So, who is to blame?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

This OP feels a little too soon after the fact but this is gnawing at me.

The pilot that just murdered 149 people by deliberately crashing his plane had a history of mental illness and was deemed not fit for duty. In GD I have seen several threads cautioning us (lecturing us, really) not to blame the patient. I agree the patient doesn't want to be mentally ill and has done nothing to provoke their condition. So, in that regard, they are blameless and we should strive as society out of both basic decency and self-interest to provide them the treatment they need.

However, if the pilot had taken a gun and gone after his victims in a suicidal rampage who would be blamed?

-- The coed student not wanting to walk back to her dorm defenseless after staying out late studying

-- The store owner not wanting to surrender his meager earnings to common crooks

-- The wife escaping with her children from an abusive ex

-- The competition shooter

-- The hunters who feeds their families while ensuring game herds don't over-graze the land

-- The people spending time with friends and family at a generations-old hobby

-- The families protecting their homes from random criminals

And they are being blamed even though Loughner, Lanza, Hasan, Holmes, Alexis, Rogers, Cho and others were known to the authorities as being dangerous. Let that sink in. None of the above-named people emerged ex nihilo. All of them exhibited behaviors that brought them in contact with law enforcement, healthcare providers, superiors, etc. that made people warn there was a propensity for future acts of violence. We were warned. Why, then, are we blaming 80 million people for the acts of these individuals?

(By the way, how is it even logistically feasible to blame 80 million people -- a number so vast it can only be expressed as a generalized abstraction -- while those who commit the underlying heinous acts are so few they can be named as individuals?)

I suppose we could blame the authorities who appear derelict in their duties and try to hold them accountable -- but then who would be left to enforce gun control laws (assuming they would not be derelict in those duties, as well).

[Duckhunter935]

1. Blame the individual not the object

Gun or plane, an individual committed the act. So very fucked up in this case. I can just imagine that captain trying to get back in to save his passengers and aircraft. Chilling.

[kimbutgar]

2. Don't forget fox will find a way to blame President Obama

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. And that would be just as ridiculous. Shifting blame from the perpetrators to someone not even

involved serves no purpose except as means for those shifting the blame to empower themselves under false pretenses.

[kimbutgar]

4. But that's what they do all the time

Blame others when they are ones who created the environment.

[Eleanors38]

37. And Faux along with others in MSM will not dwell long on Ted Cruz's health insurance...

choices after promising to dismantle "Obamacare." There are certain narratives which just must be maintained.

[Starboard Tack]

5. Why is ascribing blame so important?

Nothing will be resolved by playing the blame game. Personal awareness, behavior and responsibility would be far more useful.
Peddling guns as safety devices is disingenuous, at best. Spreading or supporting NRA propaganda that carrying a firearm around will make one safer, only serves to exacerbate the problem.
The problem is not the existence of guns or gun ownership, but the myth that anarmed society is in some way more free and safer. Anyone who believes that, has only herself to blame.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. For someone supposedly eschewing the blame game you sure have a long list of culprits.

[friendly_iconoclast]

7. I see you noticed that, too...

[Starboard Tack]

8. How so?

I don't blame individuals or government entities. I don't blame Bloomberg or the NRA. I lay the responsibility on every individual, regardless their position on guns, to educate themselves and think objectively before making lifestyle decisions based on propaganda and myth.

If I blame anything, then it is closed mindedness, which, when mixed with fear and gullibility, is a recipe for disaster. And that applies to anything in life.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. What you call, "propaganda and myth" others call their carefully weighed choices.

[Starboard Tack]

12. I seriously doubt that

I don't think either those who want to ban all firearms, or those who think indiscriminate carrying of firearms is progressive, have "carefully weighed their choices" against reality.
Those who take extreme positions do not carefully weigh choices.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. Four points --

1) define "indiscriminate carrying in public"

2) describe how carrying in public, indiscriminate or otherwise, contributes to the acts of Holmes, Loughner, Cho, etc.

3) why, if you're not blame-shifting, are those who carry in public being associated with acts perpetrated by others

4) how does my OP lead you to a discussion of "indiscriminate carrying" -- unless you are labeling my examples of the college coed, shop owner, etc. as indiscriminate.

[stone space]

18. See JT Ready. See Craig Hicks. See also Veronica Dunnachie

1) define "indiscriminate carrying in public"

They just won't leave us alone.

[Duckhunter935]

19. are those the majority of firearms owners

or a fringe minority of the hundred million or so that own firearms?

Are you lumping all firearms owners into that group?

[stone space]

20. Was I addressing all gunowners?

1) define "indiscriminate carrying in public"

Maybe if you actually read the post and put it in the context of the thread, you might be better able to understand.



All of those mass murderers were drawn from an extremely tiny but very vocal and very visible fringe subgroup of gun owners who can't go out to eat at a restaurant or to a park without bringing their guns along to intimidate the innocent unarmed civilians and their families there.

They are all very public exhibitionistic ammosexuals, not ordinary gunowners with a gun locked up in a safe at home.

[Duckhunter935]

21. Do not forget the majority

that conceal carry and you never know are not the problem. Even in somebodies calculuz class.

drawn from an extremely tiny but very vocal and very visible fringe subgroup

So why do you want to put additional laws on the vast majority that are not the problem?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. "Was I addressing all gunowners?"

That's who is affected by the laws you want, so, yes you are.

[Starboard Tack]

22. OK

1. Indiscriminate public carry - means carrying out of pure habit, regardless of any external factors. No specific threats or other known or likely dangers being extant. Carrying out of pure selfishness, without regard to public safety.

2. I never said it did contribute to the acts of those individuals.

3. I am neither blame shifting, nor am I associating those individuals with others who carry, apart from the common belief that they all see carrying a gun as a way to solve problems.

4. You said it. Those are two good examples of possible indiscriminate carry. Though I would not blame a coed who lives on a campus known for attacks. Still, I would encourage her to seek better options. Neither of my daughters, who lived on various campuses in cities with high crime rates, NYC and New Orleans, ever considered carrying a gun. Nor did any of their friends.
I would not blame a store owner for keeping a firearm behind the counter for SD. I still would not endorse shooting a thief. A gun behind the counter is not indiscriminate carry, btw.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

24. In the context of the OP I was noting the penchant of controllers to lay the blame for rampage

killers at the feet of pro-RKBAers. While I'm sure you have offered your comments in good faith I still don't see how the issues you have cited relate to assigning responsibility for the authorities failing to intervene against known threats.

Your every post, so far, has been about those who carry doing something you don't like. You claim to not be blame shifting but I'm at a loss to know how the practice of carrying is a detriment to society. Those who carry for defense aren't carrying to solve problems. Those who solve problems with violence don't need to carry and probably have a criminal record that prohibits them from doing so.

If there is some allusion to carrying creating a "culture" of some sort such an assertion would 1) be unfounded and 2) be blame shifting.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

26. I differ with you on #1

"carrying out of pure habit"

I would rather someone carry habitually and make an informed choice of where and when not to carry. People who do things often and out of regular practice rather than what they deem special or exceptional circumstances will generally be safer. LEOs carry habitually. Once you have gotten used to doing something, you tend to repeat the same patterns of behavior. If you typically break the law, habitual behavior will get you arrested. If you regularly act unsafely, illegally or in a threatening manner, let's just say that behavior is self limiting.

I'll paraphrase Nicole Kidman's character in The Peacemaker and say, 'I'm not afraid of the man who wants to CC everyday but I'm terrified of the man who only wants to CC only once.'

Good to see you

[Starboard Tack]

27. I understand your point and it definitely has merit

And you make some excellent points.
OTOH, I truly believe that habitual carry by anyone, including and especially LE, is problematic for any society.

The tragedies occur when people do not act in their regular or normal way, just as the pilot in the OP.

There is validity in the argument that the more guns in the mix, then the greater the likelihood they get used. Those who fully support 2A see it as a rights' issue, while others see it as a public safety issue.
You must decide, as a society, which is more important, because it is not easy to have both.
Your Nicole Kidman quote is very telling and I agree with it, except that if those who market firearms have their way, the number of folk carrying will continue to increase, with a different gun for each day of the week and for every occasion. Their aim (pardon the pun) is profit, not public or individual safety.
How many guns can a society absorb and still hope to keep those guns out of the hands of those who would use them for criminal purposes?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

31. Excellent thoughts there

How many guns can a society absorb and still hope to keep those guns out of the hands of those who would use them for criminal purposes?

I would put that number at zero. I'll give you another quote from another movie. "Where there's a will, there's a weapon."

IMHO, the most devastating weapon evidenced by mankind is human mind. Its drive to destroy an enemy is only narrowly overcome by its efforts to help an ally. It is my not so humble opinion that individuals and mankind as a whole make allies and enemies far too quickly and with foresight.

There are reasonable measures like UBCs and general availability of the NICS that make sense. Other proposed laws like AWBs are just nonsense.

I'd agree with your point about law enforcement being problematic. I see a justification for LEOs to be armed as they are targets somewhat. Maybe if they operated in pairs or threes and one carried a gun that could work. The others could carry less lethal weapons.

[Starboard Tack]

32. I honestly believe there is little hope of a solution for the US

Banning any kind of weapon is now out of the question, regardless of any laws that may be passed. The culture has embraced and encouraged gun ownership for so long that it has become the norm.
I see it all as a fascinating experiment, but I must admit that I do not see it ending well.

I am neither a pessimist, nor an optimist, when it comes to humans. But sooner rather than later, the shit will hit the fan for this planet, and it will happen on so many levels. Climate, economics, political extremism, religious extremism, plagues, natural disasters, etc., you name it. Some say it is already happening. Maybe so, but we keep digging in to avoid the inevitable slippery slope.

I am not a prepper, nor an alarmist. I love this world and the life I live. I understand the preppers, but they delude themselves. Digging a bunker in Tennessee, filling it with 5 years worth of food, digging a well, raising chickens and rabbits, setting up perimeter fences with booby traps and land mines and arming themselves to the teeth, is not going to work. At least, not in the long run.

I remember a quote from a rugby coach when I was 11 years old, "The bigger they come, the harder they fall!"

So, when the great machine finally grinds to a halt and the supermarket shelves are empty, what happens?
There will be lots of guns, but no food. They can print guns, but not food.

I guess my point is that RKBA was kept intact, while the right to farm, and feed yourselves got lost along the way, all in the name of "corporate" progress. It's all about priorities.

Didn't mean to ramble, but what the heck!

[Duckhunter935]

33. everybody rambles at times

I think you are right

[Starboard Tack]

34. Yep! Kinda makes further discussion about gun control pretty pointless

Makes me sad, but glad to know there are still lots of folk who know how to feed themselves without killing each other. Most all of them are in the third world, at least those who stand a chance of survival.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

39. There have been a number of bad compromises...

...in the name of "corporate" progress.

Preppers are shortsighted.

It's not like anyone will ever get it completely right, but we'll probably be able to try again.

[hack89]

10. You broke my irony meter with your comment on closed mindedness and fear.

Last edited Sun Mar 29, 2015, 01:59 PM - Edit history (1)

you are part of a movement that eschews facts and embraces emotional fear mongering.

[Duckhunter935]

11. This help?

[Starboard Tack]

13. You couldn't be further from the truth

I am part of no movement. Both extremes embrace the politics of fear. I embrace reality testing and careful consideration before engaging in extreme behavior.
If I thought I were in any danger of being attacked and having a gun on my person would increase my chances of surviving such an attack, then I would carry. Until then, I'll continue to enjoy my life without living in fear.

[hack89]

14. But so few gun owners actually carry in public

and those that do legally are demonstrably a lower risk to public safety than the general public. Illegal gun use should be your concern.

[Starboard Tack]

15. I agree that so few carry.

All gun use against humans is a concern we should all have. It should be considered only as a last resort to defend life, not as an easy tool for problem solving.
Legality is not the main issue here, but rather the mentality of some, be they "good guys" or "bad guys", that indiscriminately carrying a gun around is a sensible option.
In the US, law enforcement becomes more militaristic daily, as it fills its ranks with veterans of the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention the surplus military equipment being passed along to local police under the guise of Homeland Security.

[gejohnston]

17. that is the legal standard

life or body from grave bodily injury. That is the standard for lethal force regardless of deadly weapon (Which under Wyoming law is literally anything that is capable of inflicting such injury, including frying pans.

