nate5054
Hank Scorpio
Lucky to be alive in the Chris Jericho Era
Posts: 7,013
|
Post by nate5054 on Mar 16, 2014 2:13:55 GMT -5
Crime in the US in concentrated in small geographic areas, where it is exponentially greater than the average area of the country. The reasons for this amount of crime are numerous, and guns frankly are not a huge factor in and of themselves. My regular suburb has a ton of gun owners (by some survey 35% of Coloradans own guns, and I don't think Lakewood is much higher or lower than the average) and we recorded a whopping 2 murders in 2012 and have a 10 year median rate of 3 murders a year. Per 100k that averages about 2.1 murders per 100k people, about the murder rate of Norway.
In other words crime is seen as a massive problem from an international perspective in the United States, and while I'm not minimizing it, it's concentrated in areas that contain I'd wager 10-15% of the population. So internally it's seen as less of a problem when 85% of the population lives in areas that have crime rates roughly of Europe.
|
|
|
Post by Green Arrow on Mar 16, 2014 2:35:23 GMT -5
Guns don't kill people, lies from a 16yo girl kills people
|
|
|
Post by Danimal on Mar 16, 2014 2:57:05 GMT -5
Just to clarify: you're not saying that it's the fault of the person who was shot and killed that he was shot and killed, right? I wouldn't call it victim blaming, It's just a dumb idea to make any sudden movements when a dude has a gun aimed at you right after being thrown under a bus Thing is we don't know what the kid did. The dad has every reason to lie and go with the old "he reached for something" defense. The girl has shown she'll lie to stay in dad's good graces.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Mar 16, 2014 7:49:40 GMT -5
IF we were talking an armed robbery or something of that nature, I'd agree. But this goes well above and beyond a typical case, this is a dad who has reason to believe he just caught someone in the act of raping his daughter. If you put this exact situation outside the US, the boy isn't going to be shot, but he's probably going to be stabbed or have his head bashed in. Is he? Guns are kind of a one and done deal. A potential instant kill shot from a distance that in most ways separates you from the person you're killing. A knife or bat is a close quarter weapon that requires multiple blows or jabs to utilize mortally. It's something you directly deliver first hand, and therein perhaps have the presence of mind to maybe stop after knocking the boy out or simply wounding him to save your daughter. There's more room for rationalization and realization in those defense measures. The gun in all likelihood has eliminated all potential second guessing and rationale in that moment you squeeze the trigger by the very damage it causes. That said, within the current gun culture of the U.S., I understand the reasoning WHY someone would see this as logical defense. When you live in a climate wherein you absolutely have no idea if you yourself will be shot, or your child, you shoot first; you kill or be killed. But my point was the fallacy that potentially making handguns illegal gives criminals an undisputed advantage. Because in other cultures outside the U.S. wherein gun control is common place this is not at all the case. And crime rates are lower, and accidental shootings are virtually nonexistent. I'm going to stick with yes, actually. Your reasoning would suggest that it's the weapon itself that makes an injury more or less lethal, but that's not accurate. Guns are only one and done if they hit something critical, and surviving gun shot wounds is common. Knives are no different, if you nick a critical structure, they'll die quickly. Assuming he got shot in the chest or stomach, there's not a lot of room for error there. There are a lot of structures that, if hit, will lead to fairly quick death. That's why knifings have been considered a problem in the UK. Now yes, blunt objects are are a little different, yes, he may survive getting bashed in the skull, may being the operative word. It's about the force generated, but a bat is pretty much designed to generate enough force that would either kill or cause serious permanent mental harm. The difference between guns and knives isn't potential lethality of the weapon, it's distance. Injuries from both are commonly survived, but a single injury from either can be lethal. You say there is more room for rationalization and realization, but in this case I don't think that's accurate. Once you take into account what the dad likely was thinking (Someone is raping my daughter, won't listen to what I'm saying, and is reaching for something) then the notion or rationalization becomes fairly far fetched. Expecting people to act rationally or reasonably in a time of severe duress is always a mistake. If we were talking about that Florida case where the guy shot into a car playing rap music, I'd agree with you wholeheartedly that the weapon made matters worse. In this particular situation, I'm not sure that it did.
