O-Trap;1378744 wrote:Control and regulation would, I have a feeling, be nothing more than an exercise in futility.

Would and has been.

Although I am a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, I have never really been a big gun enthusiast myself even though I have two . No matter what you say, the reason guns were invented were so people would have an easier way of winning wars and killing others. Since the dawn of man, one of the few constants is the pursuit of more efficient ways of murder.

With that being said, I do believe people have the right to own one and any of these so called regulations/laws are nothing more than a political play to act like they are doing something.

O-Trap;1378744 wrote:The only objection I have with that is that no single chattel can be said to cause the objective harm prior to its happening or outside the utilization of particular individuals. As such, what objective harm does exist is, I think, a reflection of the individual causing it, and not the vehicle used to exact it. The same gun in two different people's hands, can have drastically different effects in regard to harm.

That's where I do think that the final cause CAN be established: with the person. And that is, I think, where the real danger lies.

As for the difference in utility, with automobiles it is an object of convenience to which we've grown accustomed. However, society can exist without them, and given the arbitrary nature by which we might try to quantify the convenience difference, I still see an apt comparison, though I admit it's not a perfect parallel, which you've pointed out rather well.

And I know I've said it before, but I'm rather convinced that guns as they exist today are sort of a parallel to Pandora's open box. Control and regulation would, I have a feeling, be nothing more than an exercise in futility.

But ultimately...even if the final cause of a gun murder begins with the brain in a human being sending a message down to a hand to pull a trigger on an inanimate object to kill a person....brains in what appear to be basically good people do this alot in the United States. Arguments turn into murder-suicides even when we're not taking about evil people.

I don't think the man who ran out of his home and shot a kid who was trying to turn around in his driveway is a morally evil person at his core in all likelihood. It's just the kind of thing that happens when you have a gun in your hand and you're afraid. There's no way even the most thorough background checks, evaluations, etc. would have been justified in preventing him from owning a gun for home protection if he so desired.

There was no real evidence that this man was a clear and present danger to society...and yet he became a murderer largely because of bad luck.

So, I don't think the answers are very clear but I'm hesitant to say that we just have to accept these random occurrences as the cost of widespread ownership of largely objectively useless things bringing subjective pleasure/insurance against private coercion to their owners when other places who've gone full bore in getting rid of them aren't objectively worse off and don't have clearly greater amounts of private coercion.

As far as cars go. We as a country and society as a whole would be very obviously worse off as a whole if we banned automobile use because we didn't want car wrecks to happen. Automobile travel has made us exhorbitantly, objectively wealthier than we would be without them. it's not really arbitrary at all. We know we would be waayy worse off and waaay less wealthy without cars.

Sure societies could exist without cars but they are very obviously less well off than societies with cars. Societies without widespread gun ownership like the UK and Japan do not appear to be substantially worse off on the whole than they would be if they had guns in comparison to how much worse off they would be without automobiles.

And, for that matter, automobiles and their use are both heavily regulated. U.S. citizens have a fundamental right to travel in interstate commerce but here's no fundamental right to drive a car to do so and when you do you have to be of certain age, pass a test and use a particular car that meets all kinds of standards. The people of the United States have a compelling interest in regulating your use of a car, an instrument for interstate travel. In that same vein, the People of the United States may have a compelling interest in imposing more regulation on the use of guns pursuant to the right to bear arms than there currently is.

I don't see why regulation of guns is so special...that it amounts to pandora's box...that if we better regulated firearms...the next thing you know we're subject to martial law under tyranny. We live in a large regulatory state and everybody is still very free and very happy in the aggregate. We are regulated from cradle to grave. What evidence is there that better/more gun regulation is going to shit that all down the toilet???

And, obviously as a libertarian-type guy you think regulation is "futile" but I think that's wrong. It simply hasn't been elsewhere when done full-stop. I can understand and appreciate the argument that regulation is morally wrong because it is an unjust infringement on liberty even if it would reduce an objective, societal harm but as a practical matter it has done a decent job in other cases when it has been done, full-bore, balls-to-the-wall, on a national level.

BoatShoes;1379330 wrote:...
There was no real evidence that this man was a clear and present danger to society...and yet he became a murderer largely because of bad luck.

...

It was hardly bad luck.

Con_Alma;1379333 wrote:It was hardly bad luck.

If that kid didn't get lead to the wrong driveway by his GPS is that man a murderer? Highly unlikely he shoots somebody that night. How is that not bad luck???

BoatShoes;1379340 wrote:If that kid didn't get lead to the wrong driveway by his GPS is that man a murderer? Highly unlikely he shoots somebody that night. How is that not bad luck???

