grounded, and it would have been legal for him to drink, but yeah - once he got drunk, then he's on the path of really bad decisions. just because thousands of people get away with those bad decisions doesn't mean they weren't at fault for making them, or that they weren't bad decisions - it just means they got lucky.


Right. Imagine the person you're talking about is a girl that got raped. I don't care if it's a bad decision to pass out on a couch drunk, but surely that doesn't mean carrying fault for getting raped?

You mentioned Trayvon Martin. Surely you admit that had Martin been drunk in a public space just walking he shouldn't have been shot? So clearly being drunk/getting drunk does not make you at fault for what happens. But had Martin, stone cold sober, sneaked into a house that was not his (just for a bed) it would obviously be understandable that he got shot.

Point is: You are only at fault if your action causes another person, who is acting rationally and/or reasonably, to react to you in a reasonable way
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17169
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 2:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

i agree stupidity shouldn't be a death sentence (although it is, for a lot of different sorts of death).

but really - try to put yourself in the place of the homeowner. he is awakened in the middle of the night by strange noise, comes downstairs to find - well, we don't know if it was a random shape or an identifiably human one, but one he knew had no business being there. and as i have said before - if you find a stranger in your house in the middle of the night, which is it really more likely to be - a lost, drunk teenager, or someone with intent to rob, rape or otherwise injure you? what are the consequences if you assume an intruder is harmless, or that you can handle him, and he isn't and you can't?

seriously - if you were in that position, what would be your first thought? what would you do?
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17169
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 2:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Snorri wrote:
He was responsible for doing all that, but he isn't at fault until he does something wrong.

which he did, the second he sneaked out of the house after being grounded. this is not exactly the same as someone who has every right to be out walking around. if he hadn't snuck out, he wouldn't have had to try to sneak back in (drunk or sober), he would have come up to the front door, and knocked when his key didn't work.

Snorri wrote:
Point is: You are only at fault if your action causes another person, who is acting rationally and/or reasonably, to react to you in a reasonable way


so what do you consider is a rational/reasonable reaction to an unknown stranger who breaks into your house in the middle of the night?
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3315

PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 2:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
i agree stupidity shouldn't be a death sentence (although it is, for a lot of different sorts of death).

but really - try to put yourself in the place of the homeowner. he is awakened in the middle of the night by strange noise, comes downstairs to find - well, we don't know if it was a random shape or an identifiably human one, but one he knew had no business being there. and as i have said before - if you find a stranger in your house in the middle of the night, which is it really more likely to be - a lost, drunk teenager, or someone with intent to rob, rape or otherwise injure you? what are the consequences if you assume an intruder is harmless, or that you can handle him, and he isn't and you can't?

seriously - if you were in that position, what would be your first thought? what would you do?


Don't even have to think about it as i HAVE been in that situation, or one very similar. Seven or eight years back i lived in a shitty apartment in a shittier part of town. I think it was a friday because it wasn't normally a day off for me but i had it off for some reason. Anyway one night I heard a window opening while i was half asleep in bed at like 3 am. I assumed my roommate was just opening his window or shutting it but when i rolled over and blearily opened my eyes there was some dudes knee , in the window, which was about a foot above the bed and my face.

I shouted...hey....HEY MOTHERFUCKER...and rolled out of bed, and grabbed the nearest blunt object.. The dude jumped, fell backwards out of the window, hit the ground and took off.

Surprisingly, even though he likely had malice, a confrontation was had in the states where some chickenshit didn't pull out a gun because he lived in constant fear, and as a result no one died.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Heretical Rants



Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 5344
Location: No.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 7:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, even if you have a gun, it should be securely locked away. Getting it out and firing it in the middle of the night shouldn't even be an option.

If you need constant access to a loaded gun in order to feel safe, then you have serious problems that most likely should not be dealt with by having that gun. There are exceptions, of course.
_________________
butts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9501

PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 11:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Snorri wrote:
mouse wrote:
well, no, he is at fault for sneaking out and drinking. he made conscious decisions to do things he knew he wasn't supposed to do.

if he had stayed home, as his parents had directed, he wouldn't have been out drinking, he wouldn't have gotten drunk, he wouldn't have been trying to find his way home when drunk...it all builds on the previous steps.


