Trigger-happy Atlanta mom shoots intruder in the face 5 times


Off-Topic Discussions

201 to 250 of 836 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Guy Humual wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
If you're holding innocent people at gunpoint for any reason you've already made bad decisions and most likely not mentally stable.
Or you're in the military or in law enforcement!

Hardly the same. They're legally appointed protectors who have someone to account to. Also, training and (usually) a legitimate desire to help. They're not perfect, but not in the same category as a burglar.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:


Or th perp could have run when he saw the holster, as opposed to opening fire like someone criminally insane.

Or the perp could have robbed them blind then executed them all.

Or the perp could have a moment of conscience and turned himself in.

If you're holding innocent people at gunpoint for any reason you've already made bad decisions and most likely not mentally stable.

Or he could have transformed into a butterfly and given everyone lil butterfly kisses.

This is what I don't get...theorycrafting gets you nowhere.

In the position of the victims in Trinite's story, I would have reacted the opposite way. He saw a concealed weapon, assessed it as a threat, and attempted to remove that threat. I see it as much more likely that no violence would have occurred had there not been a concealed weapon involved.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
If you're holding innocent people at gunpoint for any reason you've already made bad decisions and most likely not mentally stable.
Or you're in the military or in law enforcement!
Hardly the same. They're legally appointed protectors who have someone to account to. Also, training and (usually) a legitimate desire to help. They're not perfect, but not in the same category as a burglar.

I dunno. I've never had a burglar draw his gun on me (or been burgled for that matter) but I have had a gun pointed at me by a cop.


Trinite wrote:
Exactly. That's why I specifically said that they would have been "at the robber's mercy". Should my brother have trusted his life to the mercy of an armed robber? Especially one that was so obviously bad at making decisions?

We don't know what would have happened if your brother's friend hadn't been carrying or if the robber hadn't noticed the holster.

The one thing we do know from your story is that he got shot because he was armed. Luckily the robber was a lousy shot and didn't manage to kill or incapacitate him.

That seems a strange argument for carrying.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zombieneighbours wrote:

Hiding in a crawl space, where she could be trapped and forced to use potentially lethal violence in front of children...

not purchasing an escape ladder so she can get her self and the children out...

not having purchased a very loud panic button based alarm...

There is no defense for an intruder being in her home, and I detest your attitude. As far as I'm concerned this woman protected her family and her children and my only regret is that she did not kill him.

You posit all kinds of noble intentions on behalf of the intruder. Lets posit some other ones. Suppose he had run off and broken into another home. Suppose he had raped her.

Paul Ali Slater was a repeat offender. His experience with the justice system taught him to burgle houses and removed any deterrent affect the law may have had.

Until he met mama. I sincerely regret that this man was shot. I sincerely hope that he will be able to rehabilitate and choose a better path for his life.

But condemn this lady? Not on your life.


thejeff wrote:
OTOH, the thought process "I got shot during a robbery when the perp noticed my gun. Good thing I was carrying." seems really odd to me.

Agreed


meatrace wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
If you're holding innocent people at gunpoint for any reason you've already made bad decisions and most likely not mentally stable.
Or you're in the military or in law enforcement!
Hardly the same. They're legally appointed protectors who have someone to account to. Also, training and (usually) a legitimate desire to help. They're not perfect, but not in the same category as a burglar.
I dunno. I've never had a burglar draw his gun on me (or been burgled for that matter) but I have had a gun pointed at me by a cop.

If for some strange magical reason only one of those groups had guns (cops or criminals) and you got to choose who, which would you choose?

Sczarni

That would indeed be really odd, if that were the thought process.

The real thought process is, "I got robbed at gunpoint, and might have been executed in cold blood, along with five of my friends. Instead, I suffered minor bullet wounds that healed in a few weeks, and there's now a nine-fingered guy back in prison instead of a ten-fingered guy out there robbing more people. Good thing I was carrying."

And the thought process among the other victims who have now gotten permits is, "We had been doing something completely routine in a place that we thought of as completely safe, and we got robbed at gunpoint. We no longer feel safe like that, so now we're going to take some precautions. Including getting concealed carry permits."

