4 ms·
I'd be more worried about the cheerleader. Sorry, wrong answer. It's not 'staying in control' it's the will to use the weapon to cause harm that 'will or may
by bdunbar 15y ago
I'd be more worried about the cheerleader.
Sorry, wrong answer. It's not 'staying in control' it's the will to use the weapon to cause harm that 'will or may result in death'.
A cheerleader has no training, is not desensitized, hasn't been indoctrinated that guys downrange are targets and no longer actually human.
- Zak 15y agoI may be overstretching the example, but a cheerleader with a rocket launcher has a non-trivial probability of unintentionally firing it in an unsafe direction.
- bdunbar 15y agoYou're over thinking the problem. We're not ... I'm not ... talking about anything but intent to harm. Marine has it. Cheerleader doesn't. Cheerleader is harmless. Marine isn't. This intentionally simple example excludes random fumbling with controls.
- Zak 15y agoWell, I'm going to overthink it a bit more. An armed cheerleader, given alcohol or significant emotional distress is more likely to act rashly than a marine who was intentionally subjected to abuse in basic training to see if he'd snap under pressure and trained to be disciplined at all times. Your initial thinking isn't wrong, but this is HN; we pick things apart here.
- bdunbar 15y agoWell, you did it: you stretched that metaphor until it broke into teeny-tiny pieces all over the ground. My inner-bitter clinger is going to go weep to Jesus now.