Weekly Poll, police shooting

The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.

When should a police officer be allowed to use his service gun?

Only when there is an immediate treath to his life or that from others
5
29%
When there is a reasonably assumption that the target poses an immediate indirect/direct treath to his life or that from others
8
47%
When the target is suspected or charged of/with serious crimes and tries to flee or otherwise obstructs his arrest
1
6%
When the target has killed (or is suspected of killing) another law enforcer
0
No votes
Whenever the target is fleeing from a crime scene
0
No votes
Whenever the police officer feels like it and the target is from an ethnic minority
1
6%
I like shooting ducks
2
12%
 
Total votes: 17
User avatar
Cooper42
level4
level4
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:04 pm

Postby Cooper42 » Sat Aug 13, 2011 3:10 pm

I'm not sure Feud's F-16 analogy even holds.

Put simply, tools of death military or otherwise (but especially military, partly because of the brutal efficiency behind them), are and should be scary.

These are items of tightly designed technology designed, tested, manufactured and sold for the prime purpose of causing harm to other humans.
Turning such tools of death into items of fun, recreational or spectacular, is deeply worrying. The normalisation of such things, their intrusion into everyday life, even in the form of the spectacle, is disturbing.
Whoever you vote for, the government wins.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Sat Aug 13, 2011 4:26 pm

Cooper42 wrote:I'm not sure Feud's F-16 analogy even holds.

Put simply, tools of death military or otherwise (but especially military, partly because of the brutal efficiency behind them), are and should be scary.

These are items of tightly designed technology designed, tested, manufactured and sold for the prime purpose of causing harm to other humans.
Turning such tools of death into items of fun, recreational or spectacular, is deeply worrying. The normalisation of such things, their intrusion into everyday life, even in the form of the spectacle, is disturbing.


Not a fan of air shows, huh? :P

What about a game about nuclear war? Or a game that involves shooting people with guns, or blowing them up with grenades? Are they turning the "tools of death" into something enjoyable in a less disturbing manner? If anything, I find the idea of pretending to shooting hundred or thousands of people with fake guns to be more disturbing than shooting an empty tin can with a real one. Video games, movies, television, they all turn not just the tools of death into recreation, but also the act of harming others as well. Unless you are advocating that such should be viewed with horror as well, then I don't see the rationality of your argument. It seems unreasonable to view with horror the peaceful use of a tool, without also being appalled with those mediums that use those tools in a violent manner as well the violent acts themselves as a form of entertainment.

And what about when those tools are used to humanitarian purposes? A friend of mine is an Air Force officer, a navigator on a plane meant to wage war. But, a significant portion of his job is delivering food, medicine, and other humanitarian supplies to disaster afflicted areas, since the American military is one of the few organizations with the physical lift capacity and logistical ability to rapidly respond to such needs. Would the sight of his airplane arriving to such places be cause for deep worry?

While certainly many guns are sold with the understanding that if used they will likely be used on people, many are not. The prime purpose of a shotgun isn't to harm people, it's to shoot clay pigeons or fowl. The prime purpose of a deer rifle isn't to harm people, it's for target shooting or hunting of game. Even most handguns, in the US at least, aren't sold for prime purpose of harming another person. Their prime purpose is recreational shooting or peace of mind, and very few will every be used in self defense outside of a passive role.

I can understand the worry about glorifying violence or normalizing it, it worries me as well. But, I don't think that the tools themselves by nature create that. Just enjoying a gun doesn't mean someone is embracing violence, anymore than what I think someone enjoying archery or throwing a javelin would. Rather, I think it shows the opposite: that man's peaceful nature has found ways to overcome the violent potential that an object might allow.

vanarbulax wrote:I see what you're trying to get across in you analogy Feud, but the difference between a gun and an F-16 is that I take it as a reasonable assumption that the person flying and F-16 is fully qualified, sober, level-headed, experienced and has a back-ground check.