Yo I don't want to accuse you of victim blaming but this is victim blaming.


victim blaming, such as it is, goes a bit beyond rhetorical derail in this particular issue. I think it's fair to blame the victim for house invasion while drunk, because it's something he committed.

guns just enabled (and probably drew the culture for) an overresponse and upped this to a tragedy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17169
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

look, i'd keep arguing, except i wish i lived in a world where everyone wasn't all the time grabbing for guns (wait, i do - it's called california!)

i'm just saying - i can understand situations where a person would fear for their life, and would want a gun. middle of the night, with maybe kids in the house and some unknown wandering around downstairs is one of them.

not all break-ins are caught as the invader is halfway through the window about to step on your face.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3315

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 12:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm saying that people who "fear for their life and want a gun in the middle of the night" are usually the people who should least be holding a gun. They're the people who accidentally shoot their kid, or the neighbors kid, or keep it loaded and out of a locked safe because "how am i gonna get at it if i need it in a hurry" and their kid blows some other kid's head off because they find it.

Those people are fucking dangerous.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3315

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 12:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's a terrible webpage that will show you an incomplete and still horrifying picture of gun deaths since sandy hook.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bitflipper



Joined: 09 Jul 2011
Posts: 728
Location: Here and Now

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 1:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
I'm saying that people who "fear for their life and want a gun in the middle of the night" are usually the people who should least be holding a gun. They're the people who accidentally shoot their kid, or the neighbors kid, or keep it loaded and out of a locked safe because "how am i gonna get at it if i need it in a hurry" and their kid blows some other kid's head off because they find it.

Those people are fucking dangerous.

You're probably right, in that regard; ownership of any weapon requires a certain degree of maturity, a willingness and an ability to stay calm in frightening situations, and an awareness of the weapon and the situation around oneself. Of course, I can say the same thing about power tools and about motor vehicles, too; weapons are far from unique in requiring a cool head and due diligence for safety. But, when one is afraid, that is certainly not a good time to be holding or controlling something with a vastly destructive potential.

A far better response from the homeowner would have been to call 911 and to let people who are trained to handle weapons and to deal with dangerous situations and dangerous people come deal with the drunk kid breaking into his house. If he really feared his life would be jeapordized in the time it would take officers to respond to the call, then he could have gotten his firearm out of the safe it should have been in, loaded it (since it should have been stored unloaded unless he was using it), and held onto it while he waited in his bedroom for the 911 dispatcher to tell him the officers were at his door. The kid would likely have gotten, then, exactly what the kid deserved--to whit, arrested, a night in jail, and in the deep gyppo with his parents--instead of of getting killed by a panicked homeowner making a regrettable decision while in a freaked-out frame of mind.

Let's say all that had happened--the homeowner called the cops, then loaded his weapon and waited for the cops to arrive and deal with the intruder who had set off his burglar alarm. Everything's sensible, and civilized, and the people best qualified to handle the problem are on their way. And the dumb kid goes upstairs and opens the wrong bedroom door (all the while unaware of a screaming burglar alarm? O-kay, it's a stretch; advocatus diaboli arguments usually are.) And the panicked homeowner... Y'know, there comes a point at which you just can no longer protect someone from their own bad luck and bad choices, and the universe will hand out far harsher judgments and punishments than even the most cold, stone-hearted human judge one could find. But it all could have been avoided if the homeowner didn't have a gun, right?

Wrong.

Someone busts into my house, wakes me up with a shrieking alarm, then walks into my bedroom while I'm waiting for the cops to arrive, and that someone will likely die of a severe head injury as I bash them over the noggin with the first piece of furniture I can lay my hands on. They won't have the chance to identify themselves, because I'll be swinging the instant that door opens. I won't need my rifle to deal death to someone who's crossed that many lines in trying to make me feel threatened, whether that was their intent or not. That doesn't make me a horrible man; any cornered animal will fight for its life, because it has nothing else it can lose.
_________________
I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fritterdonut



Joined: 24 Jul 2012
Posts: 1182
Location: Hedonism

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 2:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote



I think this chart from the DOJ reaffirms my stance that handguns are the problem, not the rifles/shotguns that legislators love to rail against.
_________________
To get things done, you must love the doing, not the secondary consequences. The work, not the people. Your own action, not any possible object of your charity.
-Howard Roark, The Fountainhead
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3315

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 3:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why the fuck does everyone act like "oh well i'll just hit them with a blunt object in the head and they'll die" is some foregone conclusion. If hitting someone with a bat was equally lethal to shooting them with a gun, I suspect our army would be outfitted with more bats.

And yeah, handguns are a bigger problem in homicides, the thing is, it takes something as horrific as a mass shooting to get people even TALKING about our gun problem in america and the most public and graphic of those involve semiautomatic rifles and shotguns.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Page 8 of 12

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group