We can debate whether that thought process is actually rational, but strawmen don't help us. Maybe that's a bad way to think. But it's not an obviously nonsensical way to think.


If he saw it in the open, it wasn't very concealed.

Sovereign Court

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
If you're holding innocent people at gunpoint for any reason you've already made bad decisions and most likely not mentally stable.
Or you're in the military or in law enforcement!
Hardly the same. They're legally appointed protectors who have someone to account to. Also, training and (usually) a legitimate desire to help. They're not perfect, but not in the same category as a burglar.

In theory they're not the same, which is why I said "or", but it's entirely possible to run into police or military that have also made bad decisions and are also perhaps not mentally stable. I was merely pointing out that there are folks that hold innocent people at gun point for a wide range of reasons that aren't necessarily mentally unstable.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
If for some strange magical reason only one of those groups had guns (cops or criminals) and you got to choose who, which would you choose?

I choose option 3- no one.

No really, I genuinely can't choose. I've never been bothered by criminals and I live in a pretty darn crime-free area, but I can't throw a stone without hitting a squad car (and having it bounce off to hit a second). They're like cockroaches.

Sczarni

Kryzbyn wrote:
If he saw it in the open, it wasn't very concealed.

It wasn't visible until he was lying down on the floor. The robber noticed it then. The robber then went over to him. That's when the shooting started.

Sovereign Court

Trinite wrote:

That would indeed be really odd, if that were the thought process.

The real thought process is, "I got robbed at gunpoint, and might have been executed in cold blood, along with five of my friends. Instead, I suffered minor bullet wounds that healed in a few weeks, and there's now a nine-fingered guy back in prison instead of a ten-fingered guy out there robbing more people. Good thing I was carrying."

And the thought process among the other victims who have now gotten permits is, "We had been doing something completely routine in a place that we thought of as completely safe, and we got robbed at gunpoint. We no longer feel safe like that, so now we're going to take some precautions. Including getting concealed carry permits."

We can debate whether that thought process is actually rational, but strawmen don't help us. Maybe that's a bad way to think. But it's not an obviously nonsensical way to think.

I can agree with this.

I do think it's sad that they live in a society where they feel the need to arm themselves in order to feel safe though.

Sczarni

Guy Humual wrote:
Trinite wrote:

That would indeed be really odd, if that were the thought process.

The real thought process is, "I got robbed at gunpoint, and might have been executed in cold blood, along with five of my friends. Instead, I suffered minor bullet wounds that healed in a few weeks, and there's now a nine-fingered guy back in prison instead of a ten-fingered guy out there robbing more people. Good thing I was carrying."

And the thought process among the other victims who have now gotten permits is, "We had been doing something completely routine in a place that we thought of as completely safe, and we got robbed at gunpoint. We no longer feel safe like that, so now we're going to take some precautions. Including getting concealed carry permits."

We can debate whether that thought process is actually rational, but strawmen don't help us. Maybe that's a bad way to think. But it's not an obviously nonsensical way to think.

I can agree with this.

I do think it's sad that they live in a society where they feel the need to arm themselves in order to feel safe though.

Well yeah, so do I. If we want to reduce crime like this in the U.S., the main things to do are to remove the economic structures that perpetuate a permanent unemployable underclass, and to reform our mental healthcare system.

But in the meantime, I think normal law-abiding citizens should generally be free to purchase what they feel they need for personal defense.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
mordion wrote:
Nope, I understand and respect the reasons you'd like to ban them, but the first half of the sentence is a bad argument.
I'm not using it as a reason to ban anything. I'm saying that there are reasons for banning such weapons that do exist. Normally, the reasons in favor of banning the weapons would have to be weighed against the reasons not to ban them. However, since there are no real reasons not to ban them, no weighing needs to take place. There are legitimate reasons for banning them, and no legitimate reasons not to that might provide a counterargument to banning them.
I think this is a bit dismissive of other people's opinions. Who decides what's legitimate and what's not?

The state. All the time.

Do you believe otherwise?


