Reporter and Cameraman gunned down live on TV

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Manchu wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Well, honestly that's about as good an answer as you should expect. The other option
Nope, full stop, there is no other option.

Humans do not live in societies by choice. We do so because that is who we are. There is a natural limitation on our freedom. Similarly, society is naturally limited in the amount of control it can exert over its members, if nothing else purely as a matter of economics. Even Big Brother left the plebs to their own devices (Orwell used irony to achieve realism). This natural balance or compromise between submission to society and individual freedom is what every theory of criminal justice is about. As long as there are laws, there will be crime. And there will always be laws unless there is no society. And if there is no society, then that means there are no humans.

Okay but so what? Obviously crime rates can go down, after all. Sure -- but here's the issue: we assume the question is "how can we (society) reduce the crime rates?" without ever wondering whether crime rates are something we can actually control. After all, just because the incidence of, for example, violent crime decreases doesn't mean that a certain policy or any policies caused that. Now of course, such things can be investigated but the point is, in terms of our cultural assumptions and our political rhetoric, we skip that.

I agree... however, I was responding to someone saying that the plot for Minority Report was childish... Really the only other "future society" movie that really stands out to me, is Star Trek

As I've gone through more and more education, the more I tend to agree with certain people who say that the most sure (it's not guaranteed) way to reduce crime rates overall, is through better education, better economics (less disparity/economic despair), and I'll add in better treatment of mental health (whether it's fighting the stigma, better access, what... probably a combination of many factors).

Personally, I think that many people, when talking about ways to legitimately reduce crime take the army's "drink water and take motrin" approach... it treats the symptoms, not the "causes" of crime.

**Ahtman**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Really the only other "future society" movie that really stands out to me, is Star Trek

You've never seen Blade Runner? If you haven't you should, I mean, you aren't going to live forever. Then again, who does?

**Smacks**

Manchu wrote:
After someone commits a violent crime, by virtue of doing so, it becomes evident to us that he was crazy. The answer, therefore, is to create some way to screen crazy people out of gun ownership. It's all very neat! Except when it comes time for concrete policy: what exactly does this screening look for? If someone got fired from a job, and HR wrote "anger issues" on their file, is that enough to take away their constitutional right? What if it happens twice?

It occurs to me that if you've reached the stage where you're concerned about anyone who has ever been fired or divorced (whatever) from being trusted with a gun, then you've reached the stage where you're concerned about people in general being trusted with guns.

I don't think it's possible to distinguish who is and is not going to "lose it" at some point in their lives. Which then leaves us with the question, do we just resign ourselves to living in a world where people occasionally meltdown and go on killing rampages? Or do we resign ourselves to accepting that people in general can't be trusted with guns.

I know there are people who will argue that gun related deaths are just acceptable losses, but how can they make the decision for other people? If other people don't personally want to take the risk of being gunned down while shopping or at the cinema, what are they supposed to do, other than ask for more control?

**Ensis Ferrae**

Ahtman wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Really the only other "future society" movie that really stands out to me, is Star Trek

You've never seen Blade Runner? If you haven't you should, I mean, you aren't going to live forever. Then again, who does?

Yes, BR is one of my favorite movies... however, it doesn't stand out as a paragon of "virtuous future society" the way Minority Report and Star Trek do

**Grey Templar**

Smacks wrote:

I know there are people who will argue that gun related deaths are just acceptable losses, but how can they make the decision for other people? If other people don't personally want to take the risk of being gunned down while shopping or at the cinema, what are they supposed to do, other than ask for more control?

You could put it all in perspective perhaps?

There is a huge list of causes of death that get way ahead of anything possibly related to firearms. Firearm deaths are insignificant enough to be rounding errors.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Smacks wrote:

I know there are people who will argue that gun related deaths are just acceptable losses, but how can they make the decision for other people? If other people don't personally want to take the risk of being gunned down while shopping or at the cinema, what are they supposed to do, other than ask for more control?

I think the problem here is... there's a middle ground group here that worries about slippery slopes and all that. If we (America) decide it's OK to legislate away this Right (a right which, some would argue is "God Given"), what's to say that a few years down the road, the DoD needs to save a bit of coin and house soldiers inside civilian houses*? Or what if "we" decide that the Press is a really pesky thing that we'd rather have more control over, so we'll just legislate away the freedom of the press.*

*Yes, both of these "examples" are extremely far fetched.

