• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Florida Man, Legislative Affairs Director for the State Board of Administration Shot Dead

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,057
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Gun Nut said:
Yes, the person defending themselves was justified in shooting. However, regardless of the situation, the law assigns accountability for every bullet that leaves a person's gun. Had this person missed their target (or shot through their target) and killed another person, it would still be manslaughter of some degree, depending on the reasonableness of the shot taken, the necessity, known risk, etc.
I see; then I say it's another case where the law is wrong. Still, my point stands, as it is not affected by this.


Gun Nut said:
I know the quotes are all broken... it's the site and I refuse to work any harder to fix it... its already too much a chore to do a simple quote.. god forbid you need to edit for snips
It's alright, I tend to have the same problem...and others :( I really dislike the new forum software. :mad:

Much relief:
When you select text to quote there’s a tiny “reply” box that shows up under it. Click that and it does all the work for you. Try it, you’ll like it!
Took me until a day or so ago to notice it.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Gun Nut said:
Yes, the person defending themselves was justified in shooting. However, regardless of the situation, the law assigns accountability for every bullet that leaves a person's gun. Had this person missed their target (or shot through their target) and killed another person, it would still be manslaughter of some degree, depending on the reasonableness of the shot taken, the necessity, known risk, etc.
I see; then I say it's another case where the law is wrong. Still, my point stands, as it is not affected by this.


Gun Nut said:
I know the quotes are all broken... it's the site and I refuse to work any harder to fix it... its already too much a chore to do a simple quote.. god forbid you need to edit for snips
It's alright, I tend to have the same problem...and others :( I really dislike the new forum software. :mad:

Much relief:
When you select text to quote there’s a tiny “reply” box that shows up under it. Click that and it does all the work for you. Try it, you’ll like it!
Took me until a day or so ago to notice it.
Thanks, but I tried "reply", and it does something that I don't understand and find difficult to manage. I'm used to quoting manually when I want to quote (I do not use the quote features of the forum) But for some reason this forum makes that more difficult, with some text appearing in the box that I find it difficult to get rid of partially (since I want to keep some). Anyway, I think I'm getting used to the solution - select all, delete, then copy and paste. But sometimes I forget and it's still annoying. I'll learn eventually. :)
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,716
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I prefer no one dead and no one using guns or knives or bats or motor vehicles or poison or candlesticks in the library.

I prefer that people not engage in road rage or other criminal acts.
You don't get to choose from scenarios that don't exist.

In this case the bad guy was already using his car as a weapon before guns ever came into play. Remove the guns and it's big car vs small car--in all probability the big car wins.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
20,916
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
I prefer no one dead and no one using guns or knives or bats or motor vehicles or poison or candlesticks in the library.

I prefer that people not engage in road rage or other criminal acts.
You don't get to choose from scenarios that don't exist.

In this case the bad guy was already using his car as a weapon before guns ever came into play. Remove the guns and it's big car vs small car--in all probability the big car wins.
Did it occur to you that just maybe the existence of the firearms in those cars may have influenced their behavior?

BTW, the bad guy using his car as a weapon was using it against another car not the driver. This was a completely senseless tragedy on multiple levels.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,029
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Gun Nut said:
Yes, the person defending themselves was justified in shooting. However, regardless of the situation, the law assigns accountability for every bullet that leaves a person's gun. Had this person missed their target (or shot through their target) and killed another person, it would still be manslaughter of some degree, depending on the reasonableness of the shot taken, the necessity, known risk, etc.
I see; then I say it's another case where the law is wrong. Still, my point stands, as it is not affected by this.


Gun Nut said:
I know the quotes are all broken... it's the site and I refuse to work any harder to fix it... its already too much a chore to do a simple quote.. god forbid you need to edit for snips
It's alright, I tend to have the same problem...and others :( I really dislike the new forum software. :mad:

Much relief:
When you select text to quote there’s a tiny “reply” box that shows up under it. Click that and it does all the work for you. Try it, you’ll like it!
Took me until a day or so ago to notice it.
There's also this [ ] icon hidden under the vertical ... adjacent to the undo icon. Click that and it goes back to the old markup.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,716
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I prefer no one dead and no one using guns or knives or bats or motor vehicles or poison or candlesticks in the library.

I prefer that people not engage in road rage or other criminal acts.
You don't get to choose from scenarios that don't exist.

In this case the bad guy was already using his car as a weapon before guns ever came into play. Remove the guns and it's big car vs small car--in all probability the big car wins.
Did it occur to you that just maybe the existence of the firearms in those cars may have influenced their behavior?

