A father shoots 'drunk' driver moments after his children were killed...

MadsL

Ray Palmer wrote: »

MadsL
You have a problem understanding.

Do you think? I think your logic is faulty.

1) I didn't say a helmet while on a motor bike I said WALKING!

People do not wear pedestrian helmets. They do make motorcycle helmets - does wearing one even if you don't crash make them irrelevant as a safety factor - by your logic they are not relevant until you crash. Now we could talk about risk perception, that you take more risks wearing a helmet. That's a whole other issue. My point was that having a safety item with you (the gun) makes you safer than not having it, in a variety of potential scenarios.

2) Given all the example you say their are you have yet to describe and actual event whereby having a gun actually saved somebody

You want me to? There are thousands. Do you actually not believe they exist? Wow.

3) Yes cuban heels are dangerous.

I see. About 40% of women are said to drive in heels. Any laws preventing that?

4)You said she couldn't find the wheel. She either didn't read the manual and familiarise herself with the car. You can't have it both ways. If it was so easy then she should have found the wheel.

I imagine her next step would have been to check the manual. She was told to limp the car in, which she did. Why are you so hung up on what my wife actually did, it has nothing to do with the example I gave.

5)Yes a risk but as I said there is a risk walking down the street that a helemet could make it safer. Doesn't maker it sensible

What a ridiculous strawman.

6)I have said it is up to you to have a gun or not. I am not taking that away

It is up to the law, but I note you concede the point.

7) AGAIN you thinking it is safer does not double quadruple or multiple the safety in any great measure if the risk is small to start with.

So you agree there is a risk (Y) - finally. Now does (X) the gun mitigate that risk to ANY degree? Yes or No.

You are not giving an example of a gun actually protecting somebody you are stating it as a fact. Fine if you belive that it ISN'T and example.

I'm speaking about the potential the gun has for protection. Or do you think that potential simply does not exist?

Fire alarm example would be. I was in bed and the alarm went off and I got out of bed and the house and I was saved as a result.

NOT I have an fire alarm in my house and therfore I am safer from fire. That is a statement about fire alarms.

It is a true statement about fire alarms. Having a fire alarm does make you safer from fire. Do I have to cite every example of someone being saved from fire in order for you to believe it? I assume you don't deny it? Have you personally been saved from fire by an alarm? Yet you take it on trust that a fire alarm is a damn good idea.

That is my logic and how examples work.

You logic is flawed.
Watch.

I assert: Fire burns
You say: Give me an example
I say: Well if you stuck your hand in the fireplace you would get burnt.
You say: But that is not an example of where you got burnt.
I say: Well over 40,000 people get burnt by fire each year.
You say: But that is not an example. Logic.

You don't know what an "example" is frankly.

You can ignore everything else but understand an example and how to give one.

I've given you an example, but because it wears heels and doesn't know where the spare tyre is, you don't like it.

Ray Palmer

Yeap you don't understand what an example is. It is that simple.

MadsL

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Yeap you don't understand what an example is. It is that simple.

Yeah, well that's just, like, your opinion, man. :rolleyes:

Ray, is that the best you can do?

Fact is you just don't want to admit that a gun can be used self-defensively and that it is a reasonable action to carry one in a vehicle. I'm sorry that you aren't honest enough to admit that.

Millicent

MadsL wrote: »

Yeah, well that's just, like, your opinion, man. :rolleyes:

Ray, is that the best you can do?

Fact is you just don't want to admit that a gun can be used self-defensively and that it is a reasonable action to carry one in a vehicle. I'm sorry that you aren't honest enough to admit that.

MadsL, I'm genuinely not having a go, but would you not agree that living in such a culture of fear that carrying a lethal weapon as a means of defence is normal is alarming?

MadsL

Millicent wrote: »

MadsL, I'm genuinely not having a go, but would you not agree that living in such a culture of fear that carrying a lethal weapon as a means of defence is normal is alarming?

You are making an huge assumption that anyone is frightened. Does having a house alarm mean you are "living in fear" of a burglary?

Half of American households have a gun. How normalised do you want it to be?

Those are quite some pejorative statements about "a culture of fear" - on the contrary most first time visitors, particularly from the UK and Ireland, comment on what a friendly and polite society the US is compared to 'back home'.

Millicent

MadsL wrote: »

You are making an huge assumption that anyone is frightened. Does having a house alarm mean you are "living in fear" of a burglary?

Half of American households have a gun. How normalised do you want it to be?

Those are quite some pejorative statements about "a culture of fear" - on the contrary most first time visitors, particularly from the UK and Ireland, comment on what a friendly and polite society the US is compared to 'back home'.

Is there a civil way to discuss this? It was a genuine question. Didn't require a histrionic response, tbf.