That man made a decisions to pull the trigger. He also could have made the decision not to. There's no luck involved in him pulling the trigger. You're applying the term "luck" to the actions leading up to him pulling the trigger.

Con_Alma;1379342 wrote:That man made a decisions to pull the trigger. He also could have made the decision not to. There's no luck involved in him pulling the trigger. You're applying the term "luck" to the actions leading up to him pulling the trigger.

No, I am not. I am applying it to the overall situation. The chain of causation was an unlucky one. Nothing about the man's decision to pull the trigger indicates genuine cold-bloodedness.

BoatShoes;1379345 wrote:No, I am not. I am applying it to the overall situation. The chain of causation was an unlucky one. Nothing about the man's decision to pull the trigger indicates genuine cold-bloodedness.

Nothing forces a man to pull the trigger but his own decision. No cricumstances. He either chooses to do so or he doesn't. He chose to shoot a person who showed up in his driveway. His reason may have been valid or not but he chose to do so. It wasn't luck or lack of luck that determined his decision.

BoatShoes;1379330 wrote:I don't think the man who ran out of his home and shot a kid who was trying to turn around in his driveway is a morally evil person at his core in all likelihood.

I would say shooting someone because they are turning around in your driveway makes you a morally evil person.

BoatShoes;1379330 wrote:It's just the kind of thing that happens when you have a gun in your hand and you're afraid. There's no way even the most thorough background checks, evaluations, etc. would have been justified in preventing him from owning a gun for home protection if he so desired.

Most people don't just happen to have a gun in their hands. I do agree that background checks would not have stopped this from happening. I'm not sure that background checks would stop most murders from happening.

BoatShoes;1379330 wrote:There was no real evidence that this man was a clear and present danger to society...and yet he became a murderer largely because of bad luck.

It wasn't bad luck. It was bad decision making on the part of the shooter.

BoatShoes;1379345 wrote:No, I am not. I am applying it to the overall situation. The chain of causation was an unlucky one. Nothing about the man's decision to pull the trigger indicates genuine cold-bloodedness.

BoatShoes;1379340 wrote:If that kid didn't get lead to the wrong driveway by his GPS is that man a murderer? Highly unlikely he shoots somebody that night. How is that not bad luck???

I will concede he wouldn't have shot someone that night, but it appears IMHO highly likely he would have shot someone eventually.

BoatShoes;1379330 wrote: I don't think the man who ran out of his home and shot a kid who was trying to turn around in his driveway is a morally evil person at his core in all likelihood. It's just the kind of thing that happens when you have a gun in your hand and you're afraid.

Wow, this could be one for the worst things I've ever read on here. Any person who shoots another with a gun for simply being in their driveway, is not a morally good person. Guns don't just "happen" to be in your hands, and your finger doesn't just "happen" to pull the trigger, especially when your life is not directly in danger.

I am saddened by the news of all of those Atlanta Middle School children who lost their lives yesterday because no armed person was able to stop the shooting that took place.

Sonofanump;1379521 wrote:I am saddened by the news of all of those Atlanta Middle School children who lost their lives yesterday because no armed person was able to stop the shooting that took place.

In case anyone is wondering.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/31/armed-guard-stops-school-shooter-after-he-opened-fire-at-atlanta-middle-school/

Sonofanump;1379521 wrote:I am saddened by the news of all of those Atlanta Middle School children who lost their lives yesterday because no armed person was able to stop the shooting that took place.

Imagine that. Too bad you won't see that story all over the news. The goal is the disarmament of the people, not the safety of the people.

FatHobbit;1379449 wrote: I will concede he wouldn't have shot someone that night, but it appears IMHO highly likely he would have shot someone eventually.

Why? He managed to make it more than half a century without doing so?

WebFire;1379463 wrote:Wow, this could be one for the worst things I've ever read on here. Any person who shoots another with a gun for simply being in their driveway, is not a morally good person. Guns don't just "happen" to be in your hands, and your finger doesn't just "happen" to pull the trigger, especially when your life is not directly in danger.

LoL. People make mistakes. People can become afraid unjustifiably. People can be negligent. People can act extremely reckless.

I think you're being overly dismissive. I think reasonable people could argue that what he did deserves punishment from the state that hey may not otherwise be wholly immoral. You might consider taking a step back and thinking about it from a broader point of view.

BoatShoes;1379547 wrote:Why? He managed to make it more than half a century without doing so?

It wasn't just bad luck that led him to shoot the person in the car. It was poor decision making. If he hadn't shot this guy, he would have shot the next guy who pulled in.