BTW, the bad guy using his car as a weapon was using it against another car not the driver. This was a completely senseless tragedy on multiple levels.

Saying the target is the car doesn't make it so. Note where he rammed: the driver's door.
 

Enigma

Shaman of the Machine Spirits
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Messages
102
Location
In the Database
Gender
Whatever I say it is.
Basic Beliefs
Nature kinda sucks. Crafting disturbingly hilarious mental images can be both fun and educational.
I prefer no one dead and no one using guns or knives or bats or motor vehicles or poison or candlesticks in the library.

I prefer that people not engage in road rage or other criminal acts.
You don't get to choose from scenarios that don't exist.

In this case the bad guy was already using his car as a weapon before guns ever came into play. Remove the guns and it's big car vs small car--in all probability the big car wins.
Did it occur to you that just maybe the existence of the firearms in those cars may have influenced their behavior?

BTW, the bad guy using his car as a weapon was using it against another car not the driver. This was a completely senseless tragedy on multiple levels.
Ah, the classic "No, your Honor. My client was not intentionally shooting the deceased but was instead shooting their hat. The fact that the deceased was wearing the hat at the time is an incidental detail." defense.

Good stuff.
 

Gospel

Warning Level 9999
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
2,899
Location
Florida
Gender
Masculine
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
He rammed the car to send a message to the driver and the driver received that message.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
29,816
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
I wonder if this story would make the NRA's list of good guys with guns.
 

Gospel

Warning Level 9999
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
2,899
Location
Florida
Gender
Masculine
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
To the NRA's purse, everyone with a gun is the good guy.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
20,916
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
I prefer no one dead and no one using guns or knives or bats or motor vehicles or poison or candlesticks in the library.

I prefer that people not engage in road rage or other criminal acts.
You don't get to choose from scenarios that don't exist.

In this case the bad guy was already using his car as a weapon before guns ever came into play. Remove the guns and it's big car vs small car--in all probability the big car wins.
Did it occur to you that just maybe the existence of the firearms in those cars may have influenced their behavior?

BTW, the bad guy using his car as a weapon was using it against another car not the driver. This was a completely senseless tragedy on multiple levels.

Saying the target is the car doesn't make it so. Note where he rammed: the driver's door.
Saying the target was the driver does not make it so.

We don't know what this jackass meant to do. But the presence of guns made it worse.
 

Gun Nut

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Messages
2,745
Location
Colorado
Basic Beliefs
None
I prefer no one dead and no one using guns or knives or bats or motor vehicles or poison or candlesticks in the library.

I prefer that people not engage in road rage or other criminal acts.
You don't get to choose from scenarios that don't exist.

In this case the bad guy was already using his car as a weapon before guns ever came into play. Remove the guns and it's big car vs small car--in all probability the big car wins.
Did it occur to you that just maybe the existence of the firearms in those cars may have influenced their behavior?

BTW, the bad guy using his car as a weapon was using it against another car not the driver. This was a completely senseless tragedy on multiple levels.

Saying the target is the car doesn't make it so. Note where he rammed: the driver's door.
Genius! "Your honor, I was not shooting at the person, I was shooting at his HAT! It's just a case of vandalism, not attempted murder.
 

Enigma

Shaman of the Machine Spirits
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Messages
102
Location
In the Database
Gender
Whatever I say it is.
Basic Beliefs
Nature kinda sucks. Crafting disturbingly hilarious mental images can be both fun and educational.
I prefer no one dead and no one using guns or knives or bats or motor vehicles or poison or candlesticks in the library.

I prefer that people not engage in road rage or other criminal acts.
You don't get to choose from scenarios that don't exist.

In this case the bad guy was already using his car as a weapon before guns ever came into play. Remove the guns and it's big car vs small car--in all probability the big car wins.
Did it occur to you that just maybe the existence of the firearms in those cars may have influenced their behavior?

BTW, the bad guy using his car as a weapon was using it against another car not the driver. This was a completely senseless tragedy on multiple levels.

Saying the target is the car doesn't make it so. Note where he rammed: the driver's door.
Saying the target was the driver does not make it so.

We don't know what this jackass meant to do. But the presence of guns made it worse.
Indeed. It's a senseless tragedy when people can't use their car to ram a Prius with someone inside without risking life and limb.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
20,916
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
I prefer no one dead and no one using guns or knives or bats or motor vehicles or poison or candlesticks in the library.

