The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
[GUN RESPONSIBILITY] Soldier shoots his friend in the face trying to cure his hiccups.
joshofalltrades
Class TraitorSmoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
Class TraitorSmoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
I know there are some people in D&D who will hate me for making this thread. I still feel like it's something we should talk about.
I was reading about this incident and you know what? This is just fucked. I understand that alcohol was involved but I feel that in no way absolves this man of his behavior.
In case you don't feel like reading the link, a soldier in (*siiiiigh*) Texas was drinking with a couple of his soldier friends and one of them got the hiccups. So he did the only reasonable thing and pulled his gun to scare the hiccups out of him. In the process, he accidentally shot him in the face and has now been charged with manslaughter.
Okay, so a thread where we all go, "Yeah, this one guy was way out of line and he's getting charged for it, so what is there to debate?" doesn't seem like it will go anywhere. But this story, to me, highlights how ridiculous and casual we have become about a thing that can literally end a human life just by pointing it at someone and squeezing.
While this incident may be dumber than other accidental homicides as a result of a gun owner acting negligently (I mean, seriously, this is like something you'd hear an ECHO log about in Borderlands for fuck's sake), it is by no means isolated. People drink while they have their concealed guns on them all the time. I know people here in (*SIIIIIIIGH*) Texas who do it very often. As in, almost every time I see them. When I point out that they are being irresponsible at best and a danger to themselves and others at worst, I am usually chided as a pussy or it is dismissed as, "Dude, chill. Nothing is going to happen."
But you know what? We don't let other people smoke around us, because that's a health hazard that we didn't sign up for. Some people will undoubtedly tell me to move out of (*SIIIIIIIGH*) Texas and get to a state where there isn't such a high percentage of the population that is goddamn nutball bonkers about their weapons, but I think that misses the point. If somebody was smoking in a public place with lots of people around and I told them I was uncomfortable with it because it was a health risk to others, I wouldn't get, "Pshh. Sack up, sissy. If you don't like me smoking, you can leave."
I think the interpretation of the right to bear arms has gotten out of hand in some parts of America. Yes, I think people should be allowed to own guns. But why do we place a burden of social responsibility on people who smoke, causing potential severe long-term damage to those around them and not on people who carry weapons of instant death? I don't read a lot of stories where a concealed carry civilian (or even an off-duty soldier or cop) found themselves in a shootout while they were out and about or chilling with their friends at home and just happened to save the day with their trusty peacemaker. But I do read a lot of stories where guns come out and the situation immediately gets exponentially worse.
Do I have something solid I'm proposing in this OP? I mean, I could throw something out there and we can discuss it and you can tell me why you think it's a good idea or a bad idea, or whatever. I have a friend in the Air Force who owns a gun and he keeps it in a very easily acquired location at home. He doesn't have to get to some location in the house where he will have to pass a potential intruder to get to his weapon if he needs to defend himself. But here's the thing: it's in a safe that requires his fingerprint to open. It's not a long scan, either. Finger goes on the pad, couple seconds later the safe is open. So you know, if he needs his gun, it's there. But he can't just whip it out and shoot someone in the face. It makes me a lot more comfortable being in his house.
Where am I going with that? I guess I just don't see the need for people to haul guns with them wherever they go. Just in case they spot an awesome buck or something. I'm not making the argument that we should have more gun control in this thread (because God that is a shitstorm). But I think the standard of responsibility for people who want to own something that can kill someone should be very high.
A quick note: if you compare gun ownership to car ownership in this thread you lose the internets. Unless you are regularly harassed by ninja warriors every morning, you don't need your gun to function in today's society like you need your automobile.
I was reading about this incident and you know what? This is just fucked. I understand that alcohol was involved but I feel that in no way absolves this man of his behavior.
In case you don't feel like reading the link, a soldier in (*siiiiigh*) Texas was drinking with a couple of his soldier friends and one of them got the hiccups. So he did the only reasonable thing and pulled his gun to scare the hiccups out of him. In the process, he accidentally shot him in the face and has now been charged with manslaughter.
Okay, so a thread where we all go, "Yeah, this one guy was way out of line and he's getting charged for it, so what is there to debate?" doesn't seem like it will go anywhere. But this story, to me, highlights how ridiculous and casual we have become about a thing that can literally end a human life just by pointing it at someone and squeezing.
