Gun Control

eire4

Manic Moran wrote: »

Arguably neither are the gun laws: Chicago's are some of the strictest in the nation already. Sometimes touted as a model for other parts of the country to follow.

Doesn't seem to be working.

Nice try but false. The vast majority of the gun deaths in Chicago are happening on the cities south side. This is very close to and within easy access of northwest Indiana where the gun laws are very lax and that is where the weapons are coming from which is fueling the massive gang violence issues which Chicago's south side is experiencing.

eire4

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The only item I and probably you own that has any way where the destructive potential as guns is my car.
I am required to

1. Prove my abilty to drive safely
2. Prove its safe to drive (NCT)
3. Pay towards the collective damage it does (Motor tax)
4. Pay to cover the damage I may do as an individual (Insurance)
5. Inform the government it's in my charge (Registration)
6. Inform the government it's not longer in my charge (Change of ownership)
7. Can have my right to it removed if I fail to comply with some reasonable standards
8. Are limits where I can take it

I think this would be a reasonable list of requirements for gun ownership

I agree with that. I think having insurance in particular on each gun would be a very good step forward.

Manic Moran

eire4 wrote: »

Nice try but false. The vast majority of the gun deaths in Chicago are happening on the cities south side. This is very close to and within easy access of northwest Indiana where the gun laws are very lax and that is where the weapons are coming from which is fueling the massive gang violence issues which Chicago's south side is experiencing.

The point here is that, as already mentioned, there are one or two firearms already in circulation. It doesn't matter if the availability to Chicagoans is coming from Indiana-where-you-can-easily-buy-firearms-in-addition-to-the-millions-already-in-Indiana, or if they're coming from Indiana-where-you-can't-easily-buy-firearms-in-addition-to-the-millions-already-in-Indiana.

Any attempt at dealing with the problem must reflect the reality that saying "You can't have a gun" will have basically no effect on the fact that there will be ways for the folks doing most of the shooting to get one anyway. The solution lies elsewhere.

I think having insurance in particular on each gun would be a very good step forward.

What would the insurance cover, exactly, and how would it help?

LeinsterDub

Manic Moran wrote: »

Any attempt at dealing with the problem must reflect the reality that saying "You can't have a gun" will have basically no effect on the fact that there will be ways for the folks doing most of the shooting to get one anyway.

I don't think anyone said you can't have a gun. Just because someone can steal my car doesn't mean we should resort to anarchy. This isn't a boolean situation guns or no guns. Gun laws or no gun laws.

No one is nieve enough to suggest that a law will prevent all gun crime or lead to a dramatic change overnight. What it might lead to is some accountability as to who is buying guns and selling them illegally

sin_city

LeinsterDub wrote: »

1 city, 1 weekend , 14 dead .
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/american-independence-day-2014-mayhem-in-chicago-sees-police-chief-admit-we-lost-it-after-82-shootings-and-14-deaths-on-deadly-4-july-bank-holiday-9593017.html

What were the gun laws in the north during the troubles?

sin_city

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Just because someone can steal my car doesn't mean we should resort to anarchy.

You're referring to anarchy as if it is a bad thing.

I don’t think getting rid of a mafia would be a bad thing….”resorting to anarchy” would be great.

Manic Moran

LeinsterDub wrote: »

No one is nieve enough to suggest that a law will prevent all gun crime or lead to a dramatic change overnight. What it might lead to is some accountability as to who is buying guns and selling them illegally

Is that not an issue of enforcement? There are already a number of laws about who can purchase firearms and who is eligible to be sold to, which don't seem to be particularly outside reason.

LeinsterDub

Manic Moran wrote: »

Is that not an issue of enforcement? There are already a number of laws about who can purchase firearms and who is eligible to be sold to, which don't seem to be particularly outside reason.

I had a different reply ready but I know I'd just get the standard reply or sure there is nothing wrong or sure we can't do anything about it so lets not even try

SeanW

LeinsterDub wrote: »

There was basically a mass shooting in Chicago over the independence day weekend. Of course since it was 14 different shooters it's not news worthy in the US. Mass shootings aren't the issue either is mental health

How many of those shooters held their firearms legally?

