Argument in cinema results in gunshot death

[Kulindahr]

That's not unique to the States though. Lots of other countries have governments that don't measure up to the standards of trustworthiness expected by the voters. Or they start out okay but then fuck up. Then we vote for a government with more integrity.. We don't think "Gee, we should just ignore that inner voice and continue to put up with them, because we can always shoot them as a back-up plan."

Why do americans think shooting their government is a better option than replacing it.

At the rate Obama is increasing the police state Bush began, I'd say that shooting will be the only option for replacing the government in another dozen or more years.

 

[Kulindahr]

The NRA is a really powerful lobby and it opposes any legislation of any kind, no matter what it is, on the slippery slope that all restrictions are the first step towards government confiscation. And there are many voters who will kneejerk to react that way politically even against politicians trying to get armor-piercing copkiller bullets or similar taken out of store shelves. Even if you get past the first argument that no, not "all legislation" is illicitly an attempt to give all your guns to Rosie O'Donnell, you get the backup argument: "laws and bans will do no good because then only the criminals will have whatever you banned."

The NRA's real problem is that Wayne La Pierre has turned it into his personal money-making machine, to a large extent nothing more than an appendage of the PR firm that runs the publicity side of things. It's very much a case of the tail wagging the dog: the PR firm tells La Pierre what to do for the most money, and he tells the NRA what he's instructed. The man stopped caring about rights a long time ago.

And part of the problem is that they refuse to concede even that Congress has the authority to provide for the discipline of the militia -- in other words, for starters they can tell the militia -- which legally is all of us -- to stop leaving firearms laying about where others can grab and misuse them.

 

[Kulindahr]

Actually I think the US is making great progress on equal marriage and it's unfolding there like it has in other successful countries.

As far as guns, I see your point about the quasi-religious nature of it, but eventually the Enlightenment made its mark.

Gun owners are the heirs of the Enlightenment on this issue, upholding the sovereignty of the individual against entrenched authority.

 

[Kulindahr]

No he didn't. I'd assume he wouldn't have had an altercation if he knew the ex-cop had the gun. The demise of the guy is in full responsibility of the man with the gun.

Of course he did -- it's like playing with matches near someone else's shed: just because you don't know there are explosives in there doesn't mean you don't have a duty to be safe, or in this case, polite.

 

[Kulindahr]

For the sake of those thickheads that don't seem to get the fact that there have always been pistol-carrying Americans, maybe it's time to change that old 'mama always told me' saying.

Instead of 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' it should be "Do unto others as though they're packin' heat".

I'd say those come down to the same thing: be polite, respect others.

 

[xbuzzerx]

I'd say those come down to the same thing: be polite, respect others.

I think people would warm more to this notion that the real moral of this story was politeness if the old man had embarrassed the guy publicly or reacted in a very classy way -- or even got the ushers to expel the guy from the theater.

Shooting him to death, on the other hand...

 

[Kulindahr]

This is not an opinion. The only way he could have contributed to his own death is if he knew this guy had a gun and kept pushing a guy who was clearly unstable and shouldn't even have one. The person with the gun is in full responsibility of this mans death regardless of the situation before it.

This binary approach to blame is tiresome. In truth, he was 100% responsible for his own death, because had he not been a total jerk, he wouldn't have been shot. But also in truth, the 71-y.o. was 100% responsible for the man's death, because he pulled the gun and then the trigger.

 

[xbuzzerx]

This binary approach to blame is tiresome. In truth, he was 100% responsible for his own death, because had he not been a total jerk, he wouldn't have been shot. But also in truth, the 71-y.o. was 100% responsible for the man's death, because he pulled the gun and then the trigger.

So with the previous Colorado movie shooter.... were his victims all 100% to blame as well for going to the theater that day?

 

[Kulindahr]

I think people would warm more to this notion that the real moral of this story was politeness if the old man had embarrassed the guy publicly or reacted in a very classy way -- or even got the ushers to expel the guy from the theater.

Shooting him to death, on the other hand...

What this suggests is that it's okay to be a jackass to others if you know they aren't armed.

 

[Kulindahr]

So with the previous Colorado movie shooter.... were his victims all 100% to blame as well for going to the theater that day?

Only if going to the theater is somehow rude and offensive.

Though for the sake of a philosophical approach, it wouldn't be unreasonable to suggest that we all bear a collective responsibility for having a society that is somehow rude and offensive enough to light these guys off.

 

[xbuzzerx]

What this suggests is that it's okay to be a jackass to others if you know they aren't armed.

Any reaction short of killing someone = "approving of their behavior"?

What kind of logic is that?

 

[xbuzzerx]

Only if going to the theater is somehow rude and offensive.

Though for the sake of a philosophical approach, it wouldn't be unreasonable to suggest that we all bear a collective responsibility for having a society that is somehow rude and offensive enough to light these guys off.

This answer assumes rudeness is acceptable grounds for pulling a gun on someone.

It isn't.