Saturday, December 15, 2012

Worthy and Unworthy Victims

President Obama has shed tears for the victims in Connecticut, and frankly I find it kind of hard to take.  Search around at this website and you'll find that Obama has killed nearly 200 children in Pakistan.  I have a friend from Pakistan.  He has a son that I met years back when he was smaller.  I can't help but think of all the children that look like this boy that have had their lives snuffed out in our drone war when I see Obama.  Obama obviously knows what he's doing in Pakistan.  It's not like he's unfamiliar with the killing of children.  But now he's ready to come out and show some tears.  Why now only?  Is it a different sort of animal that is dying in Pakistan?  Yeah, they were born to parents that happened to live on a different side of a border line from us.  So their death isn't also worthy of sympathy?

The American people generally can be forgiven for reacting only to victims in Connecticut and not Pakistan.  They don't really know about Pakistan.  This is not the kind of thing that is discussed in the mainstream media.  The media is of course going to talk about Connecticut, and any normal healthy person will feel sadness for the victims.  But our President is not in the dark about Pakistan.  This is not the first time in his presidency that a report of child victims has come across his desk.  This time he's moved to tears in public, but not before.  Did something change?  Child victims are suddenly tragic.  Why now and not earlier?  This is what we need to ask ourselves.


Ken said...

I hope you don't mind but I shared your piece on FB. As expected, I'm catching heat for it.

Anamika said...

If a 20 year old is recruited by the army and kills 20 kids in a foreign land, he is hailed as a hero. If he does the same thing at home, he is called a lunatic. The hypocrisy is a trait of not just our leaders but our people too.

Examinator said...

Your point is both well taken and I have to agree. Sadly and true to form I don't think the case is quite so clear cut in that there are other factors at play too. I have made some friends and some enemies with my responses on the Newtown in the Washington paper. Where I was appalled by the Tendency of the right wingers more interested about 'their right ' to bear arms than the people and the consequential collateral damage (CD). This will be particularly devastating in such a small community.

As someone who has dealt with crisis intervention and its aftermath I can tell you with a high degree of confidence that the problems in this community will go Way beyond the 28 people killed surviving families, involved, 600 students and staff to almost the entire community . Worse still they will persist for years ,for some as long as they live. My educated guess is that issues like PTSD and suicides, problem drinking and family violence will make a significant jump.
While it is natural for people to feel more strongly about their own(those that one can identify with) What is not so acceptable (IMHO) is the contradictory attitude of out of sight out of mind (developed) insensitivity of America as a nation. ( i.e. the collateral damage of Drone collateral damage). It is an absolute nonsense and collective deliberate insensitivity to assume that the CD would be any less traumatic for the average village Afghani than is the case for those in Newtown.
The problem by my reasoning is that this 'indifference' is both well understood psychology and intended consequences of those with vested interests/ power in the USA.
Self interest always tops concern for others. The one exception to this rule is the hormonal response that causes the immediate response in some to disregard their own life to save someone else (part of the nurture response).

I think it very telling when one notes the differences to the immediate responses to say the mass shooting in the 1960's and that to the one at Newtown. Far too many were focused on the defence of the right to bear arms as opposed to the shock, horror and the possible consequences for the survivors and the country as was the case way back. I would be less than honest if I didn't admit my disgust at the change.

Someone said that there are are only two things that matter in politics , the first is money/power and......I can't remember the second. And that is true particularly in a capitalist obsessed country like the US.
To prove my point I'd ask you to consider who ultimately benefits from the weapons tsunami that is the US?
More specifically, who benefits most from the contrived (mythical notion) scaremongering that Firearms control = NO firearms. Facts from Australia make it clear this isn't so, it has firearms collectors, shooting ranges, 'hunters' (sic) and even Olympic Gold medal sporting shooters.

Examinator said...

