Should I also state the obvious that a lost drunk guy who marches into someone's home unannounced and uninvited IS an intruder?
Sure, go ahead, if you'd like. With respect to that, though, I think the distinction Lyddi intended was between the drunk guy and a burglar (i.e. someone breaking and entering the house with the intent to commit a felony therein).
Except Lyddi's most likely right: with the low amount of training the average person could be expected to have, they will almost always fail at using a gun for self-defense, and stand a fair shot of getting themselves hurt worse than they normally would be if they tried to use a gun.
The same thing applies to using knives for self-defense.
That's not an argument for a gun ban, that's an argument for more training.
I'm not an expert about guns, but I get the feeling in order for me to have a chance at successfully defending myself against a mugger, I'd have to have Clint Eastwood gun skills in order to draw it out and shoot fast enough. :-p
I forgot how you guys are with flamewars. I should have given context with my post. Mine wasn't a response to anything you guys said, I didn't read most of it. I saw a bunch of posts about guns and decided to vent. All of these people on Facebook and whatnot are going "Oh noes! theater shooting! I should have a gun so I can be a hero when that happens to me!" (yes I'm over exaggerating a bit) All these someone-like-mes are screaming that they want guns. I'm saying be reasonable and think about what you would actually be able to do with it. They aren't being reasonable.
I am not saying no guns for anyone. I am all for training, lots and lots of training should be mandatory. But I think there isn't enough training possible for most of the average joes out there for it to be "okay" for them to have guns. But then how do we quantify who "deserves" to have a gun without gun nuts freaking out that everyone doesn't have a gun?
Intent is something you don't find out about until afterward, so the distinction isn't really useful morally or practically.
Except we're talking about a specific incident from the afterward point of view, so your point is irrelevant.
Hes discussing whether or not it is useful to the person who is making the call during the incident in question. We cant judge the morality of an act without taking the circumstances under which the choice was made into account.
Intent is something you don't find out about until afterward, so the distinction isn't really useful morally or practically.
Except we're talking about a specific incident from the afterward point of view, so your point is irrelevant.
Not really. It's still not useful after the fact. Intruder broke in, person had seconds to decide how to deal with the intruder. Hindsight doesn't change the morality or practicality of the scenario at all.
Intent is something you don't find out about until afterward, so the distinction isn't really useful morally or practically.
Except we're talking about a specific incident from the afterward point of view, so your point is irrelevant.
Not really. It's still not useful after the fact. Intruder broke in, person had seconds to decide how to deal with the intruder. Hindsight doesn't change the morality or practicality of the scenario at all.
Yeah, which is why it sucked so much. Here a student finally gets the chance to off one of the bad guys who's been plaguing the GT campus, uses the gun properly, shoots him without hurting anyone else. And in the end its just a drunk guy. I don't think anyone ended up blaming the student, he didn't get charged, but people were using this as an argument for the no-guns-for-anyone point of view.
Intent is something you don't find out about until afterward, so the distinction isn't really useful morally or practically.
Except we're talking about a specific incident from the afterward point of view, so your point is irrelevant.
Hes discussing whether or not it is useful to the person who is making the call during the incident in question. We cant judge the morality of an act without taking the circumstances under which the choice was made into account.
Intent is something you don't find out about until afterward, so the distinction isn't really useful morally or practically.
Except we're talking about a specific incident from the afterward point of view, so your point is irrelevant.
Not really. It's still not useful after the fact. Intruder broke in, person had seconds to decide how to deal with the intruder. Hindsight doesn't change the morality or practicality of the scenario at all.
The thing is, that particular thread of discussion wasn't posed from the perspective of the person making the call. Specifically, if you look at Lyddi's statement that "The mean part of me wishes it had been a real intruder", where I think we can take "real intruder" to mean "burglar", it's not a question of judging the morality of the specific actions of the student in question, but a comparison of two states of affairs.
What's worth commenting on? It's sad than an irresponsible drunk died? Sure, I guess it's sad. It's definitely more than he deserved for being an irresponsible drunk, even though he broke and entered and menaced people due to his irresponsibility.
The thing is, that particular thread of discussion wasn't posed from the perspective of the person making the call. Specifically, if you look at Lyddi's statement that "The mean part of me wishes it had been a real intruder", where I think we can take "real intruder" to mean "burglar", it's not a question of judging the morality of the specific actions of the student in question, but a comparison of two states of affairs.
