Well when you read about a guy who died skydiving, rock climbing, base/cliff jumping, surfing, scuba diving, playing little league baseball etc, do we do anything else beside say, “Oh wow, that’s too bad. At least he died doing what he loved.”
2 Likes
It isn’t a simple equation, and he was active in promoting that culture. This seems to be less a case of victim blaming and more discomfort at speaking evil of the dead - dying as a result of your free actions does not absolve you of your own responsibility. US gun culture might have told him and his company that guns should be promoted, but the obvious lack of precaution that they showed was the main cause of death. As other people have commented, they could have fixed the gun in some way and made sure that there was no way that this could have happened. They didn’t, and this negligence directly caused a death.
Yes, he did. He was the instructor, he was responsible for deciding if she was able to control the weapon and he was the one who said, “OK, full auto”. He was also the one who accepted the job in the full knowledge of what it entailed. It just doesn’t make sense to claim that society, the parents and everyone else is to blame, but he somehow isn’t because he died. If she had died rather than him, I can’t imagine anyone rushing to defend his position and I don’t think anyone would have had a problem with blaming him for the death of a child in his care. In fact, that might have been one of those contexts where words like ‘murder’ (or at least manslaughter) could have been thrown around in a thread like this.
Actually there is often some criticism in these cases:
Also, this case is different in that a young girl was involved and could easily have been killed. I don’t think there would have been as much rage if he had killed himself or a hunting buddy where only adults were involved.
3 Likes
As bad as “death by misadventure” can be, it’s actually rare for bystanders to be shot by falling meat.
Well, at least we can agree that we all enjoy picking cherries.
1 Like
What about “Firearms & chainsaws are not comparable.”
Pretty stupid comparison, surprised you see any correlation, suspect you don’t.
[quote=“FunkDaddy, post:170, topic:39895, full:true”]
What about “Firearms & chainsaws are not comparable.”
Pretty stupid comparison, surprised you see any correlation, suspect you don’t.
[/quote]Yup. Chainsaws are not protected by the Constitution. Chainsaws are also NOT used close to a million times a year to help save lives and prevent crime, like guns in the hands of honest citizens are.
But, you can’t see past your own irrational fear, preferring to restrict the rights of over 300 million people just so you can have have the illusion of more safety. America is the land of the free and the home of the brave – freedom and bravery go together. If you aren’t brave, you give up freedom for somebody to hold your hand and tell you that things will be OK.
This exact same thinking is the reason that lots of people are OK with the NSA snooping on everybody’s e-mail and phone calls to keep us “safe” from the “terrorists.” Screw the constitution. Take away all my freedom to keep me safe from the bad men – until the ones protecting me turn out to be the bad men.
1 Like
Agreed, but if you look at the video (which thankfully is truncated so that no actual carnage is shown) you’ll see that he spent some time working with her, then she shot once, and then within seconds he had flipped the switch to automatic and without any further coaching or positioning let her start shooting. That proves he was bad at his job, apparently due to exuberance. There is a code for shooting at a range, similar to the belayer’s code in rock climbing, and it was not in evidence here.
I should mention that my children have all learned how to shoot rifles at well-run ranges, so I know what is normally done when children are being taught this skill.
4 Likes
Aside from all those trees used for home-heating.
I would guess that chainsaws are used far more often than guns.
Yet, bizarrely, the lack of regulation on chainsaw-ownership has stymied those of us wishing to track and monitor such usage (and eventually seize said chainsaws for ouselves and throw the owners into camps).
1 Like
Random gun instructor doesn’t have complete agency over someone else’s daughter. He didn’t forbid her from shooting the Uzi (a decision that was consistent with his employer’s policy). That’s not the same as deciding that she should shoot it. The girl’s parents decided she should shoot the Uzi, and they bought her the package which included it.
Nor does it make sense to focus on blaming him, and denying that he was a victim, simply because you disagree with US gun culture.
So, if she dies, she’s a victim. He dies, he’s not a victim. She kills herself, and she’s been murdered. She kills him, and he’s to blame. And her parents (who are supposedly knowlegable about guns) again fail to enter the equation, despite them supervising the event and despite it being they who thought it would be a good idea for their 9-year-old daughter to fire a fully automatic weapon.
That was worth the read…thanks.
1 Like
I haven’t seen any evidence that he was coerced into letting the girl shoot an uzi or even recommended against it. By all appearances he enthusiastically accepted a job that involved teaching young kids how to use incredibly dangerous weapons, and at the end of the day he was the one who put the gun in her hands. That makes him as responsible as anyone, if not more so.