Part 2
What Aust. lacks is mass killings of innocents.
I'm the first to state that total prohibition simply doesn't , and never has worked.
The clear winners of the status quo on firearms in the US are the mentally lazy enthusiast, the crims and the Manufacturers the greatest winners oh yes those in the NRA who currently have Power . Guess who loses ?

In context the same could be said for Wars and their indiscriminate slaughter.
Show me one nation since the mid1950's that has benefited as a whole from a US war on it? In fact show me a country that has been to War with the US that as a consequence of that was ISN'T DOMINATED by US corporates. I can't think of one! Most Often these are countries, the people are significantly worse off.
Most if not all of these wars were started and prosecuted on Mythical scare campaigns... i.e. the Reds are coming, Commies surge , the domino effect, supporting friends (compliant to corporations dictators), Access to oil (Israel) et al. Even Afghanistan, hands up those who think because of the trillions into the war the US is safer from terrorism? (objectively not many). So ask yourself WHO has benefited? Has the economy? The people as a whole? Ask yourself also with all the countless trillions gained by corporations how come the US economy is in the toilet. Those who actually know will tell you that the Wars and the non productive financial markets are largely to blame .
Neither Wars or the non productive finance sector don't produce nation /asset building effects. They produce simply war Consumables ...e.g. fire a cannon and where's asset ….gone/used literally an asset goes up in smoke and usually destroys something. Can someone demonstrate how creating fiat money (derivatives), say in the debt marketing created real benefits over all? For some but for the country it was a disaster. However feed/ educate a child (release potential )and you have an asset at the very least lessening a liability ...the net result is positive. From one perspective it isn't charity as such but ENLIGHTENED self interest.

Hands up who believes drones won't embitter the survivors much the same way the survivors of Newtown feel about those who support free range Access to weapons? Ask yourselves Hands up those who feel that drones will solve the problems of terrorists ? (tooth fairy anyone?). Anyone want to argue with me that you get more from friends than sworn embittered enemies?

So where is the intellectual disconnect? Simple Americans ( all westerners) are being manipulated via their emotions/instincts to believe in the false God of “ Exceptionalism”under which it's man servant a consort “Entitlement” and “ Myopia” rule.
So who's to blame ? we all are.

Chad said...

Totally lost by Ex's reply and rambling yet again. Not sure that he really believes the phyco babble he blurts out. Simple question - big sign in front of school that says 'Armed and Trained Staff Members On Site' does this loser enter the front door? Nope and if he did the death toll would have been fractional. There are so so so many examples of situations when normal citizens with weapons have foiled crimes or reduced damage because they we armed. The answer here is completely opposite - arm more citizens, train and arm select school employees and train/arm management in stores/bars/restaurants/gas stations and churches. Watch crime fall.

By the way Ex you realize that mass killing deaths have been and still are in decline correct? You also realize that the worst areas of gun violence in this country are - wait for it - in cities with gun bans!

In regards to drone strikes - are you legitimately standing there and claiming that drone strikes have not significantly affected terrorist? This is utterly amazing - we have a psychic capable of seeing into the future.

If someone wants to take someone's life they'll get that done regardless, but let him/her take 1 life and not 26. Let's treat the whatever you called it PTSD for 1 or 2 and not 26 plus.

Chad said...

JC - liked your point on this one.

At the same time I see some flaws as well with the connection. There were no known terrorists hiding in the school, there was no open war on these kids/staff - it wasn't an 'accident' or 'collateral damage'.

176 children which by the way is classified as ages 0-17 killed in what 9 years and 350 plus missions? Now I hate war, hate it a lot, but if we are in war then using drones seems to be very impact full. In addition it does not put Americans in harms way either. Yes - tragedy and collateral damage is a problem so the death of 1 kid is too much, but I think it is a fair question to ask yourself what is acceptable collateral damage? Setting in the cheap seats over here it is very easy to say zero, but when you finger is on the button to take out someone - a someone who might be plotting the next attack to kill 3,000 people what is the acceptable collateral loss?

