My premise was that someone goes out of their way to shoot someone else, so suicide is right out based on that criteria.
The rest I’m not really thinking is worth our time to quibble over semantics and we probably don’t want to get in the weeds about statistics.
For instance the gang members - yes, you need to “go out of your way” to hop in a car and go do a drive-by shooting. But now we get to the people being shot at. Do you consider the gang members being shot at “bad people”? That right there is a deep dive into social stigma, poverty, prejudice, and a whole discussion about personal views and the lives of the people being shot at. Then what if the shooter hits an innocent bystander? Some are perfectly willing to suggest that anyone hanging out with gang members, even if not a member themselves, is by default not a good person. Guilty by association, as it were? Maybe the gang banger was well liked in the neighborhood…still a bad guy?
How about the crime of passion…if there’s a gun in the house and there has been domestic violence in the past, but this time someone uses the gun and shoots the other, is that still “going out of the way” to shoot them? What do we know about whether they’re good people or not?
Self defense isn’t going you of your way to shoot someone at all. That’s usually to stop an immediate threat.
I’d argue shooting oneself is going out of your way to shoot someone, that someone just happens to be themselves.
As to the aforementioned gang members, I’d argue that being a “good” or “bad” person and being liked don’t always line up, as I referenced with the whole “crips have people who love them too” bit. Since being liked (or rather being disliked) is the prerequisite put forth, I’d argue that frankly most people fit into this category, regardless of gang affiliation. For instance, most people at work like me, but there are two or three that don’t, yet the fact that 22/25 people like me means nothing if one of the 3/25 were to shoot me about it, but if one did does that mean I’m unlikable? No, it would edge toward meaning I’m “controversial,” as in there is some controversy over the likability of me: Not all agree one way or the other.
As to the domestic violence, I’d say unequivocally that “yes, that is going out of one’s way,” frankly making the conscious decision on whether another human sees tomorrow is always “out of your way” short of self defense (during which the attacker could be said to put himself in your way). I’d also bet the one not beating the spouse is the one with a higher likability factor, but ya never know maybe the broad deserved it (kidding!) If the one being beat is the shooter it becomes self defense rather than a crime of passion, so that’s out.
In any case, it seems frankly that the likability of an individual and being shot is correlation at most, not causation, and truthfully it’s more coincidence than even correlation, being that almost every human has some people who like them and some who hate them, almost nobody is truly universally liked nor disliked.
My premise was that someone goes out of their way to shoot someone else, so suicide is right out based on that criteria.
The rest I’m not really thinking is worth our time to quibble over semantics and we probably don’t want to get in the weeds about statistics.
For instance the gang members - yes, you need to “go out of your way” to hop in a car and go do a drive-by shooting. But now we get to the people being shot at. Do you consider the gang members being shot at “bad people”? That right there is a deep dive into social stigma, poverty, prejudice, and a whole discussion about personal views and the lives of the people being shot at. Then what if the shooter hits an innocent bystander? Some are perfectly willing to suggest that anyone hanging out with gang members, even if not a member themselves, is by default not a good person. Guilty by association, as it were? Maybe the gang banger was well liked in the neighborhood…still a bad guy?
How about the crime of passion…if there’s a gun in the house and there has been domestic violence in the past, but this time someone uses the gun and shoots the other, is that still “going out of the way” to shoot them? What do we know about whether they’re good people or not?
Self defense isn’t going you of your way to shoot someone at all. That’s usually to stop an immediate threat.
I’d argue shooting oneself is going out of your way to shoot someone, that someone just happens to be themselves.
As to the aforementioned gang members, I’d argue that being a “good” or “bad” person and being liked don’t always line up, as I referenced with the whole “crips have people who love them too” bit. Since being liked (or rather being disliked) is the prerequisite put forth, I’d argue that frankly most people fit into this category, regardless of gang affiliation. For instance, most people at work like me, but there are two or three that don’t, yet the fact that 22/25 people like me means nothing if one of the 3/25 were to shoot me about it, but if one did does that mean I’m unlikable? No, it would edge toward meaning I’m “controversial,” as in there is some controversy over the likability of me: Not all agree one way or the other.
As to the domestic violence, I’d say unequivocally that “yes, that is going out of one’s way,” frankly making the conscious decision on whether another human sees tomorrow is always “out of your way” short of self defense (during which the attacker could be said to put himself in your way). I’d also bet the one not beating the spouse is the one with a higher likability factor, but ya never know maybe the broad deserved it (kidding!) If the one being beat is the shooter it becomes self defense rather than a crime of passion, so that’s out.
In any case, it seems frankly that the likability of an individual and being shot is correlation at most, not causation, and truthfully it’s more coincidence than even correlation, being that almost every human has some people who like them and some who hate them, almost nobody is truly universally liked nor disliked.