Lazurin Arborlon wrote:
Also fun when someone sights "statistics" but does zero research, posts no real numbers themselves, and does no annalysis to understand what those numbers actually mean nor the how;s and why's of there generation.

There's been plenty of that in this thread already. He was just making a point.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Why do you need to not notify him where you are? Most home invaders will not be actively looking for a confrontation.

And unfortunately they're not polite enough to wear signs.

"I'm just here for the plasma tv"
"I rob your house and all i'll take is this lousey t shirt"
"Don't worry I'm in a monogomous relationship"
"Don't worry I let witnesses live"

Quote:
You being out of the house means they have free reign until the police show up. That is a win for them. They also know that the cops have probably already been alerted, so they wont be spending too much time at your place after they hear it.

The guy apparently went through most of the house before finding them. He had more than enough opportunity to snag something for the fence and split.

Quote:
You let your s%*+ get stolen, you get out safely, and your insurance will cover major losses. Its much better than risking a confrontation, traumatizing your children, and possibly not getting the upper hand.

If that wasn't the plan, he would have been shot in the living room.

Your fundamentally misunderstanding two things about crime here. Firstly, no one needs to kill eye witnesses. Eye witnesses are lousy. There one of the worst kinds of evidence. They change their stories, they can't be sure what they saw, they get confused and angry and scared when cross examined.

Secondly, criminals don't carry weapons to hurt victims of crime. They do it to because they can use the fear of the weapon to get what they want, and more importantly, because the weapon grabs the attention of the victim. in cases where weapons are used, victims can almost always identify the weapon with great clarity and accuracy, but are their ability to accurately recall other details suffers greatly.

Source?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_effect wrote:

Weapon effect[/url],

Add to this the fact that witnesses are overwhelmingly not killed, that in the majority of cases of burglary where people are home, the intruder does not resort to violence, and in those cases where they do, they do not kill the witnesses you start to get a picture.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Frankly, this woman and her family should have taken the Michael Crichton approach. Had a hot air balloon on their roof ready to escape in.

Anything less is looking for a fight, and is immoral.


Peter Stewart wrote:

Zombieneighbor, I find every single post you've made on this topic to be offensive to my morals. I think it highlights a vastly different way of looking at the world.

If you are a criminal and are shot as a result of breaking into someone's house (whether to hurt them, rob them, rape them, ect) I have zero sympathy for you. I don't care if you have no intention of harming them and are only in it for the stuff. If you are shot and killed I have no sympathy for you. The moment you make the decision to invade someone's home or intentionally harm them I could care less if you die as a result. Period. End of story.

You're right, you do have a vastly different way of looking at the world.

Quote:
I don't care about the criminals rights, because he does not care about my own.

So when someone is dismissive of your rights, it justifies you in dismissing theirs? Including when the rights being dismissed are different rights? That makes sense to you?


Trinite wrote:

That would indeed be really odd, if that were the thought process.

The real thought process is, "I got robbed at gunpoint, and might have been executed in cold blood, along with five of my friends. Instead, I suffered minor bullet wounds that healed in a few weeks, and there's now a nine-fingered guy back in prison instead of a ten-fingered guy out there robbing more people. Good thing I was carrying."

And the thought process among the other victims who have now gotten permits is, "We had been doing something completely routine in a place that we thought of as completely safe, and we got robbed at gunpoint. We no longer feel safe like that, so now we're going to take some precautions. Including getting concealed carry permits."

We can debate whether that thought process is actually rational, but strawmen don't help us. Maybe that's a bad way to think. But it's not an obviously nonsensical way to think.

I'd argue that it isn't rational. Understandable, but not rational. Carrying a gun may make you feel safer, but this is actually an example of how they actually put you at more risk.

How did the concealed gun make them any safer? The shooting only started when it was noticed. The robber had emptied his gun before the guy with the concealed weapon was able to disable him. He'd already done all the damage he could before the gun was of any use. At that point he was effectively disarmed.


mordion wrote:
That's simply not true, or at least it's true only in the sense that personal preference benefits society. From second-hand smoke, to cars not having engine regulators that keep them below 80mph, or breathalyzers keyed to the ignition, you don't need to prove a societal benefit for everything that also has negative outcomes. The negative outcomes have to be (or should have to be) enormous before society is willing to violate someone's rights to tobacco or sports cars or large magazines.

