|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
Magazines are back in the news, pretty soon after we had our own discussion of them. A judge in California struck down California's ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. It's a "severe restriction on the core right of self-defense of the home such that it amounts to a destruction of the right and is unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny" according to the judge. The decision reflects some of my own thinking and approach on the subject. I'll quote directly from the ruling in sections.
On whether or not magazine size matters, anecdotally:
As two masked and armed men broke in, Susan Gonzalez was shot in the chest. She made it back to her bedroom and found her husband’s .22 caliber pistol. Wasting the first rounds on warning shots, she then emptied the single pistol at one attacker. Unfortunately, now out of ammunition, she was shot again by the other armed attacker.
She was not able to re-load or use a second gun. Both she and her husband were shot twice. Forty-two bullets in all were fired. The gunman fled from the house—but returned. He put his gun to Susan Gonzalez’s head and demanded the keys to the couple’s truck.
When three armed intruders carrying what look like semi-automatic pistols broke into the home of a single woman at 3:44 a.m., she dialed 911. No answer. Feng Zhu Chen, dressed in pajamas, held a phone in one hand and took up her
pistol in the other and began shooting. She fired numerous shots. She had no place to carry an extra magazine and no way to reload because her left hand held the phone with which she was still trying to call 911. After the shooting was over and two of the armed suspects got away and one lay dead, she did get through to the police. The home security camera video is dramatic.
A mother, Melinda Herman, and her nine-year-old twins were at home when an intruder broke in. She and her twins retreated to an upstairs crawl space and hid. Fortunately, she had a .38 caliber revolver. She would need it. The intruder worked his way upstairs, broke through a locked bedroom door and a locked bathroom door, and opened the crawl space door. The family was cornered with no place to run. He stood staring at her and her two children. The mother shot six times, hitting the intruder five times, when she ran out of ammunition. Though injured, the intruder was not incapacitated. Fortunately, he decided to flee.
On self-defense, the needs of which are often disputed here in this thread as elsewhere:
In one year in California (2017), a population of 39 million people endured 56,609 robberies, 105,391 aggravated assaults, and 95,942 residential burglaries.5 There were also 423 homicides in victims’ residences.6 There were no mass shootings in 2017. Nationally, the first study to assess the prevalence of defensive gun use estimated that there are 2.2 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses by civilians each year. Of those, 340,000 to 400,000 defensive gun uses were situations where defenders believed that they had almost certainly saved a life by using the gun.7 Citizens often use a gun to defend against criminal attack. A Special Report by the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics published in 2013, reported that between 2007 and 2011 “there were 235,700 victimizations where the victim used a firearm to threaten or attack an offender.”8 How many more instances are never reported to, or recorded by, authorities? According to another U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special Report, for each year between 2003 and 2007, an estimated 266,560 burglaries occurred during which a
person at home became a victim of a violent crime or a “home invasion.”9 “Households composed of single females with children had the highest rate of burglary while someone was at home.”10 Of the burglaries by a stranger where violence occurred, the assailant was armed with a firearm in 73,000 instances annually (on average).11 During a burglary,rape or sexual assault occurred 6,387 times annually (on average), while a homicide occurred approximately 430 times annually on average).12
Fortunately, the Second Amendment protects a person’s right to keep and bear firearms.
On using a 10 round ban as an experiment for preventing mass shootings: If a law-abiding, responsible citizen in California decides that a handgun or rifle with a magazine larger than 10 rounds is the best choice for defending her hearth and home, may the State deny the choice, declare the magazine a “nuisance,” and jail the citizen for the crime of possession? The Attorney General says that is what voters want in hopes of preventing a rare, but horrible, mass shooting. The plaintiffs, who are also citizens and residents of California, say that while the goal of preventing mass shootings is laudable, banning the acquisition and possession of magazines holding more than 10 rounds is an unconstitutional experiment that poorly fits the goal. From a public policy perspective, the choices are difficult and complicated. People may cede liberty to their government in exchange for the promise of safety. Or government may gain compliance from its people by forcibly disarming all.13 In the United States, the Second Amendment takes the legislative experiment off the table.14 Regardless of current popularity, neither a legislature nor voters may trench on constitutional rights. “An unconstitutional statute adopted by a dozen jurisdictions is no less unconstitutional by virtue of its popularity.” Silveira, 312 at 1091.