**CptJake**

Smacks wrote:

I don't think it's possible to distinguish who is and is not going to "lose it" at some point in their lives. Which then leaves us with the question, do we just resign ourselves to living in a world where people occasionally meltdown and go on killing rampages? Or do we resign ourselves to accepting that people in general can't be trusted with guns.

I know there are people who will argue that gun related deaths are just acceptable losses, but how can they make the decision for other people? If other people don't personally want to take the risk of being gunned down while shopping or at the cinema, what are they supposed to do, other than ask for more control?

By advocating taking my guns and the guns of millions of other lawful owners, are you not 'making the decision for other people'?

And by 'making the decision' I mean curtailing a constitutional right?

Where the heck does our constitution give anyone the 'right to not fear'? Folks can live scared and piss themselves when they see scary strangers or Lord Forbid A GUN! for all I care. If they take just a bit of time from cleaning their pissed in drawers to look at the actual odds of being gunned down while shopping or at the cinema perhaps they would decide the odds are slim enough, especially if they choose to exercise a modicum of situational awareness, that they do not actually need to live in fear.

**Grey Templar**

You are more likely to get run over by a car or get cancer than get shot by someone, including yourself accidentally.

**Manchu**

Smacks wrote:
It occurs to me that if you've reached the stage where you're concerned about anyone who has ever been fired or divorced (whatever) from being trusted with a gun, then you've reached the stage where you're concerned about people in general being trusted with guns.

Sure that is exactly the point I was trying to make -- although I meant it sardonically whereas you seem to be earnest.

**Smacks**

Grey Templar wrote:
You could put it all in perspective perhaps?

...

There is a huge list of causes of death that get way ahead of anything possibly related to firearms. Firearm deaths are insignificant enough to be rounding errors.

And that's just a completely BS argument from deflection. Burglary homicides are also insignificant enough to be rounding errors, yet they are continually banded about as a justification for gun rights.

Very few people are killed by serial killers, that doesn't mean serial killings are acceptable, or should be ignored.

As I said before, you are posting your graph here trying to argue that because the deaths are few (relative to heart disease) that these are somehow acceptable losses, but it's just a nonsense comparison. Heart disease doesn't just march into a school one day unexpectedly and kill a classroom full of healthy 10 year olds. Just because that might be acceptable to you, as the price for you getting to own your gun, doesn't mean it is acceptable to other people.

**Grey Templar**

Its certainly not justification for infringing on the Constitutional, and basic human, rights of hundreds of millions of people. Just so you can possibly claim you saved a few people. Especially when no proposed legislation would have prevented any of these school shootings.

And I was referring to people being afraid of getting shot while shopping at a mall or watching a movie. If you go watch a movie you are more likely to die of a heart attack in the theater than be a victim of a shooting. You are more likely to slip and fall on a wet floor at the mall than to be a victim of a shooting there.

People being scared of getting shot is no justification for anything when it is so incredibly rare.

You seem under the delusion that in order for me to own a weapon, someone is going to walk into a school and shoot children. Thats just grade A bullgak from an ignorant foreigner.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Smacks wrote:
And that's just a completely BS argument from deflection. Burglary homicides are also insignificant enough to be rounding errors, yet they are continually banded about as a justification for gun rights.

In 2012, there were an estimated 2,103,787 burglaries, a decrease of 3.7 percent when compared with 2011 data.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/property-crime/burglary

Burglaries in themselves are significant enough to warrant having a "preventative measure" on hand. "Burglary homicide" is some gak you just made up to justify your rage against guns.

**Manchu**

Smacks wrote:
continually banded about as a justification for gun rights

I grant that this happens -- and it is unfortunate. It gives foreigners the impression that Americans need to justify their constitutional rights in order to keep them.

**Grey Templar**

Manchu wrote:
Smacks wrote:
continually banded about as a justification for gun rights
I grant that this happens -- and it is unfortunate. It gives foreigners the impression that Americans need to justify their constitutional rights in order to keep them.

Darn, I guess we need to justify freedom of religion, speech, press, and all our other rights too.

And while we are at it, why don't you Brits justify your rights as well?

**Sinful Hero**

Smacks wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
You could put it all in perspective perhaps?

...

There is a huge list of causes of death that get way ahead of anything possibly related to firearms. Firearm deaths are insignificant enough to be rounding errors.
And that's just a completely BS argument from deflection. Burglary homicides are also insignificant enough to be rounding errors, yet they are continually banded about as a justification for gun rights.

Very few people are killed by serial killers, that doesn't mean serial killings are acceptable, or should be ignored.