Fighter pilots are the frat boys of the armed services. :wink: But, you highlighted the point behind my argument: it's people, not tools, that one should worry about. Tools are just that, tools. Neither endowed with malice nor gifted with grace, built by a person, not forged in Mordor. There's no reason to worry about tools, worry about people.
Last edited by Feud on Sat Aug 13, 2011 4:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Sat Aug 13, 2011 4:37 pm

Feud wrote:What about a game about nuclear war? Or a game that involves shooting people with guns, or blowing them up with grenades? Are the turning the "tools of death" into something enjoyable in a less disturbing manner? If anything, I find the idea of pretending to shooting hundred or thousands of people with fake guns to be more disturbing than shooting an empty tin can with a real one. Video games, movies, television, they all turn not just the tools of death into recreation, but also the act of harming them as well.

While you are fully justified in seeing a videogame where you kill (the concept of) other people as disgusting or disturbing, the comparison breaks down the moment you compare something that is very clearly not real to the real deal.

Videogames, books, and movies do NOT turn tools of destruction into entertainment, at the very best they include the concept of said tools and use our inherent fascination for such things for entertainment by removing the "scary" parts. As disturbing as shooting someone in a videogame can be perceived, shooting an empty tin can is actually far more dangerous and therefore more scary (and before you claim that shooting isn't actually dangerous if you take the right precautions, keep in mind that you still needed to take said precautions).
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Sat Aug 13, 2011 4:52 pm

Xocrates wrote:As disturbing as shooting someone in a videogame can be perceived, shooting an empty tin can is actually far more dangerous and therefore more scary (and before you claim that shooting isn't actually dangerous if you take the right precautions, keep in mind that you still needed to take said precautions).


Whether or not there is some danger to the individual in the activity really isn't the point, especially since you're much more likely to get hurt driving too or from the shooting range as what you are actually being there and shooting.

Rather, the point is in response to his assertion that it's disturbing that something meant for violence is being used for recreation. Sure, someone could get hurt accidentally while shooting. There is risk in everything man does. My point though is that if we are going to be worried about guns being used for enjoyment, shouldn't we worry more about glorifying their violent use against people more than we should worry about their non violent use against inanimate object?

That's my point. It's not about what's more physically dangerous, and even if it was guns when used properly are much safer than many other things one normally encounters during the day. Rather, it's about how the gun is used for entertainment. To me, it seems much less worrisome to use them in a non-violent (albeit somewhat more dangerous, unless we count the dangers of health issues from sitting around playing video games too much) manner than it is to pretend to use them in an excessively violent manner.

By the way, while we're on the subject:

http://www.history.com/shows/top-shot/v ... e-gauntlet

Top Shot Season 3!
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Sat Aug 13, 2011 5:07 pm

Feud wrote:shouldn't we worry more about glorifying their violent use against people more than we should worry about their non violent use against inanimate object?

Which is a different matter altogether and essentially unrelated to the original point.

However, even aside from the fact that it is entirely possible for weapons to be used in fictional entertainment in ways that do not glorify their use (and in fact several works have that as their point), you can argue that using the real deal for entertainment also glorifies their use although in more pacifist ways.

Which raises the question: Is it better to glorify guns through means that require real weapons, or through means that don't?
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Sat Aug 13, 2011 5:22 pm

Xocrates wrote:However, even aside from the fact that it is entirely possible for weapons to be used in fictional entertainment in ways that do not glorify their use (and in fact several works have that as their point), you can argue that using the real deal for entertainment also glorifies their use although in more pacifist ways.

Which raises the question: Is it better to glorify guns through means that require real weapons, or through means that don't?


I really don't care much about glorifying their use or not, rather I was talking about what form that use manifests itself. My concern is with his assertion that their simple existence and non violent use is scary and disturbing. If such is true, as he seems to feel, then I would think it should also extend to those things that revel in their violent and destructive potential, and that such uses would be more scary and more disturbing than non violent uses.
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:00 pm

Guns are scary because they have physical consequences. If you remove those consequences they cease to be scary.

Furthermore: most people can distinguish between real and virtual, people revel in their virtual destructive power because they know there are no strings attached. People will react in complete different ways to hollywood footage of gunfire, and real footage shown on the news.

And that's the part you fail to grasp: People rather have the consequence free, clearly fake, glorification of violence, to the pacifist use of real life tools designed to kill, where a single mistake can have very real consequences.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:20 pm

Xocrates wrote:And that's the part you fail to grasp: People rather have the consequence free, clearly fake, glorification of violence, to the pacifist use of real life tools designed to kill, where a single mistake can have very real consequences.