On the drive for gun control based on disparate media attention:
Who has not heard about the Newtown, Connecticut, mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, or the one at a high school in Parkland, Florida? But an individual victim gets little, if any, media attention, and the attention he or she gets is local and short-lived. For example, who has heard about the home invasion attack on Melinda Herman and her twin nine-year old daughters in Georgia only one month after the Sandy Hook incident?15 Who has heard of the attacks on Ms. Zhu Chen or Ms. Gonzalez and her husband?16 Are the lives of these victims worth any less than those lost in a mass shooting? Would their deaths be any less tragic? Unless there are a lot of individual victims together, the tragedy goes largely unnoticed.
That is why mass shootings can seem to be a common problem, but in fact, are exceedingly rare. At the same time robberies, rapes, and murders of individuals are common, but draw little public notice. As in the year 2017, in 2016 there were numerous robberies, rapes, and murders of individuals in California and no mass shootings.17
Are magazine bans actually effective when shooters can easily reload?
The State argues that smaller magazines create a “critical pause” in the shooting of a mass killer. “The prohibition of LCMs helps create a “critical pause” that has been proven to give victims an opportunity to hide, escape, or disable a shooter.” Def. Oppo., at 19. This may be the case for attackers. On the other hand, from the perspective of a victim trying to defend her home and family, the time required to re-load a pistol after the tenth shot might be called a “lethal pause,” as it typically takes a victim much longer to re-load (if they can do it at all) than a perpetrator planning an attack. In other words, the
re-loading “pause” the State seeks in hopes of stopping a mass shooter, also tends to create an even more dangerous time for every victim who must try to defend herself with a small-capacity magazine. The need to re-load and the lengthy pause that comes with banning all but small-capacity magazines is especially unforgiving for victims who are disabled, or who have arthritis, or who are trying to hold a phone in their off-hand while attempting to call for police help. The good that a re-loading pause might do in the extremely rare mass shooting incident is vastly outweighed by the harm visited on
manifold law-abiding, citizen-victims who must also pause while under attack. This blanket ban without any tailoring to these types of needs goes to show § 32310’s lack of reasonable fit.
On the much disparaged, but still cited extreme situations:
When thousands of people are rioting, as happened in Los Angeles in 1992, or more recently with Antifa members in Berkeley in 2017, a 10-round limit for self-defense is a severe burden. When a group of armed burglars break into a citizen's home at night, and the homeowner in pajamas must choose between using their left hand to grab either a telephone, a flashlight, or an extra 10-round magazine, the burden is severe. When one is far from help in a sparsely populated part of the state, and law enforcement may not be able to respond in a timely manner, the burden of a 10-round limit is severe. When a major earthquake causes power outages, gas and water line ruptures, collapsed bridges and buildings, and chaos, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe. When food distribution channels are disrupted and sustenance becomes scarce while criminals run rampant, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe. Surely, the rights protected by the Second Amendment are not to be trimmed away as unnecessary because today's litigation happens during the best of times. It may be the best of times in Sunnyvale; it may be the worst of times in Bombay Beach or Potrero. California's ban covers the entire state at all times.
Conclusion (and read the decision to see points argued):
Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are “arms.” California Penal Code Section 32310, as amended by Proposition 63, burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state. The regulation is neither presumptively legal nor longstanding. The statute hits at the center of the Second Amendment and its burden is severe. When the simple test of Heller is applied, a test that persons of common intelligence can understand, the statute fails and is an unconstitutional abridgment. It criminalizes the otherwise lawful acquisition and possession of common magazines holding more than 10 rounds – magazines that lawabiding responsible citizens would choose for self-defense at home. It also fails the strict scrutiny test because the statute is not narrowly tailored – it is not tailored at all. Even under the more forgiving test of intermediate scrutiny, the statute fails because it is not a reasonable fit. It is not a reasonable fit because, among other things, it prohibits lawabiding concealed carry weapon permit holders and law-abiding U.S Armed Forces veterans from acquiring magazines and instead forces them to dispossess themselves of lawfully-owned gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds or suffer criminal penalties. Finally, subsections (c) and (d) of § 32310 impose an unconstitutional taking without compensation upon Plaintiffs and all those who lawfully possess magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds.68
Accordingly, based upon the law and the evidence, upon which there is no genuine issue, and for the reasons stated in this opinion, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted.69
California Penal Code § 32310 is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety and shall be enjoined.