Examinator said...

Yet again you wander off into your mental bubble answering questions that weren't asked. ignoring facts and misquoting what I said.
i.e. I don't advocate *Banning* guns (sic). For military definition purposes guns are artillery. Firearms are pistols and rifles.
As for psycho babble you really are anti facts and anybody with a greater education or knowledge than yours!

I could also suggest you read the 'Atlantic'/ the centre for firearm studies, the Diane Rehme show, the Guardian, the New York Times etc etc. for the facts on firearm murder stats. They don't show your assertions.(but they don't Ban weapons. Sadly the articles involved are longer than your apparent concentration span of 150 words and one concept per article.
Notwithstanding,If I make the effort to read what you say and comment on that which you actually say then I believe I have the right to be treated likewise.

Chad said...

I like statistics - like them a lot, but also think they can be extremely skewed.

Let me give you a for instance - America has approximately 8,800 deaths by firearm yearly - agreed? How many of those deaths involve a person who legally owns the firearm and then commits the murder? How many are gang related, how many crime related deaths? How many involve one person with a gun and the other person without?

How about what happened in San Antonio last night? Do you even know? An armed crazed man pissed about a break up goes to his work place to shot someone - he proceeding to enter a movie theatre with the intention of shooting up the place and was met by an off duty ARMED officer. 1 person shot (criminal) all other people alive. Where is the coverage of that?

I found several publications in a quick google search that outline death by gun in the US is down. But again I realize your not down with taking all guns - I mean your country has seen gun violence explode since banning certain weapons and making silly rules like your gun must be locked in one area of the home and the ammo must be x number of feet away from the gun stuff - so I get that.

You bounced from right wingers being more interested about our guns than CD to politcal power, to NRA profit to drinking problems to drone collateral damage to Olympic Shooting, to the Reds are coming - sorry I just was unable to follow any logical thought process in there other than the fact that you were taking a swipe at Right Wingers, Capitalist obsessed country like the US, the NRA for protecting our rights as written in the Constitution and finally by saying us Westerners are being munipulated by our God of whatever the heck that was.

Did I get that right? I actually thought I touched on several topics quite well.

Chad said...

Couple additional points - the NRA and us God fearing Right Wingers do not want guns in the hands of criminals nor anyone with mental diseases - we have a common ground there.

Also for reference here is the link to the situation in San Antonio I spoke about.

Imagine if the Principal or a couple other teachers at Sandy had a gun? We'd be talking about hero's that are with us that saved many lives and not hurting over lives lost.

Jon said...

Ken, glad you liked the post and thanks for sharing on FB, good to see you think it's worthy of that.

Interesting points made by all here.

Chad, just so you know, I'm not saying the circumstances (drone/Connecticut) are the same. What I do think though is that small children dying is tragic whether it happens in Pakistan or here, and I think the first tears anybody should shed are for the actions he is responsible for, not for actions of others that we can't control, like this person in CN that apparently had mental problems.

And btw, I completely reject your scenario that says we drone in Pakistan to prevent the death of another 3K. That is absolute not why we do it. Bush was told by his advisers that an invasion of Iraq would increase the threat of terrorism, which it did 7 fold according to RAND data. We know what the consequences of invasions and occupations are. In fact that's precisely why we were hit in the first place, whereas Norway and Japan weren't. What Obama is in fact doing is increasing the likelihood that another incident like 9/11 will happen. Anybody that pays serious attention should understand that. But he's doing it regardless, and for very simple reasons. Hegemony.

It's kind of like the drug war. I hear people say all the time it makes no sense. Of course it makes perfect sense. It only doesn't make sense if you accept the government claim for the reasons it is waged. The ostensible reason is to reduce drug usage. Well, we know it doesn't do that at all. In fact it does the opposite. But it fills our prisons, and that's great for the prison industrial complex, which reaps larger and larger profits. Great for corporations that exploit prison labor. Great for scaring the population and keeping them distracted. When you look to the real reasons instead of the stated reasons it makes perfect sense, and the same is true of the war on terror. It clearly makes the threat of terrorism worse, but that's not a problem because that is not the real reason this war is being waged.