LeinsterDub

SeanW wrote: »

How many of those shooters held their firearms legally?

A other round of sure it's pointless to try?

Sure why not

Case 1 they where all legally held: Sure they where all legally held why would more regulation make any difference?
Case 2 they where all illegally held: Sure criminals just ignore the law anyway why would more regulation make any difference?
Case 3 the mixed bag, take 1 and 2 , ram them together and end with why would more regulation make any difference?

Close to the mark?

SeanW

LeinsterDub wrote: »

A other round of sure it's pointless to try?

Whatever you think yourself :P

Case 1 they where all legally held: Sure they where all legally held why would more regulation make any difference?

If they were all legally held, then it would make a difference because it would be a sign that the regulations that existed were inadequate. There would indeed be a case for more restrictions on legally held guns.

Case 2 they where all illegally held: Sure criminals just ignore the law anyway why would more regulation make any difference?

If the guns are illegally held, then the solution is have more law enforcement and make illegally held weapons easier to seize.

When crime is committed by people with illegally held weapons, strict gun control does nothing but ensuring that only criminals have a monopoly on the use of deadly force. Which is not "not making a difference" it's making things worse.

Case 3 the mixed bag, take 1 and 2 , ram them together and end with why would more regulation make any difference?

Huh?

Close to the mark?

About as wide of it as a Brazilian soccer player in a match with Germany I would say.

LeinsterDub

SeanW wrote: »

When crime is committed by people with illegally held weapons, strict gun control does nothing but ensuring that only criminals have a monopoly on the use of deadly force. Which is not "not making a difference" it's making things worse.
.

Under most if not all serious gun control proposals anyone legitimate who wants a gun can still get one

Manic Moran

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I had a different reply ready but I know I'd just get the standard reply or sure there is nothing wrong or sure we can't do anything about it so lets not even try

It's the standard reply, much as "Forty-two" is the standard reply to the "Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything": Because it's the correct reply to a standard proposal.

Look at the handwaving you're doing. In effect, "we must do something about X because doing nothing about X is not an answer", whilst not being particularly enlightening about just what should be done, and why it is likely to have the effect you would like it to have.

Give me a proposal which accepts the realities of existence in North America, and I'll give you a reasoned response. (I'll go over your list in a second)

In the meantime, I'll counterpropose that "Doing something about X" is not the correct answer, and instead, we should be doing something about "Y" and "Z", prime examples being enforcement and social changes. Of course, Y and Z are far more trouble and effort to implement, so why bother? We'll just do more "X", which hasn't gotten a great track record of success so far.

Manic Moran

The only item I and probably you own that has any way where the destructive potential as guns is my car.

1.Prove my abilty to drive safely
2.Prove its safe to drive (NCT)
3.Pay towards the collective damage it does (Motor tax)
4.Pay to cover the damage I may do as an individual (Insurance)
5.Inform the government it's in my charge (Registration)
6.Inform the government it's not longer in my charge (Change of ownership)
7.Can have my right to it removed if I fail to comply with some reasonable standards
8.Are limits where I can take it

Not a direct equivalence as, for example, one does not need a background check for criminal and mental history in order to purchase a vehicle, but let's go on.

1) Here in the paradise that is California, in order to purchase a pistol, one must first hold a Handgun Safety Certificate, and demonstrate correct loading, unloading, remedial actions of the specific handgun you are purchasing before being allowed to take it home from the shop. http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/hscinfo . Exemptions are given to police and military. I live about 15 minutes from one of the top ten most dangerous cities in America, so it's obviously working well. The problem here is that effectively using a firearm is not, in fairness, particularly difficult, certainly not in comparison to the operation of a motor vehicle. Indeed, the 'problem' is defined by people who are vaguely competent in the use of their firearms. If they didn't know how to make it work and how to put lead on target, there wouldn't be as many firearm murders. Driving tests are designed to reduce danger of people who -don't- know how to use their vehicle.

