These Students will change US gun landscape

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Because there is intent. If a driver intended to run a kid over because they were crossing the street with a cell phone then it would not be reasonable to point to any fault of the kid.

When there is purposeful intent to harm a person then we have a victim. Then we do not blame them. This is not a hard concept. The proximate cause was not the victims actions.

A victim can contribute to his own victimisation (note; "can").

 

[Curious George]

A victim can contribute to his own victimisation (note; "can").

A person's actions are not the proximate cause when we are dealing with purposeful or knowledgeable intent to harm.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

A person's actions are not the proximate cause when we are dealing with purposeful or knowledgeable intent to harm.

For spherical humans in a vacuum, perhaps. In the real world, actions have consequences, and it is foolish to act as though they don't. I'm sure, for example, where you live there's a "bad" part of town where you wouldn't go after dark?

If you poke a bear, and subsequently get mauled, is it "victim blaming" to point out that poking bears should probably be avoided in future? Is it "victim blaming" when the two pack a day smoker gets lung cancer to point out that smoking is bad for you?

 

[Curious George]

For spherical humans in a vacuum, perhaps. In the real world, actions have consequences, and it is foolish to act as though they don't. I'm sure, for example, where you live there's a "bad" part of town where you wouldn't go after dark?


If you poke a bear, and subsequently get mauled, is it "victim blaming" to point out that poking bears should probably be avoided in future? Is it "victim blaming" when the two pack a day smoker gets lung cancer to point out that smoking is bad for you?

Do you genuinely feel bears are culpable for being bears or can be ascribed criminal intent? Do you feel this way about cancer?

 

[Audie]

Um, huh?

Absolutely. He counseled people to quit or be shot.

And it is not victim blaming to point to a person's negligence in an accident.

See "culpable negligence."

 

[Audie]

True! A good bolt action rifle is very very accurate, and the hunter can reload in three or four seconds, but a semi-auto fires every time you pull the trigger until the magazine is empty.


Great. He might like to look at your entrance door, however strong it may be. And an intercom with camera doesn't cost much these days, so that you don't open anything until you know...........


No probs.
And good luck.

It is not easy to even get to my door. Have to get past security desk, have a card for the
elevatorm and another for the particular floor. And, finally, very sturdy door and lock.

Believe me, I dont want to get attacked again.

 

[Audie]

OK, I'm back..... had to leave, hence such a short post.

I might as well respond to you and @ImmortalFlame together.

Where I live I don't have to blame anybody for making themself an easy target. Our authorities have been doing that for thirty+ years now. Honest.

All our Police 'areas' are controlled by Police Constables who get a budget each year for policing their Constabularies. And even thirty years ago they were getting very fed up with people doing little or nothing to protect their property and businesses and then screaming and waving their arms about when they got hit by crime and loss. These Police Constables realised that a chunk of their budget was being spent because of careless people who thus became victims.

Today this situation has knee-jerked too far and (for instance) Police will not attend any shop theft which involves loss of less than £200.00 unless somebody got hurt during the crime.
And Police will not attend burglaries unless they have a very good chance of catching a burglar .....you get awarded points for each piece of evidence which might make it easier to catch a burglar.

Even worse, ordinary people are no longer empowered (by law) to detain criminals where less than £200 in value is involved in a crime.

So, you see, the emphasis now for us is 'Secure your car! Secure your home! Protect your shop!' Do it yourself!

Me? I just promote security and safety wherever, to whoever, and if any folks bite my hand I just walk away from it.

So in summary, you did not have to blame me, but,
you did it anyway.

 

[Curious George]

.


See "culpable negligence."

Not sure how you think this applies unless you are agreeing with me.

 

[Audie]

Not sure how you think this applies unless you are agreeing with me.

There is a whole range of possibilities re who is to blame for what.

But really, the reasonable person can see which is which.
I take you are among the reasonable.

 

[oldbadger]

When there is purposeful intent to harm a person then we have a victim. Then we do not blame them. This is not a hard concept. The proximate cause was not the victims actions.

Insurance companies sometimes blame victims.
Our Police Constabularies sometimes blame victims. ?????

But you're way off the point of the thread.
There have been too many mass shootings in US schools and the school-kids are now demonstrating and calling for the common-sense of gun controls, and I expect that they want much safer school environments.

They are all victims because it's getting so that they are upset and insecure about their schools, where they might expect better protection.

But since it would cost tax-dollars to protect those schools to a more reasonable standard of security some folks are showing how really careless they are about victims, and offering cheap suggestions such as gun-slinging-teachers, or buckets of stones.

It might be better for victims to be 'told-off' than to be ignored. After all, even parents tell-off their kids, hoping for their welfare?

 

[oldbadger]

Great. So why is it victim blaming to point to a person's negligence in any other negative situation?

Very good. It's not victim blaming.......... it's an appeal for a more secure and safe future for the victim. Yep.

But where folks don't want to spend tax-dollars towards that security, or where they might have to give up something towards that safety, then the 'You're blaming victims!' card might work ....... for a time. Make caring people look nasty!!!!

 

[Curious George]

Insurance companies sometimes blame victims.
Our Police Constabularies sometimes blame victims. ?????

But you're way off the point of the thread.
There have been too many mass shootings in US schools and the school-kids are now demonstrating and calling for the common-sense of gun controls, and I expect that they want much safer school environments.

They are all victims because it's getting so that they are upset and insecure about their schools, where they might expect better protection.

But since it would cost tax-dollars to protect those schools to a more reasonable standard of security some folks are showing how really careless they are about victims, and offering cheap suggestions such as gun-slinging-teachers, or buckets of stones.

It might be better for victims to be 'told-off' than to be ignored. After all, even parents tell-off their kids, hoping for their welfare?

Some maybe. I think it is the anti-gun and gun regulation people that don't think the kids or other murder victims are worth the investment. They would rather erode civil liberties like other countries instead of work on the real problems of society. They would rather offer a band-aid fix because it is cheaper.

I am pretty sure the kids do not care if their problem is fixed by gun control or other measures as long as their problem is fixed. Your solution offers sacrificing part of a fundamental liberty in hopes of making the world safer.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Do you genuinely feel bears are culpable for being bears or can be ascribed criminal intent? Do you feel this way about cancer?

The bear and the cancer aren't the victims.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Some maybe. I think it is the anti-gun and gun regulation people that don't think the kids or other murder victims are worth the investment. They would rather erode civil liberties like other countries instead of work on the real problems of society. They would rather offer a band-aid fix because it is cheaper.

I am pretty sure the kids do not care if their problem is fixed by gun control or other measures as long as their problem is fixed. Your solution offers sacrificing part of a fundamental liberty in hopes of making the world safer.

If you have an equally effective alternative suggestion...?

 

[oldbadger]

Some maybe. I think it is the anti-gun and gun regulation people that don't think the kids or other murder victims are worth the investment. They would rather erode civil liberties like other countries instead of work on the real problems of society. They would rather offer a band-aid fix because it is cheaper.

A right to live is probably a primary civil liberty in a civil country.
And since no solution has been offered to fix so many school and mass shootings, ever, folks probably believe that other western countries have got the right idea about banning fast-fire guns.

There have been so many school shootings in the US that's it's hard to believe that nobody has done anything about it.

I can't list every one since 2000 because it would take too many posts, probably. But if anybody might like to choose a single year I could post them up.

Oh yes....... the gun control supporters do think that gun-control is a very good investment.

I am pretty sure the kids do not care if their problem is fixed by gun control or other measures as long as their problem is fixed.

But the problem has never been fixed, and gun-slinging teachers clearly is not the answer.

Your solution offers sacrificing part of a fundamental liberty in hopes of making the world safer.

Oh no. Not 'the' World.......... your country, actually.
And it's not my solution at all, but US citizen's solution.
My solution would be quite different to outright gun-bannings.

But any solution is better than kids .learning CPR (rather than demonstrating), or buckets of rocks, lor gun-slinging teachers..... what a bunch of tight-fisted misers those kinds of folks are.

 

[oldbadger]

If you have an equally effective alternative suggestion...?

They've had long enough to think about all this, and come up with 'more guns'.

Have you ever seen this graphic? I noticed it posted on another forum........... says it all.......

 

[Curious George]

The bear and the cancer aren't the victims.

You are having a hard time understanding why your analogy was bad. Let me break it down:

Physical attacker has criminal intent which we find culpable. There victim is not at fault.

Bear may have intent but we do not see it as criminal. The victim may or may not be at fault.

 

[Curious George]

A right to live is probably a primary civil liberty in a civil country.

And central to a right to live is the inalienable right to self defense. You want to regulate that inalienable right in part.

 

[1137]

Yes, let's keep pretending guns kill people and not bullying, mental illness, and other problems nobody wants to acknowledge they ignore.

 

[oldbadger]

And central to a right to live is the inalienable right to self defense. You want to regulate that inalienable right in part.

What defence did all those school victims have?
And I don't want to regulate anything in your country, but it does rather seem that your voters are slowly swaying towards an inalienable right to increase the quality of their lives...... and their longevity, and also for their loved ones.

Who knows? The tide might be turning against the gung-ho gun-nuts?