That was to a very specific, very limited hypothetical scenario. You can't extrapolate my meaning to every single crime committed. Come on!
Yes. Joel Myrick, by all counts, saved many lives that day.
Gun Control is ridiculous
- Thread starter Quad4_72
- Start date
-
- Tags
- gun control
That was to a very specific, very limited hypothetical scenario. You can't extrapolate my meaning to every single crime committed. Come on!
Yes. Joel Myrick, by all counts, saved many lives that day.
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2005
- Messages
- 10,375
I'd edit the post to include this, but I can't edit it after a certain period of time, it appears.
Would anyone mind if I reposted the list after a certain period of time, after I clarified some more positions overall? I want to see some actual proposals put down while we argue specifics. We can attack minor nits all day and insult each other over and over; it gets us nowhere.
I'd rather see something come out of this. At the least, I'd like to see if any of us could come to some sort of compromise or agreement.
I also want to say that I don't believe in No Guns Zones personally, though I do agree with your point in general. You have to be somewhat restrictive and take the firearms out of those that obviously are willing to use them illegally, or will put themselves in a state that they can't control themselves. However, most (all?) school shootings occur in "No Guns Zones", with no one there to be able to fire back. I think that this bears some thought, at the least.
Last edited:
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2005
- Messages
- 10,375
Not to mention that people like CFLarsen act like it's so common that people fall into rages that we should ban them altogether... apparently, it's unlikely that people will find themselves into a situation that they need to defend themselves, but it's more common (with no supporting evidence) that people will go crazy and shoot each other up in rage.
Very true.
You might as well pass prohibition. Or Drug laws. Oh, wait...
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 6,354
Yeah I never understood the whole going into a rage thing. Larsen has constantly reiterated that as a major point. Where are all of these people who are just ticking time bombs waiting to explode? Are we all really just seconds away from killing someone?
Skibum
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2006
- Messages
- 1,659
Jaggy Bunnet
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 16, 2003
- Messages
- 6,241
If I misinterpreted your post I apologise.
Sorry but that is completely and utterly irrelevant to what happened at Dunblane - that is the incident I have repeatedly asked you about and that you seem unwilling to answer. What possible sequence of events involving the teachers on that day having guns reduces the death toll?
I also suggest that had Luke Woodham NOT had a gun, the death toll that day would have been lower. Therefore the availability of guns increased the overall death toll in YOUR example of where guns are useful. It is very, very rare to find examples of school attacks without guns involving multiple fatalities.
gambling_cruiser
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 734
After WWII, from 1945- 1955 parts of Austria were occupied by the Sovjet army. There was a death penalty for possesion of a firearm (no court, no lawyer, just killing without further questions). It didn't keep the population from hiding rifles, machineguns, submachineguns and hand-grenades.
Not even an occuptation army showing no mercy could enforce a total ban on weapons.
Look at Iraq how easy it is to disarm a population not willing to be disarmed.
Not even an occuptation army showing no mercy could enforce a total ban on weapons.
Look at Iraq how easy it is to disarm a population not willing to be disarmed.
quixotecoyote
Howling to glory I go
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2006
- Messages
- 10,379
I am reminded of a conversation with a martial arts instructor once who told me about the "40 ninjas" rule. It was his screening procedure for finding out which of his students was likely to end up getting himself into trouble.
It's very unlikely to get into a situation involving bodily harm (not impossible) if you are aware of yourself and your situation and have the knowledge and skills necessary to avoid violent confrontations. Of course, if you do not feel the need to avoid confrontations because you feel superior to possible threats, you're much more likely to get into those problematic situations.
His rule was that in his classes he stressed those awareness and conflict avoidance procedures. He'd always have some student propose increasingly dangerous scenarios where the chance of violence was more and more likely. Eventually it got to the point where it was the equivalent of "40 ninjas jump you in a dark alley, you can't avoid confrontation then, so how do you fight?." The answer was usually, "You're screwed."
He could tell those students weren't paying attention to the conflict avoidance lessons and were looking to find themselves in situtations where they would be justified in picking a fight. That of course meant it was more likely to happen, and they were ignoring the possibility of avoiding the problems altogether.
I'm not saying this is an analogy to the gun control discussion, but I do see parallels. The situations of the side which wants to increase gun ownership continually creates '40 ninjas' style scenarios to support their arguments. This seems to be that we aren't really interested in saftey very much, not primarily because those are the situations that happen much less often than an accidental shooting should therefore be weighed less heavily in the overall decision.
It's just that it's not going to happen. I've tried to bet my friends 100 that they won't win the 100 million powerball. Yes, theoretically it could happen but it actualy will not. In the same sense I know the 40 ninjas scenarios that the gun owner proposes are so unlikely that while theoretically possible that I can point to shanek, lonewulf, and quad and say that none of the three of you will ever be awakened in the middle of the night by a person you are sure is a burgler where the best possible action is armed confrontation, retrieve your guns and ammo, get the drop of him, identify him as a deadly threat, and emerge victorious in a gunfight. It simply won't happen.
There are so many specifics that have to come together perfectly to create a scenario where you have a need for self-defense requiring specifically a gun, that it's a lottery/lightning strike/40 ninjas scenario when compared to the possibilty that somewhere along the line you or someone in the house with get careless and someone will get hurt.
