|
ratbert90 posted:Open fire? At least she attempted to call out and warn the guy. Maybe it would have been a good idea for her to, but it's not something that should be a "You must follow these steps before you can shoot someone." approach. The woman had some practice with the weapon but it was a high-stress situation for her, expecting precision from her in that case is unrealistic, quite frankly. We can't even get anything close to precision from the police and they're in theory supposed to be trained for such.
|
# ? Jan 11, 2013 22:45 |
|
|
# ? May 27, 2024 21:31 |
|
Taerkar posted:The woman had some practice with the weapon but it was a high-stress situation for her, expecting precision from her in that case is unrealistic, quite frankly. We can't even get anything close to precision from the police and they're in theory supposed to be trained for such.
|
# ? Jan 11, 2013 22:53 |
|
Sporadic posted:we shouldn't expect everybody else to adjust their behavior so that the misbehavers' actions do not have any negative effects Don't you realize you just did say that? You wanted her to choose a different course of action that would have resulted in less risk to the burglar and more risk to her.
|
# ? Jan 11, 2013 22:54 |
|
It looks like all these stupid memes are not going unnoticed. Here's an article debunking the "death spiral" claim that 11 states have more people on welfare than are working (mentioned a few pages back I believe). http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/01/11/169153282/spike-that-email-about-welfare-and-work-fact-checkers-say-its-not-true
|
# ? Jan 11, 2013 23:03 |
|
ratbert90 posted:She didn't have to answer the door. Pointing a gun at somebody is a threat escalation and involves the use of deadly force. Legally, it's only justified in cases where you feel your life is in danger. Whether that's ultimately the case or not doesn't matter, just as long as a jury agrees that a reasonable person in the same situation could come to the same conclusion. She locked the door, called police, fled to a secure area, and the guy continued to where she was - at that point I think he's a credible threat to her and her kids' safety, especially since they probably didn't have anywhere else to flee. Debating if the guy deserved to die for burglary is missing the point, just as the crazies that are lauding her for shooting a burglar are missing the point. He was shot in a context in which he was a threat to her life and safety, and without knowing his state of mind there's no way to tell if he "deserved" it. As for shooting six times and not killing him, it happens more often than you'd think, even with highly-trained personnel shooting to kill. And while there is a credible risk of overpenetration it's unlikely to make it through a person and several walls of a house and still have enough energy to hurt someone. An immediate threat to your life trumps the unlikely chance of injuring someone outside the house. Sporadic posted:Nobody has said that. What I find more disturbing is the husband emphasizing the use of the gun and to keep shooting, but it's at least understandable while he's listening to his wife and kids in danger.
|
# ? Jan 11, 2013 23:07 |
|
peak debt posted:Don't you realize you just did say that? You wanted her to choose a different course of action that would have resulted in less risk to the burglar and more risk to her. Are you loving stupid? I said that nobody would be talking about that story if she took a different course of action (from fleeing before he got in to yelling in an attempt to scare him off to only shooting him once) instead emptying her pistol in him before fleeing. That's far away from me wanting her to choose a different course of action for the burglar's benefit and a million miles away from peak debt posted:we shouldn't expect everybody else to adjust their behavior so that the misbehavers' actions do not have any negative effects.
|
# ? Jan 11, 2013 23:12 |
|
Taerkar posted:Maybe it would have been a good idea for her to, but it's not something that should be a "You must follow these steps before you can shoot someone." approach. I guess it depends on how you feel about taking a human life.
|
# ? Jan 11, 2013 23:45 |
|
seiferguy posted:A staunch conservative military guy posted this on FB: Aside from the already made points about the Greatest Generation basically inventing welfare, the cartoonist leaves out the fact that the current one has been fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.
|
# ? Jan 11, 2013 23:47 |
|
A tenured professor of mine (of engineering, natch) who's been edging toward libertarian-nutty for a while now just sent his entire student mailing list a link to some World Net Daily videos about an anti-gun conspiracy behind the Sandy Hook shooting. I can't even bear to watch them myself. http://www.wnd.com/wnd_video/sandy-hook-media-myths/ His commentary was "Question of the day. Are we getting played????"
|
# ? Jan 11, 2013 23:54 |
|
Pitch posted:A tenured professor of mine (of engineering, natch) who's been edging toward libertarian-nutty for a while now just sent his entire student mailing list a link to some World Net Daily videos about an anti-gun conspiracy behind the Sandy Hook shooting. I can't even bear to watch them myself. Looks like "A Scanner Debtly".
