|
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. |
On December 07 2018 01:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2018 23:48 Jockmcplop wrote:
Yes its always enjoyable when people admit thinking that less death is good.
What a laugh we all had. I prefer not to assume the majority of posters here prefer an unarmed woman fleeing for her life. I'd rather have 100% respond with their honest opinion. How am I to know the number that think the reverse (armed, trained, successfully defending life and property) is zero? I don't even begrudge you your cynical comment; more information is good in this debate and others, regardless of how many people think it's eye-rollingly obvious.
Do you understand the reasonable (not some satirized version) thinking of why running from a stranger in your house is preferable to shooting them and disagree with it or reject it on it's face/not comprehend it at all?
|
I would prefer people try to flee rather than use violence through fire arms, because it is safer for them and their family. So does my brother, who saw combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. And he owns like 10 different guns and he would still try to get out of the house over confront someone breaking in. Running away gives the person far more control over the situation than standing their ground. If they are unable to flee, they can still use the gun.
|
On December 07 2018 01:07 Jockmcplop wrote:
Fleeing for your life is horrible, and no-one should be placed in that situation, but given time and support, you can get over it.
Being shot to death is altogether more permanent. I would wager that for most people, in terms of psychological damage, shooting and killing someone is more damaging than having to run away.
Its worse for everyone that it ended this way, probably. The only exception is if the criminal then got away and killed someone else, but the responsibility to stop that shouldn't be on some woman in her house.
It's worse for the population letting criminals know that there are no armed homeowners that are willing to shoot if they arm themselves and go for the bedroom. Don't try it, and for God's sake, don't go for the bedroom. It's not for your "less death, yay, what a laugh we're all having" reductionism to alive/dead, but for less breaking and entering, armed robbery, for the credible fear that it may be your last act on earth. If you expect the homeowner to flee out the window, there's really no downside to take that kitchen implement and head down the hall to the living quarters.
An acquaintance of mine bought a gun after his store was robbed at gunpoint, and he is quite willing to use it if his family is inside the store and in danger (as they were during the robbery). They all emerged safe last time, hallelujah. That's your least damaging preference, and maybe you would apply the same logic if it happened four more times. I, however, support his decision to arm himself to more capably assert his self defense, knowing it might bring him and his family psychological damage in defending against danger. Hopefully the sight of him armed and loudly warning the robbers is enough to make them reconsider their recent life choices. If not, he retains his property, acquires the reputation of someone not to mess with, and has literally protected his family from possible harm. Again, better if they decide not to commit crime in the first place, but placing him at their mercy is not second place regardless of statistical likelihood of being shot ... armed and ready scenarios are preferable.
As we said earlier, it's always going to be a tradeoff. Living life "on your knees," so to speak, does cause less bloodshed, but not everyone is going to accept the defenseless lifestyle, even confronted with heavy prices and statistics on your personal safety.
|
|
|
On December 07 2018 01:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2018 01:03 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2018 23:48 Jockmcplop wrote:
Yes its always enjoyable when people admit thinking that less death is good.
What a laugh we all had. I prefer not to assume the majority of posters here prefer an unarmed woman fleeing for her life. I'd rather have 100% respond with their honest opinion. How am I to know the number that think the reverse (armed, trained, successfully defending life and property) is zero? I don't even begrudge you your cynical comment; more information is good in this debate and others, regardless of how many people think it's eye-rollingly obvious. Do you understand the reasonable (not some satirized version) thinking of why running from a stranger in your house is preferable to shooting them and disagree with it or reject it on it's face/not comprehend it at all?
This example had several aspects that deserve to first be addressed. He kicked down the door, which isn't something a simple stranger in the house usually does. He armed himself to some degree in the kitchen, which also isn't just a kid looking for a quick snatch-and-go. He proceeded to her bedroom. That hits all the alarm bells for intent and communicating intent.
I know simply hearing somebody rustling about this house as a stranger is far less likely to justify a shooting.
|
On December 07 2018 01:38 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2018 01:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 07 2018 01:03 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2018 23:48 Jockmcplop wrote:
Yes its always enjoyable when people admit thinking that less death is good.