2. In theory, correct. Again, we have such a thing here in California, it's called the "Safe Handgun Roster." Before being made available for sale in the State, every model of pistol must be submitted to the State DOJ for approval and no pistol may be sold by a shop to a non-LEO unless it is on this roster. It supposedly covers things such as "Will it discharge if you drop it?" Unfortunately, it also covers things like "Is it a different colour?" (Really. You introduce a new color for the pistol, it must be separately listed, submitted, tested and paid for by the company). It also covers things which the legislature think are a good idea, but firearms owners aren't so sure about, such as magazine disconnects. It has since turned into a mechanism for banning firearms. By the standards enacted by the legislature of the Great State of California, not a single new pistol being manufactured in the US today is legal for addition to the roster. I'm serious, since January of this year (When the latest set of requirements was added) only two pistols have been added to the roster: A custom-engraved version of a 20-year-old colt, the basic design of which was grandfathered in, and a .22 limited edition variant of a pistol also grandfathered in. In the meantime, if the company doesn't pay the listing fee every year, the handgun is apparently declared no longer safe, and removed from the roster, scores have been removed. See http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/ PDFs for recently added, recently removed. As a result, this roster is currently under legal challenge (See Pena v Cid). So, nice idea in theory, but given past experience, we're suspicious. The implementation would have to be changed. Arguably it's irrelevant anyway, as standard liability laws as against the manufacturer should cover things nicely: The NCT primarily exists to reduce the hazard your vehicle poses to other road users, the handgun roster exists primarily to reduce the hazard the pistol causes to yourself: If the pistol's working well, it's causing harm to someone else!

3. Quoting the CA DMV website: "The Vehicle License Fee in California was established in 1935 in lieu of a property tax on vehicles. The DMV returns almost all vehicle license fee revenue to the cities and counties. For more details on how your VLF money is used, contact your local city or county government officials." i.e. it goes into the county's general fund, and is not particularly related to 'the collective damage that it does.' (As an aside, we booted out the Governor a couple of years ago when he proposed raising the VLF to help cover the State's general operating debt, further emphasizing the lack of connection). We already pay sales tax on weapons, but let's go down the rabbit hole and presume that a fee of a few dollars has to be paid on every weapon on an annual basis. I pay about $200 in fees on a car I bought for $60,000, so on a similar percentage basis, my $800 Sig-Sauer pistol would be due fees of about $2.66 a year. The cost of administration is probably not worth it. And then you have the issue of enforcement. My car has a sticker on the license plate which clearly tells passing law enforcement if I'm in compliance or not. It's a little harder to do that with a pistol. And then there's the issue of equality. The law would disproportionately affect people who happen to have recently purchased their firearm from a shop. The millions of firearms already in circulation would effectively go untaxed and unlike a car, which must be brought out into public to be used (And thus display the sticker), there is no such requirement for firearms. (Not least also we've already established that the firearms causing the problems are the illegally held ones anyway, so probably they're not going to be paying the tax on them to counter the damage caused).

4. A little less controversial, but as a homeowner I already have liability insurance, so in my case, at least, no change need occur. (I'm not entirely sure I understand why I have liability insurance as part of homeowner's insurance, but that's the way it works around here). The idea begs two further questions, however. (1) As already mentioned, the vast majority of trouble comes from people who are unlikely to have their weapons taxed and insured, and (2) insurance only covers things after the fact. It doesn't stop the violence to begin with, only who pays for cleaning it up.

5. Fails on a practical level. In no recent attempt to register firearms in North America (eg California, Canada) has there been an estimated majority compliance. I think the figure was about 10% in the case of the Canadian Long Gun Registry. That's before you get to the political question of if it'll even pass: There are only two practical reasons to register a firearm: Crime solving, and confiscation. The problem is that the 'success rate' in for the former is incredibly low (Simply because of the practical realities), and there is enough concern about the latter to disincentivise people from registering with little perceived benefit.

