Quote:
Originally Posted by dark.knight I'm also in favor of gun ownership laws, of course people should not be tempted to pull the trigger at everyone who sneezes.. it should be used purely for self-defense only. India will be a democracy only when the right to own firearms is implemented. |
Agree with your post whole-heatedly
other than this part.
Since I thanked it right before I read this last part, I felt compelled to add this off-topic paragraph to my post first.
1. I absolutely do not agree that a country is a democracy only if there is a right to bear arms. (You may'nt have said that exactly, but it may be not-illogically inferred as such)
2. The pros and cons of allowing gun ownership are debatable, but best not discussed here. For what it's worth, I for one, am not entirely opposed to it - only almost entirely opposed.
3. Do you honestly think that with the kind of indescribably pathetic implementation that is de riguer in India, whatever the other benefits, that it can ever be anything short of utter idiocy to let alone allow, but even
think of, even the
most "strictly controlled" gun ownership here?
That's a rhetorical question - any debate I am even slightly open to the question of the right to bear arms is only applicable to highly developed countries, least of all here - no matter how many shivers run down my spine when I hear of lynchings, especially as a person who loves to travel by road to locales unfamiliar.
In all fairness, my views and/or openness to debate on the subject is likely entirely irrelevant to you. I naturally have no quarrel with that. Only that, since such a point was made, and that too by a person whom I have come to (virtually) somewhat recognize and respect (from your other posts I have read), I felt compelled to not keep my trap shut, for the sake of balance.
Yes, I know
And now, in the same vein,
back on topic:
I almost always avoid getting into such debates online (for obvious reasons), and some great points of view have been expressed better than I could on the subject, but I will nevertheless add my 2 paise with regard to the relevant discussion since this is a rare online platform where such things matter, comments and discussions help build and shape opinions, and there is a genuine give and take of ideas.
It is true that one impassioned statement here will not yield apocalyptic consequences. It is also true that such statements may easily be made in a place where the populace is understandably sceptical of the justice system. However it is my belief that the educated members here are better than that - they are more masterful of their emotions, and aware that, despite how injustice can fuel blinding hatred inside one and all, a mob lynching simply
cannot be justified. Again, I am just stating my high expectations from this forum and all members, not singling out an impassioned statement as inherently wrong. But I must refute it is as best I can (however ramblingly poorly).
And, as has been pointed out, death by human error while driving is absolutely not the same as murder. In my view, if the man had ploughed into a bunch of 40 (or any other number) school kids (or any other more or less sympathy attracting group) by the side of the road, it cannot be classified as murder, unless that was his intention.
If he was drunk, he must be tried according to the laws in place. If laws in place are not sufficiently punitive, they must be changed - as hard and slow as that might be. Either way, as has been pointed out, him being lynched because of a lack of appropriate severity, or the perceived risk of the offender entirely slipping through the justice system, is as bad as those with influence going scot free.
If he lost control/erred humanely, he must be penalised according to that.
But prosecution based on emotion and publicity is unfair. And even a single such mention, especially on a forum like this, must be called out - in my view, ultimately it is the slow propogation and proliferation of such statements that has lead to our daily headlines despairing lynchings.
As for this
particular "incident" involving the Audi SUV, and the 6 or 7 deaths, I don't know if there is a way to establish beyond reasonable doubt that he was even speeding (please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). As for speculation as to whether he was drunk or drowsy or lost control - that is utterly beyond me from this distance.
There are far too many posts here assuming the worst.
And to reiterate, regardless of circumstances, a wish for the offender/human at fault to be lynched is inhumane.
Manufacturers covering up inherent safety flaws in their vehicles etc are different matters. Any distinction regarding culpability and appropriate punitive action I perceive, is only applicable to what I've attempted to discuss above.
Peace.
Edit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by venkyhere People revel in the cloak of anonymity that a group of strangers offers* and go berserk, feeling righteous as if they are all robin hoods - a mob. I think we should stop discussing this. Theorizing in a TBHP thread is one thing, facing one on the road is another. If you are lucky, no mob will be formed while you are coming to terms with the accident you just got involved in - thats the truth in our country. If a forum member thinks a mob is justified, so be it - people have opinions. Why this attempt to force TBHP members into ideal netizens ? I have lost count of rowdy aggressive behaviour shown by TBHP stickered vehicles (not all are duplicate stickers) in the city/highway over the past 6 or 7 years since I have been a member - what should we say about that ? People are people. We just share interest in vehicles, we dont share the same moral compass, and hence there is no point into forcing someone into changing his/her opinion. Lets get back to accident pics |
Ah sir! If only I had read your wisdom prior to posting - I could've been slightly less foolish than usual today.
In any case, thank you for this - it has given me more perspective.
And without further ado, I shall shut up on this particular count.