Chad said...

JC - you get little arguement from me there. If someone were to harm my family/country they would be my sworn enemy until I left this earth too. The only way drone strikes or strategic strikes would work is only if ou wiped the entire clan off the planet.

You know my view about drugs - legalize and tax them all immediately. Anyone in prison should be released and we should drive out cartels by private companies selling drugs, making legit money and here is the big one - don't fall over JC - so we can collect the taxes on the sales. Kids sling dope because they can make a $100 a day doing nothing - suddenly that option will not be there when their clients can go buy it in the open for a fraction of the price. Suddenly working at Mcd's and going to school is a real option.

Examinator said...


You are so obsessed about YOUR right to shoot anything YOU don't regard as YOUR way you are unable or unwilling to see that this topic is not a rant about 'guns' per se but the selective concern for one tragedy yet not another possibly more lethal one.

Again, you fail to comprehend that very few 'lefties' are advocating total firearm prohibition. So for the sake of reasonable conversation stop with the (false)assertion that we are.
In truth you and your perspective is in the MINORITY. A view that has shown to be most widely held by Blue collar, white males. There are several research papers showing this and reasonable explanations why.
I'd make the further point that the view is neither rational (your own rather the result of devious emotional manipulation) nor Really Christian. As in the lessons in both the old and particularly the new testament.But that is an argument for another topic/time.
In the mean time try arguing the actual topic.

Examinator said...

I've solved the puzzle why some people can't see the differences you and I can
Read this
Swab all republicans etc. Note too the brain one.

Chad said...

My view is completely rational actually. I will always be in a position to protect myself, my family and potentially people around me. Is Chicago gun friendly, DC? I thought you liked stats - where is the most violent crimes committed with guns? In gun free cities.

Back on topic (which I thought I was) death by mentally challenged/disturbed 22 year old compared to drone strikes on perceived enemy targets that takes out a child. Tragedy of course, the same or similar IMO not even close.

As far. As being a Minority - very comfortable with that for sure. Jesus was a minority and in many cases being right actually puts a person in the minority. I take exception to your so called white man view about guns, I don't know a brother that doesn't pack heat - difference being (in many cases) the only difference is mine is registered, I take classes to understand my weapons, have my concealed carry permit and within reason try to stay in the confines of the law. Unfortunately I ignore any and every sign that has the "this is a gun free business or zone" because that only means it is most likely a target for criminals.

Jon said...

Another explanation, Ex, is perhaps the monkey sphere.
Chad, I've been following this Irish guy that is a polyglot. He goes to various different countries learning languages and interacting. He's now in Brazil, planning to be in Egypt in January. He's fascinated by this American conception that the world is so dangerous, and isn't he scared to go? He wrote a recent post saying that from everywhere he's been he was never more scared than in America, where he met people of questionable mental stability carrying guns that seem to have this same conception you do. The world is this big scary place where you have to be always ready to have guns blazing. Like all these Hollywood movies are true. Every time you walk into a bar somebody wants to fight with you. I was sitting in front of the TV recently and X-Men Origins is on. Wolverine is driving and comes to a bridge, but somebody has there care stopped on it and he can't get by, so he asks them politely, and of course what happens. "No way man, F-you man, I'll freaking kill you, man." That's not the real world. That's Hollywood. We're the richest country in the world and extremely safe. The paranoia is misplaced. Probably the paranoia is more likely to generate problems than any actual threat. Relax man, you can go into a store where nobody is allowed to bring a gun. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

Jonathan said...