6. Relates to 5, fails on a practical level for the same reason.

7. This is in effect with firearms as well.

8. Also in effect with firearms.

eire4

Manic Moran wrote: »

The point here is that, as already mentioned, there are one or two firearms already in circulation. It doesn't matter if the availability to Chicagoans is coming from Indiana-where-you-can-easily-buy-firearms-in-addition-to-the-millions-already-in-Indiana, or if they're coming from Indiana-where-you-can't-easily-buy-firearms-in-addition-to-the-millions-already-in-Indiana.

Any attempt at dealing with the problem must reflect the reality that saying "You can't have a gun" will have basically no effect on the fact that there will be ways for the folks doing most of the shooting to get one anyway. The solution lies elsewhere.



What would the insurance cover, exactly, and how would it help?

Anyone hurt or injured by a gun due to the unlawful actions or negligence of the guns owner would now at least have the ability to have medical costs paid for them or if unfortunately the person is not alive his relatives would no longer have to deal with the expenses realted to that.

Manic Moran

I'm not actually sure if it's possible to get insurance to pay out for such things. Most insurance policies tend to have a caveat along the lines of "does not apply during commission of a felony", so road traffic accidents as part of daily business are covered, but RTAs resulting from a getaway chase after a bank robbery become personal liability of the accident causer, with the victim's insurance covering the gap (Uninsured driver coverage). Unlawfully shooting someone tends to be a felony.

There are arguably moral issues with providing insurance to cover unlawful acts as well. Why the hell would we be insuring people who do unlawful acts and giving them a fiscal shield?

Manic Moran

Court case from DC came out this week, and it was a fairly righteous smackdown. Basically DC police have been ordered by the court not to arrest anyone for carrying a legally owned firearm, openly or concealed, until the DC government can come up with some acceptable form of regulation.

Basically some jurisdictions, to include DC, have been fighting tooth and nail to avoid practical loosening of firearm restrictions, doing the absolute minimum they think they can get away with.

OpEd piece which I rather agree with here. Suprisingly, since I consider Huffington Post to be a bit left-leaning.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-santiago/guns-in-america-why-i-thi_b_5628403.html

Adaptations will need to be made. Licensing systems need to be updated. Training and skills requirements need to be standardized. Peace Officer Standards Training (POST) for dealing with a more broadly armed populace need to be updated particularly in those "local" jurisdictions that are the most resistive. Public awareness and nervousness about firearms need to be dealt with by some sort of operationally constructive -- as opposed to fearful -- educational campaign. And all of this needs to be done in a fashion much more organized than waking up on a Saturday morning to the news that you've just gotten a whammy of a court order to cease enforcing the laws on your books until you get back in line. Because, you know what, it just happened.

eire4

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm not actually sure if it's possible to get insurance to pay out for such things. Most insurance policies tend to have a caveat along the lines of "does not apply during commission of a felony", so road traffic accidents as part of daily business are covered, but RTAs resulting from a getaway chase after a bank robbery become personal liability of the accident causer, with the victim's insurance covering the gap (Uninsured driver coverage). Unlawfully shooting someone tends to be a felony.

There are arguably moral issues with providing insurance to cover unlawful acts as well. Why the hell would we be insuring people who do unlawful acts and giving them a fiscal shield?

This is America we are talking about. If having insurance becomes the law and there is money to be made there will be companies to provide the policies.
Certainly there are details of how such a law would work that would need to be ironed out but there are benefits to such a law. There are sadly many incidents of accidents with guns which result in death or injury where those people injured or relatives of the dead can be compensated rather then as things stand currently where they have to deal with all the costs and medical expenses themselves.

FISMA

Manic Moran wrote: »

Court case from DC came out this week, and it was a fairly righteous smackdown. Basically DC police have been ordered by the court not to arrest anyone for carrying a legally owned firearm, openly or concealed, until the DC government can come up with some acceptable form of regulation.

Yep! The majority of the mainstream media glanced right over it.

I caught a clip of Marion Barry saying how violence is going to increase in DC as a result.:rolleyes:

The Dems better leave this topic alone. They do not need to fire up their opposition's base for November.

