You're in control of the car when you hit someone.Dilbert_X wrote:
Hmmmm.
If I run a red light and mow someone down do I get prosecuted for running the red light or do I get done for causing death by careless driving?
All I did was run a red light, its not my fault if there happens to be someone in the way.
Last edited by jord (2009-11-29 05:32:10)
Do you know the penalty for leaving a firearm unsecured in Germany? I don't. But I guess he's being prosecuted according to that law. So our discussion is beside the point.RAIMIUS wrote:
Question: Which law did he break?
Answer: Leaving a firearm unsecured.
Criminal negligence occasioning death.jord wrote:
At best it's negligence then, not manslaughter.
I hate to take up the American argument but although guns were invented to kill that's not all they're used for. 99%+ of firearms owners haven't used there weapon to kill anyone. I suspect the purpose of the weapon was sport, target shooting probably. Legal recreational enjoyment is a good enough purpose to own something, be it a crossbow, a rifle, a throwing knife or a bb gun.oug wrote:
Do you know the penalty for leaving a firearm unsecured in Germany? I don't. But I guess he's being prosecuted according to that law. So our discussion is beside the point.RAIMIUS wrote:
Question: Which law did he break?
Answer: Leaving a firearm unsecured.
Other than that, for all of you comparing guns to cars, knives, axes etc: this comparison is misleading. All these other things have a different primary usage and that's what counts, not the fact that they can be used to kill someone. In that sense one doesn't need any of that stuff to go on a killing spree. He can use his hands.
The difference with a gun is that it's sole purpose is to kill. Now if that's not enough for the law to treat guns different than knives or cars then I don't know what is.
True, but if and what they're actually used for is irrelevant. The weapons that most people have in their homes and the ones we're talking about here have a specific purpose and that is to kill. Unless of course the kid was using a bb in which case I'm wrong and you're right.jord wrote:
I hate to take up the American argument but although guns were invented to kill that's not all they're used for. 99%+ of firearms owners haven't used there weapon to kill anyone. I suspect the purpose of the weapon was sport, target shooting probably. Legal recreational enjoyment is a good enough purpose to own something, be it a crossbow, a rifle, a throwing knife or a bb gun.
Well yeah, you found the crux of my issue with political parties, at least as they are represented here in the US. You can't form a socialist utopia without becoming a completely authoritarian society. Even if you manage to topple government and a top-down socialist system, what you've enabled is mob rule instead. You substitute one visible source of authority with a billion other petty tyrants in the form of the majority. On the other side of the spectrum, you can't pay lip service to a free market system when you're trying to use the government to control the actions and lives of the people within the system. Authoritarian government and capitalism do not mix, just as socialism and freedom do not mix. They're both logical paradoxes. How a party like the Democrats whose individual members tout personal freedom almost to the point of anarchism could choose as their economic policies a mix of Socialism and Mercantilism, both of which require a heavy hand in business is beyond me. Same goes for the Republicans who tout free market policies on the one hand and want prayer in school and an overgrown military establishment on the other. It doesn't make any sense. To me, the only logical placements on that political compass were the bottom right, and the top left.Diesel_dyk wrote:
Anyway, I was thinking about the left libertrian score I received in that test... most of that is because I think social conservatives are the actual socialists, and according to the scoring that makes me left which I don't agree with, imo social conservatives are the leftists. AND I don't believe in the death penalty because it's not the govt's role to kill its citizens nor the role of a group of individuals to decide on the life or death of another individual, I say lock them up and throw away the key instead and so that makes me score left and I see the prodeath penalty people as authoritarian. Take away those two things and I'd me more middle.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-11-29 07:43:21)
guns are designed to launch a projectile at high speedoug wrote:
True, but if and what they're actually used for is irrelevant. The weapons that most people have in their homes and the ones we're talking about here have a specific purpose and that is to kill. Unless of course the kid was using a bb in which case I'm wrong and you're right.
Legal recreational enjoyment surely is a good reason to own something like that but it comes with a huge risk as we can see in this case.
with the ultimate goal of achieving what?krazed wrote:
guns are designed to launch a projectile at high speed
Yes, but each of these objects has a specific purpose. You use a specific type of knife to cut meat, another for fish etc etc. Guns have a specific purpose as well. Describing them as broadly as you did makes it seem like you can use them to launch just about anything for example. But that's not an accurate description of a gun. Like I said before, damage may be caused by just about anything. A knife, a fork, a log or even your bare hands. That is beside the point. Firearms have a specific purpose and they should be treated according to that purpose by those who own them and by the law.krazed wrote:
axes are used to hack/crush their way through objects
knives are used to slice and cut things
care must be taken with all of these things
Maybe he didn't pull the trigger but I'm sure he could be charged for causing the deaths indirectly. But that depends on the specific details of this case which we don't have.krazed wrote:
should he be charged for causing the deaths? no
Maybe so, but the decision of the court will have to make sure that something like that doesn't happen again.krazed wrote:
people are just trying to assign blame to make themselves feel better since the killer is already dead
....that's itoug wrote:
with the ultimate goal of achieving what?krazed wrote:
guns are designed to launch a projectile at high speed
see aboveoug wrote:
Firearms have a specific purpose and they should be treated according to that purpose by those who own them and by the law.krazed wrote:
axes are used to hack/crush their way through objects
knives are used to slice and cut things
care must be taken with all of these things
people need to lock their shit upoug wrote:
Maybe he didn't pull the trigger but I'm sure he could be charged for causing the deaths indirectly. But that depends on the specific details of this case which we don't have.krazed wrote:
should he be charged for causing the deaths? noMaybe so, but the decision of the court will have to make sure that something like that doesn't happen again.krazed wrote:
people are just trying to assign blame to make themselves feel better since the killer is already dead