|
# ? Jan 12, 2013 00:07 |
|
Pitch posted:A tenured professor of mine (of engineering, natch) who's been edging toward libertarian-nutty for a while now just sent his entire student mailing list a link to some World Net Daily videos about an anti-gun conspiracy behind the Sandy Hook shooting. I can't even bear to watch them myself. Holy poo poo that video was loving long to make such a simple point. That could have been less then a minute and got across the same information. The point being dumb is the least offensive part of the video.
|
# ? Jan 12, 2013 00:21 |
|
DarkHorse posted:So it's okay to point the gun at him when he's at the door with a crowbar, but it's not okay when he's in her house and trying to enter the crawlspace she and her children are hiding in? quote:Pointing a gun at somebody is a threat escalation and involves the use of deadly force. Legally, it's only justified in cases where you feel your life is in danger. Whether that's ultimately the case or not doesn't matter, just as long as a jury agrees that a reasonable person in the same situation could come to the same conclusion. She locked the door, called police, fled to a secure area, and the guy continued to where she was - at that point I think he's a credible threat to her and her kids' safety, especially since they probably didn't have anywhere else to flee. quote:Debating if the guy deserved to die for burglary is missing the point, just as the crazies that are lauding her for shooting a burglar are missing the point. He was shot in a context in which he was a threat to her life and safety, and without knowing his state of mind there's no way to tell if he "deserved" it. However: Getting shot 6 loving times because you opened a door and (more than likely) didn't know anybody was there is also a really lovely thing to happen. It especially doesn't make it any better to know that it was probably a total surprise to him that anybody was actually there in the first place. Dying over stuff is not ok. It's just STUFF. quote:As for shooting six times and not killing him, it happens more often than you'd think, even with highly-trained personnel shooting to kill. And while there is a credible risk of overpenetration it's unlikely to make it through a person and several walls of a house and still have enough energy to hurt someone. An immediate threat to your life trumps the unlikely chance of injuring someone outside the house. quote:Did she have any other means of leaving the house? It doesn't sound unreasonable to shelter in your own home, and once it's been invaded you might not be able to escape without crossing paths with the intruder, in which case she'd be risking a confrontation with her kids and putting herself in danger. It's pretty disingenuous to say she was waiting for him, like a trap-door spider lying in wait or something.
|
# ? Jan 12, 2013 00:38 |
|
Found this old chestnut on my facebook
|
# ? Jan 12, 2013 00:42 |
|
Pitch posted:A tenured professor of mine (of engineering, natch) who's been edging toward libertarian-nutty for a while now just sent his entire student mailing list a link to some World Net Daily videos about an anti-gun conspiracy behind the Sandy Hook shooting. I can't even bear to watch them myself. Isn't this gross misconduct by a professor? I never experienced any of this poo poo while in engineering school
|
# ? Jan 12, 2013 00:44 |
|
Boondock Saint posted:The logic behind this one I really like this one (and the whole talking point) because of how subtly it dehumanizes people. It asks us to believe that there are two separate categories: non-criminals who obey all laws, and criminals who do not obey any. It's a completely absurd black-and-white viewpoint that rejects even the idea of empathy. It is a child's view of the world. It is also the exact same view espoused by anyone posting about how a robber is "scum" and no one should care what happens to them.
|
# ? Jan 12, 2013 01:08 |
|
I like how it relies on you not actually looking at the homicide statistics they quote. Yeah, "Non-Firearms" homicides are higher by about a quarter. This means that firearms are responsible for 3/4 the numbers of deaths caused by every single non-firearm using homicide. So taking murder committed by literally every single non-gun item in the world, and you'll still only beat firearms by ~25%.
|
# ? Jan 12, 2013 01:37 |
|
My Uncle posted:
|
# ? Jan 12, 2013 01:52 |
|
This was directly emailed to me from what I can only assume is an AM Radio show: from VoiceOfFreedom@inter.net quote:Excerpt from Muad'Dib's January 7th, 2013 Critical Mass Radio interview: These people makes me want to PUKE CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Jan 12, 2013 |
# ? Jan 12, 2013 01:54 |
|
Internet Webguy posted:I guess it depends on how you feel about taking a human life.