I used the wrong wording, sorry about that everyone, my intention was burglar, or bad guy intending to cause harm in some way. 0:) Ok, I'm done posting, need to get work done.
Deadly violent crime committed against strangers not themselves involved in a crime is so ludicrously rare that I'd argue there is no reasonable reason to carry a pistol for self-defense against it.
What's worth commenting on? It's sad than an irresponsible drunk died? Sure, I guess it's sad. It's definitely more than he deserved for being an irresponsible drunk, even though he broke and entered and menaced people due to his irresponsibility.
The point I was making is that there's nothing mean about preferring a burglar getting shot to an irresponsible drunk getting shot.
What's worth commenting on? It's sad than an irresponsible drunk died? Sure, I guess it's sad. It's definitely more than he deserved for being an irresponsible drunk, even though he broke and entered and menaced people due to his irresponsibility.
The point I was making is that there's nothing mean about preferring a burglar getting shot to an irresponsible drunk getting shot.
I am not saying no guns for anyone. I am all for training, lots and lots of training should be mandatory. But I think there isn't enough training possible for most of the average joes out there for it to be "okay" for them to have guns. But then how do we quantify who "deserves" to have a gun without gun nuts freaking out that everyone doesn't have a gun?
With all due respect, I think you're incorrect. There certainly is enough training to make it "OK" for an average person to own a gun. An important part of that training is learning when not to use or carry one.
If you don't have the nerves to carry a firearm around then don't. A competent person can make that decision, they don't need the government making it for them.
We can define "competent" using similar criteria to determining mental competence for other things.
OK, I'd argue that no one "competent" would ever carry a handgun for self-defense purposes, due to the extreme rarity of strangers intent on lethal interaction. It's a self-defense preparation that is radically, ludicrously beyond anything reasonable relative to the level of threat.
OK, I'd argue that no one "competent" would ever carry a handgun for self-defense purposes, due to the extreme rarity of strangers intent on lethal interaction. It's a self-defense preparation that is radically, ludicrously beyond anything reasonable relative to the level of threat.
The level of threat, while rare, is pretty acute when it occurs.
The level of threat, while rare, is pretty acute when it occurs.
But it's so rare that you're better off always wearing a helmet in case you randomly get hit by a car or fall over. Both of those things are far, far more likely to kill you than a stranger.
So if someone chooses to carry a handgun for self-defense, but refuses to wear a helmet at all times, their priorities are disordered.
The level of threat, while rare, is pretty acute when it occurs.
But it's so rare that you're better off always wearing a helmet in case you randomly get hit by a car or fall over. Both of those things are far, far more likely to kill you than a stranger.
So if someone chooses to carry a handgun for self-defense, but refuses to wear a helmet at all times, their priorities are disordered.
You can argue that about owning a smartphone but not a backpack, and all sorts of other things, too. It comes down to being human and having a choice and being responsible for those choices.
It worked well because despite lots of protesting to the contrary, New York is as close to a monoculture as you get outside the Midwest or Asia. :-P
Are you kidding? New York is the exact opposite of a monoculture. It's just so cosmopolitan and diverse that tolerance and pragmatism tend to win over any ideological argument.
Comments
I forgot how you guys are with flamewars. I should have given context with my post. Mine wasn't a response to anything you guys said, I didn't read most of it. I saw a bunch of posts about guns and decided to vent. All of these people on Facebook and whatnot are going "Oh noes! theater shooting! I should have a gun so I can be a hero when that happens to me!" (yes I'm over exaggerating a bit) All these someone-like-mes are screaming that they want guns. I'm saying be reasonable and think about what you would actually be able to do with it. They aren't being reasonable.
I am not saying no guns for anyone. I am all for training, lots and lots of training should be mandatory. But I think there isn't enough training possible for most of the average joes out there for it to be "okay" for them to have guns. But then how do we quantify who "deserves" to have a gun without gun nuts freaking out that everyone doesn't have a gun?
When we have these, can we outlaw guns then? How would someone justify lethal force when you stun someone unconscious?
If you don't have the nerves to carry a firearm around then don't. A competent person can make that decision, they don't need the government making it for them.
We can define "competent" using similar criteria to determining mental competence for other things.
So if someone chooses to carry a handgun for self-defense, but refuses to wear a helmet at all times, their priorities are disordered.