This decision is a freedom calculus decided long ago by Colonists who cherished individual freedom more than the subservient security of a British ruler. The freedom they fought for was not free of cost then, and it is not free now.
It's a good victory for gun rights proponents like myself. It quotes a lot from Heller and relies mainly on the rights guaranteed by the second amendment. I know most of these arguments have already been heard by many here, but maybe they're framed in such a way as to discourage the next bout of alleging that nobody thinks the views make any sense.
|
the 3 cases you provided anecdotally do nothing to promote your cause.
in the first case its evident that the attackers werent afraid of having a shoot out. it makes no difference whether the home owners have 5 bullets or 50; the end result was a hollywood style shooting and the armed robbers still getting what they wanted, with the husband and wife both incurring injuries. the same result minus the injuries could have been achieved by just not retaliating in the first place.
the woman in the 2nd case does not make use of an extra magazine and manages to fend off an attack. i dont see how this case is evidence that a bigger magazine is necessary. she succeeded in self defense with a smaller one. ?????
the 3rd case is an precise example of how armed robbers are typically not looking to murder owners and why guns for self defense is stupid. the guy saw a mother and her children and "stared", implying that he had no intention of causing harm to innocent people. despite this the woman shoots 5 times and the attacker flees, luckily not dying. this is supposed to be a success story in promotion of firearms for self defense? wtf? the woman almost kills a guy that apparently showed no intent of provoking her or her children
and since i havent been following every post thats been in this thread lately i have a question for the self defense with firearms advocates. if you plan on fighting off all your attackers with firearms in order to protect your property, do you pay for home and contents insurance and if so, why? if youd rather have a shootout in your home to protect your belongings id imagine that paying for someone to compensate you when youre robbed is counter intuitive.
|
In the first case, it's both evident that she doesn't have the training to keep herself calm in dangerous situations, and the fact that the inteuders didn't want to kill them (as they had the chance after she was disarmed, and they decided not to do it, despite one if them having been shot a whopping 5 times). Her family would have been more safe without a gun to defend herself with.. Also maybe look into the fact that she called 911 and didn't get an answer. How in the absolute fuck is that acceptable?! That should be the biggest takeaway here. When I call 911 I expect an immediate reaponce and swift actions: Lives are at stake!
Less guns overall means less reasons to need one for self defence. You only need one right now exactly because the intruder is very likely to have one himself, which ends up in a bloodbath rather than some valuables lost. A lot of cases where the burglar is stronger than the defendant and wants to commitviolence, but isn't armed, can be solved with self defence tools like sprays and stun guns.
I agree that 10 round magazines is a stupid solution. It should be 5..!
|
On April 04 2019 14:24 Danglars wrote:Magazines are back in the news, pretty soon after we had our own discussion of them. A judge in California struck down California's ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. It's a "severe restriction on the core right of self-defense of the home such that it amounts to a destruction of the right and is unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny" according to the judge. The decision reflects some of my own thinking and approach on the subject. I'll quote directly from the ruling in sections. On whether or not magazine size matters, anecdotally: Show nested quote +As two masked and armed men broke in, Susan Gonzalez was shot in the chest. She made it back to her bedroom and found her husband’s .22 caliber pistol. Wasting the first rounds on warning shots, she then emptied the single pistol at one attacker. Unfortunately, now out of ammunition, she was shot again by the other armed attacker.
She was not able to re-load or use a second gun. Both she and her husband were shot twice. Forty-two bullets in all were fired. The gunman fled from the house—but returned. He put his gun to Susan Gonzalez’s head and demanded the keys to the couple’s truck.
When three armed intruders carrying what look like semi-automatic pistols broke into the home of a single woman at 3:44 a.m., she dialed 911. No answer. Feng Zhu Chen, dressed in pajamas, held a phone in one hand and took up her
pistol in the other and began shooting. She fired numerous shots. She had no place to carry an extra magazine and no way to reload because her left hand held the phone with which she was still trying to call 911. After the shooting was over and two of the armed suspects got away and one lay dead, she did get through to the police. The home security camera video is dramatic.
