Jump to content

Shienvien

Members
  • Posts

    3,266
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Shienvien

  1. If it only were possible, I would immediately go sign a paper stating that the right to make medical decisions over me belongs to not a member of my family, but rather to any good friend. And this is not because the people of my family have issues, but because they do not know me the best (they know me terribly, in fact, regardless of having been around during my entire childhood, and it hasn't improved now that I've lived apart of them for a decade), and because I know their beliefs in this field are radically different from mine, and am not at all certain they'd take what I've told them about my opinions into consideration.
  2. 'No sign of brain activity', for instance, is an irreversible condition - the individual as a person is essentially already dead. Also depends which parts and how extensively are damaged, if we speak about generic brain damage, not utter lack of brain activity. Some parts are 'more essential' than the others.
  3. No, no they are not. It takes some serious talent to make a gun 'accidentally' go off - even dropping a loaded, unlocked and cocked one has only marginal chance of making it fire.
  4. Pay mind that there are people - myself included - who do believe that in many cases, preventing suicide is the right thing to do, even if it means watching the person and physically going and stopping them when it becomes necessary. I pretty much count not doing it equal to just watching how a person bleeds out after a car accident without moving a finger to help them. Note that I've also stated that there are plenty of exceptions to this - cases where the person is suffering from something terminal and would die in days, months or three years anyway, when the person is already very old or suffering from some kind of progressive mental disease which ensures that the individual would not be the person s/he once was anymore, people who have suffered severe enough brain damage to never regain proper consciousness, very extreme cases such as full-body paralysis / lock in, etc... In those cases I consider euthanasia not only justifiable, but completely right thing to apply, especially if asked for. I also don't consider 'it might become curable in five years' a valid argument when the examples in this paragraph are concerned. (@Kestra: This also means that at least based on brief skimming, I am probably for Groningen Protocol.)
  5. People do not always want the right things, nor are their opinions on the matter always stable. There are people who are glad they did not succeed at committing suicide, or that they never properly tried, too. I know cases like that. Should I not have convinced them not to end their lives? Truly? Should I have just sat there and watched my friends die? People who are still around me every day as we speak, laughing and talking and ... well, being living people, and at near-perfect health for the most part, too? I will never know unless I make a single attempt to help them through.
  6. I would know that I tried. I would be at relative ease with the knowledge that I tried and did not succeed, as opposed to the knowledge that I just let a person die without moving a finger when they might have just been suffering from a temporary low. Death is final. When an individual dies, that person is permanently destroyed. I knew an individual about whom I suspected he might try to commit suicide, but didn't actively involve myself, and I'm in a semi-constant deep pain from that, many years later, despite him being just a colleague's best friend to me. The weight of that on the said colleague is no lighter - he couldn't even sleep properly months after that. His (the person's who committed suicide) mother had no other children, too, and since her husband is long dead, she's now completely alone. I love my mother, but some of her understandings are simply very bizarre...
  7. If it is something terminal (or the person is already very old) and the person oneself has asked for it, then I'm fully for it. If the person has reached a state wherein there is a near-zero or no possibility of them ever reaching a properly conscious state, I am likewise for it. However, if there is still a chance of recovery, and considerable chance that the person will regain (or retain) full consciousness and some quality of life, I am not for it. I know people who have pleaded for their deaths when they are feeling physically terrible and hopeless, but then recovered and been happy with their lives from then on. - The ability to make unbiased decisions is often enough simply too deeply thwarted for a severely ill or injured person for there to be any certainty that they themselves will not make a severe mistake in determining their fates. If there is a chance, there is a chance. However, note again that I do not support the keeping alive against their wishes of people who are certain to die without making a recovery, or 'maintaining' those who will not regain proper consciousness. I would not trust my family with my medical decisions. At all. If it were possible, I'd sign a contract leaving those kinds of decisions - should it ever become necessary - for literally any good friend of mine.
  8. I've heard that, too, granted. Even some official gun courses, in fact, instruct people to aim to kill should one shoot someone in self defense. It's just that I personally consider an excess, and do not agree with it. If someone is clearly no longer a threat, I don't think dealing any more harm is necessary.
  9. I do agree with mental evaluations and gun-handling tests for someone renewing or getting a gun license, and guns being properly registered and individual. The fact that I have a legit gun license should be enough for me to freely obtain rounds, since I already got my evaluation when I obtained my gun permit.
  10. And the quantity of ammo one can buy being limited is a thing I definitely would not support. For one, target practice is a thing which can swallow up enormous quantities of rounds in one go, but is completely harmless if done properly. Besides, rounds are much harder to track than guns. If they get limited, they might simply start changing hands after being bought more often. About the news report... Based on the fact that it was written that she locked the door when she and her children went hiding, it comes across as if the intruder had somehow broken through the said door. But, she continued shooting when the man pleaded for his life? Seriously?
