Guest guest Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 In a message dated 3/7/2006 5:25:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, rainbow@... writes: Killing in war is certainly murder, by definition! Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Killing is murder!!! Period. And sometimes killing is justified. Is it more moral to kill a gunman on a rampage or sit by and do nothing, letting them kill a dozen innocent people? Is it more moral to kill a person who enters your house to kill you or let yourself be killed, leaving family defenseless? Is it more moral to send volunteers to fight an enemy army or let the army rampage across the land killing and destroying all in your own nation? To the first, I say it is more moral to kill the gunman and thus save the lives of innocents. To the second, I say it is more moral to kill the intruder in defense of self, family and even community (if they are attacking you, certainly they will attack others as well). To the last, I also say it is more moral to fight the enemy at a distance or resist their encroachment on the homeland because the alternative would be the death of the nation and civilization, not to mention many people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 > Is it more moral to kill a gunman on a rampage or sit by and do nothing, letting them kill a dozen innocent people? You can shoot him in the leg or arm, no need to specifically kill. > Is it more moral to kill a person who enters your house to kill you or let yourself be killed, leaving family defenseless? You can shoot him too in the leg. > Is it more moral to send volunteers to fight an enemy army or let the army rampage across the land killing and destroying all in your own nation? I see no problem with self-defence. But I can't recall any enemy invasion of the US - at least not since the one by your European ancestors 500 years ago. ;-) > To the first, I say it is more moral to kill the gunman and thus save the lives of innocents. To the second, I say it is more moral to kill the intruder in defense of self, family and even community (if they are attacking you, certainly they will attack others as well). To the last, I also say it is more moral to fight the enemy at a distance or resist their encroachment on the homeland because the alternative would be the death of the nation and civilization, not to mention many people. But why is it that you see killing specifically as a solution to all the above problems? Could it be that you're in any way influenced by the circumstance that a majority of all American films have the death of the villain at the end of a thriller as the optimal solution (and emotional tension-relief) and almost never any alternative ending? Surely, as creative as we humans are, there must be other possible solutions to the problem? Inger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 What about non-lethal weapons then? Surely there must be other ways of incapacitating an armed mugger? Inger Re: Re: Killing In a message dated 3/7/2006 6:04:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, inglori@... writes: But why is it that you see killing specifically as a solution to all the above problems? Could it be that you're in any way influenced by the circumstance that a majority of all American films have the death of the villain at the end of a thriller as the optimal solution (and emotional tension-relief) and almost never any alternative ending? Surely, as creative as we humans are, there must be other possible solutions to the problem? Inger, Shooting for the legs sounds nice, but it is very hard to do in practice. Unlike in the movies, just because a person is shot in the legs, they are not necessarily out of the fight. They might be immobile, but still able to shoot. Many police officers are actually killed or wounded each year by suspects that had been shot but still able to fight. Another problem with shooting for the legs is stray rounds. Aiming for the legs would likely mean aiming down, which in the first scenario, would put your own stray rounds toward the ground where people would be taking cover from the shooter, thus putting them at risk. Statistics also show that gunshot by pistol have a roughly 85% change of survival. So, even if you shot the target, odds are that they would survive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Inger, I'm guessing you've never shot a gun (I don't recall if you've ever mentioned going hunting for food) based on your replies. If the opponent has a gun, if you're lucky, you'll be able to take them down (whether that means they're shot dead or merely wounded is not stated) and convince them to stop their progress. Let me repeat that point: " If you're lucky " is a very important thing to remember. Contrary to what you may see on the old westerns, a handgun is *not* easy to shoot precisely at a human body more than about 10 feet away for most people: for one thing, they simply don't have nearly that kind of accuracy in real-life conditions. Even if you manage to hit them, there's a lot of places you can hit that will be fatal shots with even one shot, given a sufficiently powerful weapon. A rifle or a shotgun is easier to hit the target and be sure you got them, assuming you have the room to move around to use it, and you have it ready. Still more effective is something like an uzi, if only because it sprays a bunch of bullets all over, almost ensuring you'll at least hit the target once, along with everything else nearby. Once again, though, things are far from exact, at least for the typical person who isn't a natural marksmen. Aiming for an arm or a leg has a rather low chance of hitting the person at all: that's a suicidal shot to go for if you fear for your life. Even if you did manage to hit them without killing them, for some bizarre reason, most people that are intent on causing you such