US Philadelphia Student Carrying Legal Firearm Shoots It Out

[charlou]

You remember that massacre in Todmorden, where that guy ran over those 32 people? No, I don't either.

I don’t understand your point. Are you saying that far fewer deaths occur in Road Traffic Accidents than by guns.
If so you are wrong and your point is hopelessly invalid.
Several orders of magnitude more people are killed per year in RTAs than by guns.
Simple stat. easy to look up.

Or is it your belief that people killed in road deaths are unimportant.
Or is it your belief that people killed in road deaths are acceptable.
Only when killed by a gun does it become a moral issue worthy of a thread/rant.

If people are killed in a road accident are you less affected than if they are killed by a gunman?

You are right, old chap. You don't understand my point.

May I ask you then, is it your point that fewer people are killed in RTAs than by guns?

Is it your point that people are killed in RTAs careless traffic incidents, therefore intentional gun deaths are okay?

[charlou]

Killing by recklessness/carelessness is every bit as morally reprehensible as killing by intent.
If you disagree please tell me why you think that Killing by recklessness/carelessness is less immoral.

It's subjective, but most agree that deliberate and intentional killing is 'immoral', while death that occurs as a result of non-deliberate action is not 'immoral', although the latter may still attract a penalty.

[JimC]

^^^^^^

I do know what you mean that RTA's are frequently not sheer, random accidents that could not have been prevented. They often involve culpable human elements, which is why we have a web of laws surrounding them, and severe punishments for killings which involve a human failing. However, they rarely involve killing by intent. That means that methods to reduce their impact on human lives may well be very different to methods involving guns, where most deaths involving them have clear, murderous intent.

[borealis]

I don't know if anyone has ever made a comparison of number of deaths when starting a car vs number of deaths when shooting a gun (relative risk).
But I never really got the ideology that some people seem to hold that if there are bad things happening in the world, therefore it's okay to happen more bad things.

[charlou]

^^^^^^

I do know what you mean that RTA's are frequently not sheer, random accidents that could not have been prevented.

Yes ... 'unintentional' is a better word than 'accidental', and I'm happy to have that pointed out, thanks col.

They often involve culpable human elements, which is why we have a web of laws surrounding them, and severe punishments for killings which involve a human failing. However, they rarely involve killing by intent. That means that methods to reduce their impact on human lives may well be very different to methods involving guns, where most deaths involving them have clear, murderous intent.

Agreed.

[charlou]

But I never really got the ideology that some people seem to hold that if there are bad things happening in the world, therefore it's okay to happen more bad things.

Yes, it's either simplistic and naive .. or disingenuous.

[Pappa]

The law relating to intentionally killing a person with a gun or car is the same anyway... murder/homicide. Same goes for intentional killing with a frozen banana.

Guns and cars have very different intended functions. The intended use of a car is to transport people from A to B. The intended use of a gun is to kill other humans (barring hunting rifles etc.).

Cars are dangerous, stupidly so. They are metal boxes that we hurtle down roads alongside other metal boxes, controlled by agents that are prone to making mistakes. But everywhere in the world we've decided the benefits outweigh the risks.

Guns are dangerous too, but in some parts of the world people have decided the benefit (mostly self-protection) outweigh the risks, in others they've decided the risks outweigh the benefits. That's all the argument boils down to, a risk/benefit value judgement.

[colubridae]

You remember that massacre in Todmorden, where that guy ran over those 32 people? No, I don't either.

I don’t understand your point. Are you saying that far fewer deaths occur in Road Traffic Accidents than by guns.
If so you are wrong and your point is hopelessly invalid.
Several orders of magnitude more people are killed per year in RTAs than by guns.
Simple stat. easy to look up.

Or is it your belief that people killed in road deaths are unimportant.
Or is it your belief that people killed in road deaths are acceptable.
Only when killed by a gun does it become a moral issue worthy of a thread/rant.

If people are killed in a road accident are you less affected than if they are killed by a gunman?

You are right, old chap. You don't understand my point.

May I ask you then, is it your point that fewer people are killed in RTAs than by guns?

Is it your point that people are killed in RTAs careless traffic incidents, therefore intentional gun deaths are okay?