BoatShoes;1379551 wrote:LoL. People make mistakes. People can become afraid unjustifiably. People can be negligent. People can act extremely reckless.

People do make mistakes and become unjustly afraid. I think it trivializes what he did to just call it a mistake.

BoatShoes;1379551 wrote:I think you're being overly dismissive. I think reasonable people could argue that what he did deserves punishment from the state that hey may not otherwise be wholly immoral. You might consider taking a step back and thinking about it from a broader point of view.

I suppose he might not be evil incarnate but what he did was immoral. If someone murders someone they are immoral. If someone rapes someone they are immoral. If someone steals they are immoral. They may regret it later or they may rationalize that it was in the heat of the moment but that shit doesn't happen by accident. Someone makes a poor choice.

BoatShoes;1379551 wrote:LoL. People make mistakes. People can become afraid unjustifiably. People can be negligent. People can act extremely reckless.

I think you're being overly dismissive. I think reasonable people could argue that what he did deserves punishment from the state that hey may not otherwise be wholly immoral. You might consider taking a step back and thinking about it from a broader point of view.

Even so, it's ludicrous you want to place all the blame on the gun. :rolleyes:

FatHobbit;1379449 wrote:It wasn't bad luck. It was bad decision making on the part of the shooter..

People make bad decisions all the time. Bad decisions with a guns in our hands are fatal. A guy is dead and a guy is going to prison for a long time because of a little bad luck and some very poor judgment.

WebFire;1379571 wrote:Even so, it's ludicrous you want to place all the blame on the gun. :rolleyes:

I am not placing all the blame on the gun. I'm merely talking about how a gun being in the hands of the dude making the poor decision allowed the poor decision to escalate into a murder. The guy deserves to be punished for his actions...I'm simply lamenting that happened that way. I'm not saying that he ultimatlely isn't responsible.

BoatShoes;1379579 wrote:I am not placing all the blame on the gun. I'm merely talking about how a gun being in the hands of the dude making the poor decision allowed the poor decision to escalate into a murder. The guy deserves to be punished for his actions...I'm simply lamenting that happened that way. I'm not saying that he ultimatlely isn't responsible.

Where I'm from, morally good people don't come out of the house, then go back in the house to retrieve a gun, and go back out and murder on innocent person. That is beyond a bad decision.

FatHobbit;1379568 wrote:It wasn't just bad luck that led him to shoot the person in the car. It was poor decision making. If he hadn't shot this guy, he would have shot the next guy who pulled in.



People do make mistakes and become unjustly afraid. I think it trivializes what he did to just call it a mistake.



I suppose he might not be evil incarnate but what he did was immoral. If someone murders someone they are immoral. If someone rapes someone they are immoral. If someone steals they are immoral. They may regret it later or they may rationalize that it was in the heat of the moment but that shit doesn't happen by accident. Someone makes a poor choice.

There are different degrees of immorality and even the law agrees. You're allowed to kill somebody who has attempted to use deadly force against you first in most jurisdictions. This guy claims he thought this person was going to attack him. You're getting too caught up in the exact facts of that particular case when i'm just trying to make a more general point here. I don't mean to trivialize this particular instance...it's merely a recently relevant example of how deaths can occur at the hands of a human shooting a gun in the haze of human error.

BoatShoes;1379586 wrote:There are different degrees of immorality and even the law agrees. You're allowed to kill somebody who has attempted to use deadly force against you first in most jurisdictions. This guy claims he thought this person was going to attack him. You're getting too caught up in the exact facts of that particular case when i'm just trying to make a more general point here. I don't mean to trivialize this particular instance...it's merely a recently relevant example of how deaths can occur at the hands of a human shooting a gun in the haze of human error.

IMO, this was not misjudgment. This was murder.

WebFire;1379584 wrote:Where I'm from, morally good people don't come out of the house, then go back in the house to retrieve a gun, and go back out and murder on innocent person. That is beyond a bad decision.

You too are getting too caught up in the particular facts of the particular case...it is just a recently relevant example that people often make mistakes under a reasonably justified belief. Where you're from, if a person had a genuine belief that he was under attack (which I'm not saying this guy in this case did), I'm not sure we'd call him immoral if he used what he bought to defend his home to do just that.

BoatShoes;1379588 wrote:You too are getting too caught up in the particular facts of the particular case...

Well, duh!

WebFire;1379587 wrote:IMO, this was not misjudgment. This was murder.

Sure. Fine. You're getting too caught up into the particular facts of the case. If he'd had a baseball bat and he got closer...who knows. Guns exacerbate the negative consequences of human frailties and errors.