A mother, Melinda Herman, and her nine-year-old twins were at home when an intruder broke in. She and her twins retreated to an upstairs crawl space and hid. Fortunately, she had a .38 caliber revolver. She would need it. The intruder worked his way upstairs, broke through a locked bedroom door and a locked bathroom door, and opened the crawl space door. The family was cornered with no place to run. He stood staring at her and her two children. The mother shot six times, hitting the intruder five times, when she ran out of ammunition. Though injured, the intruder was not incapacitated. Fortunately, he decided to flee. On self-defense, the needs of which are often disputed here in this thread as elsewhere: Show nested quote +In one year in California (2017), a population of 39 million people endured 56,609 robberies, 105,391 aggravated assaults, and 95,942 residential burglaries.5 There were also 423 homicides in victims’ residences.6 There were no mass shootings in 2017. Nationally, the first study to assess the prevalence of defensive gun use estimated that there are 2.2 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses by civilians each year. Of those, 340,000 to 400,000 defensive gun uses were situations where defenders believed that they had almost certainly saved a life by using the gun.7 Citizens often use a gun to defend against criminal attack. A Special Report by the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics published in 2013, reported that between 2007 and 2011 “there were 235,700 victimizations where the victim used a firearm to threaten or attack an offender.”8 How many more instances are never reported to, or recorded by, authorities? According to another U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special Report, for each year between 2003 and 2007, an estimated 266,560 burglaries occurred during which a
person at home became a victim of a violent crime or a “home invasion.”9 “Households composed of single females with children had the highest rate of burglary while someone was at home.”10 Of the burglaries by a stranger where violence occurred, the assailant was armed with a firearm in 73,000 instances annually (on average).11 During a burglary,rape or sexual assault occurred 6,387 times annually (on average), while a homicide occurred approximately 430 times annually on average).12
Fortunately, the Second Amendment protects a person’s right to keep and bear firearms. On using a 10 round ban as an experiment for preventing mass shootings: Show nested quote +If a law-abiding, responsible citizen in California decides that a handgun or rifle with a magazine larger than 10 rounds is the best choice for defending her hearth and home, may the State deny the choice, declare the magazine a “nuisance,” and jail the citizen for the crime of possession? The Attorney General says that is what voters want in hopes of preventing a rare, but horrible, mass shooting. The plaintiffs, who are also citizens and residents of California, say that while the goal of preventing mass shootings is laudable, banning the acquisition and possession of magazines holding more than 10 rounds is an unconstitutional experiment that poorly fits the goal. From a public policy perspective, the choices are difficult and complicated. People may cede liberty to their government in exchange for the promise of safety. Or government may gain compliance from its people by forcibly disarming all.13 In the United States, the Second Amendment takes the legislative experiment off the table.14 Regardless of current popularity, neither a legislature nor voters may trench on constitutional rights. “An unconstitutional statute adopted by a dozen jurisdictions is no less unconstitutional by virtue of its popularity.” Silveira, 312 at 1091. On the drive for gun control based on disparate media attention: Show nested quote +Who has not heard about the Newtown, Connecticut, mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, or the one at a high school in Parkland, Florida? But an individual victim gets little, if any, media attention, and the attention he or she gets is local and short-lived. For example, who has heard about the home invasion attack on Melinda Herman and her twin nine-year old daughters in Georgia only one month after the Sandy Hook incident?15 Who has heard of the attacks on Ms. Zhu Chen or Ms. Gonzalez and her husband?16 Are the lives of these victims worth any less than those lost in a mass shooting? Would their deaths be any less tragic? Unless there are a lot of individual victims together, the tragedy goes largely unnoticed.