  11. I would not count target practice under using gun as a weapon. Then, it's effectively a sports item.
  12. So is any knife, for instance. By law, as soon as you carry one, you are considered armed. Never mind that most knives are not designed to kill, but simply to cut.
  13. Cars have gotten considerably faster and more powerful over years, and thusly more potentially deadly. Also, the things they install against kangaroos and deer running across the road will pretty much increase the chances of the impact killing a human, too. And, I believe the guns that can be legally obtained haven't gotten much more deadly in the last two decades or so. I support proper registration and people being made prove that they know how to handle a gun. (Either courses concluding with a final test, or, if the person is already familiar with guns, just a test.) I, hoverer, do not support additional taxing or limits on access for law-abiding citizens.
  14. How does what is a thing "meant for" change anything? I keep hearing that argument, but it makes no sense to me at all - or, more rightfully, my brain just dismisses it for purely emotional claim with no actual ground. The ending result is the exact same, after all: if the thing has been used to commit murder, someone was killed with the aid of that thing. By the same logic, one could claim that a bomb which has gunpowder in it is automatically somehow worse than one containing cleaning-agents and fertilizers, because the contents of the latter weren't meant to be used for creating explosions... (Lets say that the first bomb was used for special effects in a movie, with no one harmed, and the latter was used for blowing up a house full of people. Which explosion is clearly worse?) - The function of a thing is determined by how it is used. Given I've only used my gun only for target practice, it is not a murder-weapon; if that drunken man at a party had been allowed to take a car for running people over like he intended, that car would have been a murder-weapon. And so forth. @Tikindi: I personally would prefer gun ownership not periodically taxed (above the fee which is taken for the registering/licensing/permit renewal process, anyway) @fuzzbucket: I assume you mean psychopathy as the inability to feel empathy? (Sociopathy?)
  15. In other words, this is the One Book that invalidates all other research in existence, and if I dare make my claims based on anything but this one particular book, I am by default dead wrong. Very hostile, unscientific approach to the matter, I must say... What about private practitioners? Though, it can be figured those too would not have to take too much of an effort to register themselves at a club, and I personally am in favor of people actually proving they know what to do and what not to do with a gun before being handed one (as well as, for the sake of repeating it, good registration system, and people being held responsible for not preventing their guns from ending up in wrong hands). Similarly, while I do agree with not handing out all kinds of ammunition to people when there is no reason for them to possess it (expanding bullets to non-hunters has been mentioned), but I do not agree with limiting the amount of ammunition a person can possess. Collectors? Other than that, only thing that remains is the matter of self-defense... (Note that I'm not claiming that a gun is the magic thing which makes everything turn out fine - I claim it is the one thing which makes the situation - if both are similarly armed - equal.)
  16. ...All of which are the result of either chemical influence, physical damage, or have genetic background (the latter encompassing both direct gene-disorder links and factors that merely determine how susceptible a person is to each of those. None of those things comes to exist just because - there is always a cause-result pattern. A person's genes make the one susceptible to something, the environment merely triggers it, pretty much, unless it is the environment actively altering the one, chemically or through physical influence. (I gather you surely aren't insisting that mental illnesses just develop for no particular reason at all.)
  17. I'd still say that a person does (note that family history might have no correlation whatsoever; we're all mutants, and even all the cells in our bodies do not have the same genetic codes because of replication errors continuing to occur after conception). One person is susceptible to depression, another is not, one is easy to anger, a second one is not, one takes stressful situations well and never suffers many long-lasting consequences, another might collapse under the strain. Of course, environment can further or hinder these developments, but there's always the fact that the person had the potential to be affected in this manner firsthand. Else, could you bring me a few examples of mental illnesses which certainly do not derive from genetic factors, and which are not the result of physical damage and/or chemical influences?
  18. Except 'jammed' does not equal 'doesn't work'. It was just a slight delay - if you read further, you can see that the offender's gun, in fact, did fire properly shortly after. Depends on the circumstances - your scene is very incomplete and therefore I can't give a clear answer. There's assessing the situation to be done before deciding anything - for example, what is the person doing now? Holding fire and staring at someone lying on the ground? Pointing at random people trying to run away and continuing to shoot?
  19. In all cases it happens, there is a predisposion. If it is something to which we already know a genetic link to, a single genetic test will show whether you might get it or not. Maybe keep the mental/physical health check separate from specifically gun licensing altogether? In case there is no gun-specific physical and mental health test, but rather just an all-encompassing general one, and people can use the same one as basis for getting driving license and gun permit renews, determining workplace project suitability, etc., etc., etc. In that case I could probably agree with a gun permit requiring a proof of health check from the last 14 months to be valid... (It has happened one time too many that I have to undergo the exact same trial I did less than month ago just because the last time, for some reason, no longer is valid. Yes, I know it is a different institution that necessitated it, but most of it overlaps and everything that has to be covered is covered, so can't the previous one accepted, too...?)
