Charlie Kirk shot in Utah

[GenesisNemesis]

The vast overwhelming number of traffic deaths are unintentional. Unlike the vast overwhelming number of gun deaths. For starters.

The majority of firearm deaths in the US are suicides.

https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/guns/

Also worth noting that a significant number of traffic deaths might be unintentional, but they're the result of reckless disregard for the wellbeing of others. The majority of traffic deaths are the result of people being distracted or excessive speeding. Drunk driving contributes another 30%.

For the last several years, in the US, firearms have been the leading cause of death for children and teenagers, eclipsing automobile or other accidents, cancer and other diseases.

Anticipating denial in 3... 2... 1...

 

[Elixir]

Once again, I'm not right wing. I've told you this repeated - and when people tell you who they are, you're supposed to believe them, right?

Walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck … it’s a duck beyond reasonable doubt.
When you SHOW people who you are, don’t expect them to believe it when you deny you’re that person.

 

[Emily Lake]

Or that some drunk driving and alcohol addiction is worth the cost of having legal alcohol.

Never seen or heard such an argument.

LD... Do you support prohibition? Would you be in favor of making all alcohol completely illegal?

I favor either as much as you favor cannibalism. Any more irrelevant questions?

One could argue that if you support alcohol being legal, then you think that some amount of drunk driving and alcoholism is an acceptable cost.
Realistically, the only counter to accepting that some drunk driving and addiction is worth the cost of having legal alcohol, would be to advocate for it being illegal. That's pretty much the only argument you could make that doesn't tacitly accept the trade-off as worth it.

That's the only possible argument? Or, how about... we just know that making alcohol illegal doesn't work. So we don't do that. That doesn't mean alcohol related deaths are "worth it". Oh and there are laws against drunk driving too. Wonder why.

Making firearms illegal doesn't entirely eliminate firearm deaths. And we have laws against shooting people too.

At the end of the day, we as a society have decided that having access to alcohol is more important than eliminating alcohol-related deaths. It's harsh to put it in such terms, but it's the reality - there is a cost to having alcohol be legal, and that's a cost that we as a society are willing to bear because we value the freedom to get drunk.

 

[Emily Lake]

Are some vaccine deaths worth it? Everything comes at a cost.

Generally speaking, yes, of course. If some new vaccine causes a lot of deaths and doesn't save materially more deaths, then that particular vaccine may not be worth it. Of course, it also ties in with whether such vaccines are mandatory or voluntary, publicly or privately funded, etc. But in general, yes.

I don't even know what gotcha you think you're going for here. Like seriously, why do you think this is going to trip me up?

 

[Emily Lake]

The vast overwhelming number of traffic deaths are unintentional. Unlike the vast overwhelming number of gun deaths. For starters.

The majority of firearm deaths in the US are suicides.

https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/guns/

Also worth noting that a significant number of traffic deaths might be unintentional, but they're the result of reckless disregard for the wellbeing of others. The majority of traffic deaths are the result of people being distracted or excessive speeding. Drunk driving contributes another 30%.

For the last several years, in the US, firearms have been the leading cause of death for children and teenagers, eclipsing automobile or other accidents, cancer and other diseases.

Sort of, I suppose. I mean, your statement isn't wrong, but it does depend on what age bands you use. It's definitely a leading cause among older teens, especially with a significant spike in suicides around covid. For kids 5 to 14, it's road accidents and natural causes for the most part.

Isolation and quarantine caused some problems that are going to screw up data for a long time.

 

[Emily Lake]

Once again, I'm not right wing. I've told you this repeated - and when people tell you who they are, you're supposed to believe them, right?

Walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck … it’s a duck beyond reasonable doubt.

Walks like a man, looks like a man, sounds like a man... therefore Eddie Izzard is a man beyond reasonable doubt.

When you SHOW people who you are, don’t expect them to believe it when you deny you’re that person.

I've not shown you that I'm right wing. What I have absolutely demonstrated is that I'm NOT PROGRESSIVE. Unfortunately, you and some others tend to take any disagreement with progressive ideas as being indicative of being a nazi. It's stupid and ineffective.

 

[Arctish]

And if you do view it as threatening you are clearly just against their political beliefs.

Nah. That only happens when you apparently consider only one political viewpoint to be a threat, and you dismiss everyone on the other side as not being a threat. It happens when you go out of your way to single out a minor who was chased and attacked by several adults as being the most horrible evil person on the planet

No one in this discussion is doing that.

and you completely disregard the actions of the adults who were complicit in the situation

No one in this discussion is doing that.

