We watched an interesting film last night called Piggy. Made in England, it is primarily about facing the reality of vengeance. When fantasy becomes real, you lose the fantasy. Anyway, good film. Beautifully shot and well acted.

We were talking and my wife commented that when you are trying to kill someone with your bare hands, you must really want to kill them!
Your intention needs to be deeper and more malicious than if you have a knife or a gun. To kill someone by stamping on them, not just breaking a nose or giving them a black eye or two, you really have to keep at it.

I couldn't help but relate this back to my entrance thread about guns (don't switch off yet). A gun almost removes the need to do anything physical apart from actually being somewhere near the victim, and even then it need not be close. It's possible to 'sort of want to kill' someone, with a gun. It's definitely portrayed this way on tv. The blasé attitude as the finger is pulled. This is in striking contrast to the actual physical and mental effort involved in pummeling someone to death.

Guns make killing too easy. Which means that people who wouldn't actually go into a fist fight (like Rodriguez) can have one and feel as if they have potency.

edit: Sorry, meant to add that second degree murder can sort of fall under the 'sort of wanting to kill someone' category. There was intention, but not really specific, and not premeditated. It can happen so fast that someone is dead before you have a chance to stop yourself...heat of the moment stuff.

For the average person who is trying to beat someone to death without a weapon, there is plenty of time for reflection!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2012 12:23PM by Manlove.

Similar arguments apply to surveillance/attack drones.

Coming to a sky near you.

Without reading the link, yet, yes they do.
Quite scary.

cyanide requires much less emotional effort
no more or less intention

---

Kooper's Flute Thing cover

[www.freethegrapes.org]

norwegian wood reality TV

[www.youtube.com]

"It's definitely portrayed this way on tv. The blasé attitude as the finger is pulled."

I think when we're a state of extreme anger, our conditioned mind kicks in and "bam", the trigger is pulled. We've seen it thousands of times on TV and in the movies. Sort of like an athlete shooting thousands of free throws in practice, or as sports psychologists say, just imagining sinking free throws.

I think the counterargument from the gun side is that guns make self defense possible under circumstances where it would otherwise not be. The majority of us don't go around worrying about being lethally assaulted at any moment, but perhaps it is us who are in denial. Yes, the counter to the counterargument is also valid -- easy access to lethal weapons makes it possible for people to kill each other on the spur of the moment, out of jealous rage or in the process of carrying out an armed robbery.

The problem for ML is that this is a very old argument that is going nowhere. The Supreme Court decided (after half a century of requests that they take up the question) that the Second Amendment includes a personal right to own firearms, as opposed to the right being limited to state governments (which could then limit gun ownership as they felt). States can limit concealed carrying and the federal government can limit classes of firearms that go beyond a certain size and capacity.

If Brits had a problem with the Second Amendment as it finally came to be, they shouldn't have done all those things that the Declaration lists.

Thanks for the replies.
Quick hypothetical-
If you were a juror and had two cases, identical in everything except that in one a man was shot and in the other a man was beaten to death with hands and feet, which would you feel more inclined to feel leniency towards?
Invent the details for yourself...for example- two men in a bar, one treads on toes, doesn't apologise etc...fight ensues. In one case a gun 'appears'- no video to show who pulled it from where (Trayvon Martin case). In the other there are no weapons involved but one man keeps kicking and punching and mauling the other long after he has gone down and is unable to defend himself.

As you said Bob, 'easy access to lethal weapons makes it possible for people to kill each other on the spur of the moment'. Easy to argue that the intention was not really to kill and that the gun went off accidentally.
On the other hand, it's hard to argue that pummeling someone for 2 minutes until that person is a mess of pulp and stops breathing was accidental.

All else being equal I think most people would argue that in the gun case the killing was second degree, unintentional, not premeditated. I don't think most people would feel the same way about the unarmed beating case.

Which is all very strange!

So after discussion with wife we think that the element of time is crucial. In the gun case there is (effectively) no time between the trigger being pulled and the man dieing. He could not have chosen to put the bullet back in the gun after the trigger is pulled. There was literally no time to do it.