  20. I'd still say every five years, and definitely not yearly. Doing it properly is not something you can do by walking there, sitting behind table for thirty minutes, and walking off - which is what a yearly test which would be plausibly arrangeable for all gun owners would quickly become. Mental stability and personality don't actually change rapidly. Mental state might - but then again, mental state can positively change by the hour, and thus testing cannot give valid results on what might happen during a year anyway. [For example, if you have very stable, calm, rational and hard to anger individual, chances are s/he'd be that five years from now, too. In return, you can have person who is happy and content at one moment but completely devastated and hysteric ten minutes later because the person just learned someone s/he loved has died.]
  21. Better to be coward than dead, or with dead dear ones. When I speak of carrying guns for protection I do not mean one should go and confront the person who is breaking into your house (unless you, say, have sleeping children in the other room or similar). No, you take the gun out, and you try to retreat quietly and unnoticed. If you have already been noticed, the gun is there more to intimidate, and only be fired when the other refuses to stay back / draws a weapon of one's own on you. Erm, and yeah - in the end, my gun is still mainly for target practice, not for potential dangerous situations.
  22. In case you are only using the gun for intimidation, you aren't killing anyone, either. It is also entirely possible to actually shoot a person and not kill them. In fact, unless you hit the brain/heart/aorta/spine at the neck, the chance of them surviving is quite high if you call emergency services immediately when you are no longer in direct danger. Self-defense is not magic. I for example know self-defense, and I still would probably have died by knife if the person I went to help had not recovered sufficiently to aid me in return. You can bet that most of the attackers also know how to fight.
  23. Basically including any friend, colleague, et cetera of the permit-applier's choosing who does not own discrediting background? Indeed. True. I don't think there is a country which allows civilians to carry weapons with fire rates that would deserve that kind of descriptive terms being used. Collectors? (Granted, this still would not justify carrying more than two loaded guns on one's person.) Depends. Target practice tends to be very ammunition-expensive, for example. There are well over half a million civilian-owned guns in Denmark (which has a population between 5-6 millions)... Sadly, cases in which people were not killed do not make good first-page stories. "A man threatened a potential victim, fled at the sight of a gun," doesn't make a good story.
  24. I think that the UK requirements and limitations are, in places, too strict or nonsensical. Such as yes, allowing carrying guns for self-defense is one of the things which I think should be allowed. Similarly, I for example do not agree with a few of the restrictions on weapon types (though I do agree with not giving people fully automatic weapons and not letting people use expanding bullets unless those are specifically for hunting). How are 'references of good and stable character' defined? I can think of fairly few sources from which valid and/or accurate accounts of what I myself would consider such could be obtained. It seems to be something of highly doubtable value. The daughter of a person I knew was stabbed seventeen times and the dead body was then raped. A baseball-bat killer killed a number of people who did nothing but took a walk in a park. A woman slashed the throat of a baby, and then stabbed the man who had ran to stop her to death. A completely innocent young man was stabbed in the gut and died later in the hospital he was taken to, simply because he had been on the wrong street, his things were not touched, so it was not a robbery, and the stabber was never caught. A couple was attacked by a random group of teenagers, one of them died from the injuries - no weapons but fists and boots were used. And bomb went off in subway, killing well over dozen people and injuring almost three times as many. - Just to bring a few examples from news I've come across. Also, it is sheer luck that I was not killed with a knife in a foreign country (I would not bet that by body would even have found its way back to my home country). Guns aren't the only things around that kill. People will kill anyway. They will simply not have to worry as much about retaliation, as long as they are big and have friends with them.
  25. In my mind, the following should be mandatory for obtaining a permit, repeated after, say, every five years: - Age restriction (since someone below 18 handling a gun without supervision does not seem like a good idea) - Background check (no guns to people with history of violent crime) - Gun competency test (after the person has already taken a proper gun handling course, if the one was not familiar with guns beforehand) - Mental check (including testing for anger management issues and severe depression) For buying a gun: - Valid license. - Valid identification. - Each gun would be registered by name (and if you don't report your gun stolen and someone commits a crime with it, you will suffer a penalty since your gun is your responsibility) Just quick thoughts on what I'd see as a decent system. I don't quite agree with people being able to buy guns from supermarkets no matter one's age or past, either. In most cases - unless the other has a good reason to suspect that it's a blankshooter, or is truly a lunatic with no survival instincts bent on causing as much damage as possible -, yes. (I can't imagine the trouble of having to prove that it is just a blankshooter when the real things can not be carried, though...)