Nice try.
I definitely never said that or intend it.
I'm not the one demanding a ban. All I'm doing is pointing out your inconsistencies.
If you wish to ban guns, then all logic demands that you should ban cars.

If I came to the UK government and said ‘Look I’ve got a new device. It will change the world dramatically. Just one snag it will kill 50,000 people worldwide per year’, they would lock me up and throw the key away (or they ought).
Even if I were to accept that they were accidents, in the sense of ‘act of god’ one should still advocate banning cars, if banning guns is morally the right course of action.

[colubridae]

The law relating to intentionally killing a person with a gun or car is the same anyway... murder/homicide. Same goes for intentional killing with a frozen banana.

Guns and cars have very different intended functions. The intended use of a car is to transport people from A to B. The intended use of a gun is to kill other humans (barring hunting rifles etc.).

Cars are dangerous, stupidly so. They are metal boxes that we hurtle down roads alongside other metal boxes, controlled by agents that are prone to making mistakes. But everywhere in the world we've decided the benefits outweigh the risks.

Guns are dangerous too, but in some parts of the world people have decided the benefit (mostly self-protection) outweigh the risks, in others they've decided the risks outweigh the benefits. That's all the argument boils down to, a risk/benefit value judgement.

If that's all it boils down to then I feel rightly justified in taking the moral high ground.
And I curse you and your shoes for not taking the high ground beside me.

[charlou]

hmmm ..


eta ... that hmmm is a hmmm of contemplation to both pappa and col's recent posts.

[JimC]

Next thing you know, people will be talking about banning gin...

[colubridae]

But I never really got the ideology that some people seem to hold that if there are bad things happening in the world, therefore it's okay to happen more bad things.

Yes, it's either simplistic and naive .. or disingenuous.

It's none of the above.
Killing on the roads is an active process. It's not an accident.
Your outrage in gun deaths is not reflected in a similar outrage at road deaths.
If you are outraged at gun deaths, good for you win many moral points.
If you are not more outraged by the far higher numbers of avoidable road deaths then you lose those points.

And nasty little asides against members are what you objected to before charlou.

[MrJonno]

So what? Again, you're trying to concoct a specious comparison. You cannot defend successfully against a plane crash (airliner) even with a parachute because you cannot use a parachute from an airliner. But you can defend successfully against a criminal attack using a gun.

If an airliner breaks apart (whether accidently or via a bomb) in mid air and its not too high and you happen to a parachute on dont full unconscious and remember to pull the cord it could save you life (or get everyone killed)

Unlikely about the chance of me meeting a gun armed criminal

[colubridae]

^^^^^^

I do know what you mean that RTA's are frequently not sheer, random accidents that could not have been prevented. They often involve culpable human elements, which is why we have a web of laws surrounding them, and severe punishments for killings which involve a human failing. However, they rarely involve killing by intent. That means that methods to reduce their impact on human lives may well be very different to methods involving guns, where most deaths involving them have clear, murderous intent.

So if someone shoots you, you'll be pissed at them.

If they kill you by running their car over you, you'll say 'That's ok old chap. Couldn't be helped. Have a gin'

[charlou]

But I never really got the ideology that some people seem to hold that if there are bad things happening in the world, therefore it's okay to happen more bad things.

Yes, it's either simplistic and naive .. or disingenuous.

It's none of the above.
Killing on the roads is an active process. It's not an accident.
Your outrage in gun deaths is not reflected in a similar outrage at road deaths.
If you are outraged at gun deaths, good for you win many moral points.
If you are not more outraged by the far higher numbers of avoidable road deaths then you lose those points.

And nasty little asides against members are what you objected to before charlou.

Sorry, no intention to be nasty.

Why are you assigning "moral points" here? You're making value judgements about my morality based on this debate?

You don't know my opinion about road deaths, only that I don't equate them with gun deaths. WRT to the latter, as I said, I agree with Jim's point on that:

^^^^^^

I do know what you mean that RTA's are frequently not sheer, random accidents that could not have been prevented. They often involve culpable human elements, which is why we have a web of laws surrounding them, and severe punishments for killings which involve a human failing. However, they rarely involve killing by intent. That means that methods to reduce their impact on human lives may well be very different to methods involving guns, where most deaths involving them have clear, murderous intent.