EPTWhy is that unbelievable? It makes sense. Is your tv which is insured anyway worth endangering your/your families life,or even the life of the intruder? I think not.
If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Focuspants
Canada780 Posts
Why is that unbelievable? It makes sense. Is your tv which is insured anyway worth endangering your/your families life,or even the life of the intruder? I think not. | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On July 25 2012 01:36 Focuspants wrote: Why is that unbelievable? It makes sense. Is your tv which is insured anyway worth endangering your/your families life,or even the life of the intruder? I think not. It's the principle of the matter...I'd rather not get sucked back into this thread since most of what I've been reading was covered at some point between pages 60-100 (Edit: actually a bit further back than that, didn't realize how far this thread has gone since then), but wtf man. Yes, my principles are worth my life. There. Hundred other points I could bring up, but I refuse to reiterate what has already been covered ad nauseum in this thread before it was bumped because of that shooting. @ people saying, "No, we shouldn't be allowed to have guns" If you want a refutation, go read the whole thread. Almost everything that has been brought up was already addressed in some form before the bump. | ||
|
ikh
United Kingdom251 Posts
so i guess your principles, as they lay, are (in part) that your property and pride are worth more than your life, much less another man's. it's a lot easier to make that sound all right and noble as long as you don't stop to think about it. nothing wrong with that if that's what you live by, i guess, but trying to say that is the norm and the moral absolute, that's a lot more difficult. i can honestly say i truly believe i would rather die than kill another person for my own interests only. | ||
|
Aunvilgod
2653 Posts
2. ??? 3. Profit It is just really obvious. | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On July 25 2012 01:56 ikh wrote: so i guess your principles, as they lay, are (in part) that your property and pride are worth more than your life, much less another man's. it's a lot easier to make that sound all right and noble as long as you don't stop to think about it. nothing wrong with that if that's what you live by, i guess, but trying to say that is the norm and the moral absolute, that's a lot more difficult. i can honestly say i truly believe i would rather die than kill another person for my own interests only. If you want to put words in my mouth fine, go right fucking ahead. I clearly care more about my pride than another man's life. | ||
|
Wyvernspur
Singapore10 Posts
| ||
|
ikh
United Kingdom251 Posts
On July 25 2012 02:03 Kimaker wrote: If you want to put words in my mouth fine, go right fucking ahead. I clearly care more about my pride than another man's life. well i didn't say so, i said you value your "property and pride" more than your/a thief's life. the property part you said and if i'm mistaken about extrapolating about the pride... it would make you look a lot more pitiful if you only valued your property and not your pride in a situation where you kill a man stealing your shit and threatening your life (e: with the assumption that you'll live if you let him take your shit). the apparent fact is there are some things you value more than human life, even your own (or especially the latter, since that's the one you own) - much like i do. when that thing is your television and your wedding ring, it's kind of hard to make it sound good. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On July 25 2012 02:01 Aunvilgod wrote: 1. Compare the number of deaths by guns in the US to this number in the EU 2. ??? 3. Profit It is just really obvious. So basically your argument (err...4chan meme?) is that correlation = causation. Nope. Although it seems like strong reasoning, it's really not enough to make any definitive point. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On July 25 2012 02:03 Kimaker wrote: If you want to put words in my mouth fine, go right fucking ahead. I clearly care more about my pride than another man's life. I've got pride myself and I'm pretty sure I'd be raging inside if I ever got into a situation like that. Truth is I'd rather try and keep myself calm so noone gets hurt for my familys sake. Fine I lose a thousand bucks because of a stolen TV or whatever else or should I go rambo on someone carrying a knife just for the sake of defending my "stuff" endangering myself, my family and everyone else just because of a TV? If we're talking about a situation where people are in danger, sure I'd do everything I can to protect those but running into someone who gets into your house for the sake of killing someone and not for the sake of stealing something / getting money is like reversed kind of thing of winning the jackpot in the lottery, at least where I'm from. I'm sure your wife / mom / daughter is happy if you end up dead because you wanted to protect the TV you paid yourself so badly and I'm sure they will understand that your pride is so much more important than making sure your daughter grows up with a Dad. | ||
|
-_-Quails
Australia796 Posts