I prefer that people not engage in road rage or other criminal acts.
You don't get to choose from scenarios that don't exist.

In this case the bad guy was already using his car as a weapon before guns ever came into play. Remove the guns and it's big car vs small car--in all probability the big car wins.
Did it occur to you that just maybe the existence of the firearms in those cars may have influenced their behavior?

BTW, the bad guy using his car as a weapon was using it against another car not the driver. This was a completely senseless tragedy on multiple levels.

Saying the target is the car doesn't make it so. Note where he rammed: the driver's door.
Saying the target was the driver does not make it so.

We don't know what this jackass meant to do. But the presence of guns made it worse.
Indeed. It's a senseless tragedy when people can't use their car to ram a Prius with someone inside without risking life and limb.
I guess I am in wrong in thinking that a death caused by road rage would be viewed as a tragedy by any rational human being.

There is no good reason for a civilian to drive around with a firearm in a car in civilized society. To me that suggests a someone is looking for trouble.

Moreover, I have never heard of a road rage incident where a driver went after a pedestrian with their car. Which suggests to me that there the presence of the cars (notice the plural) ratchets up the rage.

Combining those together suggests to me that your and LP's interpretation may be unduly simplistic.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
14,629
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all

Enigma

Shaman of the Machine Spirits
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Messages
102
Location
In the Database
Gender
Whatever I say it is.
Basic Beliefs
Nature kinda sucks. Crafting disturbingly hilarious mental images can be both fun and educational.
I guess I am in wrong in thinking that a death caused by road rage would be viewed as a tragedy by any rational human being.

There is no good reason for a civilian to drive around with a firearm in a car in civilized society. To me that suggests a someone is looking for trouble.

*Insert obvious joke about whether or not Florida constitutes civilized society here*

Whatever one's opinion is on the societal status of Florida, the fact remains that the only reason that the person in the Prius lived in this encounter is that they had a gun in the car with them.
If they didn't have that gun, they would be dead or severely injured, either from the Director's gun or, even humoring the notion that the Director wouldn't have a gun in this alternate scenario, dead or severely injured by car impact. Also, odds are that we wouldn't be hearing about this story because odds of a hit-and-run occurring resulting in the BMW being long gone before police would arrive at the scene is likely.

Apparently wanting to remain alive in the event that one is dealing with a crazy driver who may or may not be armed constitutes "looking for trouble".

Moreover, I have never heard of a road rage incident where a driver went after a pedestrian with their car.

Your ignorance does not constitute an airtight argument.

Also, as a side note, is it your contention that the incident involving a car in Charlottesville plowing into pedestrians was due to the guy just being really bad at driving?

Which suggests to me that there the presence of the cars (notice the plural) ratchets up the rage.

Combining those together suggests to me that your and LP's interpretation may be unduly simplistic.

Victim-blaming the Prius for being there?

Really?

Please tell me that you aren't planning to make any arguments along the lines of "Look at the bumper-stickers the Prius was wearing, it was asking to be rammed!"
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,716
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
There is no good reason for a civilian to drive around with a firearm in a car in civilized society. To me that suggests a someone is looking for trouble.

Moreover, I have never heard of a road rage incident where a driver went after a pedestrian with their car. Which suggests to me that there the presence of the cars (notice the plural) ratchets up the rage.

Combining those together suggests to me that your and LP's interpretation may be unduly simplistic.

Your inability to see a reason doesn't make it so.

As for never hearing of a car vs pedestrian road rage, first page of Google had:


While there aren't many details note that they say "road rage" and "murder"--thus it was not an accident.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
20,916
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
I guess I am in wrong in thinking that a death caused by road rage would be viewed as a tragedy by any rational human being.

There is no good reason for a civilian to drive around with a firearm in a car in civilized society. To me that suggests a someone is looking for trouble.

*Insert obvious joke about whether or not Florida constitutes civilized society here*

Whatever one's opinion is on the societal status of Florida, the fact remains that the only reason that the person in the Prius lived in this encounter is that they had a gun in the car with them.
If they didn't have that gun, they would be dead or severely injured, either from the Director's gun or, even humoring the notion that the Director wouldn't have a gun in this alternate scenario, dead or severely injured by car impact. Also, odds are that we wouldn't be hearing about this story because odds of a hit-and-run occurring resulting in the BMW being long gone before police would arrive at the scene is likely.