ETA: And a harmless house alarm is not comparable to a lethal weapon.

MadsL

Millicent wrote: »

Is there a civil way to discuss this? It was a genuine question. Didn't require a histrionic response, tbf.

I don't mean to be uncivilised, but you accusing Americans of "living in a culture of fear" was histrionic in the first place.

A gun is a tool, simply. If you choose to describe keeping one as 'fearful' then that is your perception and not necessarily the perception of the owner.

MadsL

Millicent wrote: »

ETA: And a harmless house alarm is not comparable to a lethal weapon.

I didn't compare the two. What I asked was if you considered that someone who has a house alarm is "living in fear"? If they are not in your view, why does "living in fear" apply to someone who owns a gun? Is there a fundamental difference in your view?

starlings

MadsL wrote: »

You are making an huge assumption that anyone is frightened. Does having a house alarm mean you are "living in fear" of a burglary?

Half of American households have a gun. How normalised do you want it to be?

Those are quite some pejorative statements about "a culture of fear" - on the contrary most first time visitors, particularly from the UK and Ireland, comment on what a friendly and polite society the US is compared to 'back home'.

MadsL, you sounded furious about your wife being stuck on her own in the wilderness without a gun.

And you're sounding more and more angry every time someone disagrees with carrying a gun for safety, or even simply asks a question about your experience living in the States.

You come across as defensive and, frankly, panicked to me.

I could be wrong, of course.

Millicent

MadsL wrote: »

I don't mean to be uncivilised, but you accusing Americans of "living in a culture of fear" was histrionic in the first place.

A gun is a tool, simply. If you choose to describe keeping one as 'fearful' then that is your perception and not necessarily the perception of the owner.

I don't say it to be insulting. I genuinely believe that since 9/11, a culture of fear has grown in America. People are afraid of terrorism, of their government, of home invasion, of crime, of rampage shootings, of so many other things I can't begin to list. I don't say any of this lightly. I actually wanted to move to America when I was younger. I wouldn't really consider it now. Not because the country isn't beautiful or because people aren't friendly--they both are in spades. But from my perspective, the country's a pressure cooker of underlying stresses and fear.

MadsL wrote: »

I didn't compare the two. What I asked was if you considered that someone who has a house alarm is "living in fear"? If they are not in your view, why does "living in fear" apply to someone who owns a gun? Is there a fundamental difference in your view?

There's a chasm of difference between a thing that beeps or phones the police for you to something that can put a hole in someone's chest. I don't have a house alarm, FWIW. And I'm a woman living on my own.

MadsL

starlings wrote: »

MadsL, you sounded furious about your wife being stuck on her own in the wilderness without a gun.

And you're sounding more and more angry every time someone disagrees with carrying a gun for safety, or even simply asks a question about your experience living in the States.

You come across as defensive and, frankly, panicked to me.

I could be wrong, of course.

I'm sitting here having a coffee, looking out at a mountain on a sunny day. Panicked? Really?

If I sound defensive at all I would point out that I originally gave an example of why someone would wish to have a gun in a vehicle. That turned into a comprehensive bashing of my wife from her ability to change a wheel to the shoes she wears whilst driving.

I'm amazed at how people think they are able to see into the minds of posters.

Frankly, I have no idea why you feel my state of mind is at all relevant to the topic of discussion other than as a distracting ad hominem.

MadsL

Millicent wrote: »

I don't say it to be insulting. I genuinely believe that since 9/11, a culture of fear has grown in America. People are afraid of terrorism, of their government, of home invasion, of crime, of rampage shootings, of so many other things I can't begin to list. I don't say any of this lightly. I actually wanted to move to America when I was younger. I wouldn't really consider it now. Not because the country isn't beautiful or because people aren't friendly--they both are in spades. But from my perspective, the country's a pressure cooker of underlying stresses and fear.

So that is how your view is formed? Based on living in the US? No, from a media perspective, and news channels. The reality is quite different. Please don't project that view on to me.

There's a chasm of difference between a thing that beeps or phones the police for you to something that can put a hole in someone's chest. I don't have a house alarm, FWIW. And I'm a woman living on my own.

And that is not the question I asked, is it?

I'm glad you live in a safe area that you don't require an alarm. But if you did, would you describe yourself as "living in fear"?

For many people living in rural communities in the US, police response times can be measured in hours. That is why many of them take the precaution of having a gun around, equally many of them leave their doors unlocked. Go figure.

starlings

MadsL wrote: »

I'm sitting here having a coffee, looking out at a mountain on a sunny day. Panicked? Really?

If I sound defensive at all I would point out that I originally gave an example of why someone would wish to have a gun in a vehicle. That turned into a comprehensive bashing of my wife from her ability to change a wheel to the shoes she wears whilst driving.