harm where defending yourself with a gun is considered logical probably aren't amenable to your pleading, and they're likely at least as good of a shot as you are, if they already have a gun, and if you don't manage to hit them sufficiently hard to keep them from getting to you (if your adrenalin is going and you're scared, if you thought it was hard to aim before, try doing it under those conditions), they'll most likely attempt and perhaps succeed at taking the weapon away from you and using it on you, or those you care about. So, in an ideal world, you wouldn't need to be concerned with killing someone in these conditions because you'd have such perfect conditions, but then again, in a truly ideal world, you'd never have these conditions ever happen anywhere, making this a purely academic exercise left for ethics classes as a bonus question. Oh, as to the enemy invasion of the US? There have been little-known episodes of the Japanese in WWII on the west coast attacking the mainland, that didn't get much play in the history books. My Dad was living there at the time, and remembered what happened; too bad I can't talk to him and have him type something up: if I could, there'd clearly be.... a ghost in the machine... > > > Is it more moral to kill a gunman on a rampage or sit by and do nothing, letting them kill a dozen innocent people? > > You can shoot him in the leg or arm, no need to specifically kill. > > > Is it more moral to kill a person who enters your house to kill you or let yourself be killed, leaving family defenseless? > > You can shoot him too in the leg. > > > Is it more moral to send volunteers to fight an enemy army or let the army rampage across the land killing and destroying all in your own nation? > > I see no problem with self-defence. But I can't recall any enemy invasion of the US - at least not since the one by your European ancestors 500 years ago. ;-) > > > To the first, I say it is more moral to kill the gunman and thus save the lives of innocents. To the second, I say it is more moral to kill the intruder in defense of self, family and even community (if they are attacking you, certainly they will attack others as well). To the last, I also say it is more moral to fight the enemy at a distance or resist their encroachment on the homeland because the alternative would be the death of the nation and civilization, not to mention many people. > > But why is it that you see killing specifically as a solution to all the above problems? Could it be that you're in any way influenced by the circumstance that a majority of all American films have the death of the villain at the end of a thriller as the optimal solution (and emotional tension-relief) and almost never any alternative ending? Surely, as creative as we humans are, there must be other possible solutions to the problem? > > Inger > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 What, such as tasers? They aren't always non-fatal. Bats? Readily used against the one trying to defend themselves, and may not be practical in the least. Rocks? Not always available, and once you've thrown it, you've given them a weapon to use against you. I could go on, but reality is it could take me all night to exhaust either my typing or my imagination of how things could readily backfire or simply aren't feasible > > What about non-lethal weapons then? Surely there must be other ways of incapacitating an armed mugger? > > Inger > > > Re: Re: Killing > > > In a message dated 3/7/2006 6:04:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, inglori@... writes: > But why is it that you see killing specifically as a solution to all the above problems? Could it be that you're in any way influenced by the circumstance that a majority of all American films have the death of the villain at the end of a thriller as the optimal solution (and emotional tension-relief) and almost never any alternative ending? Surely, as creative as we humans are, there must be other possible solutions to the problem? > Inger, > > Shooting for the legs sounds nice, but it is very hard to do in practice. Unlike in the movies, just because a person is shot in the legs, they are not necessarily out of the fight. They might be immobile, but still able to shoot. Many police officers are actually killed or wounded each year by suspects that had been shot but still able to fight. > > Another problem with shooting for the legs is stray rounds. Aiming for the legs would likely mean aiming down, which in the first scenario, would put your own stray rounds toward the ground where people would be taking cover from the shooter, thus putting them at risk. > > Statistics also show that gunshot by pistol have a roughly 85% change of survival. So, even if you shot the target, odds are that they would survive. > > > > > FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and acceptance. Everyone is valued. > > Don't forget, there are links to other FAM sites on the Links page in the folder marked " Other FAM Sites. " > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Tom? Tom who? Perhaps I'm going senile and forgot my own name > > Tom is spot on about shooting. The old west cowboys and others we often hear > about making fantastic shots are people who have put in a tremendous amount > of trigger time. Every now and then you might see video of a police sniper > shooting a gun out of someone's had, but the sniper has the advantage of a > precision rifle, dialed in to fit him exactly and is not under the pressure of > having someone shooting at him at the same time. > > What is it like getting shot at? This has happened once in my life. When I > was a teenager, I caught a poacher on a cousin's land, about 30 yards away when > I saw him, and just asked if he had permission to be on the land. His > answer was to try to blow my head off, and he came within inches of doing just > that. When you see that gun