So all 2A absolutists what should have happened here??

[HomerJS]

Hawaii man pulls gun on neighbor checking on lava-threatened home

So the question I have, what if the unarmed neighbor had been armed and concealed carrying what should have happened in this case?

Should the unarmed guy have blown away the 61 year old guy for threatening him? Should both have just started firing and both wind up dead?

Or would the answer have been, Strict licensing tests including proficiency and mental screenings to determine if gun owner is prone to violence? No guarantee but a test would likely determine the 61 year old should not own a gun.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/dea66073-1af5-3a84-a808-9ab5edaceace/ss_hawaii-man-pulls-gun-on.html

 

[MomentsofSanity]

All I know is that guy probably feels a lot safer with more guns around...

 

[sandorski]

Shoot out, whoever survives had Good Cause.

 

[sandorski]

dp

 

[dank69]

Shoot out, whoever survives had Good Cause.

Dead men tell no tales. Dead kids either. I heard the neighbor was hitting the old man with a lava rock.

 

[KB]

"Hawaiian Island police arrested Hubbard on Tuesday for assault and took him to the Hilo cellblock, Hawaii News Now reported."

This is exactly what should have happened. No one got shot, the smarter man walked away and didn't escalate the situation and the Trigger happy blockhead gets arrested. Hopefully he gets a felony which takes his guns away. Sadly the law will fail us, the guy will cop a plea of disturbing the peace, he keeps his guns and probably acts like an idiot again.

Or would the answer have been, Strict licensing tests including proficiency and mental screenings to determine if gun owner is prone to violence? No guarantee but a test would likely determine the 61 year old should not own a gun.

Its an interesting idea, but who would do the mental screenings? Mental issues are challenging enough to diagnose as a trained psychiatrist (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20636114), but getting your average government employee to figure it out will be tough. Gun supporters wouldn't want so much power in the hands of one screener anyway. In addition tests are just tests, they rarely mimic the exact situation someone will be placed in, like when a volcano is blowing up his neighborhood.

 

[glenn1]

Dead men tell no tales. Dead kids either. I heard the neighbor was hitting the old man with a lava rock.

The people he pointed the gun at may have been looting as well (emphasis on the "may," this is a hypothetical and not an accusation). Looting doesn't excuse the actions described here but there may be more to the story than what's in this article. As KB pointed out in the post above, the police have arrested the guy.

 

[HomerJS]

"Hawaiian Island police arrested Hubbard on Tuesday for assault and took him to the Hilo cellblock, Hawaii News Now reported."

This is exactly what should have happened. No one got shot, the smarter man walked away and didn't escalate the situation and the Trigger happy blockhead gets arrested. Hopefully he gets a felony which takes his guns away. Sadly the law will fail us, the guy will cop a plea of disturbing the peace, he keeps his guns and probably acts like an idiot again.




Its an interesting idea, but who would do the mental screenings? Mental issues are challenging enough to diagnose as a trained psychiatrist (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20636114), but getting your average government employee to figure it out will be tough. Gun supporters wouldn't want so much power in the hands of one screener anyway. In addition tests are just tests, they rarely mimic the exact situation someone will be placed in, like when a volcano is blowing up his neighborhood.

I wouldn't leave it up to a government employee. Treat it like physicals and/or blood tests get screened at a clinic by trained professional.

 

[HomerJS]

The people he pointed the gun at may have been looting as well (emphasis on the "may," this is a hypothetical and not an accusation). Looting doesn't excuse the actions described here but there may be more to the story than what's in this article. As KB pointed out in the post above, the police have arrested the guy.

My point is more people with guns in this situation someone would have wound up dead. I say the 61 year old should not have been issued a license to carry in the first place.

 

[Thebobo]

More guns = less lava. Everyone knows this.

 

[brycejones]

The only defense against molten hot magma is a good guy with a gun.

 

[glenn1]

My point is more people with guns in this situation someone would have wound up dead. I say the 61 year old should not have been issued a license to carry in the first place.

With 20/20 hindsight and not hearing his side of the story (presuming he has one that matters) you may be correct. I'm unsure what agreeing to that has to do with the premise of the OP. Especially considering there doesn't seem to be "absolutists" for any of our Constitutional rights as basically everyone agrees on some limits for public safety and other reasons.