I'm amazed at how people think they are able to see into the minds of posters.

Frankly, I have no idea why you feel my state of mind is at all relevant to the topic of discussion other than as a distracting ad hominem.

ad hominen -oh no you don't
I put "sounded" and "sounding" in italics and wrote that this is how you were coming across to me, so that it would be clear that I'm describing my reception, not you. I even wrote that I could be wrong - would you like me to blow a kiss too?

MadsL

starlings wrote: »

ad hominen -oh no you don't
I put "sounded" and "sounding" in italics and wrote that this is how you were coming across to me, so that it would be clear that I'm describing my reception, not you. I even wrote that I could be wrong - would you like me to blow a kiss too?

What has how I sound to you got to do with the debate?

Would you like an apology because I hurt your sense of how someone should react?

*Blows kiss*

starlings

MadsL wrote: »

What has how I sound to you got to do with the debate?

Would you like an apology because I hurt your sense of how someone should react?

*Blows kiss*

don't be silly - I was only trying to keep the peace. In a debate about guns...

/experiment

Millicent

MadsL wrote: »

So that is how your view is formed? Based on living in the US? No, from a media perspective, and news channels. The reality is quite different. Please don't project that view on to me.

For someone who got annoyed when they thought I made an assumption, you're assuming a lot of me. My view is not formed solely from the media (although of course that has played a part). I have quite a few American friends, have been a member of quite a few American online forums, and work almost solely with Americans.

MadsL wrote: »

And that is not the question I asked, is it?

I'm glad you live in a safe area that you don't require an alarm. But if you did, would you describe yourself as "living in fear"?

For many people living in rural communities in the US, police response times can be measured in hours. That is why many of them take the precaution of having a gun around, equally many of them leave their doors unlocked. Go figure.

Maybe, maybe not. I would see one as a proportionate response; the other, not so much. You're also assuming I live in a safe area. You're not correct there either. It's not particularly safe; it's not particular unsafe. It has its risks. I also lived in some more unsafe areas of Dublin and even then, had a gun been available to me, it would not have crossed my mind to own one. That's a sonic leap too far for my admittedly pacifist nature.

To put it another way, I have been sexually assaulted on a number of occasions. Do I lock myself indoors? Refuse to dress how I feel comfortable? Suspect all men of being potential rapists? Carry a gun? No. I try to tackle the root of the problem in my own calm ways rather than apply a reactionary solution that could cost someone's life or quality thereof.

clairefontaine

Millicent wrote: »

MadsL, I'm genuinely not having a go, but would you not agree that living in such a culture of fear that carrying a lethal weapon as a means of defence is normal is alarming?

You can argue he is living in fear. He can argue you are living in denial.

I hear of robberies every day on the radio. Sometimes there is one cop in the office for miles. Who knows what the response time is. I can understand people wanting a gun.

When I was living in Dublin I heard a woman getting the crap beaten outof her in the apartment above me. I dialled 999. It rang out. I dialled it again. It rang out again. On the third dial, someone answered. The cops showed up five hours later. They said it was Friday night. They are busy.

MadsL

Millicent wrote: »

For someone who got annoyed when they thought I made an assumption, you're assuming a lot of me. My view is not formed solely from the media (although of course that has played a part). I have quite a few American friends, have been a member of quite a few American online forums, and work almost solely with Americans.

Fair enough, I did expect that you formed that opinion from the media and you have American friends and colleagues, yet you admit you have never visited the US. Tell me, your American friends, are they afraid most of the time? Seriously?

Maybe, maybe not. I would see one as a proportionate response; the other, not so much. You're also assuming I live in a safe area. You're not correct there either. It's not particularly safe; it's not particular unsafe.

If it is in Ireland, frankly it is relatively safe regardless.

It has its risks. I also lived in some more unsafe areas of Dublin and even then, had a gun been available to me, it would not have crossed my mind to own one.
That's a sonic leap too far for my admittedly pacifist nature.

And that is your choice. But tell me, do you think mine should be restricted?

To put it another way, I have been sexually assaulted on a number of occasions.

As a man, I'm sorry for that.

Do I lock myself indoors? Refuse to dress how I feel comfortable? Suspect all men of being potential rapists?

Those are irrational responses.

Carry a gun? No.

That would be a legal and reasonable response in the US. Again, your choice.

I try to tackle the root of the problem in my own calm ways rather than apply a reactionary solution that could cost someone's life or quality thereof.

Do you think, (as for example happened to a friend of mine) shooting someone when they are on top of you in bed at home is a reactionary solution? I can't think of a calm way of solving that other than submitting to the rape, and possible murder.

Do you think that at that point the rapist has lost his right to "quality of life?"