As I said before, you are posting your graph here trying to argue that because the deaths are few (relative to heart disease) that these are somehow acceptable losses, but it's just a nonsense comparison. Heart disease doesn't just march into a school one day unexpectedly and kill a classroom full of healthy 10 year olds. Just because that might be acceptable to you, as the price for you getting to own your gun, doesn't mean it is acceptable to other people.

So do you think that if Americans were not allowed to own guns, school shootings wouldn't happen?

**kronk**

Manchu wrote:
Smacks wrote:
continually banded about as a justification for gun rights
I grant that this happens -- and it is unfortunate. It gives foreigners the impression that Americans need to justify their constitutional rights in order to keep them.

The great news is that we don't have to justify it! If it weren't for GW and the other founding fathers, we'd all be speaking English right now!

Viva le Tejas!

**Manchu**

kronk wrote:
GW and the other founding fathers

I'e heard of Games Workshop fanboys but that is taking it a bit far!

Grey Templar wrote:
Darn, I guess we need to justify freedom of religion, speech, press, and all our other rights too.

"But those don't hurt people!" LOL

**Relapse**

Smacks wrote:

I know there are people who will argue that gun related deaths are just acceptable losses, but how can they make the decision for other people? If other people don't personally want to take the risk of being gunned down while shopping or at the cinema, what are they supposed to do, other than ask for more control?

What about the equal number of people a year killed by drunk drivers as those who are murdered in gun related incidents? Are we to argue for more control over alcohol and limit it in a similar fashion to guns so people won't have to worry about being out for a drive with their family and getting into a fatal wreck with a drunk? Are these deaths acceptable losses?

**Kanluwen**

Sinful Hero wrote:
Smacks wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
You could put it all in perspective perhaps?

...

There is a huge list of causes of death that get way ahead of anything possibly related to firearms. Firearm deaths are insignificant enough to be rounding errors.
And that's just a completely BS argument from deflection. Burglary homicides are also insignificant enough to be rounding errors, yet they are continually banded about as a justification for gun rights.

Very few people are killed by serial killers, that doesn't mean serial killings are acceptable, or should be ignored.

As I said before, you are posting your graph here trying to argue that because the deaths are few (relative to heart disease) that these are somehow acceptable losses, but it's just a nonsense comparison. Heart disease doesn't just march into a school one day unexpectedly and kill a classroom full of healthy 10 year olds. Just because that might be acceptable to you, as the price for you getting to own your gun, doesn't mean it is acceptable to other people.

So do you think that if Americans were not allowed to own guns, school shootings wouldn't happen?

How often do you see "Students killed in mass school knifing"?

Guns, quite bluntly, are a very real enabling factor in these kinds of situations.

**angelofvengeance**

Grey Templar wrote:
You seem under the delusion that in order for me to own a weapon, someone is going to walk into a school and shoot children. Thats just grade A bullgak from an ignorant foreigner.

Sorry but that's bull. The UK brought strict firearms controls into effect in the 1960s and it's done very well here. The number of firearms massacres here are tiny when compared to the USA's track record.

Look how often this kinda stuff goes on over in the US. It's ridiculous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers

**Manchu**

Relapse wrote:
Are we to argue for more control over alcohol and limit it in a similar fashion to guns ... ?

It's time to have a serious discussion about driving and alcohol consumption in this country. Until we have mental health screening for people who want driver's licenses or who want to purchase and consume alcohol, this terrible death toll will continue.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

angelofvengeance wrote:
The UK brought strict firearms controls into effect in the 1960s and it's done very well here.

And if it works in the UK it should definitely work in the US, right? Give us our Queen back Obama!

**Kanluwen**

Manchu wrote:
Relapse wrote:
Are we to argue for more control over alcohol and limit it in a similar fashion to guns ... ?
It's time to have a serious discussion about driving and alcohol consumption in this country. Until we have mental health screening for people who want driver's licenses or who want to purchase and consume alcohol, this terrible death toll will continue.

Biggest fallacious bunch of bullcrap that gets bandied about.

There isn't however any real comparison between the two, as Relapse and many others who bring this stupid argument up already know. Mass shootings or revenge shootings like this case are not the same thing as someone driving while impaired and plowing into a school bus.

**angelofvengeance**

I think this is pretty relevant...

Spoiler:

**Manchu**

Kanluwen wrote:
Mass shootings or revenge shootings like this case are not the same thing as someone driving while impaired and plowing into a school bus.