, and you repeatedly excuse and justify the aggression perpetrated by Rosenbaum so you can blame the victim of his attack instead.

And no one here is doing that, either.

 

[laughing dog]

Or that some drunk driving and alcohol addiction is worth the cost of having legal alcohol.

Never seen or heard such an argument.

LD... Do you support prohibition? Would you be in favor of making all alcohol completely illegal?

I favor either as much as you favor cannibalism. Any more irrelevant questions?

One could argue that if you support alcohol being legal, then you think that some amount of drunk driving and alcoholism is an acceptable cost.

Certainly one can impute economic rationality on a choice: alcohol is legal because its benefits are judged to exceed its costs.

But that presumes a decision is based on economic rationality.

 

[Emily Lake]

Or that some drunk driving and alcohol addiction is worth the cost of having legal alcohol.

Never seen or heard such an argument.

LD... Do you support prohibition? Would you be in favor of making all alcohol completely illegal?

I favor either as much as you favor cannibalism. Any more irrelevant questions?

One could argue that if you support alcohol being legal, then you think that some amount of drunk driving and alcoholism is an acceptable cost.

Certainly one can impute economic rationality on a choice: alcohol is legal because its benefits are judged to exceed its costs.

But that presumes a decision is based on economic rationality.

In this context, the word "cost" is used figuratively to convey downside outcomes, not necessarily monetary in nature. I assumed that was rather obvious.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Or that some drunk driving and alcohol addiction is worth the cost of having legal alcohol.

Never seen or heard such an argument.

LD... Do you support prohibition? Would you be in favor of making all alcohol completely illegal?

I favor either as much as you favor cannibalism. Any more irrelevant questions?

One could argue that if you support alcohol being legal, then you think that some amount of drunk driving and alcoholism is an acceptable cost.

Certainly one can impute economic rationality on a choice: alcohol is legal because its benefits are judged to exceed its costs.

But that presumes a decision is based on economic rationality.

In this context, the word "cost" is used figuratively to convey downside outcomes, not necessarily monetary in nature. I assumed that was rather obvious.

Regardless, downside outcomes are not passively accepted in the vast majority of situations.

 

[Jarhyn]

Or that some drunk driving and alcohol addiction is worth the cost of having legal alcohol.

Never seen or heard such an argument.

LD... Do you support prohibition? Would you be in favor of making all alcohol completely illegal?

I favor either as much as you favor cannibalism. Any more irrelevant questions?

One could argue that if you support alcohol being legal, then you think that some amount of drunk driving and alcoholism is an acceptable cost.

Certainly one can impute economic rationality on a choice: alcohol is legal because its benefits are judged to exceed its costs.

But that presumes a decision is based on economic rationality.

Making alcohol is also exceedingly easy.

The number of people I have met who could and would print or machine a firearm if they needed to make someone dead? Maybe 5-10?

The number of people who I have ever met that could, knowing theory, make a functional forearm in under a month without plans? Maybe 1 or 2?

I'm not even sure there's any intersection between those two groups.

Compare that to the fact that I can count the number of people who I know have the current and immediate means to start making alcohol RIGHT NOW, and it's well over 4 billion, and probably close to 8.

Because if you have vegetable based food, and water, and a pot, and fire, you can have alcohol.

 

[Arctish]

Pay attention:
If Ritt was under attack and felt that he was in danger of death or serious bodily injury, he had the right to self-defense. Has anyone ever disputed that?

Yes. Several people in this thread have taken the position that Rittenhouse did NOT have a right to self-defense... because he shouldn't have been present in the first place, and the fact that he was present and in possession of a firearm makes Rittenhouse the aggressor, and it makes Rosenbaum's actions of chasing down, cornering, and attacking Rittenhouse into a defensive action, and therefore Rittenhouse is a murderer.

If you're talking about me, then you missed some key elements in my post.

Rittenhouse's right of self defense was compromised by him committing a felony (illegal possession of a firearm) when the homicide occured. Also, at least one person believed Rittenhouse had pointed an AR-15 at him, and when accused of having done it Rittenhouse said "Yes, I did." That's brandishing, and it's also a felony. Rittenhouse could still use self-defense as the justification for pleading innocent to a charge of murder but it's not an airtight defense due to his own criminal actions.