come up, you don't believe it at first and, being > untrained as I was, you tend to freeze for an instant, stunned. I can still see > that muzzle flash and hear the bullet go over my right shoulder and feel the > wind from the bullet and hear it zip (that's not exactly right, it was kind > of a zip but had a fluttering quality to it) all before the crack of the > shot reached me. When you hear that noise, it is like all you innards from the > inside top of your skull down turns to mush and sloshes down into your feet. > > After that shot, I jumped into a creek bed, which was maybe 3 feet deep with > a little stream in the bottom, popped up and fired one shot back, then > high-tailed it out of there, crouched low in the stream bank. > > Now, I have talked to police that have been pulled on, and the ones I have > spoken to have said they felt the same way. These are trained officers mind > you. So, Joe Average in a combat situation is going to be under that same > stress, probably feeling like I described and still trying to shoot back. Unless > one has fired hundreds of thousands of rounds, like a Navy Seal or something, > it is going to be hard to hit much of anything more than a couple of feet away > with a pistol. My friend in the Special Forces told me that many of the men > preferred to carry cut down shotguns rather than pistols for close fighting > for that reason. > > Anyway, my point is that when someone is trying to hurt or kill you, > especially if they have a weapon and are close, you don't feel very good, like I > described. Fear can paralyze you or make you panic, either of which can get you > dead in a hurry. Fighting back isn't easy either, and you can just forget > about all that Jackie Chan and Wayne stuff, it ain't gonna happen. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Strict actually posted that. Tom is spot on about shooting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 I was just asking a simple question. If human inventiveness is not able to come up with a non-harmful alternative that really works, then I don't think much of it. Surely there must be something that temporarily blinds the intruder? Or some gooey stuff that makes it impossible for them to move? Inger Re: Killing What, such as tasers? They aren't always non-fatal. Bats? Readily used against the one trying to defend themselves, and may not be practical in the least. Rocks? Not always available, and once you've thrown it, you've given them a weapon to use against you. I could go on, but reality is it could take me all night to exhaust either my typing or my imagination of how things could readily backfire or simply aren't feasible > > What about non-lethal weapons then? Surely there must be other ways of incapacitating an armed mugger? > > Inger > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 I live in a country where you are not allowed to shoot an intruder - what then? > > > > > Is it more moral to kill a gunman on a rampage or sit by and do > nothing, letting them kill a dozen innocent people? > > > > You can shoot him in the leg or arm, no need to specifically kill. > > > > > Is it more moral to kill a person who enters your house to kill > you or let yourself be killed, leaving family defenseless? > > > > You can shoot him too in the leg. > > > > > Is it more moral to send volunteers to fight an enemy army or let > the army rampage across the land killing and destroying all in your > own nation? > > > > I see no problem with self-defence. But I can't recall any enemy > invasion of the US - at least not since the one by your European > ancestors 500 years ago. ;-) > > > > > To the first, I say it is more moral to kill the gunman and thus > save the lives of innocents. To the second, I say it is more moral to > kill the intruder in defense of self, family and even community (if > they are attacking you, certainly they will attack others as well). To > the last, I also say it is more moral to fight the enemy at a distance > or resist their encroachment on the homeland because the alternative > would be the death of the nation and civilization, not to mention many > people. > > > > But why is it that you see killing specifically as a solution to all > the above problems? Could it be that you're in any way influenced by > the circumstance that a majority of all American films have the death > of the villain at the end of a thriller as the optimal solution (and > emotional tension-relief) and almost never any alternative ending? > Surely, as creative as we humans are, there must be other possible > solutions to the problem? > > > > Inger > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 " ...but reality is it could take me all night to exhaust either my typing or my imagination of how things could readily backfire or simply aren't feasible " Mmmmmm what's the likelihood of the gun backfiring :-) > > > > What about non-lethal weapons then? Surely there must be other ways > of incapacitating an armed mugger? > > > > Inger > > > > > > Re: Re: Killing > > > > > > In a message dated 3/7/2006 6:04:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > inglori@ writes: > > But why is it that you see killing specifically as a solution to > all the above problems? Could it be that you're in any way influenced > by the circumstance that a majority of all American films have the > death of the villain at the end of a thriller as the optimal solution > (and emotional tension-relief) and almost never any alternative > ending? Surely, as creative as we humans are, there must be other > possible solutions to the problem? > > Inger, > > > > Shooting for the legs sounds nice, but it is very hard to do in > practice. Unlike in the movies, just because a person is shot in the > legs, they are not necessarily out of the fight. They might be > immobile, but still able to shoot. Many police officers are actually > killed or wounded each