I really have no idea what you're saying here. Every example you are bringing up is an example of the state deciding that someone's right to personal enjoyment is less than the potential societal negative that enjoyment might generate.

Quote:
I'm not talking about dirty bombs here,

You don't need to. Your argument applies as neatly to weapons of mass destructing as it does to cigarettes. The degrees are wildly different, obviously, but the logic of it is the same - if I say I enjoy something, I should be able to do it, and no one has the right to judge me for enjoying it.

Quote:
~500 people are murdered with rifles each year (surely not all of them attributable to large magazine sizes). That number is similar to the number of people bludgeoned or stabbed each year, it's not the reason our murder rate is high.

Why do you believe this is important? Of course it's not the reason our murder rate is high. But it might be the reason for some non-trivial number of deaths per year, and preventing those deaths is one hell of a positive.


Yeah...I am done in here. The lengths people seem to go to in the name of making the victim into the criminal make me sick. Beyond that the level to which people will go to act like justafiably defending yourself is somehow wrong when someone is threating their life to win an internet arguement makes me sad.
Clearly she should have built a zeplin that floats the second floor of her house away in the event a psycho decides that her flat screen isnt enough and proceeds to not just go to the second floor...but chases her into the attic where she is cornered along with her children.

Checking out for while...have fun.


H. Rap Brown on pie


Lazurin Arborlon wrote:
Yeah...I am done in here. The lengths people seem to go to in the name of making the victim into the criminal make me sick.

I don't think anyone is doing that. Where has anyone in this thread said that they believe the victim did anything criminal? At the very most a couple of us have mentioned that it's premature to assume that this was a clean shooting without knowing the details.

Why are you acting so offended by this?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Peter Stewart wrote:
Someone who cannot bother to read an entire argument before discounting it has absolutely no grounding with which to accuse others of intellectual dishonesty.

I'm not discounting his entire argument. As you've noted, I haven't read most of it. There might be some good points buried in the pages of unsourced rhetoric. Who knows! But I am discounting him, because I got a few paragraphs in (really more than I probably ought to have read) and came across a statistic I knew to be bogus. And that he knows to be bogus, if he's anything like the authority he claims to be on the subject.

Quote:
Further, you've got a wonderful catch-22 going here. If you stop an attempted mass shooting early, it is not a mass shooting.

Absolutely. But he still called them mass shootings, despite the fact that there's no way to predict how they would have turned out (and they certainly were not mass shootings when they ended). Note that the average was 2.5, and that actual mass shooting events start at 4. It's almost certain that in order to get an average of 2.5 there would have had to be a large number of events with one or zero casualties. That's wildly irresponsible. No respectable journal would publish a study that abused facts like that, so it's safe to say he didn't pull that statistic out of a journal. Which means it came from somewhere else. In this case, given that it is both intellectually dishonest and makes an attempt to support gun rights, it probably came from a gun-rights advocacy group. Or, better yet, is just a made-up stat some gun-nut pulled out of thin air and spread around the internet.

And that's what they have to rely on. They can't use actual statistics, because the actual statistics don't support them (like, for instance, how even in Utah, where teachers are allowed concealed carry permits, only 1% of teachers has a CCW license - to say nothing of how few may actually carry to class on a regular basis - rendering them almost entirely toothless as a group expected to defend your children). They can't use peer-reviewed research, because the peer-reviewed research condemns their proposed policies.

EDIT: Just in case you're interested in some more information on how useless allowing Utah teachers to carry concealed weapons has been, gun-rights advocate groups estimate that there are 240 teachers with CCW permits in the state. Utah has about 900 public schools. That means there is about a 1 in 4 chance that there might be a teacher with a weapon somewhere on your campus.


Scott Betts wrote:
Lazurin Arborlon wrote:
Yeah...I am done in here. The lengths people seem to go to in the name of making the victim into the criminal make me sick.

I don't think anyone is doing that. Where has anyone in this thread said that they believe the victim did anything criminal? At the very most a couple of us have mentioned that it's premature to assume that this was a clean shooting without knowing the details.

