Shooting at Ark. university kills 2, wounds 1

reply to post by Scramjet76


I havent read or seen it. I had a neighbor who climbed through the window of a mans home and stabbed him to death because this man molested my neighbors daughter. The neighbor wasnt a dumb guy either. He was lawyer, well-off and all that white-collar stuff.

What he did was wrong.

Hunting people down for 'retaliation' purposes is no different than the typical street-gang thug shooting because he was 'disrespected' or whatever other petty excuse.

Once the immediate threat to person or property has ended there is no reason for somebody to become a stalking killer. That's not justice as modern, Western society accepts it. Outside of modern, Western cultures this may be perfectly fine. Arkansas isnt an exception to this.

Originally posted by Scramjet76
reply to post by TheRedneck

 

In this situation are you still pro-gun?

ok, now wait a minute. i have a problem with. seems like a loaded question to me.
sounds like you guys have already gone over this but i need to ask. what defines someone as "pro-gun"? reason i ask, once we have established which category we fit into, we then need to reevaluate this stance everytime we hear of a "situation"?
I guess what i'm saying is, whether or not you are "pro-gun" has nothing to do with what happened at this university.
If the attackers had used an aluminum baseball bat to beat and kill, would we still be having the same conversation? Would it even make news? Would a "baseball bat free zone" help?

reply to post by Scramjet76

Somehow, your query reminded me of a scene from the first minutes of the old film "Dirty Harry":

-------------------------------------
Police Chief: Harry, we don't want any more shootings like last month in the park. No violence, that's my policy.

Harry: Well, when I see a man chasing a woman with intent to rape, I shoot the b*****d, that's my policy.

Chief: Intent? How did you establish that?

Harry: When a naked man is chasing a woman with a butcher knife and a h***-on, I figure he's not out collecting for the Red Cross.

Chief (as Harry leaves): He has a point...
-------------------------------------

That scene brings up, in a humorous way, the reality of when do you interfere? At what point do you start shooting back? At what point should you start shooting back?

My own standard is, when I feel it is necessary to save lives. If two guys are fighting, fairly equally matched, then it is none of my business. If someone is chasing a woman and she's screaming for her life, I will typically step in her pursuers way. If he draws a gun or knife, then I respond with appropriate deadly force. If he does not, I will simply make sure the chase ends.

If it's a ganged-up situation (as in, say, one guy against an army of attackers), it's a little iffy. My safety and the safety of any family member will come first, and I have to take into account the problems I would be getting myself into taking on a small army. If I have some sort of backup for my safety, I would probably intervene. If the pursuee is a child, I also think about whether or not this is some sort of 'game' or whether he/she is trying to escape deserved appropriate punishment from a parent (or retaliation from a sibling). In either case, it's none of my darn business. I might, in such a case, grab the child and protect him/her until I can sort out the details if the situation seems questionable, but I doubt I (or anyone with half a conscience) would just start shooting. Drawing a gun or knife in any situation is only really appropriate when you believe the other person is armed and dangerous.

So I guess my answer, as Dirty Harry's answer, is that it depends on the individual circumstances. But at least if I have a little snub .38 in a hidden holster and a good knife in my pocket, I have that option of stepping in with minimal risk to myself.

TheRedneck

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

I havent read or seen it. I had a neighbor who climbed through the window of a mans home and stabbed him to death because this man molested my neighbors daughter. The neighbor wasnt a dumb guy either. He was lawyer, well-off and all that white-collar stuff.

What he did was wrong.

Yes, yes it was. But it was also human nature. No amount of legislation will change that. If you choose to hurt someone's family, you should expect them to come after you in any way they can, lawful or unlawful. I know I would.

But that's really not the topic here. The situation is: someone threatens someone in your area and they have a weapon. Should you have the right to be armed as well, and should you intervene? In the example of my last paragraph, someone killing me as I went on that rampage would be justified IMHO.

As long as there are humans who harm other humans, whether that harm be intentional or negligent or accidental, there will always be retaliation. It cannot be stopped by laws or rights or even by direct intervention. Whether or not a gun is used means nothing. A dead man is still dead, regardless of what tool is used.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


An intervention is different from a retaliation. What I got from Scram was the question of should you intervene in on a retaliation because the retaliation may be 'justified' and essentially allowed to be completed.

I am all for intervention and do not accept any retaliation as justified is what I'm trying to say.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

I caught that as well, and I was seriously trying to think of some situation where I could myself justify retaliation. So far I have come up with nothing I could justify in my mind.

That was just my two cents on the issue. Your quote was the best example I could find to introduce my point. Nice points, by the way!

TheRedneck

Good replies, thanks guys!

The reason I brought up this "what if" scenario is because this UCA shooting was different than Virginia Tech.