I get that quite well, though I'd amend it to "some people prefer", and "some are designed to kill". :wink:

We aren't talking about doing something though, we're talking about inherent fear of the object as an object (or, at least I was). Comparing the two was just to show one point where I think the argument either needs to be extended (to fearing such games based upon the violent motivation) or else where it would break down.

Of course there's a difference between real life and video games. It's one thing to play a BMX game and do all sorts of tricks, and another to actually do them. I can completely understand someone happily doing tricks on a video game, but finding such to be scary in real life. If you fall in a video game, oh well, but in real life there might be broken bones or worse.

But, the rationality of that fear breaks down when such is put upon the object itself, not the use. It's one thing to be afraid of jumping a bike, or even riding the bike. But what Cooper is talking about is being afraid of the bike itself, and to find anyone else's riding of the bike to be disturbing.

Granted, I get that a bike isn't a gun, but to me the rationality of the logic of the mindset is no different. Rather than basing a fear upon a consequence of a mistake or misuse, it's basing it upon projecting a nature upon the object that is so strong that not only is the object disturbing when being used safely and responsibly, it's scary when no one is using it at all. I understand the chain of thought being used to reach the conclusion, but I don't see the rationality behind it.
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Sat Aug 13, 2011 7:30 pm

Feud wrote:I understand the chain of thought being used to reach the conclusion, but I don't see the rationality behind it.

You do realize that the fact there is a coherent chain of thought behind it means it's rational, right?
That does not mean it's a justifiable fear, but it certainly means it's rational.

Honestly, the inherent abilities of something are more than enough to make it scary. Most people are afraid of stuff, not because it did anything wrong, but because it could.
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Sat Aug 13, 2011 8:09 pm

vanarbulax wrote:And yes cars can also be deadly, but have a crucial roll in society and are not as good at intentionally killing.

You have facts? I would be surprised.

Edit: also F-16 for recreation, perhaps not too far away.... (saw this a while back) http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/07/ ... ing-in-us/
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Sat Aug 13, 2011 9:52 pm

Xocrates wrote:
Feud wrote:I understand the chain of thought being used to reach the conclusion, but I don't see the rationality behind it.

You do realize that the fact there is a coherent chain of thought behind it means it's rational, right?
That does not mean it's a justifiable fear, but it certainly means it's rational.


Not necessarily. While it might be a rational series of assumptions or conclusions, if the underlying premise upon which it is based is irrational then no matter how rational the following arguments might be the argument is fundamentally flawed. It's a tree without roots. Without a rational premise, then no matter how rational the following logic might be, the argument remains irrational.

Honestly, the inherent abilities of something are more than enough to make it scary. Most people are afraid of stuff, not because it did anything wrong, but because it could.


Perhaps, again, that goes back to exposure.

To me, guns aren't scary. I know people who have been hurt by them, I've had them malfunction in my hands, and I've had them used against me criminally, but while I respect their potential and am wary of those who use them irresponsibly, to me they are just an object. I take them apart and I see all the pieces, I put them together and see them as a whole, nothing strange or scary, just metal and plastic that combines form and function. Some people like muscle cars, some like electronics, stripping and building, enjoying them for what they are and the involvement of building, maintaining, and using them. I guess I'm the same way, not really a fanatic, but rather an enthusiast.
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Sat Aug 13, 2011 10:18 pm

Feud wrote:Not necessarily. While it might be a rational series of assumptions or conclusions, if the underlying premise upon which it is based is irrational then no matter how rational the following arguments might be the argument is fundamentally flawed. It's a tree without roots. Without a rational premise, then no matter how rational the following logic might be, the argument remains irrational.

I suppose.

Though I don't think that is the case here at all. The chain has a very clear very rational beginning (guns are used to kill people) and a rational progression to the conclusion (a gun is scary) derived from its inherent properties.