The difference is vanishingly small in terms of the explaining criminal behavior as insanity/irrationality. Getting hammered and then climbing into a 2-ton contraption made of plastic, glass, and steel that hurtles down the road crowded with innocent bystanders at 40-80 mph is flying rodent gak insane.

**Sinful Hero**

angelofvengeance wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
You seem under the delusion that in order for me to own a weapon, someone is going to walk into a school and shoot children. Thats just grade A bullgak from an ignorant foreigner.

Sorry but that's bull. The UK brought strict firearms controls into effect in the 1960s and it's done very well here. The number of firearms massacres here are tiny when compared to the USA's track record.

Look how often this kinda stuff goes on over in the US. It's ridiculous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers

What's the difference in population size between the UK and the US?

Kanluwen wrote:
Sinful Hero wrote:
Smacks wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
You could put it all in perspective perhaps?

...

There is a huge list of causes of death that get way ahead of anything possibly related to firearms. Firearm deaths are insignificant enough to be rounding errors.
And that's just a completely BS argument from deflection. Burglary homicides are also insignificant enough to be rounding errors, yet they are continually banded about as a justification for gun rights.

Very few people are killed by serial killers, that doesn't mean serial killings are acceptable, or should be ignored.

As I said before, you are posting your graph here trying to argue that because the deaths are few (relative to heart disease) that these are somehow acceptable losses, but it's just a nonsense comparison. Heart disease doesn't just march into a school one day unexpectedly and kill a classroom full of healthy 10 year olds. Just because that might be acceptable to you, as the price for you getting to own your gun, doesn't mean it is acceptable to other people.

So do you think that if Americans were not allowed to own guns, school shootings wouldn't happen?

How often do you see "Students killed in mass school knifing"?

Guns, quite bluntly, are a very real enabling factor in these kinds of situations.

It's happened a couple times in China I believe.

**angelofvengeance**

And this...

Spoiler:

**Manchu**

Could you please stop dropping vids into the thread without making any meaningful commentary? Thanks.

Also I will put them in spoilers for you.

**angelofvengeance**

Manchu wrote:
Could you please stop dropping vids into the thread without making any meaningful commentary? Thanks.

Also I will put them in spoilers for you.

Apologies. But I think the videos speak for themselves really.

And thanks for spoilering them.

**Kanluwen**

Manchu wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Mass shootings or revenge shootings like this case are not the same thing as someone driving while impaired and plowing into a school bus.
The difference is vanishingly small in terms of the explaining criminal behavior as insanity/irrationality. Getting hammered and then climbing into a 2-ton contraption made of plastic, glass, and steel that hurtles down the road crowded with innocent bystanders at 40-80 mph is flying rodent gak insane.

Except "drunk driving" isn't just getting hammered and then climbing into a 2-ton contraption made of plastic, glass, and steel that hurtles down the road crowded with innocent bystanders.
Drunk driving--and some of the cases where fatalities have been the end result--can be as simple as someone having a beer or two and then driving, thinking that they "know their limits" to the example you gave of someone just getting flatout plastered and screaming down the road like a bat out of hell.

There are varying degrees of intoxication and alcohol doesn't necessarily affect each person the same way.

What's more?
Police are actually allowed to proactively set up checkpoints in potential/known problem areas in an attempt to catch drunk drivers and the justice system is empowered to restrict people's usage of things they own in the name of public safety by revoking driver's licenses.

**Manchu**

Kanluwen wrote:
What's more?
Police are actually allowed to proactively set up checkpoints in potential/known problem areas in an attempt to catch drunk drivers and the justice system is empowered to restrict people's usage of things they own in the name of public safety by revoking driver's licenses.

Are you trying to imply the same (restrictions on ownership and usage) is not already true of gun ownership?

Also I don't think you carry your point about alcohol and driving. It is well known that drinking and driving can dramatically increase the probability of causing an accident, including fatal accidents. People who decide to put themselves in the position of driving while intoxicated are being irrational. It's a crazy thing to do. If you do it, we know you must have been crazy. Just like when somebody murders a reporter and cameraman, we know he's crazy. So if the answer to the latter is to make gun ownership contingent upon some kind of mental health screening to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people, then why not also do something to keep alochol and driver's licenses out of the hands of crazy people?

Mind you, I know this is dumb. That is the point I am trying to make. Fortunately our criminal justice system doesn't buy into the mental health paradigm of criminal behavior, which is why we have different charges, like for first degree murder or for vehicular manslaughter.