|
|
Post by mdf on Jan 15, 2011 3:08:18 GMT
First things first...I'm was both upset and sorry to hear about this incident. When I heard who/where was affected I was wondering how you'd feel about this, Funky.
On to a general comment...
I'm convinced that, regardless of gun legislation, if some nutcase wants to kill someone they will find a way. A rock...a car...a Crowbar +1 ...will do the job.
...and some personal feelings on the issues...
As for me, I have a problem with people blaming actions/decisions on inanimates that cannot be held responsible. I've observed that much of the general population has a bad habit of directing blame away from individual responsibility. Ultimately...people are responsible at some point. Someone somewhere had the opportunity to make a choice...to do the right thing...and did not.
I also have a problem with passive-agressive 'leaders' making political statements engineered to 'unintentionally' sway the simpleminded to do their dirty work, and then feign shock and awe at the resulting events in absence of any moral sense of responsibility. Such fear/hate/political mongering is an inexcusable abuse of power IMO. Continuing such a pattern of manipulation without conscience is the definition of a psychopath. Yet because this is nearly impossible to proove it is addictively easy to get away with it.
Regardless of politics or party affiliation, people should always do what they know is right. Yet so few do.
|
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Jan 15, 2011 5:09:03 GMT
I'm convinced that, regardless of gun legislation, if some nutcase wants to kill someone they will find a way. A rock...a car...a Crowbar +1 ...will do the job. This is essentially the same argument as the one saying that gun legislation is pointless because we'll never get ALL the guns away from ALL the criminals. It misses the point. We can make it more difficult. This is the sort of fallacious dichotomous (read: binary) thinking I'm seeing more and more of in people's thinking on all topics - you'll notice I warned against it just yesterday in reference to druids splashing pally in the sorc poll, for example. It's what American politicians foist on the public, because certitude, and the overly simplistic view required to lay claim to it, sell well in the political arena. You should be very careful when laying out claims of this sort, that something is all-or-nothing. It is speciously alluring, and very unrealistic, no matter how it is applied. Regarding this: The same is true with causality - dichotomous, simplistic explanations distort truth. I don't want to harp on this too much, and I'm a strong advocate of taking responsibility for one's own actions - but that responsibility includes things that we advocate for, like second amendment 'remedies.' Assigning all causality to the shooter is a whitewash, though it was obviously his decision to pull the trigger. As with all oversimplifications, this one misses the mark. Perhaps a good example of this is our tort law, which has evolved to deal with myriad complex cases of cause and effect, and assignment of blame. In a negligence case, there are 5 basic factors that must be established to press a claim. Among them are both 'but-for' causality and 'proximate' causality. But-for causality is there for ANY event in the chain of events that lead to the injury. This includes things even as remote as the parent giving birth to the injurer - 'but for' that occuring, the injury would not have occured (this is not a part of legal considerations, just an extreme example conjured to illustrate the type of causality being described). By contrast, 'proximate' causality concerns itself with policy - when we ask what the proximate cause of an injury was, we're in part asking, 'given policy concerns, who should be held responsible.?' It's more complex than that, though, and it involves moral considerations as well, things like, who is MOST at fault, who was in the best position to prevent the injury, who was most directly responsible for the outcome. Now, these standards are NOT applied in criminal cases - intervening criminal acts like the gunman's are actually a BAR to a negligence claim. The standard does NOT apply to intentional acts, either, which the shooting clearly was. I'm not making a legal argument for negligence here; rather, I am using it to underscore the complex nature of causality and how our legal system has evolved to handle it. In all fairness, I must point out that some states used to bar all recovery if it could be shown that the plaintiff was in part responsible for an injury they received - this is known as the doctrine of contributory negligence. Today, however, only a handful - two, I think - still adhere to this doctrine, instead relying on one of three basic methods of comparative negligence, which assesses rough percentiles of responsibilty and allocates liability accordingly. THE REASON FOR THIS TREND is that courts have recognized it to be more just, more realistic, more efficient at apportioning blame. The point of all this? Causality is just not as simple as the republicans desperately want