year by suspects that had been shot but still > able to fight. > > > > Another problem with shooting for the legs is stray rounds. Aiming > for the legs would likely mean aiming down, which in the first > scenario, would put your own stray rounds toward the ground where > people would be taking cover from the shooter, thus putting them at risk. > > > > Statistics also show that gunshot by pistol have a roughly 85% > change of survival. So, even if you shot the target, odds are that > they would survive. > > > > > > > > > > FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, > support and acceptance. Everyone is valued. > > > > Don't forget, there are links to other FAM sites on the Links page > in the folder marked " Other FAM Sites. " > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 I don't think he meant a gun backfiring. In this case we were discussing non-lethal alternatives, and the phrase is nowadays used in all sorts of situations where a scheme or devise may backfire and do more harm to the user/originator than to the target, it need not necessarily be a gun. But perhaps you already knew that and just wanted to know about the chance of a gun backfiring anyway? :-) Inger Re: Re: Killing > > > > > > In a message dated 3/7/2006 6:04:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > inglori@ writes: > > But why is it that you see killing specifically as a solution to > all the above problems? Could it be that you're in any way influenced > by the circumstance that a majority of all American films have the > death of the villain at the end of a thriller as the optimal solution > (and emotional tension-relief) and almost never any alternative > ending? Surely, as creative as we humans are, there must be other > possible solutions to the problem? > > Inger, > > > > Shooting for the legs sounds nice, but it is very hard to do in > practice. Unlike in the movies, just because a person is shot in the > legs, they are not necessarily out of the fight. They might be > immobile, but still able to shoot. Many police officers are actually > killed or wounded each year by suspects that had been shot but still > able to fight. > > > > Another problem with shooting for the legs is stray rounds. Aiming > for the legs would likely mean aiming down, which in the first > scenario, would put your own stray rounds toward the ground where > people would be taking cover from the shooter, thus putting them at risk. > > > > Statistics also show that gunshot by pistol have a roughly 85% > change of survival. So, even if you shot the target, odds are that > they would survive. > > > > > > > > > > FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, > support and acceptance. Everyone is valued. > > > > Don't forget, there are links to other FAM sites on the Links page > in the folder marked " Other FAM Sites. " > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Yeah, sorry - the discussion did mention guns at some point and I just found it humorous that the term 'back fired' was used - and yes I suppose it must be a possibility that a gun could back fire and was therefore wondering what the likelihood of that was. > > I don't think he meant a gun backfiring. In this case we were discussing > non-lethal alternatives, and the phrase is nowadays used in all sorts of > situations where a scheme or devise may backfire and do more harm to the > user/originator than to the target, it need not necessarily be a gun. > > But perhaps you already knew that and just wanted to know about the chance > of a gun backfiring anyway? :-) > > Inger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 If humans were electronic in nature, it'd be much easier, but human physiology is sufficiently complex and varied from person to person that I find it highly doubtful that we will ever come up with something that's both guaranteed to always be non-fatal (things go wrong every so often in the best of circumstances) and is guaranteed to stop them (someone's physiology can surprise you, especially when they're high, or have an unusual tolerance for pain). Even blinding someone temporarily/permanently (there's no way to know for certain which -- if either -- will succeed, and will it possibly do the same to the one using it?) may not stop them, but merely -- send them into a blind rage.... Anything that can firmly secure a person in such a way as to limit their movement completely has that " oops " factor involved with deployment, however rare it might be, where someone will get caught in just the right way to end up dying as a result. You can take the safest systems known to man, and someone will invariably figure out how to do something stupid enough to get themselves killed: a few weeks ago in Bellevue, WA a group of 5 people (young " adults " by their ages) managed to take a situation where they were perfectly safe if they had just waited for building security to fix the problem with the randomly stuck elevator, instead of deciding to force open the door, and go against any logical thought of jumping out of an opening about 5 feet above the floor the elevator stopped above, that was only about 18 " high. Visualize this for a moment: this is a high-rise building, with multiple levels of underground parking. The fact that they were needing/wanting to use an elevator to get from parking to the first floor says a lot by itself. When an elevator is at a position other than lined up correctly with a regular floor, and the elevator door is open, there is *nothing* preventing someone from going underneath the elevator and into the open shaft. When they jumped down, the first 4 out of 5 made it without harm; the 5th one (last passenger) stumbled when he landed on the floor, and fell backwards into about a 50 foot drop to the bottom. They had gotten impatient, and even though they had just been talking to building security via the call box for just such rare