It's very unlikely to get into a situation involving bodily harm (not impossible) if you are aware of yourself and your situation and have the knowledge and skills necessary to avoid violent confrontations. Of course, if you do not feel the need to avoid confrontations because you feel superior to possible threats, you're much more likely to get into those problematic situations.
His rule was that in his classes he stressed those awareness and conflict avoidance procedures. He'd always have some student propose increasingly dangerous scenarios where the chance of violence was more and more likely. Eventually it got to the point where it was the equivalent of "40 ninjas jump you in a dark alley, you can't avoid confrontation then, so how do you fight?." The answer was usually, "You're screwed."
He could tell those students weren't paying attention to the conflict avoidance lessons and were looking to find themselves in situtations where they would be justified in picking a fight. That of course meant it was more likely to happen, and they were ignoring the possibility of avoiding the problems altogether.
I'm not saying this is an analogy to the gun control discussion, but I do see parallels. The situations of the side which wants to increase gun ownership continually creates '40 ninjas' style scenarios to support their arguments. This seems to be that we aren't really interested in saftey very much, not primarily because those are the situations that happen much less often than an accidental shooting should therefore be weighed less heavily in the overall decision.
It's just that it's not going to happen. I've tried to bet my friends 100 that they won't win the 100 million powerball. Yes, theoretically it could happen but it actualy will not. In the same sense I know the 40 ninjas scenarios that the gun owner proposes are so unlikely that while theoretically possible that I can point to shanek, lonewulf, and quad and say that none of the three of you will ever be awakened in the middle of the night by a person you are sure is a burgler where the best possible action is armed confrontation, retrieve your guns and ammo, get the drop of him, identify him as a deadly threat, and emerge victorious in a gunfight. It simply won't happen.
There are so many specifics that have to come together perfectly to create a scenario where you have a need for self-defense requiring specifically a gun, that it's a lottery/lightning strike/40 ninjas scenario when compared to the possibilty that somewhere along the line you or someone in the house with get careless and someone will get hurt.
gambling_cruiser
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 734
For centuries the british and irish common population was not allowed to have weapons, only the noble were excepted.
Maybe that was as good a reason to immigrate to America as religion?
The rebells went away and the sheeple stayed behind.
Now the british are proud to be sheeple in a monarchy and cry wolf whenever dangerous ideas from the rebells with their republic anarchy occur.
Maybe that was as good a reason to immigrate to America as religion?
The rebells went away and the sheeple stayed behind.
Now the british are proud to be sheeple in a monarchy and cry wolf whenever dangerous ideas from the rebells with their republic anarchy occur.
You gave me an answer, but it wasn't for the question I asked.
"Suitable"? Can you hunt with all that is legal? Not just guns, but whatever is at hand?
Don't turn the tables: Who do you think is trustworthy and why?
I am pointing to the nukes comparison to emphasize how silly the car comparison is.
Wow. It is simply incomprehensible to you that I could have misunderstood you.
Show me one person who has always kept his calm. That's simply not possible. Humans are humans, emotional, not always smart, and in control. Heck, even Jesus flew into a rage.
There is a huge difference between fly into a rage and fly into a rage with a gun.
How can you be sure that you will save those people? Think about it: You are in a situation that is incredibly intense. Your heart is pounding, the adrenalin is pumping, your body is shaking, your mind is reeling, you are completely out of control. A real life-and-death situation. People are milling about, the attacker, you, your family.
And you are telling me that you are sure only to harm the attacker??
Gun proponents live in a movie.
Take the phony 2-3 million defensive gun uses per year. Among 300 million Americans, how many do you think fly into a rage? More than 2-3 million?
Are you arguing that there should be no "prohibition laws" at all? People should be able to buy heroin, cocaine, LSD, opium, morphine, GHB, Ecstasy? Tanks, bazookas, hand grenades, nukes? Any kind of poison? Dynamite? Nitroglycerin?
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
Lothian
should be banned
I understood that guns were required for situations where armed criminals broke into your houses and raped your wife and mutilated your children (among other reasons).
Are you saying that people who have, in the past been guilty of a minor offence, and who have paid their debt to society, no longer deserve the right to protect themselves and their family and that as a result of their past actions their family deserve to die ?.
William Rea
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2006
- Messages
- 983
Your source for this?
Maybe you should read this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom
Last edited:
Just as an interesting "FYI" came across this while I was looking for some other statistics:
Lothian
should be banned
Any stats on how many kill themselves with a Swiss Army knife ?
William Rea
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2006
- Messages
- 983
The law says that the police have to cut people's nails really short so they can't open them but I heard that the number of deaths from the bottle opener was very high.
(Sorry about this post, couldn't resist)
Accidentally trying to get that peculiar blade open or purposefully?
baron
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2006
- Messages
- 8,627
Precisely. You saved me from much typing.
Gun proponents are effectively asking the question, "Wouldn't you want a gun if you were in a situation where a gun was the only item that could save your life?" Well sure I'd want a gun in that case, but what does that prove? If I was in a situation that demanded a hand-grenade I'd want a hand-grenade. If I was in a situation that demanded a ball of string, two tent pegs and a bucket of gerbils I'd want these too.
What gun proponents need to understand is that guns may provide conclusion to a situation, but it's almost never the right one.
Talk about a "loaded" question...