to pretend, a fact which our legal system has been evolving to recognize for centuries. Here is a chart of states showing which use the old contributory negligence standard: www.the-injury-lawyer-directory.com/negligence_chart.htmlLikewise, when apportioning blame not between plaintiff and defendant, but between several defendants, there are a number of approaches. They can be jointly liable, severally liable, or jointly and severally liable. Rather than delving into an in-depth explanation of tort law, I will instead link you to wikipedia, which covers the distinctions: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_and_several_liabilityAgain, my point here is simple. Causality is NOT a simple thing. The notion that the violent, vituperous rhetoric on the right is completely unrelated to the events here in AZ is a pipe dream, and that rhetoric needs to stop, not only for the reasons the president stressed - that it's blocking progress and is unworthy of us - but also because it is dangerous, immoral, and anti-democratic. Obviously, politicians who have been engaged in it are not going to admit this, but you shouldn't carry water for them. In any event, I'm going to stop harping on the causality issue, in the interests of forum harmony. And, also in the interests of fairness, I'll note my extreme annoyance with dems objecting to the use of 'job-killing' as violent. That is, for lack of a better word, moronic. Of course, republicans calling the health-care bill job-killing is equally moronic, but that's a topic for another post.  Funky |
|
|
|
Post by kralex on Jan 15, 2011 10:31:04 GMT
Not if people are allowed to carry concealed paper |
|
|
|
Post by uncanny on Jan 15, 2011 10:51:48 GMT
This is essentially the same argument as the one saying that gun legislation is pointless because we'll never get ALL the guns away from ALL the criminals. It misses the point. We can make it more difficult. This is the sort of fallacious dichotomous (read: binary) thinking I'm seeing more and more of in people's thinking on all topics - you'll notice I warned against it just yesterday in reference to druids splashing pally in the sorc poll, for example. It's what American politicians foist on the public, because certitude, and the overly simplistic view required to lay claim to it, sell well in the political arena. You should be very careful when laying out claims of this sort, that something is all-or-nothing. It is speciously alluring, and very unrealistic, no matter how it is applied. I have to agree. I live in a country which did once have no gun control; currently there is tight control over all firearms - even the guarda are not permitted to carry. There is a special taskforce that are permitted weapons (connected to the main millitary taskforces), but again these are tightly controlled. No gun violence in a long time. Does this mean public have guns = gun hell? No, I don't believe so. It does underscore the point though that it does make a difference when propper controls are in place. Now if only the gov could turn it's focus on our economy, I think we'd be set  |
|
|
|
Post by holes573 on Jan 16, 2011 16:01:25 GMT
Not if people are allowed to carry concealed paper ROFL -Holes |
|
|
|
Post by mdf on Jan 18, 2011 16:46:48 GMT
@ Funky You missed your true calling. You should have been a lawyer...and now that I've said that I wonder whether I just complimented or insulted you...  *hides* Anyway...reading your response I partially agree. My earlier statement was not meant as oversimplification so much as just venting personal frustration on the issue. I could go into greater detail/clarification...but it will only make me even more frustrated. I do want to clarify one thing though: My venting is NOT meant to suggest inaction. That WOULD be naieve...even stupid. I may not have a solution to propose, but it is my hope someone, perhaps 'less frustrated' at this time, can.  And LMAO @ Kralex + concealed carry PAPER permit! Thanks...I needed that levity. |
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Jan 18, 2011 19:22:30 GMT
@ Funky You missed your true calling. You should have been a lawyer... I AM a lawyer. Funky |
|
|
|
Post by mdf on Jan 18, 2011 20:18:10 GMT
@ Funky You missed your true calling. You should have been a lawyer... I AM a lawyer. Funky Oh...God... *Sinking feeling over impending lawyer joke lawsuit* O.o *Prepares retraction and settlement proposal* |
|
|
|
Post by kaldair on Jan 18, 2011 22:30:33 GMT
ROFLMAO @ mdf nailing Funky's profession! Kaldair |
|
|
|
Post by mdf on Jan 18, 2011 23:45:58 GMT
ROFLMAO @ mdf nailing Funky's profession! Kaldair Yeah...how the hell did I miss that? This whole time I just thought he was well educated and really good at debating opposing arguments. XD So...did I win the 'Saving Private Ryan' pool? I'm going to need it for the MDF defense fund.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2011 15:21:04 GMT
Whilst not directly related to this case I believe that the reason gun crime is higher in the US than any other industrialized country (even those with higher per capita gun ownership) is a cultural one.