Manic Moran

Millicent wrote: »

MadsL, I'm genuinely not having a go, but would you not agree that living in such a culture of fear that carrying a lethal weapon as a means of defence is normal is alarming?

Like MaDsl, I believe that there is no culture of fear. There is a culture of self-reliance and pragmatism.

It is not the job of the police to protect you as an individual. Generally speaking, they will interview you (if you survive, draw a line around your body if you don't), then attempt to find and prosecute the malfeaser. This may be beneficial for society as a whole, but it doesn't do the victim any particular good. Much though the police would like to, they cannot provide the same level of protection to yourself as you can. After all, you are already at the scene of the crime, the police are not. It only makes sense to be able to keep yourself from being a victim until help can arrive, much as maybe one would try to contain a fire until the fire brigade shows up or conduct first aid to an injured person until the ambulance shows up.

To live in a culture of fear, there must be an expectation that something bad will happen. There is no such expectation, just an acceptance that some things can happen and, by the crime rates in pretty much any country on the planet, do. How many times have you heard someone on the news being interviewed about a murder or rape and heard the phrase 'We didn't think it could possibly happen here' or 'this is a nice quiet town, such things don't happen?' It's not 'when' something happens, it's 'if' something happens. For most people, that 'if' never comes about, so no harm done. For the others, that 'if' suddenly takes on a fairly significant urgency and import. You may never need a firearm in your life. On the rare occasions that one does, nothing else really suffices in its stead.

To put it another way, I have been sexually assaulted on a number of occasions. Do I lock myself indoors? Refuse to dress how I feel comfortable? Suspect all men of being potential rapists? Carry a gun? No. I try to tackle the root of the problem in my own calm ways rather than apply a reactionary solution that could cost someone's life or quality thereof.

One can always take risk mitigation measures, and a sensible person will. Being aware of the surroundings, travelling in groups when possible, and so on. Even carrying a firearm is no guarantee that you will be able to protect yourself. However, a firearm is the last risk mitigation measure in a sequence. Note I say mitigation, not prevention. It is unlikely that you can guarantee yourself that nothing bad will happen. I doubt any rape or murder victim was particularly concerned at the time that they didn't have things under control until they had lost control of the situation. The last resort to face force is force of your own. There is no getting around that fact and the more you wish not to be a victim, the more protective measures you are likely to take.

NTM

BattleCorp

People in Ireland don't realise what it's like in some countries around the world. They aren't all as safe as our little country.

Fair enough, we don't need guns here in Ireland for self defence, and because of this, it's illegal to have a gun here for self defence and I've no problem whatsoever with that law.

However, if I lived in the US, or South Africa, or Israel (and many other dangerous countries), I think I'd feel safer if I had a gun for self defence. You wouldn't neccessarily be in fear all the time, but you might feel safer if you had the means to protect yourself.

Grayson

clairefontaine wrote: »

When I was living in Dublin I heard a woman getting the crap beaten outof her in the apartment above me. I dialled 999. It rang out. I dialled it again. It rang out again. On the third dial, someone answered. The cops showed up five hours later. They said it was Friday night. They are busy.

999 rang out. Not once, but twice?

I'm calling bull**** before anyone else gets there!

tunedout

basically, there is a justice system that the drink driver should have been entitled to the full benefit of. I would like to think that if i made such a bad mistake as the drink driver did in this case, everyone wouldn't support one of the victims shooting me in cold blood and inflicting what he sees as justice. I would like to think that everyone would support me getting a fair trial. A trial which may reveal many mitigating circumstances. evidence given the accident would have happened with or without the alcohol factor should be revealed before the man is shot dead at the side of the road.

2 deaths were an accident. 1 death was intended.

the shooter should be put through the full rigours of the law.

MadsL

Texas has a specific crime of intoxication manslaughter as a second degree felony punished by imprisonment for any term of not more than 20 years or less than 2 years.

As I said earlier in this thread, I doubt child killers do so well in Texas prisons, the guy probably was spared a prison death.

clairefontaine

Grayson wrote: »

999 rang out. Not once, but twice?

I'm calling bull**** before anyone else gets there!

Yep. I couldn't believe it either. And that was wayy before all the cutbacks.

MadsL

clairefontaine wrote: »

Yep. I couldn't believe it either. And that was wayy before all the cutbacks.

BT recently took over the 999 service in the ROI, I can well believe it wasn't properly function before that. Now they have to guarantee 99.999% uptime and (I think) 20 sec answer times.

GalwayGuy2

It is not the job of the police to protect you as an individual. Generally speaking, they will interview you (if you survive, draw a line around your body if you don't), then attempt to find and prosecute the malfeaser. This may be beneficial for society as a whole, but it doesn't do the victim any particular good.

Probably the same here. Apparently we have a horrible response time, but quite a good , um, figuring out who did it:P