Apparently wanting to remain alive in the event that one is dealing with a crazy driver who may or may not be armed constitutes "looking for trouble".
Apparently it did not occur to you that it is possible that people who feel the need to have a gun in their car are more likely to engage in escalating behavior including cutting other driver's off?

I don't know if that is true or not, but it is possible.
Moreover, I have never heard of a road rage incident where a driver went after a pedestrian with their car.

Your ignorance does not constitute an airtight argument.
Neither does yours. What is your point?
Also, as a side note, is it your contention that the incident involving a car in Charlottesville plowing into pedestrians was due to the guy just being really bad at driving?
No, it is an example of a Nazi sympathizer attacking people - not an example of road rage.
Which suggests to me that there the presence of the cars (notice the plural) ratchets up the rage.

Combining those together suggests to me that your and LP's interpretation may be unduly simplistic.

Victim-blaming the Prius for being there?

Really?

Please tell me that you aren't planning to make any arguments along the lines of "Look at the bumper-stickers the Prius was wearing, it was asking to be rammed!"


The point I was making is that it is possible that the firearms in these cars is indicative of people whose personalities are such that they more likely to engage in more aggressive behavior.

Nothing I said could have rationally been interpreted to mean that the Prius driver should not have defended himself.

Perhaps the above will stop the flow of your drivel.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
20,916
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
There is no good reason for a civilian to drive around with a firearm in a car in civilized society. To me that suggests a someone is looking for trouble.

Moreover, I have never heard of a road rage incident where a driver went after a pedestrian with their car. Which suggests to me that there the presence of the cars (notice the plural) ratchets up the rage.

Combining those together suggests to me that your and LP's interpretation may be unduly simplistic.

Your inability to see a reason doesn't make it so.
I am not employing your MO, so stop it.
As for never hearing of a car vs pedestrian road rage, first page of Google had:


While there aren't many details note that they say "road rage" and "murder"--thus it was not an accident.
There are more details here - Driver killer in road rage incident - the "pedestrian" was a driver of another car who left his vehicle to argue with the person who ended up killing him.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
14,629
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
It's still rare for gunfire to be exchanged over a traffic dust up. Fender benders and people screaming at each other is fairly common. If one believes television shows and movies, most shootings while in a motor vehicle involve gangs.

I'm going to go with Kuczwanski should never have been allowed to possess a firearm again and perhaps to never be allowed a driver's license again after the first incident. At the very least until he had been adequately cleared by a psychiatrist with the added required approval of a panel of mental health professionals. Guns and people with anger issues do not mix well. Neither do cars and people with anger issues. Doubling down by allowing people with proven in a court of law anger issues to possess firearms and to drive automobiles is really an accident looking to happen.

The only choice or even a remotely decent choice is not to arm all citizens so they can shoot the guy who shoots at them first. We already have plenty of evidence with the number of small children who are killed in their beds or at their kitchen tables while doing their homework or watching tv who are killed by stray shots at gang members shooting at each other. And how is this different? I mean both people involved seem to be unaffiliated with any gang but they both thought of themselves as cowboys/gangsters who had the absolute reason and right to carry and fire at will. I cannot mourn Kuczwanski's death but I don't cheer for the other guy, either.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,716
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I'm going to go with Kuczwanski should never have been allowed to possess a firearm again and perhaps to never be allowed a driver's license again after the first incident. At the very least until he had been adequately cleared by a psychiatrist with the added required approval of a panel of mental health professionals. Guns and people with anger issues do not mix well. Neither do cars and people with anger issues. Doubling down by allowing people with proven in a court of law anger issues to possess firearms and to drive automobiles is really an accident looking to happen.

That's where I stand. Crime of rage should be a permanent prohibition on firearms. You don't get two bites at the apple like this guy did.
 

Enigma

Shaman of the Machine Spirits
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Messages
102
Location
In the Database
Gender
Whatever I say it is.
Basic Beliefs
Nature kinda sucks. Crafting disturbingly hilarious mental images can be both fun and educational.
Whatever one's opinion is on the societal status of Florida, the fact remains that the only reason that the person in the Prius lived in this encounter is that they had a gun in the car with them.
If they didn't have that gun, they would be dead or severely injured, either from the Director's gun or, even humoring the notion that the Director wouldn't have a gun in this alternate scenario, dead or severely injured by car impact. Also, odds are that we wouldn't be hearing about this story because odds of a hit-and-run occurring resulting in the BMW being long gone before police would arrive at the scene is likely.