While exposure can certainly change one's perception, this does not change the fact that it is entirely rational to be afraid of one object's inherent properties. Guns are perhaps one of the most obvious examples on account of being designed with dangerous properties in mind. This fear is exacerbated because any idiot can take a gun and do damage (regardless of intention), which I doubt is the case of an F16 since I honestly doubt people not trained could even get it moving.
Jordy...
level5
level5
Posts: 2367
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:57 pm

Postby Jordy... » Sat Aug 13, 2011 10:23 pm

I think history has shown us that for every good use an object or concept might have there is a bad use as well. And most likely at least someone will mis-use whatever object or concept (what exactly mis-use is is probably another discussion).
Now, this is a given, but creating an object that is very easily abusable seems like a rather strange thought, especially if it doesn't have an all that good of a potential to do good.

Enjoying such an object might be viewed the same as enjoying a torture-bench, sure you can deal with it responsibly and enjoy spinning the wheel on it, but it's intended purposes are clear and what you enjoy about it, is exactly very damaging to someone if he wasn't replaced by a carton plate.
But it seems like that some countries have lost sight on the intended purposes of these clearly malicious objects. What I heard people tell me on TV is that it gives a sense of power or a rush, I don't know exactly what you enjoy about them, but the fact that people enjoy them, in controlled circumstances, makes them come closer to an event where they will use them outside of an controlled environment.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Sat Aug 13, 2011 10:38 pm

Xocrates wrote:This fear is exacerbated because any idiot can take a gun and do damage (regardless of intention), which I doubt is the case of an F16 since I honestly doubt people not trained could even get it moving.


I take it you never saw the movie Iron Eagle. :P

Jordy... wrote:But it seems like that some countries have lost sight on the intended purposes of these clearly malicious objects. What I heard people tell me on TV is that it gives a sense of power or a rush, I don't know exactly what you enjoy about them, but the fact that people enjoy them, in controlled circumstances, makes them come closer to an event where they will use them outside of an controlled environment.


You shouldn't believe everything you hear on tv. :wink: Some people might feel that way simply by holding one, but most people I know seem to enjoy the experience of shooting, and get the pleasure from that, in which the gun is just a tool. Kinda like racing a car or flying a plane, it's combining engineered machinery with one's own personal skills and talents in order to accomplish something.

As for the torture chamber: Outside of fetish I can't think of a use for a torture chamber other than hurting people, a gun however can be used for competition, hunting, personal defense (without hurting anyone), hand eye coordination building, etc.

I think a better example would be a knife. We've spent centuries perfecting them as tools of violence, but they can also be used for related (cutting) activities that are nonviolent and enjoyable (cooking, jack-o-lantern carving, etc).
User avatar
vanarbulax
level4
level4
Posts: 653
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 8:51 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby vanarbulax » Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:51 am

Ace Rimmer wrote:You have facts? I would be surprised.


I'll admit no I haven't done a factual survey but I thought it would just be physically obvious that expect maybe on the open road a gun would be a far more effective, portable, discrete tool than a car for a murder.

Feud wrote:Fighter pilots are the frat boys of the armed services. But, you highlighted the point behind my argument: it's people, not tools, that one should worry about. Tools are just that, tools. Neither endowed with malice nor gifted with grace, built by a person, not forged in Mordor. There's no reason to worry about tools, worry about people.


Well yes sure, if nothing ever went wrong with guns and you wouldn't ever have to worry about the people using them then, yes they are just a tool. But that's simply not true otherwise they'd be nerf guns. I don't think they are endowed with malice nor grace or any emotion or thought, but they intrinsically contain the potential to harm, the potential to be misused and the potential to misfire, and I personally don't have the capacity to insure the gun is being used properly, that it won't be misused and even then things can go wrong.

Sure worry about people, but really I can't judge people well and I'd have to worry about them less if they didn't a gun. To put this in a slightly facetious way :P

There are many tools I'm afraid of, cars are still inherently scary to me, especially because they are being used by people. But so is industrial equipment, blenders, nuclear power plants etc. However they are far less scary than a gun because while all these can be lethal or cause harm, they are designed as far a possible not to be while being feasible for their intended use. I know that guns have safety mechanisms but they still need to be easily and readily lethal. Few other things have that in the design brief.

The thing is you're saying guns aren't scary because if used right they pose no threat, but unless I am interpreting you wrong that is basically saying no object ever is scary. Risk assessments aren't done on whether something is dangerous in proper use but rather how easily it can fall out of proper use and what the consequences are. I don't think guns or strange or transcendent or something, and I understand having a fascination for them, but I don't see how that stops them being intrinsically dangerous.

Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests