Musings from Brian J. Noggle: Ignore the Lesson, Citizen, and Turn in Your Firearm

Are you suggesting that there would have been a better outcome if two groups of people in an escalating conflict would have been better if everyone was carrying firearms? Obviously, we're getting into hypothetical speculation here, but I submit that if multiple firearms were injected into this situation, the outcome would have been much more bloody.

I think we can agree that law enforcement's three hour response time is unacceptable.

# posted by

Anonymous : Wednesday, July 18, 2007 9:13:00 PM

From the standpoint of the victim, the outcome could have hardly been worse.

However, if you're adhering to a strict utilitarianism, where the lives of victims and agressors count the same, then I guess the outcome would have been indeed worse elsewise.

However, we are on a rampant course of speculation, but the introduction of firearms could have introduced all manner of outcomes where the death of the victim was not assured. Brandishing firearm puts off attack; shooting attacker leaves victim alive; exchange of fire leaves several wounded, including the victim, but fewer deaths; or the victim dies as result of the attack.

None is worse for the victim, but ah, for "society" that counts the attackers the same as the victim, well, I guess the result is worse.

If you're willing to embrace a moral philosophy that asks you to die alone instead of defending yourself because that's what's best for the greater number of people.

# posted by

Brian J. : Thursday, July 19, 2007 9:09:00 AM

From the standpoint of the two groups as a whole, the outcome could have been much worse.

You are forgetting a several other scenarios in the hypothetical:
1. Victim's friend pulls out his gun to defend victim, shoots at attacker, but accidentally kills member of uninvolved family further down the beach.
2. Several people on each side pull out guns and the ensuing firefight kills four and wounds six others, evenly distributed on each side of the fight.

The relative "value" of the attacker and victim are largely irrelevant to my position, which is that the presence of instruments of deadly force allows for the quick escalation into a situation where the outcome is unknown (hence all of our hypotheticals), but where the potential exists for many more deaths than the victim. Trials, as imperfect as they are, allow for a reasoned consideration of evidence and punishment that is impossible in the heat of the moment.

The Russians' side of the story was not available in the article. Perhaps we will never find out. To me, that makes it all the more scary that deadly justice might have been handed out during and/or after the confrontation.

Would it have been all right for a friend of the victim to kill the attacker five minutes later? Would it have been all right for the victim to kill the attacker and anyone standing with him at the time of the punch? At what point does deadly force become justified - when the Russians spat on the Fijians' blanket? When they yelled racial slurs? When they walked up to each other looking threatening?

Regardless of whether the killing is justified defense or wanton murder, I believe that killing destroys a bit of the killer as well as the victim.

# posted by

Anonymous : Thursday, July 19, 2007 6:27:00 PM