In the beating case there are numerous opportunities to pull your punches (pun happened, intentionally or otherwise). Each time you don't pull a punch you are still in the act of killing.

Let's say we have 5lbs of intention when we leave the house. We go to the pub and the fight ensues.
In the gun case, my wife feels that 4.5lbs of the intention to kill is in carrying a loaded gun at all- the remaining 0.5lbs is used when the trigger is pulled.
In the beating case all 5lbs of intention is used once the beating begins and doesn't stop until the other man is dead.

Neither man walked out of the house looking for a fight. It's just that one had a loaded weapon, and one didn't. The result is the same. A dead man.
The amount of intention is the same.
Yet the way we view the cases is completely different.

Well...guns don't yank themselves out of holsters, don't aim themselves purposely at a person, and don't pull their own triggers.

People who carry firearms should not treat them as a fashion accessory, and better have a pretty damn good reason to unholster it, as in someone's life is already in danger

Edit - to answer the question, yes, it does seem to take more intent to beat someone to death vs. pulling a gun and shooting someone. The shooter could even theoretically make the case that he was attempting to defuse the situation by brandishing the weapon, in the hope that this would discourage the shootee from taking further aggressive action. (Assuming that the shootee was the original aggressor, and the shooter acted in self-defense).

It'd be very hard for the same individual to make the argument that he had to continue beating someone to death - presumably at some point during the fisticuffs, the person being pummeled would be unconscious or no longer a threat due to being incapacitated, at which point further beating would not be warranted. This same logic somewhat applies in shooting also, I would think - for example, if the shooter kept shooting the shootee after he is already incapacitated by the first shot. On a not so pleasant note - that appears to be what many police officers apparently are trained to do...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2012 07:01PM by SDGuy.

"Well...guns don't yank themselves out of holsters, don't aim themselves purposely at a person, and don't pull their own triggers."
True. They need intentional acts to work.

You have arrived at the same conclusion more or less, that we did. That guns allow people to kill other people easily and at the same time make the act of killing a less intentional act.

"...it does seem to take more intent to beat someone to death vs. pulling a gun and shooting someone.
It'd be very hard for the same individual to make the argument that he had to continue beating someone to death"

It does seem that not only is it easier to kill people with a gun, by which I mean quicker and cleaner and more effective, it is also more socially acceptable than beating someone to a pulp with your bare hands, judging by the level of intention required to do either.
Well, that's good to know...! If I get into a fight it would be better to carry a loaded gun and use it than to beat my assailant to death with my fists.

This is a very strange state of affairs that was normalized many years ago and is now seen as not only how things are, but how they should be!

And Ca Bob, this was a moral question about how we view shooting versus beating someone. I know you know this but wanted to be clear.
"The Supreme Court (after considerable pressure from the NRA) decided (after half a century of requests that they take up the question) that the Second Amendment includes a personal right to own firearms"
I made up the "after considerable pressure from the NRA" comment and it may in fact have no basis in reality...but I would be surprised if it didn't!

"The four officers fired forty-one shots. The post-shooting investigation found no weapons on Diallo's body; the item he had pulled out of his jacket was not a gun, but a rectangular black wallet. The internal NYPD investigation ruled the officers had acted within policy, based on what a reasonable police officer would have done in the same circumstances with the information they had. The Diallo shooting led to a review of police training policy and the use of full metal jacket (FMJ) bullets.

Yes, because if Diallo had been shot with any other type of lethal projectile he would still be alive. WTF!!
And WWaRPO do in a similar situation is obviously shoot an unarmed man more times than it takes to kill a rhino with a 22! Nice one, Reasonable Police Officer. Glad you all were acquitted.

.

Quote
freeradical
.

And your point was...

I've never quite deciphered the "." as a comment.
Colloquially, one might say "Blah blahblah blah blah period" -where the period ( "." ) is spoken.
I think this signifies that nothing more need be said on the subject. Which is fair enough except that not everyone is living inside the brain of the person making that declaration.