That is why mass shootings can seem to be a common problem, but in fact, are exceedingly rare. At the same time robberies, rapes, and murders of individuals are common, but draw little public notice. As in the year 2017, in 2016 there were numerous robberies, rapes, and murders of individuals in California and no mass shootings.17 Are magazine bans actually effective when shooters can easily reload? Show nested quote +The State argues that smaller magazines create a “critical pause” in the shooting of a mass killer. “The prohibition of LCMs helps create a “critical pause” that has been proven to give victims an opportunity to hide, escape, or disable a shooter.” Def. Oppo., at 19. This may be the case for attackers. On the other hand, from the perspective of a victim trying to defend her home and family, the time required to re-load a pistol after the tenth shot might be called a “lethal pause,” as it typically takes a victim much longer to re-load (if they can do it at all) than a perpetrator planning an attack. In other words, the
re-loading “pause” the State seeks in hopes of stopping a mass shooter, also tends to create an even more dangerous time for every victim who must try to defend herself with a small-capacity magazine. The need to re-load and the lengthy pause that comes with banning all but small-capacity magazines is especially unforgiving for victims who are disabled, or who have arthritis, or who are trying to hold a phone in their off-hand while attempting to call for police help. The good that a re-loading pause might do in the extremely rare mass shooting incident is vastly outweighed by the harm visited on
manifold law-abiding, citizen-victims who must also pause while under attack. This blanket ban without any tailoring to these types of needs goes to show § 32310’s lack of reasonable fit. On the much disparaged, but still cited extreme situations: Show nested quote +When thousands of people are rioting, as happened in Los Angeles in 1992, or more recently with Antifa members in Berkeley in 2017, a 10-round limit for self-defense is a severe burden. When a group of armed burglars break into a citizen's home at night, and the homeowner in pajamas must choose between using their left hand to grab either a telephone, a flashlight, or an extra 10-round magazine, the burden is severe. When one is far from help in a sparsely populated part of the state, and law enforcement may not be able to respond in a timely manner, the burden of a 10-round limit is severe. When a major earthquake causes power outages, gas and water line ruptures, collapsed bridges and buildings, and chaos, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe. When food distribution channels are disrupted and sustenance becomes scarce while criminals run rampant, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe. Surely, the rights protected by the Second Amendment are not to be trimmed away as unnecessary because today's litigation happens during the best of times. It may be the best of times in Sunnyvale; it may be the worst of times in Bombay Beach or Potrero. California's ban covers the entire state at all times. Conclusion (and read the decision to see points argued): Show nested quote +Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are “arms.” California Penal Code Section 32310, as amended by Proposition 63, burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state. The regulation is neither presumptively legal nor longstanding. The statute hits at the center of the Second Amendment and its burden is severe. When the simple test of Heller is applied, a test that persons of common intelligence can understand, the statute fails and is an unconstitutional abridgment. It criminalizes the otherwise lawful acquisition and possession of common magazines holding more than 10 rounds – magazines that lawabiding responsible citizens would choose for self-defense at home. It also fails the strict scrutiny test because the statute is not narrowly tailored – it is not tailored at all. Even under the more forgiving test of intermediate scrutiny, the statute fails because it is not a reasonable fit. It is not a reasonable fit because, among other things, it prohibits lawabiding concealed carry weapon permit holders and law-abiding U.S Armed Forces veterans from acquiring magazines and instead forces them to dispossess themselves of lawfully-owned gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds or suffer criminal penalties. Finally, subsections (c) and (d) of § 32310 impose an unconstitutional taking without compensation upon Plaintiffs and all those who lawfully possess magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds.68
Accordingly, based upon the law and the evidence, upon which there is no genuine issue, and for the reasons stated in this opinion, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted.69
California Penal Code § 32310 is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety and shall be enjoined.
This decision is a freedom calculus decided long ago by Colonists who cherished individual freedom more than the subservient security of a British ruler. The freedom they fought for was not free of cost then, and it is not free now. It's a good victory for gun rights proponents like myself. It quotes a lot from Heller and relies mainly on the rights guaranteed by the second amendment. I know most of these arguments have already been heard by many here, but maybe they're framed in such a way as to discourage the next bout of alleging that nobody thinks the views make any sense.
I don't necessarily think 10 round magazines are too much, but I do think that is the upper limit... and I also think that there is merit to making the argument that 5 rounds might prevent a lot of deaths. I have a major problem with magazine sizes of 20-30.
This decision cites 3 examples? I would state again that there are far more examples of people just outright being killed by guns than getting into some back and forth fight.