Overheal

FISMA wrote: »

Yep! The majority of the mainstream media glanced right over it.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh in fairness, that might hopefully be an example of journalistic discretion. What might happen if the 24 hour news cycle told everyone in DC they could go ham waving rifles in the air and shoving shotguns down their pants?

Manic Moran

Interesting case, with a bizarre twist.

Guy walks into a hospital with a revolver and about 45 rounds of ammo, past the 'no guns allowed' sign. Shoots a random caseworker, then tries to shoot a doctor.

Said doctor, despite the minor details of the Hippocratic oath ("Do no harm to others"), happened to have a firearm of his own and shot back.

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/07/25/delco-da-credits-armed-doc-with-averting-wider-hospital-bloodbath/

Delaware County district attorney Jack Whelan says it was a good thing Silverman was armed, apparently against hospital policy, because Plotts had 39 spare bullets on him.

“We believe he was there and going to reload that revolver and continue to fire and continue to kill,” Whelan said this afternoon.

[...]

Regarding a possible motive, officials speculate that Plotts was not happy with the wellness center’s “no weapons policy,” which was clearly posted in the office

I am curious to know what will happen to the doctor. In past cases where employees (such as store clerks) have justifiably engaged while armed, despite company policy against weapons, the employees have been fired, and the firing upheld by courts.

Which is a pretty daft situation.

Sand

Out of curiosity is there many examples of similar cases to the Delaware hospital incident where an armed member of the public intervenes and shoots someone about to go on a shooting rampage?

I'm aware that whenever there is a shooting rampage in the US, and the gun laws debate rears its head again, that its often stated that if one of the public was armed they could have prevented the killings. But this is the only incident I'm aware of. Just curious if the argument I mentioned is based on theory or if there is a series of cases where armed bystanders have saved lives?

FISMA

Sand wrote: »

Out of curiosity is there many examples of similar cases to the Delaware hospital incident where an armed member of the public intervenes and shoots someone about to go on a shooting rampage?

Instances of people protecting themselves and others with firearms happen all the time. I receive magazines and newsletters from the NRA. They always have stories about people who protected themselves by having a gun. However, that does not fit the liberal media's agenda and is rarely reported on.

I am sure that you have heard of Columbine High. But, have you heard of Pearl River? Probably not. In this case, a teenager on a murderous rampage was stopped when the Vice Principal retrieved a 45 caliber from his car.

Manic Moran

However, that does not fit the liberal media's agenda and is rarely reported on.

You don't need to go to 'agenda', beyond the fact that "Things work as they're supposed to" is not particularly newsworthy. Generally speaking, the only shootings you hear about are the ones which are particularly significant (i.e. mass shootings). If someone stops the shooting before it gets to the level of 'mass shooting', then it doesn't make the news to begin with: There was no huge death toll. Indeed, it's pretty hard to think of a 'what-if', it takes some pretty blatant circumstances to say 'he stopped a mass shooting.' Look at the New Life Church shooting (Congregation member had her sidearm in church), or the Appalachian School of Law shooting (Two students retrieve firearms from car). About the only time I've heard any particular national visibility to such things is if there is a direct relationship to something which does make the news. For example, the Trolley Square Mall shooting, which hit 'shooting spree' figures before a shopper (who was an off-duty cop) engaged the shooter, the cinema shooting in Texas the week after the Aurora shooting (Off-duty cop, again) or, way back when, the University of Texas clock tower shootings, where other students who had rifles in their cars pinned down the shooter and stopped the casualties until police arrived.

K-9

FISMA wrote: »

Instances of people protecting themselves and others with firearms happen all the time. I receive magazines and newsletters from the NRA. They always have stories about people who protected themselves by having a gun. However, that does not fit the liberal media's agenda and is rarely reported on.

I am sure that you have heard of Columbine High. But, have you heard of Pearl River? Probably not. In this case, a teenager on a murderous rampage was stopped when the Vice Principal retrieved a 45 caliber from his car.