|
# ? Jan 12, 2013 02:01 |
|
Internet Webguy posted:I guess it depends on how you feel about taking a human life. I made a thread about these kinds of feelings, hopefully it doesn't turn into total poo poo right away. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3527837
|
# ? Jan 12, 2013 02:04 |
|
Obama runs (oversees, presumably) this incredibly detailed plot to fake massacres across the country, using an involved network of actors, and yet nobody realizes that the same little girl is in a picture that's supposed to be dead? A picture with the President? And people just say "yeah, ok, that probably happened"
|
# ? Jan 12, 2013 02:06 |
|
CommieGIR posted:This was directly emailed to me from what I can only assume is an AM Radio show: I appreciate that the writer/speaker/whatever identifies as the messiah of Space Islam.
|
# ? Jan 12, 2013 02:07 |
|
quote:There will be more incidents like this, which are made for television, until they manage to persuade the American people to give up their guns. And then they'll start killing the Americans. Because the Americans are the only people stopping them from doing what they want to do already. They know they can't put their next phase, which is reducing the world's population, they can't put that phase into operation whilst the Americans have got millions! President Obama sits in the war room, looking at the horror unfold on the screen in front of him. "Our drones, fighter jets, and battleships are useless against their rifles!" So wait. The premise is that the government wants to kill foreign people. The statement assumes that Americans are against killing foreign people as a whole, which I'm not entirely sure is true for some Americans. Somehow, Americans having guns prevents us from going to other countries and killing people there, but the Iraq war still happened as far as I remember? So the government needs to take away guns to kill Americans so they can kill foreign people. Except if Americans didn't have guns, then even assuming guns are the reason the government can't kill foreigners, then the government wouldn't need to kill Americans because they'd be powerless to stop the government anyway...
|
# ? Jan 12, 2013 02:09 |
|
Law enforcement officers kill armed people all the drat time. I can't wait for some armed idiot to take out a police officer or federal agent with the claim that he was defending himself against tyranny. Oh wait, that's happened before and nobody ever loving believes it.
|
# ? Jan 12, 2013 02:20 |
|
I'm not even sure where these figures are from. I can't find a single source that even has total non-firearm homicides greater than firearm-related ones. This FBI link says that in 2011 there were about 12.6 thousand homicides of which 8.5 thousand were with guns. 8.5k gun deaths > 4.1k not The CDC (second link on page is full PDF) says that in 2009 there were 11.5 thousand firearm homicides with 5.3 thousand occurring by other means. 11.5k gun deaths > 5.3 not. In both cases, about twice as many deaths caused by guns. I guess in the past year people started using baseball bats instead of guns. The mention of baseball bats is a complete red herring as well, any breakdown of other causes creates a lump category for all blunt weapons. There are no stats for individual objects. Blunt weapons also fall behind knives/blades and personal weapons (your body), the two most common causes of non-gun homicide. Ror fucked around with this message at 05:32 on Jan 12, 2013 |
# ? Jan 12, 2013 02:27 |
|
swiss_army_chainsaw posted:Law enforcement officers kill armed people all the drat time. I can't wait for some armed idiot to take out a police officer or federal agent with the claim that he was defending himself against tyranny. Oh wait, that's happened before and nobody ever loving believes it. Somehow patriotism and fighting tyranny always predicates on the basis that you are in the right no matter what. I think this is closer to reality: There are no real patriots.
|
# ? Jan 12, 2013 02:30 |
|
Hey guys, the purpose of this thread is to post silly forwarded emails and scoff at them. We have a separate thread if you want to have a deeper discussion about gun control reform and a whole forum if you want to talk about guns. Let's keep things in here a little lighter and focus on laughing at silly email forwards. Thanks!
|
# ? Jan 12, 2013 02:31 |
|
Has no one else seen anything about the shooting in California?
|
# ? Jan 12, 2013 03:45 |
|
ultimateforce posted:Has no one else seen anything about the shooting in California? No, probably because the school staff talked him down instead of one of them shooting him with their concealed carry pistol. BOR-ING.
|
# ? Jan 12, 2013 04:08 |
|
edit: oh hey there fast moving thread.
|
# ? Jan 12, 2013 05:29 |
|
So this "Stalin, Mao, and Hitler enacted gun control!" thing seems to be a really popular talking point right now. I know that Hitler restricted guns for Jews and loosened more restrictive Weimar-era laws for Germans, but what about Stalin and Mao? My instinct is that there weren't a ton of privately owned guns in the hands of Chinese peasants in 1950, but it seems like WWII might have inundated the USSR with weapons. Did either Stalin or Mao actually enact any kind of meaningful gun control like the right seems to be fantasizing about Obama implementing?