Why are you acting so offended by this?

Apparently, in a lot of people's minds, saying you should have alternate escape methods to prevent you from having to use violence is the same as saying that those who do use violence are criminals.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Lazurin Arborlon wrote:

Yeah...I am done in here. The lengths people seem to go to in the name of making the victim into the criminal make me sick. Beyond that the level to which people will go to act like justafiably defending yourself is somehow wrong when someone is threating their life to win an internet arguement makes me sad.

Clearly she should have built a zeplin that floats the second floor of her house away in the event a psycho decides that her flat screen isnt enough and proceeds to not just go to the second floor...but chases her into the attic where she is cornered along with her children.

Checking out for while...have fun.

I don't think anyone has been doing that. Even ZombieNeighbors has supported the shooting, though he thinks there were better options.

That said, "psycho" and "chases her into the attic"? From what I can tell from the Atlanta Journal story I linked earlier, there's no indication this guy was anything other than a robber who thought he was alone in the house and was looking through it for the most valuable and portable things he could find. (I mean really, who steals a flat screen TV by themselves these days. Too hard to carry. You need a couple of guys for that at least.) She hid as soon as she knew he was in the house. She was not "chased". There's no indication he had a clue she was there.

That's not to say she wasn't in danger when he did find her or that she didn't have reason to shoot, just that there's no need to make his actions seem even worse than they were.


Scott Betts wrote:
There might be some good points buried in the pages of unsourced rhetoric. Who knows! But I am discounting him, because I got a few paragraphs in (really more than I probably ought to have read) and came across a statistic I knew to be bogus.

I got to the point where he's all like "I love cops. Cops are awesome." and I realized he can't be counted on to tell the truth. ;)


meatrace wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
There might be some good points buried in the pages of unsourced rhetoric. Who knows! But I am discounting him, because I got a few paragraphs in (really more than I probably ought to have read) and came across a statistic I knew to be bogus.
I got to the point where he's all like "I love cops. Cops are awesome." and I realized he can't be counted on to tell the truth. ;)

I got to (skimming) "I'm a thriller author and I used to be a gun dealer, so you know I speak with authority."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am also sad that my early attempts to deflect this thread into a discussion about dogs failed.

Dogs are more fun than guns.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Peter Stewart wrote:

Zombieneighbor, I find every single post you've made on this topic to be offensive to my morals. I think it highlights a vastly different way of looking at the world.

If you are a criminal and are shot as a result of breaking into someone's house (whether to hurt them, rob them, rape them, ect) I have zero sympathy for you. I don't care if you have no intention of harming them and are only in it for the stuff. If you are shot and killed I have no sympathy for you. The moment you make the decision to invade someone's home or intentionally harm them I could care less if you die as a result. Period. End of story.

I don't care about the criminals rights, because he does not care about my own.

First they came for the communists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a catholic.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

This man was a criminal. It appears he was engaged in an act of trespass. But he is still a human. If we are to have a system of rights he is entitled to the same rights and protections we all are. I'll speak up for those rights. In fact it is so much more important that someone stands up for people like him, because they are so often people form intensely vulnerable background, who have themselves repeatedly been victims.

My belief that violence against the person is tragic, does not extend to 'nice people' alone. But I also have not said that she should not have the right to defend her own life, or the life of her children.

I do not comfort myself with lies such as 'some people are just bad', or 'they are dirty criminals, so they get what they deserve.' Because I have seen enough of the world to know that any of us are but a few bad decisions from being in his position, and know enough of psychology to have serious concerns as to the meaning of 'choice' in the first place.

Equally saying that the decisions of victims of crime play a significant part in setting up the conditions in which they will become victims(a stand point reflected by almost every anti crime initiative going by the way), is not the same as saying that they deserved it, or that it is their own fault.

Lastly, if offence is to be allowed as a form of argument at all, then let it be known that i am offended in my deepest moral character that so many of you would crow with such obvious delight, that another human being had been shot.


pres man wrote:

Frankly, this woman and her family should have taken the Michael Crichton approach. Had a hot air balloon on their roof ready to escape in.

