The unfortunate side effect of training people to violence, and then sending them to do violence is that they often perpetuate violence you don't want later. *shrug* It sucks in so many ways sideways. It's shameful how its treated later but I think the ultimate reality is that the society that sends these men to do violence to a certain extent recognizes their hand in the perpetuation of these tragedies and that's why they don't get punished as severely as they deserve.
Well, at least Staff Sgt. Robert Bales is facing the death penalty. Of course, accounts that there were something like 20 soldiers involved in the Kandahar massacre keep making the rounds...
My evidence professor in law school was one of the Mai Lai prosecutors. Interesting and thoughtful guy. I think you'd like him citizen anklebiter.
Despite my online persona, I like most people. Except UPS supervisors.
here was also some speculation that the drug Mefloquine may have played a role in this tragedy
I can tell you from personal experience that stuff will give you some seriously vivid dreams: i'm talking full on standing on the holodeck "computer this is camamile, i asked for earl gray" level vivid dreams.
If that didn't shut off when the person was awake...
It could be TheWhiteknife, but I have far greater ability to hold the government accountable then I do most individuals, and governments are massive bureaucracies trained to pass responsibility.I never made the assertion that either was trying to kill me. My dealings with the average person and my dealings with the government have never turned violent. What I meant was I have an easier time making the government do what I want because the government has an obligation to the people. There's a lawyer here in my city who wears ladies shoes, perfectly normal fellow otherwise as far as I can tell, but the guy likes ladies shoes. Now if I were some sort of controlling SOB that couldn't stand people doing things that fell outside of acceptable norms I might confront this fellow and demand that he wear mans shoes. I'm sure this lawyer would rightfully tell me where to go. I'd have an easier time convincing government to enact a law that made it illegal for folks to wear inappropriate footwear in government buildings rather then it would for me to convince this stranger to do what I wanted. I'm not going to walk into the biker bar down the street and tell them to turn down their music, but there probably is a government ordinance in effect because someone before me had similar problems in the past and decided to do something about it. I could call the police and have them do something about it because governments listen to their people . . . usually.
Ok. Now imagine that the lawyer would only take clients if THEY wore lady shoes, and you really didnt want to. You'd probably go to another lawyer. Now imagine that your government passed a law forcing everyone to wear lady shoes. How do you change that in a manner that is somehow easier than avoiding a specific individual?? Or imagine that there is biker bar playing too loud of a music and its keeping you up at night. You would, as youve pointed out, call the cops. Easy Peasy, lemon squeezy, right? Now imagine that your government passed a law that said that everyone must play loud music at night. Assuming that these laws are passed via popular legislature, because Im assuming you live somewhere where a dictator doesnt just rule by whim, how do you change it that is somehow easier than making a phone call?
That's usually the case when organizations investigate themselves.Leaving the opening for Comrade Knife...
Nah, I think its pretty effective as it stands.
Ok. Now imagine that the lawyer would only take clients if THEY wore lady shoes, and you really didnt want to. You'd probably go to another lawyer. Now imagine that your government passed a law forcing everyone to wear lady shoes. How do you change that in a manner that is somehow easier than avoiding a specific individual?? Or imagine that there is biker bar playing too loud of a music and its keeping you up at night. You would, as youve pointed out, call the cops. Easy Peasy, lemon squeezy, right?...
I don't want to horn in on a convo you're having with someone else, but...these are really really silly examples that would never happen.
|
If you don't control something, you don't have a monopoly on it. Seems pretty obvious to me. Or were you using some other definition of monopoly that I'm not aware of.If it's any help, the usual formula is monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Should a state lack that, it has become Somalia.
Ta-Nehisi Coates found a revealing passage from a conservative author relevant to this:
I rarely find occasion to agree with conservatives, and even more rarely find occasion to do so and then not immediately doubt my motives or the quality of my reasoning, but I can't argue with that paragraph at all. The absolute abandonment of civil society runs so thick across every gun discussion I've ever had that I can no more deny it than I can deny the wetness of water.
But what troubles me most about this suggestion -- and the general More Guns approach to social ills -- is the absolute abandonment of civil society it represents. It gives up on the rule of law in favor of a Hobbesian "war of every man against every man" in which we no longer have genuine neighbors, only potential enemies. You may trust your neighbor for now -- but you have high-powered recourse if he ever acts wrongly.