What a laugh we all had. I prefer not to assume the majority of posters here prefer an unarmed woman fleeing for her life. I'd rather have 100% respond with their honest opinion. How am I to know the number that think the reverse (armed, trained, successfully defending life and property) is zero? I don't even begrudge you your cynical comment; more information is good in this debate and others, regardless of how many people think it's eye-rollingly obvious. Do you understand the reasonable (not some satirized version) thinking of why running from a stranger in your house is preferable to shooting them and disagree with it or reject it on it's face/not comprehend it at all? This example had several aspects that deserve to first be addressed. He kicked down the door, which isn't something a simple stranger in the house usually does. He armed himself to some degree in the kitchen, which also isn't just a kid looking for a quick snatch-and-go. He proceeded to her bedroom. That hits all the alarm bells for intent and communicating intent. I know simply hearing somebody rustling about this house as a stranger is far less likely to justify a shooting.
I appreciate you pointing out those details, and it does demonstrate some understanding of the contrary position's reasoning but it's neglecting a few key parts still.
Namely that death is an undesirable outcome even for someone who may pose a deadly threat, among others.
EDIT: Having read your other response it appears your concern is over a potential increase in burglary if people are able to presume that owners will flee as opposed to occasionally kill. Am I getting that right?
|
On December 07 2018 01:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2018 01:38 Danglars wrote:On December 07 2018 01:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 07 2018 01:03 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2018 23:48 Jockmcplop wrote:
Yes its always enjoyable when people admit thinking that less death is good.
What a laugh we all had. I prefer not to assume the majority of posters here prefer an unarmed woman fleeing for her life. I'd rather have 100% respond with their honest opinion. How am I to know the number that think the reverse (armed, trained, successfully defending life and property) is zero? I don't even begrudge you your cynical comment; more information is good in this debate and others, regardless of how many people think it's eye-rollingly obvious. Do you understand the reasonable (not some satirized version) thinking of why running from a stranger in your house is preferable to shooting them and disagree with it or reject it on it's face/not comprehend it at all? This example had several aspects that deserve to first be addressed. He kicked down the door, which isn't something a simple stranger in the house usually does. He armed himself to some degree in the kitchen, which also isn't just a kid looking for a quick snatch-and-go. He proceeded to her bedroom. That hits all the alarm bells for intent and communicating intent. I know simply hearing somebody rustling about this house as a stranger is far less likely to justify a shooting. I appreciate you pointing out those details, and it does demonstrate some understanding of the contrary position's reasoning but it's neglecting a few key parts still. Namely that death is an undesirable outcome even for someone who may pose a deadly threat, among others. EDIT: Having read your other response it appears your concern is over a potential increase in burglary if people are able to presume that owners will flee as opposed to occasionally kill. Am I getting that right?
It depends on what you mean. I just talked about the stranger trespasser scenario. Clearly, you can take that to mean the most desirable outcome is him/her leaving of his/her own accord.
With someone advancing armed with a weapon that could cause you either great injury or death, the desirable outcome is a good shot to kill and no injury to you or anyone else (if we neglect an accidental bad shot and at that point he decides to flee). California, as well as other states, have laws justifying the use of weapons in that scenario and I agree with the principle at its heart. I don't know if this answers your question on what makes something desirable or undesirable, but maybe that's what you were looking for. It's desirable for a lawful citizen presented with imminent killing/maiming/rape on his/her person to kill the attacker in self defense, and undesirable to suffer great bodily injury or death at the hands of the attacker. I think that may be contentious to some, who would prefer two alive parties even if one has sustained permanent injury.
For the second issue, I wanted to cover all my bases for reasoning. It's not my primary area of concern, but deserved mention.
|
On December 07 2018 03:37 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2018 01:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 07 2018 01:38 Danglars wrote:On December 07 2018 01:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 07 2018 01:03 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2018 23:48 Jockmcplop wrote:
Yes its always enjoyable when people admit thinking that less death is good.