Apparently wanting to remain alive in the event that one is dealing with a crazy driver who may or may not be armed constitutes "looking for trouble".
Apparently it did not occur to you that it is possible that people who feel the need to have a gun in their car are more likely to engage in escalating behavior including cutting other driver's off?

Nice victim blaming there. Without even any pretense of evidentiary support.

I don't know if that is true or not, but it is possible.

Pro-Tip: If you are going to engage in evidence-free conjecture, at least take some time to make it interesting evidence-free conjecture.

For example:

The Prius driver was obviously right to defend himself with all available force because it is possible the director had a deep seated bigotry against people who drive Priuses that is only exacerbated by a very rare confluence of both genetic and environmental factors (again, it is Florida) that can result in him becoming a beastly berserker who has lost all senses of ethics, morality, and restraint.

Because of this confluence of factors, if he wasn't stopped it is very well possible that he would have repeatedly rammed into the Prius until it was completely disabled then tear the driver out of the car and then proceed to kill, rape, skin, and eat the driver. Hopefully in that order.

If he wasn't stopped here, it is possible that these factors would result in him doing this to the next Prius he came across. Frankly we should be giving the Prius driver a medal for stopping this deranged madman before he could do that to anyone else who was less prepared for such an occurrence.

All that being said, I don't know if that is true or not, but it is possible.
Which suggests to me that there the presence of the cars (notice the plural) ratchets up the rage.

Combining those together suggests to me that your and LP's interpretation may be unduly simplistic.

Victim-blaming the Prius for being there?

Really?

Please tell me that you aren't planning to make any arguments along the lines of "Look at the bumper-stickers the Prius was wearing, it was asking to be rammed!"


The point I was making is that it is possible that the firearms in these cars is indicative of people whose personalities are such that they more likely to engage in more aggressive behavior.

Your victim-blaming is noted.

Nothing I said could have rationally been interpreted to mean that the Prius driver should not have defended himself.

There is no good reason for a civilian to drive around with a firearm in a car in civilized society.

Apparently, "defending yourself" is not a good reason to have a firearm in a car in civilized society (or Florida).

Given that having guns in the car for defense is morally suspect, please enlighten us as to any alternative and effective means of self-defense in this scenario that would not lead you to cast aspersions on the character of those who have/use said means.

If you believe that the Prius driver should be able to defend themselves, but that they should be barred from having any effective means of defending themselves, that is effectively a distinction without a difference.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,029
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Apparently, "defending yourself" is not a good reason to have a firearm in a car in civilized society
Yes. This, but unironically.

Because having a gun to defend yourself in a society makes it less civilized and more (FIGHT TO THE DEATH).

I tend to think in most situations (FIGHT TO THE DEATH) is what civilization is here to cut down on as much as possible.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
20,916
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Whatever one's opinion is on the societal status of Florida, the fact remains that the only reason that the person in the Prius lived in this encounter is that they had a gun in the car with them.
If they didn't have that gun, they would be dead or severely injured, either from the Director's gun or, even humoring the notion that the Director wouldn't have a gun in this alternate scenario, dead or severely injured by car impact. Also, odds are that we wouldn't be hearing about this story because odds of a hit-and-run occurring resulting in the BMW being long gone before police would arrive at the scene is likely.

Apparently wanting to remain alive in the event that one is dealing with a crazy driver who may or may not be armed constitutes "looking for trouble".
Apparently it did not occur to you that it is possible that people who feel the need to have a gun in their car are more likely to engage in escalating behavior including cutting other driver's off?

Nice victim blaming there. Without even any pretense of evidentiary support.
Straw man noted
I don't know if that is true or not, but it is possible.

Pro-Tip: If you are going to engage in evidence-free conjecture, at least take some time to make it interesting evidence-free conjecture……
Like your straw man driven rants? LOL
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,057
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Apparently, "defending yourself" is not a good reason to have a firearm in a car in civilized society
Yes. This, but unironically.

Because having a gun to defend yourself in a society makes it less civilized and more (FIGHT TO THE DEATH).

I tend to think in most situations (FIGHT TO THE DEATH) is what civilization is here to cut down on as much as possible.
There is no reason short of the zombie apocalypse to have a loaded firearm in a car. Even then, unless it's loaded with silver bullets - Oh, wait, that's for vampires. Sorry.
In short, what we have is a LCC with a gun, picking a fight with someone in a Prius under the false assumption that he was the only one with a gun.
The main reason for someone who is NOT a LCC to have a gun in their car, is the existence of LCCs with guns in their cars.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,029
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Apparently, "defending yourself" is not a good reason to have a firearm in a car in civilized society
Yes. This, but unironically.