When it is written as above in lieu of other commentary, I am not quite so sure what it means.
'Fess up!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/15/2012 01:04AM by Manlove.

The period is often used when the poster realizes his comment may be over the line, or not acceptable for any other reason and there is no ready alternative, so just a period is used.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/15/2012 01:58AM by Dennis S.

Ca Bob, if you are still around on this thread, would you elucidate a little on this -
"If Brits had a problem with the Second Amendment as it finally came to be, they shouldn't have done all those things that the Declaration lists."

I just had a quick look at the Independence thing and yea, sorry about that whole forcing you to oppose our invasions "with manly firmness".
And as for "eat[ing] out their substance"...that's just revolting.

It's okay. We left. You are on your own. Stop being silly and play nice. There is no one else to blame.

Quote
Dennis S
The period is often used when the poster realizes his comment may be over the line and there is no ready alternative, so just a period is used.

Thanks.
I have written some really long responses, read them back out loud, deleted them and just posted a "Blimey", so I understand.

We all have, the worst are when we return too late to insert "Blimey". Preview is your friend.

Having shot guns a fair amount, I don't see pointing one at a person as an easy thing to do at all. In fact, I've been so conditioned NOT to point it toward people, I think it would be hard to do so under any circumstance. I can easily see the seriousness of pointing one at someone eliciting a "wtf am I doing" pause. As far as beating someone to death, once you hit someone, they often fight back, fueling the fire. I've seen people get carried away in situations where there was no intent to kill. At any rate, I don't see it as a very strong argument against guns. In fact, it makes me consider how a gun might be useful if I couldn't defend myself otherwise (without a weapon, the most vulnerable person loses). It's the old "God created man, smith and wesson made them equal" thing. kj.

Me and preview (all appearances to the contrary) are well acquainted!

kj-
"God created man, smith and wesson made them equal"
I assume this is an advertising slogan.

"Having shot guns a fair amount, I don't see pointing one at a person as an easy thing to do at all. In fact, I've been so conditioned NOT to point it toward people, I think it would be hard to do so under any circumstance."
I seriously wish that all people who owned guns had your conditioning, had learned your lessons. That's exactly how it should be. However, we all know that's not how it is.

"without a weapon, the most vulnerable person loses"
And so we all end up carrying machine guns that spit out hundreds of bullets, fast.

"As far as beating someone to death, once you hit someone, they often fight back, fueling the fire."
Once you shoot someone, it's true that if they are seriously or mortally injured, they are unlikely to shoot back, therefore dousing the fire, therefore removing the all consuming intention to kill.

"I assume this is an advertising slogan."

Probably, but it is somewhat profound.

"I seriously wish that all people who owned guns had your conditioning, had learned your lessons. That's exactly how it should be. However, we all know that's not how it is."

I honestly don't know how one would ascertain how hard it is for someone to do. But I would think it would be hard for most people to shoot someone. I don't know if it's "easier" than punching someone, but I guess if your point is it's easier to kill someone with a gun, then...duh.

"As far as beating someone to death, once you hit someone, they often fight back, fueling the fire."
Once you shoot someone, it's true that if they are seriously or mortally injured, they are unlikely to shoot back, therefore dousing the fire, therefore removing the all consuming intention to kill.

I'm just saying the time between the first punch and death doesn't necessarily serve to calm the aggressor. If the attacked fights back, it may escalate the rage of the attacker. kj.

Is everyone forgetting about all the accidental shootings in the US?

"guns don't pull their own triggers"

well actually sometimes they do

[detroit.cbslocal.com]



680 accidental shooting deaths in the US in 2008, over 15,000 non-fatal injuries.
And of course many of those deaths are children who find loaded, unlocked guns lying around.

Profundity just puked.

Quote
August West
Profundity just puked.

You're free to not like it, but profound does not care. kj.

Quote

You're free to not like it, but profound does not care. kj.

How would you know? Because an advertising exec told you?

Quote
Lemon Drop
Is everyone forgetting about all the accidental shootings in the US?