On July 25 2012 00:52 Toadesstern wrote: The thing is that handing out forks and knifes to people all over the globe may be a risk but that risk is pretty slim while at the same time those objects possess a bunch of good reason for existence that makes up for the risk. Guns on the other hand are way more risky while having pretty much no purpose at all in private use. Yes I get that there are people who collect guns, yes I get that there are people who want to shoot on a range but is that enough reason to endanger everyone? If that's the case why are we not ok with people collecting mines / bombs, poisonous gas or whatever else? You could use those things for self defense as well as as trophies for your collection or enjoy the loud bang it makes when you're blowing up stuff on a range with your explosives pretending to be a chief blaster. As mentioned, if you have a bat in your place you could easily smash someone to the ground trying to get you with a knife, if you wanted to. The smart move would still be to tell the guy to take whatever he wants and leave afterwards so noone gets hurt but that's beside the point. Unless of course living in the US (in some places) really is like living in congo during civil war. Because frankly that's what I'm getting from reading this thread. I don't think I'd be able to defend myself (if I wanted to) against a gun unless I have a gun myself. That is a big difference. Best course of action in a violent robbery is to give the person what they want assuming it is material unless you are confident enough in your self defense skills that you feel you can fight and avoid injury. Knife, gun, baseball bat, whatever. Your life and the lives of your family are worth more than a handful of change or a television set. It does not matter how quick on the draw you are if the adversary pulls the trigger while they go down, or jabs forward into you with the knife as you crack his skull with a bat. You should focus on remaining calm and noticing as many details about the attacker as possible. This course of actions is not cowardly, it is aimed at keeping robberies from turning into murders. | ||
|
Caryc
Germany330 Posts
| ||
|
AdamBanks
Canada996 Posts
On July 25 2012 02:13 FallDownMarigold wrote: So basically your argument (err...4chan meme?) is that correlation = causation. Nope. Although it seems like strong reasoning, it's really not enough to make any definitive point. Correlation=Correlation, what you call causation is simply the gathering and examining of correlations o.o If there was a place without guns, no one would get shot there. If there is a place with guns it becomes possible to get shot there The likelyhood of being shot can most likely be ascertained by comparing the number of guns vs the number of people, the higher the guns the more likely someone will be shot. | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
On July 25 2012 02:13 FallDownMarigold wrote: So basically your argument (err...4chan meme?) is that correlation = causation. Nope. Although it seems like strong reasoning, it's really not enough to make any definitive point. It comes from south park I believe ;o | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On July 25 2012 02:19 -_-Quails wrote: Best course of action in a violent robbery is to give the person what they want assuming it is material unless you are confident enough in your self defense skills that you feel you can fight and avoid injury. Knife, gun, baseball bat, whatever. Your life and the lives of your family are worth more than a handful of change or a television set. It does not matter how quick on the draw you are if the adversary pulls the trigger while they go down, or jabs forward into you with the knife as you crack his skull with a bat. You should focus on remaining calm and noticing as many details about the attacker as possible. This course of actions is not cowardly, it is aimed at keeping robberies from turning into murders. Agree. I said the same thing (+ Show Spoiler [clicky] + | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On July 25 2012 02:21 AdamBanks wrote: Correlation=Correlation, what you call causation is simply the gathering and examining of correlations o.o No, that does not make sense, unless you are reading his 4chan meme differently. He is saying that because of the gun policy in the US, more people are killed by guns (than in Europe). That's not the full story though. It's far more complex. | ||
|
DuneBug
United States668 Posts
I think that a skilled archer with good placement could be as effective as Charles Whitman was. Well-fitting and well-constructed armor will be easy enough to move in, lighter than it appears, and decent at deflecting bullets and physical attacks by those trying to intervene. A dane axe tends to be as tall as the wielder at least. Once you start swinging it, anyone within 8-12 feet of you dies and you can walk while you swing. You would be better off attacking in the station than on a train for space reasons. This kind of axe is rarely wielded by re-enactors because you have to train much hard than with a sword to learn to hold and move it safely around other people for mock battles. This is absurd. Bows or crossbows are deadly, to be sure. But not like a gun. They don't have the range of any rifle and aren't as accurate. The bows they use today are incredibly accurate compared to anything used 500 years ago, but all projectiles are still affected by gravity and wind; and arrows have it much worse than a bullet due to their larger surface area and slower velocity. Furthermore arrows have less "stopping power" than a bullet does. At least any bullet from a rifle. Arrows don't fragment the way bullets do, which sends shrapnel through a tissue area much greater than the initial entry wound. As for the axe wielder with armor...? Why would you want or need armor? The best precaution would be to wear a kevlar vest, in case someone had a concealed pistol and you effectively brought an