Because having a gun to defend yourself in a society makes it less civilized and more (FIGHT TO THE DEATH).

I tend to think in most situations (FIGHT TO THE DEATH) is what civilization is here to cut down on as much as possible.
There is no reason short of the zombie apocalypse to have a loaded firearm in a car. Even then, unless it's loaded with silver bullets - Oh, wait, that's for vampires. Sorry.
In short, what we have is a LCC with a gun, picking a fight with someone in a Prius under the false assumption that he was the only one with a gun.
The main reason for someone who is NOT a LCC to have a gun in their car, is the existence of LCCs with guns in their cars.
The only reason for wanting a gun is specifically because one fears that the society they live in is uncivilized.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,057
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
The only reason for wanting a gun is specifically because one fears that the society they live in is uncivilized
In other words, you’re either a LCC or you’re afraid of them.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Apparently, "defending yourself" is not a good reason to have a firearm in a car in civilized society
Yes. This, but unironically.

Because having a gun to defend yourself in a society makes it less civilized and more (FIGHT TO THE DEATH).

I tend to think in most situations (FIGHT TO THE DEATH) is what civilization is here to cut down on as much as possible.
There is no reason short of the zombie apocalypse to have a loaded firearm in a car. Even then, unless it's loaded with silver bullets - Oh, wait, that's for vampires. Sorry.
In short, what we have is a LCC with a gun, picking a fight with someone in a Prius under the false assumption that he was the only one with a gun.
The main reason for someone who is NOT a LCC to have a gun in their car, is the existence of LCCs with guns in their cars.
The only reason for wanting a gun is specifically because one fears that the society they live in is uncivilized.
Who is "the society"?
There are several reasons for wanting a gun, but a prominent one is that one reckons that there enough dangerous criminals on the street to warrant it, as a means of self-defense, as the police will often not be there in time. Whether the reason is justified depends on the circumstances. But that does not tell you that "the society" is uncivilized. It may well be that well over 90% are civilized people. But there are enough who aren't to warrant having a gun for self-defense.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,029
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Apparently, "defending yourself" is not a good reason to have a firearm in a car in civilized society
Yes. This, but unironically.

Because having a gun to defend yourself in a society makes it less civilized and more (FIGHT TO THE DEATH).

I tend to think in most situations (FIGHT TO THE DEATH) is what civilization is here to cut down on as much as possible.
There is no reason short of the zombie apocalypse to have a loaded firearm in a car. Even then, unless it's loaded with silver bullets - Oh, wait, that's for vampires. Sorry.
In short, what we have is a LCC with a gun, picking a fight with someone in a Prius under the false assumption that he was the only one with a gun.
The main reason for someone who is NOT a LCC to have a gun in their car, is the existence of LCCs with guns in their cars.
The only reason for wanting a gun is specifically because one fears that the society they live in is uncivilized.
Who is "the society"?...
Ok, you got me. Those who fear the society is uncivilized, and those who rejoice to make society uncivilized.

I don't think either warrants the activity to carry around guns and actually MAKE it uncivilized no matter what your motivation is.

As to who the society is, it includes both, and everyone else besides.

Your fear that you need guns to make criminals not commit crime (you don't!) Makes the criminals know that guns are what they need to commit crime.

I live in a fairly large city and I commute through it on public transit. I live in one of the poorest regions in that large city, and I see many of the poorest people who live here, often on a daily basis. Yet somehow these 10%* have only materialized three or four times, for me.

That is very few times for 10% of the population to try something. Granted in two of those attacks it wasn't me they were moving on, and in two or three of those situations, they stopped moving on account of the presence of a thing brandished as a weapon, though the thing was not a gun in any such case.

You are not making a very strong case for decaying the civilization level of our society

*wow, btw, a whole 10% of your world is criminals waiting to rob and rape you? That must be an awful place to live!!
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Jarhyn said:
Ok, you got me. Those who fear the society is uncivilized, and those who rejoice to make society uncivilized.
And those who fear that some of the members of the society are uncivilized (more precisely, violent criminals) and they pose enough of a threat to warrant carrying a firearm, even if the vast majority of the members of the society are civilized.

Jarhyn said:
I don't think either warrants the activity to carry around guns and actually MAKE it uncivilized no matter what your motivation is.
But in some cases, it does warrant the activity of carrying around guns, without making it uncivilized.
Whether it is warranted depends on the case.