Liked the monkeysphere link. Maybe it would be helpful to think of those we oppose and don't understand as being the like the lady or our friend, and not just a stereotype or a figurehead. Instead of just blogging about how Obama is so horrible for killing kids halfway around the world, but bothered by those who die closer to home, why not write him a letter or send him a link to Monkeysphere?

Maybe instead of a heartless tyrant who kills folks with drones for misguided and unknown reasons, maybe he too just needs to realize there are people on the receiving end of the drones. And who's going to write him and let him know if you or I don't?

Jonathan said...

Inclusiveness, charity, and the golden rule are a double edged sword when we try and shove tolerance and humanity down the throat of those we disagree with...

I thought this was funny...

Jon said...

Jonathan, it might be cliched, but I really think this is not about Obama. The power is with the people. The rich and powerful never give anything because you asked nicely. You have to make them. Apparently FDR enacted banking regulation and SS not because he was some kind of saint but because he told the business community "Look, if we don't throw them a bone they are going to storm the castle, and then all your riches are gone." Obama doesn't need letters from me. He needs pressure from all of us. That's how change comes. It's really not about Obama. It's about us organizing.

Examinator said...

Monkeysphere post is a very thought provoking it. I'll go through it carefully later.

I think you made many of my points well.

Chad: I repeat yet again, please read this carefully . It's NOT about YOU or me.
Other than the way YOU are addressing the issue. Both of us as as an individuals are irrelevant to the topic. Neither of us are the gold standard nor do we represent/represent the statistical mean.
you may well be an expert on firearms etc BUT most Firearm owners aren't. It's a bit like saying because You are a formula 1 race driver and extraordinarily skilled everyone else with a car is as competent/ sensible/skilled as you. A non seq argument.

Your/my skills competence/responsibility are irrelevant to the safety of the masses.
with 300 million firearms in The US then it's an odds on bet that less than .0001% are as competent as you. Ergo it makes no sense to pitch the law at the most competent level unless you enforce some sort of control to up the general competence etc.

There are other more human factors that come to play to.
Not every one is emotionally capable to kill or able to react correctly under stress like a in a home invasion. That is the reason the military/police are trained (arguably some police /military shouldn't be in the either force likewise the training isn't adequate). Look at the riots in Anaheim and then look at the smart phone vids.
As someone who was raised in a near military/police environment and been present in more riots and public disturbances ( on both sides) than I care count. I can see several flaws in the police on the ground responses.. rushes of blood,tempers,prejudice, "us and them" and "F them" behaviour et al.

Let me give one story from SC a few years back where I had a counselling role that might make my point.
A "hunter" (sic) and firearms enthusiast (I actually knew friend of a friend) had quite a collection of expensive firearms. he was inclined to boast about them in public( at a bar where we used to go after work).
Well one night he was awakened by an intruder. He hurried down stairs to see his 12 yo daughter being held by the arm by an intruder with a syringe in his hand. Dad fired it hit the daughter's shoulder went through injuring the junkie. But Dad didn't see the other intruder with one of his rifles and was shot dead. The miscreants got away. Two days later the police tracked them down through a 911 call for an unrelated issue.
The police discovered the killer dead from an O/D and the other dying of drugs and bleeding from the gun shot wound despite the bullet being removed and first aid patching.

Jonathan said...

Of course Jon, it's not about you, it's not about me, and it's not about Obama. It's about the prototypical Jons out there, collectively taking action against the metaphorical Obamas. So let's organize. Let's get 5,000 people to write to Obama, or to the top 100 most powerful folks in the US.

Only, why should I listen to you and write a letter when you haven't taken the time to write one yourself? Oh that's right, you're too busy organizing others, or rather talking about how other people should organize.

Jon, don't get me wrong, you and I are just guys, but there's a reason that I showed up in your newspaper 500 miles away during the Walker ralley. I was the *only* guy who bothered to show up at the capital and be a counter protester. Granted, you think I was on the wrong side of the protest, but the point was there were tens of thousand of folks who felt just like I did, but no one got off their butt in the cold, or were too indemidated by the crowds to show up and engage.

