Re: Not always joking, it seems

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:54:26 GMT, "Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>"David Friedman" <ddfr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>> In article <cr3hr3l91ol10potv5ci66t9jlgeo5i3fe@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> David Johnston <david@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 10:50:44 -0800, David Friedman
>>> <ddfr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>>> >In article <GHZtj.8806$XI.5656@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>> > Jette <bosslady@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>>> >> How many countries do you know of where "a large fraction of the
>>> >> population *goes armed*?"

>>> >It doesn't require a country. It's sufficient to have a town, or a
>>> >place, or a profession--anything that results in a large fraction of 
>>> >the people in a small area being armed.

>>> >The most obvious examples are military. Not all militaries are well
>>> >trained, so if the scenario described is a moderately likely result 
>>> >of a crowd of people who are armed and don't have much training in
the 
>>> >use of weapons, it ought to have happened many times.

>>> Friendly fire incidents have happened many times.

>> Sure. But they don't generally take the form described.

>All the details of the hypothetical situation I was replying to haven't 
>happened (again, there are no schools where all the students are 
>required to pack firearms). 

When the rest of us say, "this never happens", we don't mean "this never
happens in schools, but happens all the time elsewhere".  It doesn't
happen in schools, and it doesn't happen outside of schools.

Well, not the sort of thing you started out trying to make everyone afraid
of.  I see you've been backpedalling since.


>However, people using firearms have hit people other than those they've 
>aimed at, and some armed people have shot people on 'their own side'
>mistaking them for 'the enemy'.

And nobody has said otherwise.

We were responding to your hypothetical scenario which involved, not just
someone shooting someone else on their own side, but a grotesquely absurd
*escalation* of such behavior, as victims and bystanders join in the fun.

*That*, basically does not happen anywhere.  Not in schools, not on city
streets, and for the most part not even on battlefields.

Sometimes, rather more rarely than I think you'd expect, one of the Good
Guys shoots another one of the Good Guys.  This almost always involves a
Good Guy, or team thereof, professionally charged with shooting *someone*,
not victims or bystanders who may shoot or not at their own discretion.

And when it does happen, it *ends*.  The victims of friendly fire, almost
never shoot back.  Bystanders showing up and saying, "look, a gunfight, I
had better shoot somebody!", ditto.  Sometimes someone makes a mistake and
one of the Good Guys gets shot.  One[1].  Not a bloodbath.

So if it's Not Shooting The Good Guys you're after, the problem is already
mostly solved.  If you want to do still better, you should be in favor of
ordinary private citizens being the ones with the guns whenever possible,
on account of they get that sort of thing right more often than anyone
else[2].

And if your argument actually was, "...but sometimes a Good Guy will shoot
another Good Guy", then you probably ought not have contrived the absurdly
implausible escalating bloodbath scenario.


[1] If there's military ordnance involved this can go up a bit, on account
of one engagement can kill many people.

[2] Mostly on account of, "I'm not sure what's going on here, so maybe I'd
best run and hide" is a legitimate option for them.


-- 
*John Schilling                    * "Anything worth doing,         *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP       *  is worth doing for money"     *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner *    -13th Rule of Acquisition   *
*White Elephant Research, LLC      * "There is no substitute        *
*John.Schilling@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
     *  for success"                  *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795      *    -58th Rule of Acquisition   *