Jarhyn said:
Your fear that you need guns to make criminals not commit crime (you don't!) Makes the criminals know that guns are what they need to commit crime.
I was not talking about me. I was challenging your claim about reasons for wanting a gun.

That aside, there are places in which criminals regularly do carry guns. Or they carry knives and kill people just as well. And carrying a gun for self-defense would be a rational choice for many, who would rationally prefer the odds gun vs. gun rather than nothing vs. knife, or knife vs. knife, etc.
Jarhyn said:
I live in a fairly large city and I commute through it on public transit. I live in one of the poorest regions in that large city, and I see many of the poorest people who live here, often on a daily basis. Yet somehow these 10%* have only materialized three or four times, for me.
First, I said "well over" 90%. It could be 95%. Or 99%, etc. I'm considering a hypothetical scenario, and a realistic one, and pointing out there are reasons for wanting a gun other than what you said. Whether the use of guns is justified depends on how dangerous the others are, among other factors.

Second, I never suggested that it was justified where you live. It's almost certainly much less than 10%, but in any case, it might or might not be justified for all I know; I do not have enough information to tell. (side note: 3 or 4 times seems like a lot to me. But perhaps street criminal where you live are not so prone to use violence; I do not know).

Jarhyn said:
That is very few times for 10% of the population to try something.
Indeed; 10% levels or more I reckon you might get in some (limited) places in the Wild West, 19th century or before, things like that...or in some pretty bad places in the present day. But I'm not sure how high it could get.

Jarhyn said:
You are not making a very strong case for decaying the civilization level of our society
You're not making a very strong case for dropping nukes in Russia?

I'm not making a case for " decaying the civilization level of our society ". I am arguing that people want guns for reasons other than what you claim.

Jarhyn said:
*wow, btw, a whole 10% of your world is criminals waiting to rob and rape you? That must be an awful place to live!!
First, no, I never suggested that.
Second, rob me? A lot fewer than that, but enough for me to be looking around carefully, especially but not only at night. It does increase the awfulness of the place by a lot.
Third, rape me? The risk is far too low for me to be concerned. Nearly all street criminals (or any other kind) would almost certainly not be interested. But for other people, it would be a serious concern.
 
Last edited:

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,716
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Apparently, "defending yourself" is not a good reason to have a firearm in a car in civilized society
Yes. This, but unironically.

Because having a gun to defend yourself in a society makes it less civilized and more (FIGHT TO THE DEATH).

I tend to think in most situations (FIGHT TO THE DEATH) is what civilization is here to cut down on as much as possible.
There is no reason short of the zombie apocalypse to have a loaded firearm in a car. Even then, unless it's loaded with silver bullets - Oh, wait, that's for vampires. Sorry.
In short, what we have is a LCC with a gun, picking a fight with someone in a Prius under the false assumption that he was the only one with a gun.
The main reason for someone who is NOT a LCC to have a gun in their car, is the existence of LCCs with guns in their cars.

Note that with no guns involved it's probably the opposite outcome--good guy dead, bad guy alive. The shooter did have a reason to carry a gun!
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,716
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The only reason for wanting a gun is specifically because one fears that the society they live in is uncivilized
In other words, you’re either a LCC or you’re afraid of them.

The crime rate by LCCs is very low (and many of those crimes are crimes of improper carrying--crimes that hurt nobody.) It's not people being afraid of LCCs, it's people being afraid of various bad guys that they wouldn't be able to defend themselves in a hand-to-hand fight.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,029
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Apparently, "defending yourself" is not a good reason to have a firearm in a car in civilized society
Yes. This, but unironically.

Because having a gun to defend yourself in a society makes it less civilized and more (FIGHT TO THE DEATH).

I tend to think in most situations (FIGHT TO THE DEATH) is what civilization is here to cut down on as much as possible.
There is no reason short of the zombie apocalypse to have a loaded firearm in a car. Even then, unless it's loaded with silver bullets - Oh, wait, that's for vampires. Sorry.
In short, what we have is a LCC with a gun, picking a fight with someone in a Prius under the false assumption that he was the only one with a gun.
The main reason for someone who is NOT a LCC to have a gun in their car, is the existence of LCCs with guns in their cars.

Note that with no guns involved it's probably the opposite outcome--good guy dead, bad guy alive. The shooter did have a reason to carry a gun!
It's interesting insofar as you declare guys good and bad here.