I have never excused Rosenbaum for his actions that night. I have consistently noted that he was being very aggressive and that Rittenhouse was afraid of him. We can't be certain he was trying to disarm Rittenhouse but we can be very confident Rittenhouse was panicking when Rosenbaum chased him and caught up to him.

That's the argument that keeps being made over and over again in this thread: Rittenhouse is a murderer because he had a firearm and was present at a violent protest, therefore he's responsible for getting himself chased, cornered, and attacked by someone else. If Rittenhouse had just not been there, he wouldn't have been attacked, and then he wouldn't have had to murder those people who attacked him.

If Rittenhouse had been unarmed, not deliberately inserted himself into the situation, and had done nothing provocative, then his right to self defense would have been just as you say: perfectly clear and obvious. But that's not what happened.

He had no legal right to be where he was (after curfew in a city in a state where he did not live) doing what he was doing (illegally carrying a long gun and attempting to exert an authority he did not have) and may have provoked Rosenbaum by pointing a weapon at him, or at least seeming to have done it, and saying he had.

That does not mean Rittenhouse is evil, or guilty of the most heinous crimes, or any of the other extremist bullshit people may be thinking. There are degrees of responsibility and proportionality to consider. The fact Rittenhouse was still a minor while Rosenbaum was an adult is a very big factor, or at least is should be, which is yet another reason why the comparison to Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman is apt.

 

[bilby]

Making alcohol is also exceedingly easy.

The number of people I have met who could and would print or machine a firearm if they needed to make someone dead? Maybe 5-10?

The number of people who I have ever met that could, knowing theory, make a functional forearm in under a month without plans? Maybe 1 or 2?

I'm not even sure there's any intersection between those two groups.

I have both built a functioning firearm (proofed at Birmingham, and registered as a shotgun) from scratch, and routinely brew both beer and cider.

 

[Jarhyn]

Making alcohol is also exceedingly easy.

The number of people I have met who could and would print or machine a firearm if they needed to make someone dead? Maybe 5-10?

The number of people who I have ever met that could, knowing theory, make a functional forearm in under a month without plans? Maybe 1 or 2?

I'm not even sure there's any intersection between those two groups.

I have both built a functioning firearm (proofed at Birmingham, and registered as a shotgun) from scratch, and routinely brew both beer and cider.

Did you make the plans for the firearm, too? That would make my count 2-3, granted I have never "met" you.

I would assume that maybe 5-8 people here could probably knock out a firearm without plans in advance.

It happens to be one of the reasons someone might want to attack forums like this one.

As for intersection between those groups and brewers... It's almost such that all who can make forearms on any level are a subset of all who may brew alcohol.

I would be really hard pressed to find someone with a machine tool and metal, or a 3d printer... And no vegetable based food with which to make alcohol.

 

[Derec]

So, not a defence.

Pure semantics. You are usually better than playing silly semantic games.
One can defend himself using offensive weapons.

Nope, you just responded by retaliation with excessive force.

I disagree that shooting an intruder is "excessive force".
Of course, there can be excessive force. If you "finish him off" when he is no longer posing a threat, that's murder.
Take this case:  Murders of Haile Kifer and Nicholas Brady
That is an example of "excessive force". But defending yourself and your home by shooting an intruder is not.

It's not a view at all, it's an example.

I should be the one rolling my eyes, as you are playing silly semantic games again.
It's an example used to bolster a view. A view which I, and indeed most people, reject. I would think even most Australians reject it.

Sure, as long as lethal force is justified.
It almost never is. A gun is not, therefore defensive; it is offensive. It is an escalation of violence, rather than a protection against violence. And escalation increases risk, where a defence by definition reduces it.

Again, disabling the attacker reducing the risk. Of course, lethal force is not always appropriate, but it is nonsense to say that "it almost never is".

Sure. So the winner is the one with most experience, and/or fewest qualms about killing. That is, almost always, the 'bad guy'.

Not true. There have been many instances of individuals successfully defending themselves or others from robbery and home invasions using guns.

How are you able to determine that lethal force is justifed and proportionate, if you have not been fired upon? How can you even know that you are under attack at all?

Somebody breaking and entering your home is clear indication that your home is under attack.
Witnessing an armed robbery of a business is indication enough that the clerk is under attack.
Getting mugged on the street is a clear indication that you are under attack. Another example where one of the muggers died.
And lethal force is justified in all of these instances.

Han was a fictional character

You don't say.

in one of the absurd morality plays that have led to your equally absurd viewpoint being widely recieved wisdom in the USA.