emergencies (the building has only been open to the public for a few months, so I wouldn't be surprised if the mechanical systems are shaking themselves out) they had been waiting less than 15 minutes before they took it upon themselves to jump out. There was *no* danger to them or anyone else if they had waited in the elevator until help arrived with the proper materials. The elevator is the safest mechanical form of conveyance known to man, and fatalities from falling elevators is exceedingly low, statistically, in all reasonably expected failure modes. The World Trade Center was (IIRC) the second time there was a known case of elevator cables snapping and dropping passengers to their deaths, with the first time being in the Empire State building decades before, also due to an airplane hitting the building. But seriously, you can't do anything to protect people in elevators from passenger jets taking out skyscrapers like that. If justice is served in this elevator case, the survivors should be ticketed a huge fine and possibly be brought up on criminal charges for criminal recklessness or something related to homicide, and the owners of the building and their insurance company should collect damages for costs involved, etc. and the survivors (the other 4) should publicly be awarded honorary Darwin awards, while the deceased should be awarded his in the standard way, as a way to remind people " Don't do this! " because they took what could have been related later as a minor mishap and annoyance and entertaining adventure (a minor mechanical failure that's very rare in practice) and turned it into a tragedy, all because they were too stupid and impatient to look before they leap. But, as they say, pride goeth before the fall... > > > > What about non-lethal weapons then? Surely there must be other ways > of incapacitating an armed mugger? > > > > Inger > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 To me you are just being truthful about what you would do - I suppose some people are going to take offence at that. I know I have within me the capability to kill and might well do so if put under extreme circumstances - to me there is no point in denying it. Is everyone else so sure that in every given situation they would not resort to violence - or even possibly killing? Killing can be accidental too - if defending oneself - you may not be intending to kill your attacker - just to defend yourself or protect self or loved ones may result in one person killing another. I'm just trying to get a balanced view accross here - I don't think war or killing is nice (far from it), but sometimes circumstances make it so such things happen. > > > In a message dated 3/7/2006 6:45:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > rainbow@... writes: > > > Inger to : " But why is it that you see killing specifically as a > solution to all the above problems? .... Surely, as creative as we humans are, > there must be other possible solutions to the problem? " > > > > Thank you Inger for expressing my concern so much more clearly. > > > > > Because sometimes it is the only option, unpleasant as it may be. > > Just to look at the mass shooting incident I mentioned. Trained police > officers hit only about 1 in 8 shots in combat conditions, and that's aiming for > center of mass. If one were shooting at a moving, firing target and trying to > hit the legs with innocent bystanders lying on the floor, one would be far > more likely to hit one of them than the shooter. I have also stated that pistol > shots aren't always fatal, in fact they rarely are unless one scores a head > shot, which would be unlikely. Given both of these and the fact that one could > be held liable for any stray rounds that injure or kill an innocent, then it > is best to make your shots count on the target. > > If that causes moral objections, then don't carry a firearm. > > I can't say that I would enjoy shooting someone, I wouldn't. However, if it > was a choice between myself, my family, a friend or someone under my > protection, then I am on my honor to defend them the best I can. If that means killing > an attacker to save them, then so be it. > > However, if the attacker were to surrender, they would be taken prisoner or > allowed to escape. But, if they continued with intent to kill, rape or > otherwise cause harm, then it is as I said: I would try to stop them however I > could, even if that included killing. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Of course, accidents can happen with anything, especially if you're clumsy or impatient and don't follow instructions (I know that from first hand experience, hehe). But if you make something that, say, 99% of the time just incapacitates an armed intruder instead of almost guaranteed either killing or seriously maiming them, and they still happen to die on rare occasions, I'd still say that still gave them a lot better odds. Inger Re: Killing If humans were electronic in nature, it'd be much easier, but human physiology is sufficiently complex and varied from person to person that I find it highly doubtful that we will ever come up with something that's both guaranteed to always be non-fatal (things go wrong every so often in the best of circumstances) and is guaranteed to stop them (someone's physiology can surprise you, especially when they're high, or have an unusual tolerance for pain). Even blinding someone temporarily/permanently (there's no way to know for certain which -- if either -- will succeed, and will it possibly do the same to the one using it?) may not stop them, but merely -- send them into a blind rage.... Anything that can firmly secure a person in such a way as to limit their movement completely has that " oops " factor involved with deployment, however rare it might be, where someone will get caught in just the right way to end up dying as a result. You can take the safest systems