I didn't want to be the story, I just decided to show up, figuring others would as well. But they didn't, and if I hadn't of shown up, newspapers wouldn't have had their counter point, the narration would have been "we tried to find someone in support of Walker, but no one showed up". Again, you might think that's a good thing and that's fine, but think of how the actions of one person actually changed the narration of the news in Madison, plus gave some guys over at Freep an angle as well.

A few weeks later something similar happened - I was at annual Crazy Legs 5 mile run with about 10k other runners. Tom Barret was there, challenger to Scott Walker in the recall election. I walked over his way, didn't say a word, but had a "runner for walker" sign on my back. That got his attention, and the attention of some cameras there. I wasn't trying to be confrontational, just trying to show my support for Walker. What I should have done was gone back over once he and his staff were looking my way for a civil discussion, or at least followed up with an e-mail the next day. I bet I could have made an impression, and started a bit of a dialogue. But I chickened out.

Point is - you not making a difference is just a cop out. If you wanna put some pressure on someone, go put some pressure on someone. *Engage* with them. You talk about standing shoulder to shoulder with activists you admire, but so far I see you sitting in your cube while history is being made in Lansing.

To borrow another cliche, be the change you wanna see in others man!

Examinator said...

He died on the way to the ER. However, not before he told the police that they had targeted the house because the dead partner an ex Marine vet from Iraq who had (I guess from details had undiagnosed PTSD and subsequently a drug problem) recognised the weapons were valuable. They didn't intend on killing anyone and the vet didn't know about the syringe. they had been surprised by the girl and the Dad. The vet acted instinctively and fired.

Now the aftermath and where I became involved ...the girl survived. The family home and funeral were covered by insurance insurance but Mom had no real saleable skills so they had to sell up take both children out of private school. Mom worked nights as a office cleaner.

The weapon that killed dad was used in a murder of a family of 5 who owned a restaurant.

The 12 year old girl has HIV from the needle stick...the junkie was dying of AIDS.

The family of the Junky had told Mom that he had been a teacher in a private elementary school and had gotten HIV from a bite while trying to break up school yard fight. He'd been sacked when the HIV was discovered. He left his family, fell on hard times and turned to drugs.
I became involved when Mom rang the service on the verge of suicide and during the call she filled me in.

The points of the story are many but two stand out to me the first is things happen in a context. The most important in this context to note was the that Dad's gun ho action had made a bad situation 'unnecessarily' lethal. Police training would have cautioned dad to look and assess the situation before reacting.
Despite all the experience I'm not sure how I would have reacted in that situation. Few of us without appropriate training would. In essence 11 lives were cut short or severely damaged from the consequences of an instinctive reaction.
it is cold comfort to the surviving innocents that both the crims died.
Think about it, I still do years after the one lengthy suicide threat phone call.

Examinator said...

I watched your post. Hmmm!
A couple of thoughts come to mind.
first ALL parties have a distribution of people from the extreme to extreme.
I wonder how many interviewees were edited out because they didn't make their point?
NB I'm not a democrat neither do I say I'm without the usual foibles.
But most importantly conversations in extremes are NOT MEANINGFUL I constantly make the point that it's all a matter of degree.
Notwithstanding, I would suggest that just because a person has extreme bigoted ideas that doesn't mean those ideas are or should be tolerated. That is an extreme.
NB. I tolerate/ accept individuals not necessarily their extreme views.

TEA PARTY views are by definition a composite a consensus( a generalisation) of that group.
It is valid to criticise them if they are ill founded or extreme.
The same could be said for Democrats and republicans, Greens etc.
For that reason I unlike some here reject outright being called by generalised terms. I don't share a majority or large portion of ANY PARTY, philosophy.
By contrast Chad has defines himself as a Tea Partier, conservative (sic) god fearing, republican and therefore by definition shares much of their views. I don't reject Chad just many of his notions.
I accept as does Chomsky that all of the above have valid concerns but it doesn't follow that I should share their conclusions or logic processes.