While the US police departments in buying cammo (the only US cops I have seen actually use cammo properly were California game wardens and state police disrupting pot growing and poaching.) As for having armored vehicles, belt fed machine guns, armor, etc we are simply becoming more like Europe in the 1970s. Back then, Americans using rubber bullets and water cannons would have been unheard of even in California. Germany and Japan, you bet.

Military surplus can used for peaceful purposes. My county bought military deuce and halfs for fire fighting. Is it more militarized than the BLM using Mercedes Unimog for fire fighting? I know a brand inspector who was able ditch his issued Glock (both of my brothers had to buy their Smith and Wessons out of their pocket at the store, what gives?) and get a 50 year old 1911A1.
BTW, the program is much older than Homeland Security, it is now being publicized more.

[Starboard Tack]

23. Indeed it is the legal standard

Unfortunately, not all here think that way. Some of our brethren think it is OK to shoot people for stealing their tools or their meager earnings.

[gejohnston]

28. yes and no

if someone is threatening lethal force, ie, using a lethal weapon or strong arm with a disparity or force, does that robbery put the victim in reasonable fear of immediate death or grave bodily harm? Is there a guarantee that the robber will not kill or harm them anyway even with compliance? There are plenty of examples of no witnesses being left behind. There is also another reasonable argument: deterrence. There is a reason why burglars take care to case the house in the US avoid hitting a house while it is occupied more so than in some other countries. In order to have a civilized society, predatory behavior must be discouraged. The DC public safety director's attitude that "it is better to be a victim even if you are injured" should not be acceptable public policy. That is one reason why DC is such a shit hole. That and electing corrupt drug addicts to run city hall.

Also, those "meager earnings" are the means to exchange for necessities in life like food, rent/mortgage etc. It is removing your ability to obtain food, water, and shelter which are the all and the only things required to live. Do you think the land lord or mortgage company is going to give a shit that you got robbed? That does not mean you go shoot some guy ripping off some shit in yard. Nuance, all about nuance.

[Starboard Tack]

29. Of course it is about nuance.

Shooting someone who steals your last jug of water in the middle of the desert is not the same as shooting a fleeing tool thief in the back.
We each make our choices in life and live with them.

I disagree about DC. I have many friends there, including my daughter. They all love it and I have enjoyed my time there too.
Some people think Mexico is a shit hole and some probably think Wyoming is. I love them both, but prefer Mexico. Florida is way down on my list of favorites, but there are parts I love. Each to his own, I guess.

[gejohnston]

30. when I use the term "shit hole"

I use among following semi-objective criteria, it is also on a continuum.
1-violent crime rate
2-level of political corruption
3-responsiveness of government to the needs of the average person vs the elites.
4-wealth inequality
5-government repression
6-state/church separation
7-the number of and punishments for victim-less crimes
8-government forced or encourage (passing a law that allows something that is probably already legal, and does it with great fan fare is encouraging) discrimination of minorities or any other "other".

I have enjoyed my time and DC, Oman, Mexico, Philippines, and to a lesser degree South Carolina and Saudi Arabia. They are also shit holes in varying degrees using the above criteria. DC and Mexico score high on 1, 2, 3, 4. Add 5 you get the Philippines, which I enjoyed more than any of the places on the list. It is also a bigger shit hole using my criteria.
Indiana recently pegged my 8 scale.

For Florida, I would have to create a new scale for stupidity in government. Both parties elect the dimmest bulbs they can find, with few exceptions. On the scale it is about average for most states. Worse than Wyoming, but better than Illinois and New Jersey.

How do you define "shit hole"? If SYG is among your criteria, then California and your native country are bigger ones than you think, and much earlier than Florida.

[ileus]

35. He only used an airplane because he didn't have a gun. See gun control works...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

36. Blame is an opiate

If you blame someone(s) or, even better, if you can blame something, you can feel you share a bit less of that blame.

Society is responsible for not noticing ENOUGH the Lanzas, Chos and Loughners, and not doing something proactively. Find a group to blame of which you aren't a part and wash your hands. It's like blaming all politicians when it's really only Republicans.

[virginia mountainman]

38. Now Now! you know guns are a "special case"

When a gun is involved, it is the guns fault, never the person that actually used it, and those that don't support immediate banning and destruction on those evil items, get the blame too!