I wouldn't be surprised that guns have helped to protect people, it's more preventing mass shooting that I'd wonder about like Sand asked. There probably is a "what if" type scenario that is hard, if not impossible to quantify.

Overheal

most shooting incidents dont make it past local media usually for one reason or another, most of the time because its not of national interest, like a citizen with CWP stopping a gunpoint robbery at a 711 - hardly going to stop CNN's rampant quest for missing planes and 3D graphics.

Brian?

Overheal wrote: »

most shooting incidents dont make it past local media usually for one reason or another, most of the time because its not of national interest, like a citizen with CWP stopping a gunpoint robbery at a 711 - hardly going to stop CNN's rampant quest for missing planes and 3D graphics.

That's because shootings are so common they only become note worthy when there's something odd about them; shooting a black child because you're standing your ground, shooting kids at school, shooting people watching batman etc.

Brian?

FISMA wrote: »

Instances of people protecting themselves and others with firearms happen all the time. I receive magazines and newsletters from the NRA. They always have stories about people who protected themselves by having a gun. However, that does not fit the liberal media's agenda and is rarely reported on.

You know what I find disturbing about this? A person is dead and the NRA are happy.

I am sure that you have heard of Columbine High. But, have you heard of Pearl River? Probably not. In this case, a teenager on a murderous rampage was stopped when the Vice Principal retrieved a 45 caliber from his car.

That should be better reported, you're right. But not to highlight how great it is that the vice principal killed someone.

Overheal

Brian? wrote: »

That's because shootings are so common they only become note worthy when there's something odd about them; shooting a black child because you're standing your ground, shooting kids at school, shooting people watching batman etc.

Thats the same everywhere. RTE doesn't shut down the broadcast station to bring you reports of a shooting in Limerick.

Manic Moran

Brian? wrote: »

That should be better reported, you're right. But not to highlight how great it is that the vice principal killed someone.

Actually, he didn't. In that case, the kid surrendered.

A person is dead and the NRA are happy.

If killing is necessary, there's nothing wrong with it, it's just unfortunate. It's not so much that the NRA are happy that someone is dead, as much as noting the validation of their position.

Brian?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Actually, he didn't. In that case, the kid surrendered.

Apologies, my mistake.

If killing is necessary, there's nothing wrong with it, it's just unfortunate. It's not so much that the NRA are happy that someone is dead, as much as noting the validation of their position.

I can't agree, there is always something wrong with a violent death.

FISMA

Brian? wrote: »

A person is dead and the NRA are happy.

Who said anything about killing?

You don't have to kill to deter, prevent, or protect.

Manic Moran

Brian? wrote: »

I can't agree, there is always something wrong with a violent death.

Sort of an idealistic position, isn't it? Sometimes it's the only practical or effective solution.

Brian?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Sort of an idealistic position, isn't it? Sometimes it's the only practical or effective solution.

I'm not allowed have ideals?

My moral code begins with: killing people is wrong, always.

It's the only moral absolute for me, everything else is shades of grey.

sin_city

Brian? wrote: »

I'm not allowed have ideals?

My moral code begins with: killing people is wrong, always.

It's the only moral absolute for me, everything else is shades of grey.

So if you had a shot from distance of killing an armed suicide bomber you would not take it?

You'd let him go about his business...trully shocking..Your dark side...only a sith deals in absolutes :cool:

Overheal

Seriously. Even Ceasar broke his Ape No Kill Ape rule

Brian?

sin_city wrote: »

So if you had a shot from distance of killing an armed suicide bomber you would not take it?

You'd let him go about his business...trully shocking..Your dark side...only a sith deals in absolutes :cool:

Yes, I often have a suicide bomber in my sights.

Am I supposed to make an impassioned defence of pacifism now? I won't because I know it's a waste of time.

For the record i have one moral absolute, so technically I don't deal in absolutes.

sin_city

Brian? wrote: »

For the record i have one moral absolute, so technically I don't deal in absolutes.

If the situation arose twice then you would be dealing in absolutes....Bloody sith :pac:

Manic Moran

Brian? wrote: »

I'm not allowed have ideals?