|
# ? Jan 12, 2013 07:45 |
|
Fandyien posted:So this "Stalin, Mao, and Hitler enacted gun control!" thing seems to be a really popular talking point right now. I know that Hitler restricted guns for Jews and loosened more restrictive Weimar-era laws for Germans, but what about Stalin and Mao? My instinct is that there weren't a ton of privately owned guns in the hands of Chinese peasants in 1950, but it seems like WWII might have inundated the USSR with weapons. Did either Stalin or Mao actually enact any kind of meaningful gun control like the right seems to be fantasizing about Obama implementing?
|
# ? Jan 12, 2013 08:24 |
|
Amused to Death posted:If you're talking about Vietnam, most people from that generation were the people who wound putting Reagan into office and began to dismantle New Deal and Great Society programs. Although if you're calling WW2 a bullshit war, I don't know what to tell you in that case.
|
# ? Jan 12, 2013 08:26 |
|
Kind of an aside to Fandyien's point, but what I find interesting about the "Hitler banned guns!" meme is the countries that are not brought up- Poland, France, Denmark and the whole rest of occupied Europe. Why is it only gun control in Germany that mattered in hypothetically stopping the war and/or Holocaust?
|
# ? Jan 12, 2013 08:31 |
Kavak posted:Kind of an aside to Fandyien's point, but what I find interesting about the "Hitler banned guns!" meme is the countries that are not brought up- Poland, France, Denmark and the whole rest of occupied Europe. Why is it only gun control in Germany that mattered in hypothetically stopping the war and/or Holocaust? It raises a good point. Other than the consequences of losing the war, were the Nazis really that bad for the average German? They were horrific for Jews/Gypsies and other minorities, but were they really unpopular with the populace as a whole? I haven't read or listened to any of Hitler's speeches. I am happy to be proven wrong, but I doubt they were full of anti-freedom rhetoric or read like someone making a really obvious statement about taking away rights.
|
|
# ? Jan 12, 2013 08:37 |
|
Armyman25 posted:It raises a good point. Other than the consequences of losing the war, were the Nazis really that bad for the average German? They were horrific for Jews/Gypsies and other minorities, but were they really unpopular with the populace as a whole?
|
# ? Jan 12, 2013 08:44 |
|
I forgot also the dissent that came from the religious angle, ranging from people like Niemoller to the Bishop of Munster.
|
# ? Jan 12, 2013 08:50 |
What percentage of the population was that though?
|
|
# ? Jan 12, 2013 08:51 |
|
Armyman25 posted:What percentage of the population was that though? 1. What is Germany? Is it the Germany before the Anschluss, before the annexation of the Sudetenland? Areas where Germans are living? Areas where some Germans are living but not others? Germany's post 1945 borders? Pre 1919 borders? This leads into 2. Who is a German? Do you count only people living in the 1919-1938 borders of Germany? Austrians in '39? Danzigers in '40? This leads into 3. What year is it? The Reich lasted for 12 years. You want to talk about German opinions of the Hitler regime during the takeover in '33 or '34? The relatively stable peacetime years of '35-'38? '43, when the casualty lists get longer, the food gets shorter, and the bombs at night more frequent? Also what do you consider direct support for the regime? Do you consider support for one program support for the entire slate of Nazi actions? Do you consider someone's nationalist pride for Germany to be support of Nazi ideals? Do you consider the support of German military actions to be tacit support of Nazi social engineering? I do believe collective guilt applies and that almost every German compromised themselves in some way. That's what the system was all about. You have to also understand that the average German was pretty terrified of the Gestapo. It turns out there were a lot fewer Gestapo agents around than the average person actually believed. In the end I think it's an impossible question. Here's two things that illustrate the complexity of the issue. A protest in Berlin, the capitol of the Reich, at the height of the war, that was successful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenstrasse_protest A popular speech by Goebbels, right at the same time, listened to by everyone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sportpalast_speech
|
# ? Jan 12, 2013 09:22 |
|
|
# ? May 27, 2024 21:31 |
|
Implied the constitution might be outdated in a 2nd amendment argument on FB, got called a communist and nazi...
|
# ? Jan 12, 2013 10:13 |