Actually, there is a difference between the ability to enact a course of action the conducting of that action.
Example, if Tom told his son Rick to go home or be slapped, would he do it? Depends on if Rick beleived Tom would do it. If he beleived Tom would do it, then he would weigh the consequences of doing as told vs not doing as told, if Rick knew Tom not only wouldn't, but couldn't do anything to him, then he only consider his desires, and whether those desires include being nice to Tom is not an assured thing.
Thus, the ability to enact meaningful consequences is the base of all authority, and authority is the basis of structure.
Without authority, there would be no civil society to abandon, no reason for anyone to do anything that other's want from them. Don't forget, that while a few people would activily think of strangers before themselves to the point of activily seeking out those in need, theose people are few, the majority live focused on their own lives and even the nice decent ones help when they encounter the need without seeking out that need, and many only help if they have plenty.
Without authority, very few would be in a position to help others.
Guns, at least here in the US, secures our authority, not because we can go toe to toe with the army, but because they are the ability to enact meaningfull consequences should the government decide to ignore our votes. This ability forces the government to consider the consequences of ignoring us, thus the ability secures the governments focus on the peoples will. Notice that the ability has an effect without needing to use that ability, this is where civil society comes in.
The government is not the will of the people, it is a small group charged with enacting the will of the people, however this small group is made up of normal people and must be given power to do that, however, being run by normal corruptable people, a government is inherently flawed, and must be kept in check by the people it represents.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A gun works on the deterrence theory, which is highly questionable. Most of the papers written on the effectiveness of deterrence are written by people in the political spheres, not scientists conducting experiments. Social experiments show us that people are pretty irrational (or from a more emotional perspective than reasoning one).
And yet this irrationality is no good reason to arm yourself in your home? That's quite the dichotomy of thought there.
"Why yes, Mr. Raging addict! Help youself to mine belongings and family to get whatever you need to assuage your feen! I trust you'll make good decisions!" also said no homeowner, ever.
"Why yes, Mr. Raging addict! Help youself to mine belongings and family to get whatever you need to assuage your feen! I trust you'll make good decisions!" also said no homeowner, ever.
It took me three tries to get through these sentences. Are you sure you don't want to hit this?
EDIT: Oh, never mind, I didn't see Guy's post above. Gadzooks!
Thing is, average gun owner is only hoping to use one to protect his home in the event your irrational druggy targets his home. That's it.
Like me, he's ok with tougher gun legislation, as long as at the end of the day, he can still protect his home if necessary.
I know it's not a deterent. By the time a criminal has made the decision to invade your home, he is well past considering that the owner may have a firearm. If he goes in anyway, and gets shot, or worse killed, well I guess that's natural selection for ya.
|
Thing is, average gun owner is only hoping to use one to protect his home in the event your irrational druggy targets his home. That's it.
And since he knows darn well that a gun in your home is *much* more likely to kill a member of his family, or himself, than to ever be used against an intruder, he's choosing to 'protect his home' by making his family (and himself) *less safe.*
Your chance of a family member or yourself dying *from your own gun* is five times your chance of it ever being used to shoot an intruder.
This has been known for decades. 'Guns make us safer' is as ludicrous as 'lowering taxes increases revenue!'
There's a certain gun-nuttish Libertarian friend of mine who has stayed quiet but sent me a link in an e-mail that I'll forward with no comment:
|
Having armed guards did not prevent Columbine.I just got done watching the NRA conference in CNN.
My stance, this suggestion is a sane one, and in general the sanest suggestion I have ever heard from the NRA.
I am not a gun fanatic, and I am glad to see that this was address separately from all other issues. However the comments made on violence in video-games is saddening, but understanding. I personally stay away from overly realistic and violent games like GTO.
So you are willing to raise taxes to have a new employee at each school?
Well that will help fix unemployment.
Nope. And I know in my state we already have a police officer assigned to each high school (which is actually a really good thing...but that is a whole other thread...)
We need to have the goal being "keep guns away from crazy" while at the same time not having a goal of "keep guns away from people".
Guns, in the right hands, serve a purpose. But we need to define guns properly.
I don't really care who buys a BB gun. A .22 for hunting groundhogs does not bother me excessively either. Pass the background check and have a nice day. Hell, I'd even let you get it same day.