I don't have a light or dark view of the world simply is and it covers the whole gambit of distribution.
Neither am I anti USA, Israel, Muslims Christians per se but I do not support all their ideas or regimes.
I focus on the US simply because it's one place/culture I sort of share. It would be fanciful/delusional not to acknowledge the USA's greater effect on the world say than Samoa or Australia.
I tend to discuss topics in abstract and offer specifics to illustrate my point.

Examinator said...

Me again
have a look at this

I note the number of suicides... why?
I also note the bit about the cuts! to outpatient psychological help and the costs.
The author raises subsidiary issues about at what point is tax funding of such services cease being enlightened self interest?

Chad said...

Jon - do you have a fire extinguisher in your home? How about a dead bolt lock? Do you have either one? Why do you have those? Are you expecting a fire to happen or someone to actually break in this week, next month? No, but your prepared if those happen. It might be a .001% chance, but damn it if it happens you can put out the fire and save your family right? If your neighbors house catches fire, you gonna run out and try to put the fire out?

Gotcha ya - that is why I carry - I am prepared hat is all.

Chad said...

Ex - your just a fool I am afraid. Your going to wait for a trained police officer while your daughter/wife is being raped? How aout your obscure - completely obscure off the wall story - dad shooting daughter. Holy smokes how dumb - pick the most outrageous story and Callie proof.

So we have all these untrained gun owners - holding my tongue here, but it's tough. Ex there are millions of untrained drivers on the road DAILY you sad man. How many deaths by car vs gun sir? What is that number - you ready to go after cars too? Whats clear to me sir is that you truly believe your brain is bigger than all others that freedom is something that can be sacrificed because it's something you don't like (guns).

Chad said...

JC - did you see the article about Depardieu today? Moved to Belgium to avoid 75% tax and the top calls him pathetic. We had this discussion and you poo-poo'd me. I have been following this the best I can and he is certainly not the first and according to the article far from the last. They are already saying their intake will be less.

Examinator said...

Jon this is an excellent piece that illustrates what I've been saying about how exceptionalism feeds a sense of entitlement and so on.

Examinator said...

Me a fool? that is as it may be. However, I didn't say or imply any of what you wrote.

In fact according to the figures in the article I posted,(which you didn't read) Firearm deaths (note I didn't say murders) numbers are comparable to those of motor vehicle deaths.
You are yet again misquoting me implying I'm saying things I didn't. The motor vehicle example was merely making the point that while you might be a F1 driver but it is nonsense to assume everyone else has comparable skill level. I made the clear point that you maybe the best/responsible firearm owner in the country but that doesn't mean the other 120 + million are. How many road signs have you seen with bullet holes in them ? How many broken bottles, cans with holes?

I made it crystal clear the crims were there to get the weapons ...presumably to sell for drugs ...rape wasn't on the agenda! One wonders at your projecting on that one.
Yes dad either panicked or had a terrible aim. Then again statistics show that more people injure themselves companions with fire arms than actually bag animals.
FYI most people when confronted with the unexpected simply freeze. If you rode a bicycle on a pathway and you ring your bell as a warning most people take time to react and often move in different directions not the way they should . Police shooting tests show that in a surprise situations the uninitiated are more likely to shot wide or the wrong person than Just the villains

Examinator said...

Haven't you ever wondered why I don't subscribe to any doctrinal belief structure?
The answer is clear I don't believe in absolutes or hypocrisy
i.e. saying that I am a devout follower of a set of precept when I mean I choose from them selectively to meet MY OWN purpose ...
The definition of a hypocrite is someone who claims to be or do something then does something else.

I am reluctant judge others particularly those who I don't know because I don't know their circumstances nor am I perfect enough to don a cloak of superiority (sanctimony)