While this incident may be dumber than other accidental homicides as a result of a gun owner acting negligently (I mean, seriously, this is like something you'd hear an ECHO log about in Borderlands for fuck's sake), it is by no means isolated. People drink while they have their concealed guns on them all the time. I know people here in (*SIIIIIIIGH*) Texas who do it very often. As in, almost every time I see them. When I point out that they are being irresponsible at best and a danger to themselves and others at worst, I am usually chided as a pussy or it is dismissed as, "Dude, chill. Nothing is going to happen."
But you know what? We don't let other people smoke around us, because that's a health hazard that we didn't sign up for. Some people will undoubtedly tell me to move out of (*SIIIIIIIGH*) Texas and get to a state where there isn't such a high percentage of the population that is goddamn nutball bonkers about their weapons, but I think that misses the point. If somebody was smoking in a public place with lots of people around and I told them I was uncomfortable with it because it was a health risk to others, I wouldn't get, "Pshh. Sack up, sissy. If you don't like me smoking, you can leave."
I think the interpretation of the right to bear arms has gotten out of hand in some parts of America. Yes, I think people should be allowed to own guns. But why do we place a burden of social responsibility on people who smoke, causing potential severe long-term damage to those around them and not on people who carry weapons of instant death? I don't read a lot of stories where a concealed carry civilian (or even an off-duty soldier or cop) found themselves in a shootout while they were out and about or chilling with their friends at home and just happened to save the day with their trusty peacemaker. But I do read a lot of stories where guns come out and the situation immediately gets exponentially worse.
Do I have something solid I'm proposing in this OP? I mean, I could throw something out there and we can discuss it and you can tell me why you think it's a good idea or a bad idea, or whatever. I have a friend in the Air Force who owns a gun and he keeps it in a very easily acquired location at home. He doesn't have to get to some location in the house where he will have to pass a potential intruder to get to his weapon if he needs to defend himself. But here's the thing: it's in a safe that requires his fingerprint to open. It's not a long scan, either. Finger goes on the pad, couple seconds later the safe is open. So you know, if he needs his gun, it's there. But he can't just whip it out and shoot someone in the face. It makes me a lot more comfortable being in his house.
Where am I going with that? I guess I just don't see the need for people to haul guns with them wherever they go. Just in case they spot an awesome buck or something. I'm not making the argument that we should have more gun control in this thread (because God that is a shitstorm). But I think the standard of responsibility for people who want to own something that can kill someone should be very high.
A quick note: if you compare gun ownership to car ownership in this thread you lose the internets. Unless you are regularly harassed by ninja warriors every morning, you don't need your gun to function in today's society like you need your automobile.
joshofalltrades on
0
Posts
Too soon?
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
And I'm Afrikaans, we had more guns than family members.
I like guns, had a few myself, looking to get some once I figure out the NZ laws. Got my competency cert (now required in SA for gun licenses) for handguns, rifles and carbines. Lived in a country with reminders everyday that it's dangerous.
And I still don't get the obsession with having a gun on your person all the time. That the thought of regulating it in some way spawns pages of hypothetical situations.
So something like the OP happens, and my reaction is pretty much Okay? What did you expect would happen.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
I know someone who carries a concealed handgun because he works in a notoriously crime-ridden city for a news organization, which frequently places him at all hours in the worst parts of this already pretty nasty town. He's well trained, lacks a criminal record, and has only had to use it once (which, fortunately, did not result in a fatality). His vocation more or less requires contact with high-risk crime areas, but he's by no means employed in a way that explicitly demands he have weapons, nor that assures that he'll have an official armed escort when he's required to be somewhere dangerous. It's been more than reassuring to have the piece.
Is it unreasonable for such a person to have a concealed weapon? And if it is not, would denying him the ability to carry it still be a social net benefit given the impact on all the higher-risk owners who want to wander around like the old West? Frankly, I don't have a good answer to that.
What I can say for damned near certain is that yes, shit has a statistical probability of getting about 300% more real when the guns come out.
This is the big thing for me. While a gun has a certain... finality to it, there are other ways of defending yourself in high-risk areas. I'm not talking about Jeet Kune Do or a taser (one shot, if you're surrounded by gang members they are now chopping off your balls).
Pepper spray works on any number of assailants. It still works at range. And really, if you're being surrounded by a bunch of goons and they're all strapped, you having your S&W isn't exactly going to change the tide of the battle.
I was very pro-gun control during most of my teen years, but I have since softened my stance (ironically while all my other politics shifted leftwards). I don't believe guns are necessarily very effective as a practical means of defense either of one's property or one's civil liberties (if the New World Order decides to take all your guns, that remington in your pickup won't stop them), but I believe regardless that law-abiding people ought to have the right to use lethal force to defend themselves and their property if they are really willing to take that responsibility upon themselves.
Nevertheless, I think the U.S. gun lobby is a bit overboard in its interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. When the Bill of Rights was written, "arms" meant muskets. You cannot commit the Columbine Massacre with a brace of flintlocks. It is wildly irresponsible to argue "original intent!" when talking about shit the mass lethality of which the authors of the Constitution could never have even conceived. Moreover, if ever the situation arises where fully-automatic assault weapons become necessary implements of home defense, your chances of survival are probably pretty limited already.
TL;DR, handguns and rifles are cool but goddamn be reasonable
Look we do this thread pretty much like clockwork every three months. First we have no correlation between gun control and a drop in violent crime. Violent crime rates have been steadily decreasing worldwide. Next we usually stumble into the bullshit militia argument, which aside from being bullshit modern revisionist history is irrelevant anyway as every American male between the ages of 18-45 is a member of the reserve militia anyway. Look the first machine gun was patented in 1715. Our country was founded in 1776. Pretending they meant muskets is disingenuous. Usually by this point someone has said something stupid about Military style, fully auto, or some other random buzzword the fearmonger factless media threw out there due to whatever random tragedy inspired this round of something must be done. Fully automatic weapons do exist, and are available for civilian ownership provided you have a buttload of money to spend on them. Feel like owning a cheap shitty uzi clone? That will be 5 grand, a bunch of forms, and several months while the ATF runs a background check. No one is using them in crimes. At this point we end up bitching about assault rifles in general. In 2010 there were 12,996 murders in the US. 6009 of these were committed with handguns. 358 were committed with rifles which is everything from your standard ar-15 to your bolt action hunting rifle. Guess which we write our gun legislation to target? Pretty sure that saves us about 5 pages.
At the end of the day gun legislation is a poison pill for the left, and any problem it claims to solve would likely be better addressed though other more well thought out legislative initiatives. If we could just legislate away people acting drunk and stupid it would be awesome, unfortunately we have no way to directly target the root of the problem. Which is stupid people doing stupid things.
Reading the 2nd amendment correctly could help with these sorts of situations. One need not carry their gun to the bar in order to maintain a well regulated militia.
Reading the 2nd amendment incorrectly fosters these sorts of situations.
So, yeah, we do need more gun control. It says so right in the fucking amendment.
Can anyone cite an example of someone being persauded to change their opinions in a gun control thread?
Everything else is a biiiiig grey area though.
To be honest, that's a vocal minority.
Very few Americans insist on the right to be armed at all times.
And I say this as somebody who grew up with one of those constantly-armed Americans (my dad).
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
But maybe just me. Who knows.
What are the current US laws RE: intoxication while in possession of a gun?
I don't really think there are any hoops you can force someone to jump through to prevent this or whatever tragedy we're specifically focusing on at the time, but I'm all for it anyway. I don't really have a problem with guns, but I'm not in an area where people just keep them out and handy. That's very strange to me, and I'm sitting in America right now!
Eh, I'm not so sure about that. Part of the reason I will never drive drunk is because of the rather awesome driver's ed instruction I got while I was still learning how to drive. I can still remember it; they brought in this guy who'd driven drunk with his girlfriend one night and had ended up running off the road into a ditch, killing her and severely injuring himself. How he told his story and the way he described the effect alcohol had and how it'd dulled his judgement just enough to allow the situation to unfold like it did, it was all very compelling stuff.
Given I'm not sure how exactly that would translate to gun safety, but whatevs.
I obtained my NZ Firearms Licence about 10 years back, so may be able to answer questions if you have them. The key thing to remember in NZ is that the Police have a very humour less view of gun control and use. So when doing the tests, attending the course, being interview ed etc, assume that they will deny if they get any hint you are some sort of vigilante or home defence fiend. They will ask you that question multiple times.
You may have issues if you are not a citizen yet (not sure if residents can do it), or perhaps getting the appropriate family or non family character witness. You will also need to have a designated safe storage point, although I think you could nominate a club if you don't have one
So your argument is that "proper training and experience" exceeds that given to US soldiers?
People will be people, and people as a whole are a stupid mess. The soldier in this story should have years of training and handling of firearms but that still doesn't fix the fact that he's an idiot and was drunk.
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Wife-shoots-husband-after-he-threatens-cat-3892824.php
Santa Ana was partially responsible for the invention of modern chewing gum, so he may have actually gotten a pass in the afterlife.
But yeah, this sort of thing seems to happen in Texas more than anywhere else. I don't claim to know what the exact cause of it is; perhaps there are a variety of factors that come together to foster this sort of thing. Lack of critical thinking skills? Parents teaching their kids that it's their right to own a gun but not teaching them how to handle it and how not to handle it?
I had to bring this up because I think it is terribly argument (not that you were making it one way or the other). Yes, when the constitution was written a firearm was a musket, but free press was also a printing press. By that sort of logic the internet, television, telephone and radio could not have been covered by the first amendment as they could not have envisioned them.
Again, not arguing with you, just pointing out how that is a terrible argument.
Could you provide some examples of what standards you would like to hold people to? Or any other examples of standards we hold for other rights guaranteed by the Constitution?
We don't let the freedom of speech extend to going out in public and saying you're going to kill the President.
Likewise, I don't think you should be allowed to carry a gun if you have had even one alcoholic beverage.
you are not allowed to bring a gun into a place that serves alcohol.
But he's not making the argument that we should only allow people to have muskets.
He's just saying that when the Constitution was written, people didn't know how ridiculously powerful our weapons would become.
So unless you're saying it's cool to own your own missile launcher because the founding fathers would have been totes cool with that, we need to realize the Constitution is a living document and can and should be amended when technology changes to the point where we need to clarify things. I believe this is one of those things.
I would be completely fine with making drinking while carrying your gun a Federal crime. If the individual states (Texas siiiiigh) won't go along with that, then I think that's a standard we should all be held to.
What about being intoxicated while in possession of a gun? Is there a legal limit as there would be for a car? Is it illegal to have any alcohol at all?
It's far more important to look at the meaning of the Constitution and why the different sections and amendments were passed than to look at the exact words. Again, it's an 18th century document, it's obviously not going to correlate perfectly to modern society.
In the case of the free press, the reason it was passed was essentially so people could say what they wanted without government interference. We get into tricky questions, like in what cases should freedom of the press be limited (shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre), but the actual media used are pretty irrelevant to the idea.
In the case of the right to bear arms, the idea was so that there was a counter to potential federal tyranny. If a government takes away the right to bear arms, you don't have any way of committing violent revolution. That's a pretty important option in a country founded on violent revolution scant years before. I think it's important to look at it from that view. Is a rifle going to help protect the people from government tyranny? I'd say yes: obviously one person with a rifle isn't going to be able to match a tank or helicopter. But in the case of a widespread revolution, a couple of million people armed with and trained in the use of a rifle is a hell of a lot better than an unarmed mob.
On the other hand, is a handgun helpful? Probably not. Pistols are very good weapons if you're trying to mug someone. They're not so good weapons if you're trying to fight a war.
But as far as I know, drinking and carrying your weapon at home is not against the law. Obviously shooting someone still is, regardless of whether you're drinking or not, but the point is to stop it before it gets that far.
At the least I think that getting caught drinking while carrying a firearm should be cause to revoke your license.
Jesus christ, stop that, it's just making you look like an ignorant asshole.
What do you mean by possession of a gun? If I have a gun in my house, and I get drunk in my house, would that be illegal?
The article doesn't say, but my guess is this guy was at home, or at his friend's house.
I'll stop it when I can read a headline of someone getting shot in the face and not immediately think, "This must have happened in Texas." And be right about 80% of the time.
By possession I mean on your person or immediately to hand, not locked in a safe in another room.
He was. If drinking with your gun at home was illegal, I think he would be getting charged with something in addition to manslaughter, but he's not.