But if you want to buy an assault rifle or any kind of fully automatic weapon that has no real purpose other than shooting people... well... maybe you should have a license for that purchase in the same way we would want you to be licensed to have a car.
|
Anecdotal thoughts:
When I was robbed at work (gas station nightshift), I was actually glad there are more or less strict gun laws in germany. When the robber entered the gas station, gun in hand, he threatened me, took the money, then left.
That is how most armed robberies in germany go (police told me that during the last two years in Germany only two armed robberies (excluding bank robberies that have their own statistic) occured where the robbers gun was used. only one man in Germany was injured by a gun during an armed robberie on a shop or gas station during two years.
The reason for that is pretty simple - the criminal can be reasonably sure that there is no gun other then his in the shop. He doesn't have to fear that the shop owner will try to pull a gun and shoot him.
That might seem like 'giving up to the criminal', but in the end I am more then happy that only money and cigaretts were taken and not my life or health. And the robber was caught the same evening, so he didn't really have 'the power' despite having the gun.
Putting yourself in the mind of the robber: would you likely have used your gun preemptively if you had to assume that the man behind the counter was armed?
Putting yourself in my mind: Would you rather had a slim chance of grabbing a gun and shooting the robber before he could do the same? Or would you rather have been more or less sure he wouldn't use the gun if you gave him the money?
Your chances of getting hit by lighting are higher than playing the lottery. Statistics don't matter here. The individual is not going to have his home invaded thousands of times, most likely it will never happen, but if it does it will only be once. It won;t be a 1 in 10 chance, it will be a 1 in 1 chance. Then, and only then, he will make the choice to use it or not.
Irresponsible gun owners cause accidental gun mishaps.
I know your response to this is most likely "well the gun just being there increases the risk of someone in the house being shot". Well, duh. Most responsible gun owners are willing to take and mitigate those risks to have access to said firearm, in the very unlikely event he does need to use it to defend his home.
I could post statistics about the presence of swimming pools on private property greatly increasing the risk of drownings, but obviously the owner was willing to accept the risks to have one.
OTOH, the irrational druggie is outside your control. He's unlikely to show up, but you can't control whether he does and if you're not armed you won't be able to do anything. That's scary.
You know, jeff, I was going to stop by later and say "hi", but if that's how you really feel....[sobs]
Thing is, average gun owner is only hoping to use one to protect his home in the event your irrational druggy targets his home. That's it.
Like me, he's ok with tougher gun legislation, as long as at the end of the day, he can still protect his home if necessary.
the thing is that you equate any new gun legislation as an inability to defend your home, because of a slippery slope argument. You do not need an ar 15 or a 30 round clip to defend your home, but you treat any legislation against them as if they were relegating you to pointy sticks.
I'm a little disappointed that no one has liked my plays yet. They're brilliant social commentary.
Forsooth, I lived in a crime-ridden neighborhood of Boston for about a decade. There was a national round-up of members of the Central American gang, MS-13, and out of, like 700 people they picked up across the country, 600 or so were picked up in my neighborhood. I mean these guys were bad-ass, wielding machetes and throwing burning cats through people's front windows. I suppose they couldn't get their hands on any cheap NH guns.
Anyway, although my roommate's car was stolen a couple of times (they always found it in the next neighborhood), the three-decker we lived in was never molested. This was due to two factors: the landlord, a small businessman, lived on the second floor and was known in the neighborhood to carry a gun. On the third floor was an ex-bank robber (and Teamster!) who spent his days on disability, wandering around in a chlonopin haze, getting into fights with whoever looked at him wrong.
I'm not sure which of the two factored higher, but, thankfully, we never got a burning cat thrown through our front window.
Hey, if you're going to write plays, I can write rambling autobiographical posts!
the thing is that you equate any new gun legislation as an inability to defend your home, because of a slippery slope argument. You do not need an ar 15 or a 30 round clip to defend your home, but you treat any legislation against them as if they were relegating you to pointy sticks.Thing is, average gun owner is only hoping to use one to protect his home in the event your irrational druggy targets his home. That's it.
Like me, he's ok with tougher gun legislation, as long as at the end of the day, he can still protect his home if necessary.
This is blatantly not true. Look at my posts in the other gun thread that got locked, especially toward the end.
I don't use, and don't need an AR-15 for home defense.
Irresponsible gun owners cause accidental gun mishaps.But it only takes one mistake to turn a responsible gun owner into an irresponsible one.