axe to a gun fight. It's pretty unlikely anyone in the area is likely to be carrying a longsword, so wearing chainmail seems rather pointless. Secondly... The only people you'll kill with that axe are the first 2-3 unsuspecting people you come across. After that you'll just get jumped by an angry mob that will likely pummel you to death or near-death. And by jumped I don't mean they're going to punch you in the face, I mean they're just going to tackle you and knock you on your ass regardless of the silly axe you have. Even if the people can't hurt you they'll just sit on you until someone gets there with a can opener. I would write out more.. But it seems kind of silly to give out advice on the best way to go on an axe rampage, so i'll just leave it at that. I think the gist of your argument is that you can kill people with anything, and that's true... But I'd much rather be fighting against a guy with a bow than one with a firearm. As for other methods of domestic terrorism, if you're creative you can come up with some nasty stuff, but thankfully people rarely opt for that path, or they opt for it but are stupid and get caught. | ||
|
Kahlgar
411 Posts
On July 25 2012 02:29 FallDownMarigold wrote: No, that does not make sense, unless you are reading his 4chan meme differently. He is saying that because of the gun policy in the US, more people are killed by guns (than in Europe). That's not the full story though. It's far more complex. I would love to see other factors that could explain a difference that huge mentioned itt rather than reading "it's far more complex" over and over again. | ||
|
Thenerf
United States258 Posts
On July 25 2012 02:01 Aunvilgod wrote: 1. Compare the number of deaths by guns in the US to this number in the EU 2. ??? 3. Profit It is just really obvious. You should be comparing the number deaths period not "Gun Deaths". | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On July 24 2012 14:44 Defacer wrote: At least once per page, some random poster will make this hilariously stupid argument to justify doing nothing about gun control, or avoiding the discussion of gun control altogether. It's no different than saying ... NEWSFLASH: Rain is wet, and it will rain if we do or don't have umbrellas. Well thank you, Dr. Einstein! But you've kind of missed the basic and most obvious point of the entire discussion. It's easier to kill things with Guns than other objects! In fact, that's what they're designed to do -- kill things easily! If they were bad at killing things easily, no one would need to buy guns! Guns are more dangerous than other things! In fact, that's what makes them effective! Hmmmm ... Do you think that the sale of guns needs some limitations and rules? Discuss! On July 24 2012 21:45 Frozenhelfire wrote: If a post has one sentence per line it is probably stupid. If a post over uses exclamation marks it is probably stupid. This post did not fail the former metrics. So what if guns kill things more easily than other objects? Your "argument" fails to address why guns need limitations and rules. There are many objects that will do the job better than a gun depending on the situation and you can get your hands on those objects arguably more easily than a gun. It's called sarcasm, dum-dum. It's purposely written in a stupid way to mock the silliness of pointing out that "guns don't kill, people, people kill people." As if that, somehow, should end the discussion about gun control. I'm wasn't actually saying either way whether guns needed limitations -- it wasn't the point of the post. But since you obviously respect my opinions so much, I think the current 'limitation' -- that guns can't be owned or purchased by felons, criminals with a mile long rap sheet or the mentally ill -- is fine. It's the enforcement of these limitations that seem so ineffective in most states. For example, the tactical gear that Holmes purchased online -- it's actually illegal to sell to someone that is mentally ill. However there is no requirement for the seller to do a background check. Now in Holmes case, even if a background check was required it likely wouldn't have turned up anything. But just the fact that there isn't even a basic mechanism to prevent a law from being broken shows how poorly design the system of regulation is. A state like Illinois, on the other hand, has the FOID system, that allows them not only to do criminal background checks but to cross reference someone trying to purchase a gun with social services, and see if they have a history of mental illness. (I'm not from Illinois, so I can't testify to its effectiveness). I don't think there is a single responsible gun owner out there that wants someone like Holmes -- or at least a known crazy-person/criminal -- to be able to buy a gun from the local store. My question to the forum would be, what kind of regulations could be put into place, if any, that would impair stupid/crazy people from buying guns but not impinge on the rights of responsible people that want guns to protect themselves? | ||
|
AdamBanks
Canada996 Posts
On July 25 2012 02:29 FallDownMarigold wrote: No, that does not make sense, unless you are reading his 4chan meme differently. He is saying that because of the gun policy in the US, more people are killed by guns (than in Europe). That's not the full story though. It's far more complex. yea ur right, but had he developed his thought he might have added that the current policy encourage the proliferation of firearms o.o He didnt tho, oh well touche. edit: hopefully someday we will look back at guns like were starting to look at cigarettes. | ||
| ||