In the UK guns are almost soley possessed by hardened criminals/gun clubs/some agricultual workers/the police and the army. The vast majority of the population see no reason to own a gun and have no wish to do so. Protection is generally considered the preserve of law enforcement agencies and not something one does for oneself especially not something one would do with firearms. When violence does break out it is rare indeed that someone would have a gun readily to hand.
A consequence of having a combination where guns are available to all and a self preservation/enforcement culture (such as I consider is present in the US) results in the statistics which are plain for all to see. Without a cultural shift in these attitudes I cannot see anything more than a series of these type of events for ever more. Changing any cultural attitude is a tough, ones ingrained so deep, over so many years, is a daunting task.
Kratlin
|
|
|
|
Post by gandoron on Jan 19, 2011 22:36:59 GMT
there is also minimal hunting in UK other than some bird hunting. I grew up with about 30 guns in the home of 3 people, almost every gun was for hunting (the 44 mag was more from protection from grizzley bears in Yellowstone).
-G
|
|
|
|
Post by Enius the White on Jan 21, 2011 18:27:38 GMT
For me this issue is not specifically about gun control; it is about introducing the fear of violence into the democratic process. At the most basic level, if one good person chooses not to enter politics for fear of their safety, then true democracy no longer exists.
Here, btw, is an interesting quote (Mcleans, Jan. 2011):
"Since 1776, a total of 580,000 U.S. troops have been killed in action, including the carnage of the Civil War. In just four decades ending 2008, the number of firearms deaths in the U.S. was 1.3 million."
|
|
|
|
Post by eternal on Jan 25, 2011 18:02:28 GMT
"Since 1776, a total of 580,000 U.S. troops have been killed in action, including the carnage of the Civil War. In just four decades ending 2008, the number of firearms deaths in the U.S. was 1.3 million." Population control. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2011 5:39:06 GMT
Beyond the rhetoric, sophistry, and pop-politics, there is the fundamental reality that we have definite rights and that these rights come with a cost. Sometimes that cost is the life of a solider on a battlefield, other times that cost is a nine year old girl who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Going into arguments about which restrictions result in what quantity of reduced deaths is going way beyond any useful discussion. Just have the debate on which fundamental principles we should be governed by. That is where those arguments, if they are honest arguments, are really going.
Personally I am sick of pop-politiks and the quivering fan-boi and hater gyrations. Glen Beck, Hannity, Michael Moore, Rush, Oberman....essentially the entire "popular news media" establishment is really more like a soap-opera that adults can cheer on or argue about, and still think they are taking themselves seriously as intellectually honest, ethical, adults.
I hate the fans and I hate the haters. It is all simple political theater and everyone thinks they are entitled to a say. Trust me, no one cares what any of you have to say about any of that. It is a form of entertainment, and that is all.
If we are going to talk about fundamental rights, about systems of government, lets skip the pop-politics and talk natural law, legal positivism, negative rights etc. etc. That, to me, would at least be an honest discussion.
I am not sure the problem is the vitriol. Rights come with costs. I more think the problem is an unwillingness to talk fundamentals. That kind of talk may never stop irrational people from acting irrationally, but it very may well lead eventually to some general consensus on how we should be governed. The lack of that discussion, the lack of that exchange of ideas and information damages all of us collectively far more than the singular acts of irrational individuals.
|
|
*hides*