What a laugh we all had. I prefer not to assume the majority of posters here prefer an unarmed woman fleeing for her life. I'd rather have 100% respond with their honest opinion. How am I to know the number that think the reverse (armed, trained, successfully defending life and property) is zero? I don't even begrudge you your cynical comment; more information is good in this debate and others, regardless of how many people think it's eye-rollingly obvious. Do you understand the reasonable (not some satirized version) thinking of why running from a stranger in your house is preferable to shooting them and disagree with it or reject it on it's face/not comprehend it at all? This example had several aspects that deserve to first be addressed. He kicked down the door, which isn't something a simple stranger in the house usually does. He armed himself to some degree in the kitchen, which also isn't just a kid looking for a quick snatch-and-go. He proceeded to her bedroom. That hits all the alarm bells for intent and communicating intent. I know simply hearing somebody rustling about this house as a stranger is far less likely to justify a shooting. I appreciate you pointing out those details, and it does demonstrate some understanding of the contrary position's reasoning but it's neglecting a few key parts still. Namely that death is an undesirable outcome even for someone who may pose a deadly threat, among others. EDIT: Having read your other response it appears your concern is over a potential increase in burglary if people are able to presume that owners will flee as opposed to occasionally kill. Am I getting that right? It depends on what you mean. I just talked about the stranger trespasser scenario. Clearly, you can take that to mean the most desirable outcome is him/her leaving of his/her own accord. With someone advancing armed with a weapon that could cause you either great injury or death, the desirable outcome is a good shot to kill and no injury to you or anyone else (if we neglect an accidental bad shot and at that point he decides to flee). California, as well as other states, have laws justifying the use of weapons in that scenario and I agree with the principle at its heart. I don't know if this answers your question on what makes something desirable or undesirable, but maybe that's what you were looking for. It's desirable for a lawful citizen presented with imminent killing/maiming/rape on his/her person to kill the attacker in self defense, and undesirable to suffer great bodily injury or death at the hands of the attacker. I think that may be contentious to some, who would prefer two alive parties even if one has sustained permanent injury. For the second issue, I wanted to cover all my bases for reasoning. It's not my primary area of concern, but deserved mention.
See, this thinking:
With someone advancing armed with a weapon that could cause you either great injury or death, the desirable outcome is a good shot to kill and no injury to you or anyone else
is what leads to the recent shootings of "good guys with a gun".
Aurora Police Chief Nick Metz told reporters on Thursday that body camera video of the incident appears to shows police responding to a scene where they were told a child was being drowned, that they heard shots fired inside the home shortly after arriving — apparently Black killing the intruder — and that they saw Black with a gun in one hand and a flashlight in the other.
Metz said the body camera video shows police repeatedly commanding Black to drop the weapon, he did not drop the gun, and that an officer fired after Black allegedly raised the flashlight at officers. The shooting is still under investigation. Investigators later learned from the family that Black had a significant hearing impairment from his military service, and it’s unclear what he heard.
www.nbcnews.com
The desirable outcome is preventing either of you from being injured or killed until professional responders (something we need but don't have) can arrive.
As to the deterrent effect of homeowners with guns, it's actually far more effective to focus on people's fear of being caught than attaching a death sentence to it as a matter of what the science currently says.
So it appears you're doing some sort of Cost-Benefit Analysis to arrive at the conclusion that accidentally killing family members/themselves, having them stolen and used for crimes, played with by kids, accessed for suicide, etc... is worth the benefits of your perception of deterrent and what appears to be an emotionally based argument of principal.
I think if we focus in on the CBA and how you're imagining it we can further pinpoint the conflicts arising out of your position as perceived by others.
|
On December 07 2018 03:37 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2018 01:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 07 2018 01:38 Danglars wrote:On December 07 2018 01:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 07 2018 01:03 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2018 23:48 Jockmcplop wrote:
Yes its always enjoyable when people admit thinking that less death is good.
What a laugh we all had. I prefer not to assume the majority of posters here prefer an unarmed woman fleeing for her life. I'd rather have 100% respond with their honest opinion. How am I to know the number that think the reverse (armed, trained, successfully defending life and property) is zero? I don't even begrudge you your cynical comment; more information is good in this debate and others, regardless of how many people think it's eye-rollingly obvious. Do you understand the reasonable (not some satirized version) thinking of why running from a stranger in your house is preferable to shooting them and disagree with it or reject it on it's face/not comprehend it at all? This example had several aspects that deserve to first be addressed. He kicked down the door, which isn't something a simple stranger in the house usually does. He armed himself to some degree in the kitchen, which also isn't just a kid looking for a quick snatch-and-go. He proceeded to her bedroom. That hits all the alarm bells for intent and communicating intent. I know simply hearing somebody rustling about this house as a stranger is far less likely to justify a shooting. I appreciate you pointing out those details, and it does demonstrate some understanding of the contrary position's reasoning but it's neglecting a few key parts still. Namely that death is an undesirable outcome even for someone who may pose a deadly threat, among others. EDIT: Having read your other response it appears your concern is over a potential increase in burglary if people are able to presume that owners will flee as opposed to occasionally kill. Am I getting that right? It depends on what you mean. I just talked about the stranger trespasser scenario. Clearly, you can take that to mean the most desirable outcome is him/her leaving of his/her own accord. With someone advancing armed with a weapon that could cause you either great injury or death, the desirable outcome is a good shot to kill and no injury to you or anyone else (if we neglect an accidental bad shot and at that point he decides to flee). California, as well as other states, have laws justifying the use of weapons in that scenario and I agree with the principle at its heart. I don't know if this answers your question on what makes something desirable or undesirable, but maybe that's what you were looking for. It's desirable for a lawful citizen presented with imminent killing/maiming/rape on his/her person to kill the attacker in self defense, and undesirable to suffer great bodily injury or death at the hands of the attacker. I think that may be contentious to some, who would prefer two alive parties even if one has sustained permanent injury. For the second issue, I wanted to cover all my bases for reasoning. It's not my primary area of concern, but deserved mention.