Let's say the shooting was retaliatory in nature and the cause was the molestation of this man's daughter (like your neighbor thisguyrighthere). You are a bystander and are armed with a revolver. If you decide to use your weapon, how would you feel if you later found out the man you killed was only trying to kill the individual(s) who molested his daughter?

On a side note regarding retaliatory actions, as Americans, can we automatically say they are wrong? What about us nuking Japan in retaliation for Pearl Harbor? Were our actions disproportional to the instigative event?

Also, let me say that I do agree with you guys for the most part. My original reluctance towards encouraging "john/jane doe" to feel he/she needs a pistol in their pocket to be safe. Unless the person has had extensive training, I would feel just as vulnerable having unskilled folks pointing firearms while in panic-mode.

I guess ultimately every situation is different and gun-free zones make no sense. Those are really the only conclusions we can draw..

reply to post by Scramjet76

Let's say the shooting was retaliatory in nature and the cause was the molestation of this man's daughter (like your neighbor thisguyrighthere). You are a bystander and are armed with a revolver. If you decide to use your weapon, how would you feel if you later found out the man you killed was only trying to kill the individual(s) who molested his daughter?

As I mentioned above, if I were to go off 'half-cocked' in search of revenge, I then have no one but myself to blame should I be injured or killed. So if I were to be the guy who did the killing of someone after such revenge, I would definitely feel sorry for the guy, but I would not question my actions. Just as I would not expect him to had our positions been reversed.

Once a person steps on the wrong side of the law, they are vigilantes. Even though I can feel for them (and even morally support them under the right circumstances), they are exposing themselves to the same fate that should await any true criminal.

On a side note regarding retaliatory actions, as Americans, can we automatically say they are wrong? What about us nuking Japan in retaliation for Pearl Harbor? Were our actions disproportional to the instigative event?

The bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not retaliatory. They were acts of war against an enemy nation. Now, you can make a good case that vast numbers of non-combatant civilians were vaporized or died shortly thereafter due to radiation (which is true), but that case would have to ignore the vast numbers of civilians around the globe that were in imminent danger of a similar fate had we lost the war. We were at risk of losing the war against an aggressive alliance until the bomb. That makes the destruction an act of war and the victims war casualties, not an act of revenge with innocent bystanders as victims.

War and personal safety are two totally different critters.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by Scramjet76
reply to post by Rockpuck

 

If anyone thinks the School could have stopped that, you're ignorant.

True puck, but what's your feeling on the question I asked Redneck?

I am pro-gun regardless of who gets shot and for what reason.

Originally posted by Scramjet76
University of Central Arkansas

That's quite an oxymoron.

Originally posted by Scramjet76
The killers weren't the mentally insane type. Seems more like a hit and run.

No it's probably just a run of the mill shooting like any of the hundreds (or thousands) that happen every day in this country, but this just happened on a college campus. I guess that for some strange reason makes it special or newsworthy. What about all the other hundreds (maybe thousands) of shootings that happened in this country today?

I could see maybe of the killers had purposely planned to execute people just because they were students, then maybe this case would be special. But to me, it sounds like someone owed some money, someone wanted to commit a robbery, or maybe someone was just plain insulted, and violence ensued.

It could have happened any where.

reply to post by TheRedneck

That makes the destruction an act of war and the victims war casualties, not an act of revenge with innocent bystanders as victims.

I agree. Although, try telling this to a victim's family. As was previously pointed out, people are only human. The insensible loss of someone can lead to feelings of hatred which can turn into acts of war or revenge or whatever we as humans call them.

reply to post by LogicalExplanation

No it's probably just a run of the mill shooting like any of the hundreds (or thousands) that happen every day in this country, but this just happened on a college campus. I guess that for some strange reason makes it special or newsworthy. What about all the other hundreds (maybe thousands) of shootings that happened in this country today?

Every one is a tragedy. Although I am not quite sure where you are getting your figures from. Hundreds/thousands of shootings every day? Can I get a source on that?

It could have happened any where.

But it didn't happen anywhere. It happened in a school, which is supposed to be a place of learning and expanding horizons, not of dodging bullets and watching one's back. It happened in a location where young bright kids are trying to start their life, not end it.

It also happened in a 'gun-free zone', where guns are outright banned. Therefore, the schools have become a test ground for gun bans. The test results appear to be coming in, and it doesn't look good for the anti-gun crowd.

TheRedneck

Double post

[edit on 28-10-2008 by TheRedneck]

reply to post by TheRedneck

Can I get a source on that?

firearms kill about 85 people every day in this country."

source

reply to post by Scramjet76

Thanks. 85 sounds a bit more believable than "hundreds or thousands". Also, I wonder how many of those are from illegal guns in the hands of criminals, and how many are from law enforcement action. I plan on keeping up with this study, as I would be very interested to hear what they learn from the study.

TheRedneck

edited to remove the dreaded typo-itis disease

[edit on 28-10-2008 by TheRedneck]