If someone really wants to shoot someone else, they will hide, wait for a time the other person is blindsided by it, and do it before they even realize what happened. It's largely a myth that anyone will have opportunity to "go for their gun" for protection.
If people want effective weapons for self defense, get a shotgun, not a 22. six rounds in a shotgun will do a lot, hell let them have 10. Those kinds of weapons are ideal for home defense.
*At best, suggesting larger magazines would saved any of these people is complete conjecture. Even if the defender has a larger magazine, the attacker would also have one. What boosts one side, boosts the other as well.
The talk about a "critical pause" is just another side of the coin, because reload does give the opposing side a chance to do something to save them... run, fight, etc...
But when you remove the critical pause it benefits or hurts both sides of the confrontation, its all circumstantial. So you say low magazine size hurts self defense, but it also hurts attackers. At best all these arguments are circumstantial and all of them can easily be argued in reverse.
This decision really just comes down to arguing constitutional text again.
|
One thing I think is frequently left out of this discussion (which mostly feels really cerebral and oriented around proving a point) is the damage guns more often than not do to our society, and the stories of the people damaged by them.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/13/us/georgia-girl-shot-by-brother/index.html
And when we do look at the damage cause, we often focus on who was actually shot and killed; the life lost. Which we should focus on them, that is the highest tragedy, but the damaged cause goes beyond the person killed.
In this case there is the boy who shot and killed his sister, 4 years old, who could not have know what he was doing, that will forever struggle with the pain of having killed his sister and the trauma of witnessing the whole thing.
And the mother who will most likely emotionally suffers blame herself for the entirety of her life.
And a father who will do the same.
Not to mention the friends of both children, who won't understanding what is happening, but will see their friends suffer.
And it will reach out into the community past that.
|
On April 14 2019 04:44 ShambhalaWar wrote:One thing I think is frequently left out of this discussion (which mostly feels really cerebral and oriented around proving a point) is the damage guns more often than not do to our society, and the stories of the people damaged by them. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/13/us/georgia-girl-shot-by-brother/index.htmlAnd when we do look at the damage cause, we often focus on who was actually shot and killed; the life lost. Which we should focus on them, that is the highest tragedy, but the damaged cause goes beyond the person killed. In this case there is the boy who shot and killed his sister, 4 years old, who could not have know what he was doing, that will forever struggle with the pain of having killed his sister and the trauma of witnessing the whole thing. And the mother who will most likely emotionally suffers blame herself for the entirety of her life. And a father who will do the same. Not to mention the friends of both children, who won't understanding what is happening, but will see their friends suffer. And it will reach out into the community past that.
Whether it's gun violence, addiction, or suicide (gun related or not) along with a whole host of other issues, they all need to be viewed as the social failures they are rather than individual shortcoming it's easier to make them imo.
|
On April 14 2019 04:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2019 04:44 ShambhalaWar wrote:One thing I think is frequently left out of this discussion (which mostly feels really cerebral and oriented around proving a point) is the damage guns more often than not do to our society, and the stories of the people damaged by them. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/13/us/georgia-girl-shot-by-brother/index.htmlAnd when we do look at the damage cause, we often focus on who was actually shot and killed; the life lost. Which we should focus on them, that is the highest tragedy, but the damaged cause goes beyond the person killed. In this case there is the boy who shot and killed his sister, 4 years old, who could not have know what he was doing, that will forever struggle with the pain of having killed his sister and the trauma of witnessing the whole thing. And the mother who will most likely emotionally suffers blame herself for the entirety of her life. And a father who will do the same. Not to mention the friends of both children, who won't understanding what is happening, but will see their friends suffer. And it will reach out into the community past that. Whether it's gun violence, addiction, or suicide (gun related or not) along with a whole host of other issues, they all need to be viewed as the social failures they are rather than individual shortcoming it's easier to make them imo.
I think I agree with that statement.
Here is another example of someone getting hurt (or could have been killed) unnecessarily with a gun, and this example was by a trained professional.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/13/us/jail-shooting-no-charges/
To your point, I think we could make the argument stronger social awareness and training with firearms and how to use them could have prevented a situation like this.