|
|
|
Post by The Truth on Mar 16, 2014 9:02:15 GMT -5
They got into an argument, and the boy wasn't listening to the dad's commands. I'd say one of those commands was "Get the f*** out of my house or I will shoot you." Well, he could just drag the kid's ass out of his house at gun point. Or immobilize him by shooting him in the legs or something, then call the cops. Shooting to kill in a situation like that is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Mar 16, 2014 9:24:44 GMT -5
Well, he could just drag the kid's ass out of his house at gun point. Or immobilize him by shooting him in the legs or something, then call the cops. Shooting to kill in a situation like that is ridiculous. Shooting to immobilize is, in general, a bad idea. It's hard to do, and if you do manage to do it, it's still runs a big risk of being lethal, thanks to this big thing called the femoral artery that could be damaged, either directly by the bullet or by the energy it brings with it. Shooting in the leg is more a Hollywood thing, you can't really intentionally immobilize a target with them in a real world situation with any degree of effectiveness. And when you take into account the mindset of the situation, it'd be far more to think about than most people would. Not saying that shooting the kid was the right move (hindsight being what it is), just that the shoot the legs line is Hollywood fluff more than anything you can actually put in practice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2014 10:31:32 GMT -5
Well, he could just drag the kid's ass out of his house at gun point. Or immobilize him by shooting him in the legs or something, then call the cops. Shooting to kill in a situation like that is ridiculous. Uh...do you realize that'd likely cripple the kid for life? In terms of perceived brutality that really isn't much better. You sound like you don't know how guns work in real life. They do a shit ton of damage no matter where you hit. And you can go with the "At least he'd still be alive if he'd aimed for the legs" stuff but like Red Impact said, even THAT isn't a given. So you have an alternative that, at best, ruins the kid's life, and at worst, kills him anyway. I mean, I'm just kinda shocked at your line of thinking here...
|
|
|
Post by Amazing Kitsune on Mar 16, 2014 12:52:55 GMT -5
Or immobilize him by shooting him in the legs or something, then call the cops. Shooting to kill in a situation like that is ridiculous. You sound like you don't know how guns work in real life. Yeah, if you're going to shoot somebody in a life-or-death situation you really shouldn't try to shoot-to-immobilize them. You need to try to shoot to stop the threat. This man, as his story goes, thought the young man was trying to grab for a weapon. In moments like that, you're endangering the lives of yourself and your family if you go for half-measures. There does seem to be a tendency among people who haven't been around guns much to attribute lots of things to them that simply aren't true. They don't really know how they work and they will often imply that simply owning a gun will make you a trigger-happy time bomb waiting to go off. I don't think people who don't own guns are crazy, so it really irks me when they imply that I'm crazy. When somebody says, "I hate guns", for example, it really boggles my mind. Guns are a tool like any other and their potential for good and bad depend on the person using them. If you've had a negative experience with guns, I suppose it makes sense to hate them--but you're really blaming an object when you should be blaming whatever caused the situation. Not desiring to own a gun is fine--hating them and demonizing people who own them is a little more problematic in my book. I am a proud gun owner. I have no desire to shoot anybody.
|
|
SAJ Forth
Wade Wilson
Jamaican WCF Crazy!
Half Man-Half Amazing
Posts: 27,214
|
Post by SAJ Forth on Mar 21, 2014 12:43:14 GMT -5
The strange message from this thread seems to be the father shouldn't have strange feelings for ending a life under any circumstances & that only the U.S. has people killing other people ever in the history of ever.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2014 12:59:53 GMT -5
Hey everyone, please keep in mind that people have differing opinions on gun control laws and gun safety, opinions often shaped by their experience with them. Thanks.
|
|