News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
See, it's this bullshit. This well-intentioned man, actively employed in a fashion that would train him, fucked up, and killed someone's child. When it comes to the use of deadly force, there is no take-backs, no do-overs, no second chances. How many people handle guns perfectly? Now take that person with perfect gun knowledge and drop them in a situation where they don't know everything, are only given a small glimpse of what could be a weapon, and BAM, you have a tragic loss of life because in reality, 99% of the time it's just somebody being stupid, and not doing anything that should result in their death.
No. The article says
Meaning off the clock surveillance, for the purpose of engaging in vigilantism.
I meant that, in his mind, he had "good intentions." That's where the distinction comes in, as everyone walking around with a gun, is really just waiting for their moment to "save the day." And when you go looking for something, odds are you'll find it. And by that I mean that they'll assume whatever scenario their in IS their moment to "save the day," as they ultimately ignore contrary evidence and push aside any doubts as to the situations innocence, because they want so badly to be seen as a hero that saved the day.
Dude decided to play cowboy, found himself a situation in which he saw two teenagers with what looked like weapons, ignored the fact that they weren't attempting to conceal themselves or their "weapons," ignored their body language and demeanor, ignored his doubts, and killed somebodys child. And that, ultimately, is going to be the fate of most people who walk around with guns, you're going to end up hurting someone close to you, or someone entirely innocent, and then you'll spend the rest of your life unable to sleep or rest because you decided deadly force was necessary when it absolutely wasn't.
A story I'm writing has this as a point. The characters fuss over the trolley problem (renamed in the story), with divisive answers about not getting involved, etc.
The protagonist's answer to the trolley problem is: To fear it, agonize over it, and not prepare an answer for when it comes. Basically, don't pre-engineer scenarios in your mind that you're "ready" to make some fatal, definitive solution for - because probably the biggest issue with the trolley problem is working out every last detail to verify with 100.0000% certainty that you are in a trolley problem with no other solutions.
Right so again, not well intentioned. Delusional.
I just want to step in here and say: you're arguing over the dumbest thing. Stop trying to pick a fight when you agree with the overall sentiment of what they're trying to say.
It's not dumb to call out apologetic framing in commentary. This dude doesn't need kid gloves, and what other people like him need is a very clear description of what's right and wrong here. This isn't a grey area. If you go out and use your personal firearm to police other people, you are a vigilante. If you don't think you are engaging in vigilantism, you are delusional.
Main stream news should be responsible enough to call a spade a spade in these cases.
The guy saw people with what looked like guns going towards a shopping center that contained, among others, his child in a karate class. If the situation had been real, then his actions could have potentially saved lives, which is what his intention obviously was. I said that phrase specifically to evoke in the readers mind, how they have similarly been well-intentioned in the past, but the situation turned out doing harm. We've all had instances where we tried to do something good, and it turned out bad. This guy tried to be a hero, and instead he's the villain. Calling him well-intentioned isn't "apologetic framing," it's what happened. And it should serve as a stark reminder to everyone still walking around with guns, that their good intentions mean absolutely nothing.
The situation of returning guns to a gun store?
He intended to confront other people open carrying while he was openly carrying.
This same mindset, you could describe cross burnings or working at the DMV as well intentioned.
I feel like you're being deliberately obtuse, or just trying to be adversarial for the sake of it. His point is that what was going on in the asshole's head was that he was stopping an active shooter situation. He thought that because he was a moron. Had he not had a gun, the moron couldn't have murdered people.
There's always going to morons, so the problem here is that he was allowed to have a gun. Unless your position is that morons should be euthanized, then you must agree that the solution is gun control, or that morons murdering indiscriminately is 👍
For a bunch of types of people, good intentions legitimise behavior. It wasn't legitimate behavior.
Gun control absolutely needs to happen. Until it does, news and discussions should center around decrying vigilante behavior.
It doesn't matter what he thought. It matters what he did.