Or less firearms overall in the culture... it apparently doesn't seem to matter how much training someone has, life threatening mistakes still happen.
|
United States24741 Posts
On April 15 2019 02:34 ShambhalaWar wrote:
Or less firearms overall in the culture... it apparently doesn't seem to matter how much training someone has, life threatening mistakes still happen.
How much training someone has is very much important. Training won't 100% eliminate mistakes in any field, but lack of training can significantly exacerbate accidents involving firearms or just about anything else.
|
On April 15 2019 02:49 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2019 02:34 ShambhalaWar wrote:
Or less firearms overall in the culture... it apparently doesn't seem to matter how much training someone has, life threatening mistakes still happen. How much training someone has is very much important. Training won't 100% eliminate mistakes in any field, but lack of training can significantly exacerbate accidents involving firearms or just about anything else.
I completely agree. An argument could be made here that better training would have made a situation like this much less likely to happen, but if this particular event took place in a European setting where officers don't carry it wouldn't have happened.
I think there is merit to both points.
And to the point that events like this are ubiquitous and frequent (probably daily if we count what isn't published) in America.
Here is another.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/14/us/phoenix-man-kills-wife-and-children-over-affair-allegations/index.html
|
On April 15 2019 02:58 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2019 02:49 micronesia wrote:On April 15 2019 02:34 ShambhalaWar wrote:
Or less firearms overall in the culture... it apparently doesn't seem to matter how much training someone has, life threatening mistakes still happen. How much training someone has is very much important. Training won't 100% eliminate mistakes in any field, but lack of training can significantly exacerbate accidents involving firearms or just about anything else. I completely agree. An argument could be made here that better training would have made a situation like this much less likely to happen, but if this particular event took place in a European setting where officers don't carry it wouldn't have happened. I think there is merit to both points. And to the point that events like this are ubiquitous and frequent (probably daily if we count what isn't published) in America. Here is another. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/14/us/phoenix-man-kills-wife-and-children-over-affair-allegations/index.html
Quick correction: Police officers in europe don't generally not carry arms. At least in Germany they always wear a pistol. I think the "police without guns" thing is mostly a UK thing, but i am not sure here.
|
|
|
|
|
United States24741 Posts
ShambhalaWar, why are you providing specific example? We all know these types of examples exist. The mere fact that they exist don't prove much in isolation, making this essentially spam. In addition, do you really want other users posting articles of specific examples where people claim their privately owned gun improved a situation? You'd surely argue that isolated events like that don't necessarily warrant the status quo.
|
|
|
United States24741 Posts
Danglars used to do it but he was asked to stop because of how it doesn't really prove anything. That door swings both ways... let's discuss points rather than anecdotes as much as possible.
|
|
|
On April 17 2019 11:18 micronesia wrote:
Danglars used to do it but he was asked to stop because of how it doesn't really prove anything. That door swings both ways... let's discuss points rather than anecdotes as much as possible.
People don't belittle the use of guns in self-defense or defense of family as much anymore, possibly because the people originally doing so post less or stopped posting.
This *is* a thread with a very open title. Compare it to "If you're seeing this topic, then another anecdote happened and people are discussing their policy views in light of it." What's the real difference? It selects for rare events that are newsworthy for causing fear, horror, and disgust. It doesn't promote heartwarming stories or any others, despite their influence on "people disagree on what to do."
I'm sure somebody probably told me they didn't like the anecdotes, but to be honest I can't recall if it ever happened.
|
United States43263 Posts
The title is just meta commentary on the content users put in it. Like the “North Korea does alarming thing” topic. It had another name once, though I can’t remember what it was.
|
On April 17 2019 12:18 KwarK wrote:
The title is just meta commentary on the content users put in it. Like the “North Korea does alarming thing” topic. It had another name once, though I can’t remember what it was.
I'm pretty sure I remember it being a really generic name like "the gun control thread" after things got out of hand with the normal politics thread.
|
On April 17 2019 11:22 JimmiC wrote:
He posted very few to my recollection it was the quality not quantity that qas the issue. There was only a handful over the last few years. He did this to prove there wasnt none.
This reminds me a lot of it. He would post the stories and then people would complain about them causing the thread to cycle and circle before the mods told him to just stop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