Anything less is looking for a fight, and is immoral.

Mmm...yes because taking five minutes to evaluate escape routes in case of fire or intrusion, and putting in place simple and cheap safety devices, with which you practice once a month for another five minutes is the same as installing a hot air bolloon in every way...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

I am also sad that my early attempts to deflect this thread into a discussion about dogs failed.

Dogs are more fun than guns.

As a goblin, I enjoy shooting dogs.


thejeff wrote:

I am also sad that my early attempts to deflect this thread into a discussion about dogs failed.

Dogs are more fun than guns.

Maybe we can combine them and talk about one of my favorite pasttimes: shooting dogs in the face!

Since the other thread got locked, I know the discussion about guns often turns to suicide by guns so I thought I'd link this new study as to the cause of suicides


Damn Anklebiter, since when do you have levels in ninja?!

Shadow Lodge

thejeff wrote:

I am also sad that my early attempts to deflect this thread into a discussion about dogs failed.

Dogs are more fun than guns.

Dogs armed with guns are truely amazing. If you doubt me, then play MDK2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Peter Stewart wrote:


Caineach wrote:
And this is why you are more than twice as likely to be the victim of a violent crime and suffer a serious injury or death.

1. Source on this bogus statistic?

2. Regardless of your source that statistic is meaningless because it does not in any way account for anything about me personally - physical condition, training, experience, armament, ect.
3. Even if your statistic could measure this I'd take that trade off.

wikipedia gun control

wikipedia wrote:
recent study from the University of Philadelphia suggests that victims in possession of firearms are 4.5 times more likely to be shot and 4.2 times more likely to be killed than those unarmed.

source: Branas, Charles (2009). "Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault". American Journal of Public Health.


meatrace wrote:
Damn Anklebiter, since when do you have levels in ninja?!

We get a +4 bonus to our Dex.


I love the dichotomy.

On one side we have people who say, "Your statistic is bogus, and here is why!" and are responded to with, "Well you didn't bother to read all thirty pages so to hell with you!"

On the other, we have people who say, "Your statistic is bogus (because I don't like it)!" and are responded to with, "No it's not, here's a link to the article that cites the research paper the statistic comes from."


Scott Betts wrote:

I love the dichotomy.

On one side we have people who say, "Your statistic is bogus, and here is why!" and are responded to with, "Well you didn't bother to read all thirty pages so to hell with you!"

On the other, we have people who say, "Your statistic is bogus (because I don't like it)!" and are responded to with, "No it's not, here's a link to the article that cites the research paper the statistic comes from."

I did forget to cite my position. I think all of the burglary statistics I quoted came from

Victimization During Household Burglary


caineach wrote:
recent study from the University of Philadelphia suggests that victims in possession of firearms are 4.5 times more likely to be shot and 4.2 times more likely to be killed than those unarmed.

Correlation is not causation. If you're in a dangerous situation you go armed.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:

I am also sad that my early attempts to deflect this thread into a discussion about dogs failed.

Dogs are more fun than guns.

I'd rather have a dog then a gun. It breaks your heart when they pass on though.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
caineach wrote:
recent study from the University of Philadelphia suggests that victims in possession of firearms are 4.5 times more likely to be shot and 4.2 times more likely to be killed than those unarmed.
Correlation is not causation. If you're in a dangerous situation you go armed.

The study notes the possibility of reverse causation but also notes that steps were taken to minimize its potential effect. It is highly doubtful that reverse causation accounts for the entirety or even the majority of the effect size. The study also used a control group of demographically-matched individuals to account for the effect that factors like socioeconomic differences might have played in the results. So while it is, of course, a correlative study, it is reasonable to conclude that possession of a firearm by an assault victim actually makes the victim less safe.

It is also noteworthy that the study sees fit to conclude that it is very unlikely that those in possession of firearms will be able to use them successfully as a defensive weapon. This speaks volumes about the potential (or, in this case, the lack thereof) for arming teachers to be successful in stopping a mass shooting event.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
I really have no idea what you're saying here. Every example you are bringing up is an example of the state deciding that someone's right to personal enjoyment is less than the potential societal negative that enjoyment might generate.