I offered it as an example because George Lucas edited the scene to make Greedo shoot first. I guess he wanted to appease people like you who think that shooting somebody is not justified unless the attacker shoots at you first.

In reality, situations in which it is justified to use lethal force are vanishingly rare, and you should anticipate a lifetime without them, unless you are a soldier, or a cop in a very bad neighbourhood.

They are rare on a per capita basis, yes. Even most US cops never shoot their weapon in anger^*.
That does not mean that in a country as large as the US, there won't be many instances of people having to defend themselves with lethal force.

If they do arise, you will not be prepared (because nobody is ever prepared for a once or twice in a lifetime event). Even if you live a life of utter paranoia - which will only make them more likely to arise.

And yet there are many instances of would-be-victims or witnesses getting the better of attackers. Sometimes that is because they chose to rob an off-duty LEO like in this robbery attempt, but often it's pure civilians who defend themselves in a similar way.

Han shot in a story.

Duh! But it's a story pretty much everyone knows.


^* That's a term of art to indicate a shooting "for reals" and not, say, target practice. It is not a statement about the emotional state of the shooter.

 

[laughing dog]

Or that some drunk driving and alcohol addiction is worth the cost of having legal alcohol.

Never seen or heard such an argument.

LD... Do you support prohibition? Would you be in favor of making all alcohol completely illegal?

I favor either as much as you favor cannibalism. Any more irrelevant questions?

One could argue that if you support alcohol being legal, then you think that some amount of drunk driving and alcoholism is an acceptable cost.

Certainly one can impute economic rationality on a choice: alcohol is legal because its benefits are judged to exceed its costs.

But that presumes a decision is based on economic rationality.

In this context, the word "cost" is used figuratively to convey downside outcomes, not necessarily monetary in nature. I assumed that was rather obvious.

It was. In economics, a cost is what is given up which includes non-monetary outcomes.

 

[Derec]

To some, neither Muslims nor Jews qualify as white.

I don't think it applies to Jews, but Muslims certainly get the brown/"person of color" privileges just on account of their religion.

 

[Derec]

… because they weren’t murderers. A murderer gets a free pass from Emily because they hadn’t committed violence and arson and damage for several nights already…

Self-defense is not murder.

/RW “logic”.

LW "logic" - a self defense shooting is "murder" as long as they don't agree with the shooter's politics or dislike his skin color.

 

[laughing dog]

So, not a defence.

Pure semantics. You are usually better than playing silly semantic games.
One can defend himself using offensive weapons.

Nope, you just responded by retaliation with excessive force.

I disagree that shooting an intruder is "excessive force".
Of course, there can be excessive force. If you "finish him off" when he is no longer posing a threat, that's murder.
Take this case:  Murders of Haile Kifer and Nicholas Brady
That is an example of "excessive force". But defending yourself and your home by shooting an intruder is not.

It's not a view at all, it's an example.

I should be the one rolling my eyes, as you are playing silly semantic games again.
It's an example used to bolster a view. A view which I, and indeed most people, reject. I would think even most Australians reject it.

Sure, as long as lethal force is justified.
It almost never is. A gun is not, therefore defensive; it is offensive. It is an escalation of violence, rather than a protection against violence. And escalation increases risk, where a defence by definition reduces it.

Again, disabling the attacker reducing the risk. Of course, lethal force is not always appropriate, but it is nonsense to say that "it almost never is".

Sure. So the winner is the one with most experience, and/or fewest qualms about killing. That is, almost always, the 'bad guy'.

Not true. There have been many instances of individuals successfully defending themselves or others from robbery and home invasions using guns.

How are you able to determine that lethal force is justifed and proportionate, if you have not been fired upon? How can you even know that you are under attack at all?

Somebody breaking and entering your home is clear indication that your home is under attack.

That story is from Florida. There is no reason to conclude that killing an intruder in that circumstance is necessarily morally acceptable.

 

[Derec]

Rittenhouse was in violation of the clean hands law doctrine. He purchased the weapon illegally.

That charge was dropped by the judge. But even so, having an illegal weapon does not remove your right to self defense. See Goetz, Bernhard.

He entered a closed zone illegally,

Not any different than everybody else there, including your boys Rosenbaum, Huber, and Prediger né Grosskreutz.

He was carrying the weapon illegally and it was reported he brandished the weapon which is very illegal and can get you shot if you do it towards police officers.

There is no evidence he "brandished" his rifle. The hipster doofus prosecutor tried to claim that based on a few stray pixels from a video still, but that was a farce, as was that entire trial.