I could post statistics about the presence of swimming pools on private property greatly increasing the risk of drownings, but obviously the owner was willing to accept the risks to have one.The difference being that nobody buys a swimming pool with the intent of drowning someone if necessary. I think if you did it would be called a moat and not a pool.
1) That doesn't follow. It would be more accurate to say that it takes only one act of irresponsibility to turn a responsible gun owner into an irresponsible one. The mistake itself is being irresponsible, which a responsible gun owner does not do.
2) Your case relies on its mere presence upping the chance of harm to fall upon a family member. This would be true regardless of intent when purchased. Same with the swimming pool.
Armed security heightens the fear levels for white students, which decreases academic performance.
But yeah, let's spend $2.5 billion a year to make our schools worse.
They aren't irrelevancies. Statistics are supposed to give you a rough idea of what happens on a larger scale, not a litmus test of the individual.
The swimming pool is valid simply becasue it's presence on your property increases the chance of drowning for the owner or his family.
It doesn't matter if the person bought it to make temselves feel better, or as a status item to boost his image. Intent behind purchase is irrelevant. It simply being there increase the chances of drowning, which is what is claimed, and is kind of a 'duh'.
Do the statistics that say merely having a gun in your home increases your likelyhood of being harmed by it take into account the intent of purchase? Is it only for people who bought it to feel safer, or becasue they think they are cool, or because his or her dad had one? Are they broken down for each reason? I bet not. I bet it's a blanket statistic that doesn't care about intent of purchase at all. Neither does the hypothetical statistics about the ownership of swimming pools.
And no, I'm not calling for the stricter legislation of privately owned swimming pools.
@Kryzbyn- If you accidentally shot yourself in the foot tomorrow, would you get rid of your gun?
Yes.
Accidents are things that happen to other people.
LOL I suppose. I can only try and mitigate what happens to me.
Peace of mind, you mean? Maybe.
Peace of mind, you mean? Maybe.
More like a trick of human perception.
Something seems more safe when it's not because it's under your control.It's an understandable response to stimuli, but it doesn't make it a rational one.
They aren't irrelevancies. Statistics are supposed to give you a rough idea of what happens on a larger scale, not a litmus test of the individual.
I assumed we were talking about laws and policy. Since we're the 3rd most populous nation on the planet, with over 300 million people, shouldn't we use statistics and science instead of personal anecdotes to make decisions?
|
They aren't irrelevancies. Statistics are supposed to give you a rough idea of what happens on a larger scale, not a litmus test of the individual.I assumed we were talking about laws and policy. Since we're the 3rd most populous nation on the planet, with over 300 million people, shouldn't we use statistics and science instead of personal anecdotes to make decisions?
So long as stats and science are not intentionally skewed to prove a predecided answer
Ok. Now imagine that the lawyer would only take clients if THEY wore lady shoes, and you really didnt want to. You'd probably go to another lawyer. Now imagine that your government passed a law forcing everyone to wear lady shoes. How do you change that in a manner that is somehow easier than avoiding a specific individual??Governments in the western world don't make arbitrary laws, usually there's some public pressure, in my earlier example this lawyer is operating outside of social norms, in your example, the one where everyone is made to wear woman's shoes, I'd likely be the one outside social norms as I don't wear lady's shoes. The danger of a democracy is tyranny of the majority not the other way around.
Sure thing. Youre right this si purely hypothetical. Now answer the question, please.
Or imagine that there is biker bar playing too loud of a music and its keeping you up at night. You would, as youve pointed out, call the cops. Easy Peasy, lemon squeezy, right?...
Keep in mind I can only call the cops because we have a government paying police salaries and with laws for those police to enforce. Without a government or services provided by the government to act as mediary I have to walk over to the biker bar myself, and while I believe that most people are reasonable, I'd rather take my chances with the government then the people when it comes to rights and privileges.
Sure thing. I agree.
Now imagine that your government passed a law that said that everyone must play loud music at night. Assuming that these laws are passed via popular legislature, because Im assuming you live somewhere where a dictator doesnt just rule by whim, how do you change it that is somehow easier than making a phone call?
Again most laws in a democracy wouldn't be passes unless it had the support of the majority, we do have the situation where I suspect that we have many laws that were put on the books years ago that wouldn't have the support to be passed into law today, but for the most part we have laws because as a society we...
Sure thing. Again, purely hypothetical. Now answer the question, please.