Either I'm misunderstand you, or you're misunderstanding me. Cars are legally sold that are not engine limited to 80mph, they are legally sold without breathalyzers keyed to the ignition, and cigarettes are also legally sold. These are examples of the state deciding personal preference is more important than safety.

Quote:
You don't need to. Your argument applies as neatly to weapons of mass destructing as it does to cigarettes. The degrees are wildly different, obviously, but the logic of it is the same - if I say I enjoy something, I should be able to do it, and no one has the right to judge me for enjoying it.

My point is that personal preference/desire is a reason, and a 'real reason' at that. I bring it up solely to refute the point that 'there is no reason for owning a 30 round magazine.' My point is NOT that just because someone wants to own something (ie has a reason to own something) society is obligated to ignore any negative consequences of that ownership.

Society does (and should) evaluate the degree of danger posed by various individual actions. They make a decision after weighing the positives (which clearly gives a heavy weight to individual preference and desire) and negatives of a given action. In a country of three hundred million people, 500 deaths does not rise to the level of something dangerous enough to be banned. Do you really think it does? Would you be in favor of banning any non-useful/personal preference item that causes 1.6 deaths per million people per year?

Sovereign Court

What's 26 dead in the name of a good bit of fun eh mordion? I'm not sure banning rifles is that useful but I doubt the AR would be anywhere near as popular if you couldn't get a 30 round clip like the real soldiers. If an 8 round clip was the max size I'd think most people would be getting sensible weapons.


Guy Humual wrote:
What's 26 dead in the name of a good bit of fun eh mordion?

What's millions dead in the name of American imperialism?


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

As I've mentioned before in this thread, not my fun. I don't enjoy shooting, nor do I own any rifles or large magazine for rifles.

But in a free society people are going to do things that hurt or kill other people, and as distasteful as it may be, there is going to be some number of deaths/harm that's too low for us to ban something (eg 8 deaths from christmas tree fires, attempts to blind pilots with laser pointers etc). The number has to be set somewhere, and someone can always come in and smugly say 'x number of deaths/injuries in the name of fun, eh?'


mordion wrote:
Either I'm misunderstand you, or you're misunderstanding me. Cars are legally sold that are not engine limited to 80mph, they are legally sold without breathalyzers keyed to the ignition, and cigarettes are also legally sold. These are examples of the state deciding personal preference is more important than safety.

In all of these cases, the state regulates safety in other manners than the ones you outline. Car speed is regulated by force of law, and enforced by law enforcement officers. The same goes for blood alcohol content while driving - and, notably, breathalyzers are sometimes installed in cars driven by those with prior DUI convictions. Cigarette use is heavily restricted in public areas, and there are restrictions on who may purchase them.

Quote:
My point is that personal preference/desire is a reason, and a 'real reason' at that.

It is among the least of reasons.

Quote:
I bring it up solely to refute the point that 'there is no reason for owning a 30 round magazine.' My point is NOT that just because someone wants to own something (ie has a reason to own something) society is obligated to ignore any negative consequences of that ownership.

In that case, point taken. Allow me to rephrase my argument to, "There is precious little reason for owning a 30-round magazine, and plenty of reasons that they ought to be banned - reasons which far outweigh the personal desire for convenience."


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
In all of these cases, the state regulates safety in other manners than the ones you outline. Car speed is regulated by force of law, and enforced by law enforcement officers. The same goes for blood alcohol content while driving - and, notably, breathalyzers are sometimes installed in cars driven by those with prior DUI convictions. Cigarette use is heavily restricted in public areas, and there are restrictions on who may purchase them.

So they do with guns. You're not allowed to drive your car at 130 mph on the highway, but you are allowed a car that will do that. You're not allowed to run around in a public building carrying an AR-15 with a 30 round clip, but you are allowed to own one.

I don't agree with you regarding 'least of reasons' and 'precious little' but I think that's 'agree to disagree' territory.

201 to 250 of 836 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Trigger-happy Atlanta mom shoots intruder in the face 5 times All Messageboards