View Single Post
Old 2012-08-29, 21:52   Link #274
kyp275
Meh
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Exactly. We can't use a magical rainbow pony model of the world. Nor can we think of the world as being so grim dark that everything is only ever brown or grey, and there's space marines everywhere.
Indeed, though I certainly never implied that the world is all grim-dark either, and I hope you weren't trying to say I was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
We're arguing around a balance. On the one we have lives saved from guns. On the other Deaths caused by guns. I'm of the opinion that the former is negligible, and the latter is substantial. You may or may not disagree.
Without any reliable statistics, there's no way to know for sure either way. However, the issues goes beyond purely statistics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong, but shooting to wound is very difficult (and requires much better marksmanship then shooting to kill), and in a combat situation, most people will shoot to kill simply out of panic. With the flowing adrenaline, they're not going to be so careful to shoot for the legs instead.
You're both right and wrong in this case. There is no "shooting to wound" in most cases, nor are bullet wounds to the legs always non-fatal. On the other hand, often times gunshot wounds are just non-fatal wounds, it all depends on where you get hit. In this regard it's very much like knife wounds, it all depends on what's cut on the inside - a stab to the stomach that misses the vital organs wouldn't kill ya, but a stab to the leg that severs an artery is gonna do you in in very short order.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
My point is that we are fallible, and in our fallibility we will use our power where we should not. Better that we disarm our society, so that our mistakes are limited to wounding others, rather then killing them. And killing a criminal is a mistake. Even if his acts are wrong, he is still a human being deserving our empathy and even our compassion.
You cannot disarm a human to where they are unable to kill. Man have been killing each other since the stone age, well before the advent of firearms. And no, killing a criminal in self-defense is not wrong, self-preservation is about as basic a right as it gets. You continue to hold the life of criminals as sacred, yet you continue to ignore the life of the victims, are they worthless to you?


Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Indeed. Real situations are rarely simple. But in this situation, this was a police officer (and presumably armed), and of course he still got shot. The problem in a gun fight is that it overwhelmingly favours the guy who shoots first(assuming he shoots straight...). The gun is an offensive weapon.
Funny enough, the only reason he lived was because the officer was armed, as he managed to return fire with his own weapon and wounded the robber.

and no, a gunfight doesn't overwhelmingly favors the guy who shoots first, it only favors the guy who hits his target. And a gun is a tool, it can be used for offensive or defensive purposes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
You might favour the idea of having a gun for self defence. But would you favour being the guy who shoots first?
If the other side demonstrates the intent or is in the process of using deadly force, absolutely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Consider if you were the police officer in that scenario. Should you have shot him before he had the chance to respond? Would you be able to pull the trigger so unhesitatingly? And what if you got spooked? You panicked and shoot a guy, but it turns out to be a misunderstanding?
Yes. Pulling a gun on a police officer is a very bad idea if you don't want to get shot, the very act of drawing and aiming a weapon at someone constitute an intent to use deadly force.

As for whether I'll be able to pull the trigger, yes. You don't draw your weapon unless you're ready to fire if you have to.

And why would I get spooked and panic and shoot a guy? you'll have to be more specific.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Great power requires the judgement to use that power. I do not think most of us (including myself) have that level of judgement. Instances where guns are not required tend to outnumber those where they are, and I think the average person will over-react, and assume a minor threat is a mortal one.
It's your prerogative to have so much faith in the restraint of the criminals not to kill their victims, yet so little faith in the non-criminals to exercise good judgement, but you'll have to excuse me if I disagree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
But does the saving of your(or others) life necessarily require the destruction of another's?
Not always, but sometimes it does.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
The victim's life has value. But the criminal's life also has value. We cannot know the entire value of their life from just a single encounter. They might be complete scumbags, or they may have been driven to their crime by poverty and desperation. You cannot know unless you have lived his life alongside him, which is not a possibility for us with our limited perception.
You started going off-track as soon as you started to compare the values of their life. Regardless of the lifestyle they've lead, neither the victim nor the criminal's life is worth more, they're both equal.

However, the criminal is the aggressor, he/she initiated the encounter, to say that the victim does not have the right to fully defend themselves is ludicrous. If that meant that the criminal, the aggressor who initiated the attack, loses his/her life, then so be it, it is a result of their own making.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
I say that the victim should not intentionally kill him. He must act in proportion to the danger presented to him. For instance, if you shoot and kill an unarmed home invader, that would be disproportionate. You could have phoned 911 and locked yourself into a closet, or beaten him with a baseball bat. You did not have to kill him.
In most cases, the goal of the victim is to incapacitate and stop the attacker, whether through injury or death is irrelevant.

Something else you're also still not getting. Life is not a video game, just because someone is unarmed doesn't mean they can't kill you with their bare hands or whatever weapons of opportunity they can fight, like a lamp or your kitchen knife. I find it amazing that you've continued treat the life of a criminal as if it's the second coming of Jesus, but gives it absolutely no thought as you continue to pile on unreasonable and impossible expectations on the victims.

Lock yourself into a closet? what good will that do? delay them by all of 2 seconds as they kick it down? attack them with a baseball bat? there's probably nothing more dangerous and foolhardy than trying to engage in a physical melee with a weapon when you're untrained. Not everyone is a MLB slugger either, you think an old man or old (or young) woman for that matter will be able to do all that much with a bat? especially if there were multiple assailants?

You continue to have the problem of setting up one specific scenario under which your ideas might work, but fail to consider the broad implication such ideas would have outside of your specific scenario.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Put it this way. Sometimes tempers flare, accidents happen. With guns around, I might get shot (if he's particularly unhinged ), without them around, I'm just going to have a bloody nose. Or I could get an attack of paranoia and convince myself he's about to shoot me, and shoot him instead. Our judgement is imperfect, and so we should not be allowed that kind of power.
Or he'd just as likely to stab you in the eye and cut your head off if he's that unhinged. I hope you realize you're just throwing out strawmans here at this point. Doctor's judgement is imperfect, police's judgement is imperfect, politician's judgement is imperfect, the justice system's judgement is imperfect, the government's judgement is imperfect, would you say we shouldn't have any of them too?


Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Also, let everyone have guns, and some of those people will be crazy! I'm sure there are people you know in your life who you wouldn't trust with a gun. I know there are some in mine. There was one guy I knew for a while who had something of a temper, and often punched people for no good reason(and he did not seem to have a sense of his actions having consequences). What if he had had a gun? I could easily imagine him unflinchingly shooting another person dead.
Since when did I advocate that everyone should have guns? stop with the strawman please.
kyp275 is offline   Reply With Quote