"guns don't pull their own triggers"

well actually sometimes they do

[detroit.cbslocal.com]



680 accidental shooting deaths in the US in 2008, over 15,000 non-fatal injuries.
And of course many of those deaths are children who find loaded, unlocked guns lying around.

Odd - I never took you as being an NRA proponent...

As for the linked story - not too unpredictable - my guess is that it was a Glock with a round in the chamber - those are just accidents waiting to happen. Glocks need to be kept in a RIGID holster, if the owner feels the need to keep a round chambered. I, personally, would never own one - way too dangerous.

Unfortunately, Police departments seem to be quite taken with them - none of those hard-to-understand safeties for their folks to have to figure out how to use (sorry - having the "safety" mounted on the front of the trigger doesn't count).

Quote
SDGuy


Odd - I never took you as being an NRA proponent...

.

Spare me. Rather than relying on 3 year olds to know what to do if they find Daddy's loaded gun, how about some better accountability for gun owners? What's that you say, the NRA says NO WAY.
Yeah, that's what I thought.

Eddie Eagle. I get it. A bald eagle, the emblem of America! Associated forever with guns in the minds of children! Awesome!

"The purpose of the Eddie Eagle Program isn’t to teach whether guns are good or bad, but rather to promote the protection and safety of children. The program makes no value judgments about firearms, and no firearms are ever used in the program. Like swimming pools, electrical outlets, matchbooks and household poison, they’re treated simply as a fact of everyday life. With firearms found in about half of all American households, it’s a stance that makes sense."

Fact of everyday life! Half the parents at my kids school keep guns! This isn't Sparta, this is Madness!!!

Quote
Lemon Drop

Quote
SDGuy


Odd - I never took you as being an NRA proponent...

.

Spare me. Rather than relying on 3 year olds to know what to do if they find Daddy's loaded gun, how about some better accountability for gun owners? What's that you say, the NRA says NO WAY.
Yeah, that's what I thought.

Care to provide at least a link or quote, preferably in a separate thread - methinks you're going WAY off-topic here; not even a mention of the original subject in your postings...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/15/2012 05:20PM by SDGuy.

Quote
SDGuy

Quote
Lemon Drop

Quote
SDGuy


Odd - I never took you as being an NRA proponent...

.

Spare me. Rather than relying on 3 year olds to know what to do if they find Daddy's loaded gun, how about some better accountability for gun owners? What's that you say, the NRA says NO WAY.
Yeah, that's what I thought.

Care to provide at least a link or quote, preferably in a separate thread - methinks you're going WAY off-topic here; not even a mention of the original subject in your postings...

Quote

Guns make killing too easy

That's from the OP.
My comments are on topic.
Are you saying you aren't aware of any accidental deaths of young children involving "found" guns? Easy to google, have at it.

You're not aware of how the NRA fights against even the most basic, common sense gun safety laws? Again, google is your friend.

I don't mind a little topical meandering. Life's all about the tangents!

"The young woman’s mother, Yolanda McNair, said she can’t figure out why the officer brought his gun to the party."
Neither can I.

"Speaking live on WWJ Newsradio 950. Detroit police officer David Mahalab said being a Detroit cop is “the most dangerous job in the city.” He said he feels that officers should be carrying a loaded gun at all times — even off-duty."

[detroit.cbslocal.com]



And then you look here and suddenly a new perception arises...
[money.cnn.com]

-Police officer
Fatality rate per 100,000 workers: 18

-Sanitation worker
Fatality rate per 100,000 workers: 30

Sorry, why do you need to have a bullet in the chamber at ALL times? Watch the video with the DEA dude who is lucky not to have killed a child.


Maybe it should be a poll, to judge the relative moral merits of shooting someone to death versus mashing them there?

Quote
Lemon Drop
Are you saying you aren't aware of any accidental deaths of young children involving "found" guns? Easy to google, have at it.

You're not aware of how the NRA fights against even the most basic, common sense gun safety laws? Again, google is your friend.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see,

The policies of the NRA have killed many more Americans than all the islamic terrorist groups combined.

---

Comedy Central: Best news channel that isn't a news channel.

Fox News: Best comedy channel that isn't a comedy channel.