known to man, and someone will invariably figure out how to do something stupid enough to get themselves killed: a few weeks ago in Bellevue, WA a group of 5 people (young " adults " by their ages) managed to take a situation where they were perfectly safe if they had just waited for building security to fix the problem with the randomly stuck elevator, instead of deciding to force open the door, and go against any logical thought of jumping out of an opening about 5 feet above the floor the elevator stopped above, that was only about 18 " high. Visualize this for a moment: this is a high-rise building, with multiple levels of underground parking. The fact that they were needing/wanting to use an elevator to get from parking to the first floor says a lot by itself. When an elevator is at a position other than lined up correctly with a regular floor, and the elevator door is open, there is *nothing* preventing someone from going underneath the elevator and into the open shaft. When they jumped down, the first 4 out of 5 made it without harm; the 5th one (last passenger) stumbled when he landed on the floor, and fell backwards into about a 50 foot drop to the bottom. They had gotten impatient, and even though they had just been talking to building security via the call box for just such rare emergencies (the building has only been open to the public for a few months, so I wouldn't be surprised if the mechanical systems are shaking themselves out) they had been waiting less than 15 minutes before they took it upon themselves to jump out. There was *no* danger to them or anyone else if they had waited in the elevator until help arrived with the proper materials. The elevator is the safest mechanical form of conveyance known to man, and fatalities from falling elevators is exceedingly low, statistically, in all reasonably expected failure modes. The World Trade Center was (IIRC) the second time there was a known case of elevator cables snapping and dropping passengers to their deaths, with the first time being in the Empire State building decades before, also due to an airplane hitting the building. But seriously, you can't do anything to protect people in elevators from passenger jets taking out skyscrapers like that. If justice is served in this elevator case, the survivors should be ticketed a huge fine and possibly be brought up on criminal charges for criminal recklessness or something related to homicide, and the owners of the building and their insurance company should collect damages for costs involved, etc. and the survivors (the other 4) should publicly be awarded honorary Darwin awards, while the deceased should be awarded his in the standard way, as a way to remind people " Don't do this! " because they took what could have been related later as a minor mishap and annoyance and entertaining adventure (a minor mechanical failure that's very rare in practice) and turned it into a tragedy, all because they were too stupid and impatient to look before they leap. But, as they say, pride goeth before the fall... > > > > What about non-lethal weapons then? Surely there must be other ways > of incapacitating an armed mugger? > > > > Inger > > > FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and acceptance. Everyone is valued. Don't forget, there are links to other FAM sites on the Links page in the folder marked " Other FAM Sites. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 I could just imagine that some humans would always some how manage to turn even non violent non damageing things into something more damaging :-( > > I was just asking a simple question. If human inventiveness is not able to > come up with a non-harmful alternative that really works, then I don't think > much of it. Surely there must be something that temporarily blinds the > intruder? Or some gooey stuff that makes it impossible for them to move? > > Inger > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2006 Report Share Posted March 8, 2006 Yep England. > > > In a message dated 3/8/2006 7:46:05 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, > julie.stevenson16@... writes: > > I live in a country where you are not allowed to shoot an intruder - > what then? > > > > > > , > > You've said you live in England right? If not, that certainly sounds like > it. The laws in England have been changing radically in the last few decades. It > used to be that one could kill or fight off intruders in the home, but not > anymore. Bobbies didn't carry guns because in the 1800's and up to the 1920's > they could usually borrow one off of a citizen in the street if they needed > one. > > What changed was something that happened during WWI. That was first the > Communist Revolution in Russia; second, the uprising in Ireland; and third, the > Communist rumblings in the laboring classes in England. The government feared > that all the firearms out in the populace could be turned against them if the > communists staged an uprising as they had in Russia. So, they began rounding > up weapons and imposing penalties on them. Because of this, England had to > ask the US for weapons to help defend itself from a potential Nazi invasion 20 > years later and Englishmen were being trained to use spears against gun > wielding Nazis. > > It has gone much farther today. Now, going by the laws, it seems to criminal > class is enshrined as sacred. I've read a lot about this and it seems that > the, I can't think of the office but the one in charge of domestic policing > and courts, wants citizens to leave their doors open for the criminals to waltz > in and take whatever they want. It appalls me to read of how citizens who > resist are taken up on charges and held while the criminal is back out on the > streets. The pendulum has swung much too far over there and hopefully it will > come back to more of a balance. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.