Even in the event of actual pitched war, of one army against another and one of those armies built on an openly fascist regime, the furthest I have ever gone (and it was too far) was calling for the execution of people for whom our prisons could not hold and for whom there was no clear path to rehabilitation.

Even then I think it's wrong to declare such people are bad.

If we all carried guns because we fear someone will use their car to murder us in our cars, then that logic would put a gun in every car and then it would be right back to "the only reason the asshole died here is because his aim was for shit".

I would rather contend where someone must sacrifice and ruin a fairly expensive piece of machinery to murder me, thanks.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,716
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

Note that with no guns involved it's probably the opposite outcome--good guy dead, bad guy alive. The shooter did have a reason to carry a gun!
It's interesting insofar as you declare guys good and bad here.

Even in the event of actual pitched war, of one army against another and one of those armies built on an openly fascist regime, the furthest I have ever gone (and it was too far) was calling for the execution of people for whom our prisons could not hold and for whom there was no clear path to rehabilitation.

Even then I think it's wrong to declare such people are bad.

If we all carried guns because we fear someone will use their car to murder us in our cars, then that logic would put a gun in every car and then it would be right back to "the only reason the asshole died here is because his aim was for shit".

I would rather contend where someone must sacrifice and ruin a fairly expensive piece of machinery to murder me, thanks.
Good guy = person obeying the law. Bad guy = person breaking the law.

As for having to ruin an expensive piece of machinery--such people aren't thinking clearly. The truck is nothing compared to many years in jail, if the latter isn't a deterrent then the former isn't, either.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,029
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist

Note that with no guns involved it's probably the opposite outcome--good guy dead, bad guy alive. The shooter did have a reason to carry a gun!
It's interesting insofar as you declare guys good and bad here.

Even in the event of actual pitched war, of one army against another and one of those armies built on an openly fascist regime, the furthest I have ever gone (and it was too far) was calling for the execution of people for whom our prisons could not hold and for whom there was no clear path to rehabilitation.

Even then I think it's wrong to declare such people are bad.

If we all carried guns because we fear someone will use their car to murder us in our cars, then that logic would put a gun in every car and then it would be right back to "the only reason the asshole died here is because his aim was for shit".

I would rather contend where someone must sacrifice and ruin a fairly expensive piece of machinery to murder me, thanks.
Good guy = person obeying the law. Bad guy = person breaking the law.

As for having to ruin an expensive piece of machinery--such people aren't thinking clearly. The truck is nothing compared to many years in jail, if the latter isn't a deterrent then the former isn't, either.
The latter is not immediate. At any rate, the cost incurred for such and the consequences of... All that... It's just not enough for me to care so much as to make myself readily and repeatably lethal at range.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,057
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
The latter is not immediate. At any rate, the cost incurred for such and the consequences of...
The right thing to do when someone attacks someone with their car is to make them walk home.
Of course you take away their gun first.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,029
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
The latter is not immediate. At any rate, the cost incurred for such and the consequences of...
The right thing to do when someone attacks someone with their car is to make them walk home.
Of course you take away their gun first.
Well, make them walk home and then everywhere else for the foreseeable future.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,716
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The latter is not immediate. At any rate, the cost incurred for such and the consequences of...
The right thing to do when someone attacks someone with their car is to make them walk home.
Of course you take away their gun first.
Well, make them walk home and then everywhere else for the foreseeable future.
No. Just permanently take their ability to drive. They can still take the bus and the like.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,029
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
The latter is not immediate. At any rate, the cost incurred for such and the consequences of...
The right thing to do when someone attacks someone with their car is to make them walk home.
Of course you take away their gun first.
Well, make them walk home and then everywhere else for the foreseeable future.
No. Just permanently take their ability to drive. They can still take the bus and the like.
-_-

Seriously? Yer killin' me smalls.

"Walking" generally includes public transit where available. As well as biking and the like.

But I would even give them an annual bus pass for their trouble.
 

Gospel

Warning Level 9999
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
2,899
Location
Florida
Gender
Masculine
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
The latter is not immediate. At any rate, the cost incurred for such and the consequences of...
The right thing to do when someone attacks someone with their car is to make them walk home.
Of course you take away their gun first.
Well, make them walk home and then everywhere else for the foreseeable future.
No. Just permanently take their ability to drive. They can still take the bus and the like.

I like that idea. In Orlando FL that's as good as the death sentence cause our public transport sucks.
 
Top Bottom