1 Like
I think bringing in the militia factor adds a further technicality to the 2nd. BTW, I assume that since you are citing case law then you DO know the legal definition of “militia”.
Given the primacy of the Bill of Rights, I attribute to those amendments a special significance.
There is no way that the Founders could have known about modern communications and the speed and scope at which words and ideas can spread. Would you consider that as a reason to rethink the 1st?
Thanks for the links!
I applaud your commitment to right and wrong.
This type of debate is exactly why I am here. Why people believe the things that they do and the uniformity with which they agree amazes me.
I think that the reason that many here fail to see the poor slob that got shot as a victim is related to the progressive stack. A white firearm enthusiast( ‘gun nut’ to use the common vernacular ) is pretty damn low on the liberal Hierarchy of Victimhood. Therefore, it is unthinkable that he can be a victim of a mishap and implies, as evinced by many comments here, that he ‘had it coming’ or ‘he was asking for it’. Comments that when applied to any other victimizing situation, including rape, would be appalling.
For the sake of argument, lets take your statement and ‘mix it up a bit’:
I haven’t seen any evidence that James Foley was coerced into being a journalist in a war zone. By all appearances he enthusiastically accepted a job that involved traveling to areas where people use incredibly dangerous weapons, and at the end of the day he was the one who put himself in harms way . That makes him as responsible as anyone, if not more so.
Clearly, you would condemn me for making such a statement, no?
2 Likes
Since you obviously think there is a “legal definition” of ‘militia’ for purposes of the second amendment, why don’t you let us know what you think it is. Neither Scalia’s nor Stevens’s discussion of the scope of ‘militia’ is particularly compelling.
Rethink the first amendment? You mean by adding judge-made legal wrinkles like saying the first amendment does not allow you to shout fire in a crowded movie theater? See Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), where it’s almost like the Court wanted to restrict one of the freedoms enumerated in the constitution in the name of public safety. Or that burning the US flag is protected? United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990). At the time it was promulgated, criminalizing blasphemy was not seen as a violation of the first amendment, but under modern jurisprudence it certainly would be. Joseph Burstyn, Inc v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952). And where in the first amendment do we find exclusions for obscenity and child pornography, yet protection of other forms of pornography? For the most part these judicial wrinkles are a compromise between the ideals of free expression and the interest in protecting society, even if the Constitution itself doesn’t make this balancing act explicit.
So, yes, I think that the second amendment should be rethought just as other amendments (such as the first) have been continually rethought, refined, and calibrated for changing technology and social conditions.
3 Likes
Welcome to the Militia.
Shouting fire in a crowded theater( where no fire exists ) has the potential of creating a panic which poses an undue threat to the well-being of those within.
All people are entitled to be secure in their person. Defiance of this principle is not protected by free speech.
Similarly, the possession of indiscriminate weapons, say cluster munitions or atomic warheads is not protected by the 2nd.
With child pornography, we find exclusion in that whether or not the subject of said material is legally able to consent to such activity. As such that type of material is exploitative.
As to pornography in general, its not protected beyond the fact the the definition of pornography was left to community interpretation.
A rather broad interpretation of public safety wouldn’t you say? Anyway, Brandenburg v Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969) , controls, and Schenck does not.
In case you’re genuinely confused about this, a statute written in 1956 doesn’t tell us how to interpret a legal document written in 1789. 10 USC 311 does not control what ‘militia’ means in the second amendment. (I’m sure you wouldn’t like it if Congress could defeat the universal right to bear arms by simply redefining ‘militia.’)
So, if the legislatures found (and courts agreed) that ownership of handguns, semi-automatics, or any other form of firearms had the potential to cause an undue threat to public well being, then it would be OK under the second amendment to ban those firearms?
More likely these are unprotected because they are not considered ‘arms’ under the meaning of the second amendment.
One can be over the age of consent yet still be the subject of child pornography, so your explanation is clearly wrong.
The definition of pornography is not left to anyone, much less the community. Obscenity is left to community interpretation, but pornography remains protected speech (though, like other forms of sexual speech, it is more susceptible to regulation). Obscenity can be banned absolutely; pornography cannot.
Schenck still applies to shouting fire in a crowded theater, and Brandenberg doesn’t explicitly over-rule Schenck (or even really apply in this context). I don’t know how you want to describe the interest being protected by prohibiting shouting fire in a crowded theater, but public safety seems a good fit to me.
Schenck still applies to shouting fire in a crowded theater, , and Brandenberg doesn’t explicitly over-rule Schenck (or even really apply in this context)
That’s not what Schenck was about. Schenck advocated peaceful resistance to the draft, and distributed pamphlets to this effect. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act,