My moral code begins with: killing people is wrong, always.

It's the only moral absolute for me, everything else is shades of grey.

I can accept that it's your moral code, that's not a problem for me. When my unit was notified to go to Afghanistan, I was approached by one of my medics and the chaplain. He wanted a sort of modified conscientious objector status. He had no problem with going to war, but said he would not go with a firearm, as he did not believe he had the moral right to end someone else's life. My problem was that part of the role of a medic is the protection of the wounded and of himself, and that I (and the men of my unit) would rely upon him to perform that role. I appreciated his position, but told him I would not put my unit in the field with unarmed personnel. (It's not as if the Taliban were known for their treatment of prisoners, even unarmed ones). In the end, I exchanged him for another medic, and he spent his war in the base aid station providing good service there.

Of course, there are extremes. Three US soldiers who were awarded the Medal of Honor were conscientious objectors who refused to carry a weapon, serving in the field as field medics. (Then again, in the time of draft, the US Army may not have been that picky). On the other extreme, about two weeks ago a doctor ("do no harm", as the Hippocratic oath goes) in a US hospital responded to a shooting incident by drawing his own firearm and shooting the gunman, saving not only his own life, but the other staff and possibly patients in the hospital who were the targets of said gunman.

I think the practicalities of life should side with the doctor. That's why I say 'idealistic.' Perhaps not immoral, (and it's arguable that it is), but certainly impracticable if you value your own life.

NTM

Brian?

Manic Moran wrote: »

I can accept that it's your moral code, that's not a problem for me. When my unit was notified to go to Afghanistan, I was approached by one of my medics and the chaplain. He wanted a sort of modified conscientious objector status. He had no problem with going to war, but said he would not go with a firearm, as he did not believe he had the moral right to end someone else's life. My problem was that part of the role of a medic is the protection of the wounded and of himself, and that I (and the men of my unit) would rely upon him to perform that role. I appreciated his position, but told him I would not put my unit in the field with unarmed personnel. (It's not as if the Taliban were known for their treatment of prisoners, even unarmed ones). In the end, I exchanged him for another medic, and he spent his war in the base aid station providing good service there.

Anyone who volunteers for military duty and expects to remain a pacifist is deluded. I'm not sure why you're using the example above. If someone believes that all killing is wrong, joining the military is a poor decision. I realise in the past people have been conscripted and they have my sympathy.

Of course, there are extremes. Three US soldiers who were awarded the Medal of Honor were conscientious objectors who refused to carry a weapon, serving in the field as field medics. (Then again, in the time of draft, the US Army may not have been that picky). On the other extreme, about two weeks ago a doctor ("do no harm", as the Hippocratic oath goes) in a US hospital responded to a shooting incident by drawing his own firearm and shooting the gunman, saving not only his own life, but the other staff and possibly patients in the hospital who were the targets of said gunman.

I think the practicalities of life should side with the doctor. That's why I say 'idealistic.' Perhaps not immoral, (and it's arguable that it is), but certainly impracticable if you value your own life.

NTM

I value every life as much as my own, whereas the majority of people are quite content to justify killing. Calling pacifism "impractical" is a cop out, "it's too hard to be a pacifist so let's kill or be killed".

It wasn't me!

That's pretty much the essence of it though. There are cases of conflict where the point they might have been avoided by has long since elapsed and people find themselves thrust in situations, whether their own responsibility or now, where their choices do in fact amount to kill or be killed. In those situations, the impetus to not die is thrust into direct conflict with the desire to not kill, and as such, there needs to be a decision on whether you really value all lives equal to your own. In fact, it's probably not even possible. If you choose to die by the enemy so that you don't have to kill him, you've elevated the value of the enemy's life above your own. Similarly, if you kill him, you're merely responding to your own innate drive to not die. It's more complex than your absolute moral position allows for a sophisticated understanding of.