 

[interchange]

Accepting an armed society means accepting more suicides, homicides, and accidents. The question isn't how to have an armed society without tragic outcomes sometimes happening. The question is whether or not the benefits of an armed society are worth the risks.

 

[HomerJS]

Accepting an armed society means accepting more suicides, homicides, and accidents. The question isn't how to have an armed society without tragic outcomes sometimes happening. The question is whether or not the benefits of an armed society are worth the risks.

at a minimum the NRA axiom "more guns make us safer" needs to be dead and buried

 

[interchange]

at a minimum the NRA axiom "more guns make us safer" needs to be dead and buried

Right. More guns makes us safer except for all the times where it makes us more in danger. Two sides to the equation. Evidence clearly shows which one outweighs the other. That doesn't mean that there are other perfectly valid reasons to want guns. We make this kind of trade-off all the time. It's society's burden to decide on it.

Personally, I advocate gun control, although I also think the 2A is quite clear on this, so a constitutional amendment would be the proper first step. That seems to be an impossibility in the foreseeable future.

 

[Moonbeam]

Right. More guns makes us safer except for all the times where it makes us more in danger. Two sides to the equation. Evidence clearly shows which one outweighs the other. That doesn't mean that there are other perfectly valid reasons to want guns. We make this kind of trade-off all the time. It's society's burden to decide on it.

Personally, I advocate gun control, although I also think the 2A is quite clear on this, so a constitutional amendment would be the proper first step. That seems to be an impossibility in the foreseeable future.

Which leaves rational people with the task of coming up with sensible gun legislation short of banning them. Selling guns to nut cases may be good for business but it may not be good for society generally. Society may want to ask itself if it wants to allow gun manufacturers to create organizations like the NRA that attempts to brainwash people into believing that 'they're out to take your guns, be very afraid and resist anything.' It's basically allowing corporations to protect their financial interests by committing social evil.

 

[interchange]

Which leaves rational people with the task of coming up with sensible gun legislation short of banning them. Selling guns to nut cases may be good for business but it may not be good for society generally. Society may want to ask itself if it wants to allow gun manufacturers to create organizations like the NRA that attempts to brainwash people into believing that 'they're out to take your guns, be very afraid and resist anything.' It's basically allowing corporations to protect their financial interests by committing social evil.

The NRA is definitely a very powerful propaganda machine working in the interest of the few. But is that a bad thing? Perhaps we have neglected our duty as citizens to take action against it (just as your comment about protesting the White House). I believe society has gone on to put responsibility for protecting itself in the hands of the government. This is not our founding principle, but perhaps we should redefine American identity instead.

 

[blackangst1]

Hawaii man pulls gun on neighbor checking on lava-threatened home

So the question I have, what if the unarmed neighbor had been armed and concealed carrying what should have happened in this case?

Should the unarmed guy have blown away the 61 year old guy for threatening him? Should both have just started firing and both wind up dead?

Or would the answer have been, Strict licensing tests including proficiency and mental screenings to determine if gun owner is prone to violence? No guarantee but a test would likely determine the 61 year old should not own a gun.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/dea66073-1af5-3a84-a808-9ab5edaceace/ss_hawaii-man-pulls-gun-on.html

Thats quite a leap, seeing there are no simple screenings to determine such a thing. THIS shows me its not such an easy thing to do.

No definitive boundaries separate classification from prediction, and they cannot be clearly distinguished by their methodology or purposes. In fact, some researchers who know they are involved in classification nonetheless state that their major purpose is prediction. For this review, however, we found that a useful and practical separation can be made by defining a prediction study as one whose underlying analysis fundamentally requires longitudinal data—information about the same subjects' behavior at two or more points in time.

 

[KB]

at a minimum the NRA axiom "more guns make us safer" needs to be dead and buried

There is a reason why only about 1.5% of Americans are NRA members and we have other orgs like the 2nd amendment foundation.

 

[Paladin3]

Check out video: https://nypost.com/2018/05/31/hawaii-man-pulls-gun-on-neighbor-checking-on-lava-threatened-home/

 

[Moonbeam]

The NRA is definitely a very powerful propaganda machine working in the interest of the few. But is that a bad thing? Perhaps we have neglected our duty as citizens to take action against it (just as your comment about protesting the White House). I believe society has gone on to put responsibility for protecting itself in the hands of the government. This is not our founding principle, but perhaps we should redefine American identity instead.

I would be interested in what you think that might look like.