Paleface

Another example of why America is just completely lax on gun control. The ironic thing is that it happened in a situation that the NRA would normally champion as a model for how guns are strictly controlled i.e. a firing range. Kids of that age should be nowhere near guns!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28948946

Amerika

Paleface wrote: »

Another example of why America is just completely lax on gun control. The ironic thing is that it happened in a situation that the NRA would normally champion as a model for how guns are strictly controlled i.e. a firing range. Kids of that age should be nowhere near guns!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28948946

A tragic accident yes, but how is it “another example of why America is just completely lax on gun control?” Accidents can happen in the best of circumstances. Did she own, or buy the Uzi herself? And wasn’t she under the supervision of a trained shooting instructor? One can question the decision of why a 9 year old is shooting a high powered fully automatic machine gun in the first place, but it has nothing to do with lax gun control.

Paleface

Amerika wrote: »

A tragic accident yes, but how is it “another example of why America is just completely lax on gun control?” Accidents can happen in the best of circumstances. Did she own, or buy the Uzi herself? And wasn’t she under the supervision of a trained shooting instructor? One can question the decision of why a 9 year old is shooting a high powered fully automatic machine gun in the first place, but it has nothing to do with lax gun control.

The fact that a licensed gun range is allowed to put an uzi in the hands of a 9 year old highlights my point perfectly. Obviously you can't legislate for what happens in people's homes but as I said this was a licensed premises. You can't give alcohol to a 9 year old in a bar.

Amerika

Paleface wrote: »

The fact that a licensed gun range is allowed to put an uzi in the hands of a 9 year old highlights my point perfectly. Obviously you can't legislate for what happens in people's homes but as I said this was a licensed premises. You can't give alcohol to a 9 year old in a bar.

But you can put a 9 year old behind the controls of an airplane. There are even seven year old pilot trainees (and possible younger) who operate aircraft. An out-of-control airplane can cause a lot more damage than an Uzi. Are flying controls too lax?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

But you can put a 9 year old behind the controls of an airplane. There are even seven year old pilot trainees (and possible younger) who operate aircraft. An out-of-control airplane can cause a lot more damage than an Uzi. Are flying controls too lax?

If you can put a 7 year old in control of a plane, then yes. That's crazy.

Paleface

Amerika wrote: »

But you can put a 9 year old behind the controls of an airplane. There are even seven year old pilot trainees (and possible younger) who operate aircraft. An out-of-control airplane can cause a lot more damage than an Uzi. Are flying controls too lax?

Planes are not designed with the sole purpose of killing. Guns are. I think thats the main misconception Americans have with guns. You treat them like recreational items that any person should be able to use at will. Why not just give everyone some high explosives and speed up the process of accidental killings.

As for the plane comment there are many things that can go wrong with a plane and an experienced pilot will have the opportunity to correct them or at the very least land the plane safely. A gun does not afford you that luxury as this case shows.

Amerika

Paleface wrote: »

Planes are not designed with the sole purpose of killing. Guns are. I think thats the main misconception Americans have with guns. You treat them like recreational items that any person should be able to use at will. Why not just give everyone some high explosives and speed up the process of accidental killings.

As for the plane comment there are many things that can go wrong with a plane and an experienced pilot will have the opportunity to correct them or at the very least land the plane safely. A gun does not afford you that luxury as this case shows.

I’ve been shooting and have had guns from about 8 years old. I was on a rifle team sponsored by the local police department at 9. I fired a Thompson machine gun at 10. No one has ever been harmed by my account except for some furry and feathered creatures. Most Americans have great respect for what guns can do and are extremely safety conscious, thank you very much.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

If you can put a 7 year old in control of a plane, then yes. That's crazy.

The media loved it at the time.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/12/us/girl-7-seeking-us-flight-record-dies-in-crash.html

It's just guns that are evil?

Paleface

Amerika wrote: »

I’ve been shooting and have had guns from about 8 years old. I was on a rifle team sponsored by the local police department at 9. I fired a Thompson machine gun at 10. No one has ever been harmed by my account except for some furry and feathered creatures. Most Americans have great respect for what guns can do and are extremely safety conscious, thank you very much.

Maybe this girls father has the same story. Not much good to any of them now though.