I think by arming more people scenarios like this are more likely outcomes than positive ones. In this circumstance you have 2 armed and trained individuals with guns, yet there is still an accidental killing of the hero who saved other peoples' lives.
Imagine more untrained people with guns in similar situations... I think it's much more likely innocent people get shot.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/15/us/chicago-area-security-guard-police-shooting/index.html
What do you think about the possibility of this occurring more?
+ Show Spoiler +Many community members are demanding answers as to why Roberson was killed. One major point of contention is whether Roberson was wearing anything with "security" written on it.
While witnesses said the guard was wearing clothes that clearly identified him as "security," Illinois State Police, the agency now leading the investigation, said Roberson was wearing "plain black clothing with no markings readily identifying him as a Security Guard."
Witness Adam Harris told CNN affiliate WGN that Roberson "had somebody on the ground ... with his knee in back, with his gun in his back like, 'Don't move.' "
Merritt lauded Roberson as "the quintessential good guy with a gun" for stopping an active shooter. "But he still had to face the reality of being a black man in America," Merritt said.
|
On December 07 2018 10:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2018 03:37 Danglars wrote:On December 07 2018 01:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 07 2018 01:38 Danglars wrote:On December 07 2018 01:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 07 2018 01:03 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2018 23:48 Jockmcplop wrote:
Yes its always enjoyable when people admit thinking that less death is good.
What a laugh we all had. I prefer not to assume the majority of posters here prefer an unarmed woman fleeing for her life. I'd rather have 100% respond with their honest opinion. How am I to know the number that think the reverse (armed, trained, successfully defending life and property) is zero? I don't even begrudge you your cynical comment; more information is good in this debate and others, regardless of how many people think it's eye-rollingly obvious. Do you understand the reasonable (not some satirized version) thinking of why running from a stranger in your house is preferable to shooting them and disagree with it or reject it on it's face/not comprehend it at all? This example had several aspects that deserve to first be addressed. He kicked down the door, which isn't something a simple stranger in the house usually does. He armed himself to some degree in the kitchen, which also isn't just a kid looking for a quick snatch-and-go. He proceeded to her bedroom. That hits all the alarm bells for intent and communicating intent. I know simply hearing somebody rustling about this house as a stranger is far less likely to justify a shooting. I appreciate you pointing out those details, and it does demonstrate some understanding of the contrary position's reasoning but it's neglecting a few key parts still. Namely that death is an undesirable outcome even for someone who may pose a deadly threat, among others. EDIT: Having read your other response it appears your concern is over a potential increase in burglary if people are able to presume that owners will flee as opposed to occasionally kill. Am I getting that right? It depends on what you mean. I just talked about the stranger trespasser scenario. Clearly, you can take that to mean the most desirable outcome is him/her leaving of his/her own accord. With someone advancing armed with a weapon that could cause you either great injury or death, the desirable outcome is a good shot to kill and no injury to you or anyone else (if we neglect an accidental bad shot and at that point he decides to flee). California, as well as other states, have laws justifying the use of weapons in that scenario and I agree with the principle at its heart. I don't know if this answers your question on what makes something desirable or undesirable, but maybe that's what you were looking for. It's desirable for a lawful citizen presented with imminent killing/maiming/rape on his/her person to kill the attacker in self defense, and undesirable to suffer great bodily injury or death at the hands of the attacker. I think that may be contentious to some, who would prefer two alive parties even if one has sustained permanent injury. For the second issue, I wanted to cover all my bases for reasoning. It's not my primary area of concern, but deserved mention. See, this thinking: Show nested quote +With someone advancing armed with a weapon that could cause you either great injury or death, the desirable outcome is a good shot to kill and no injury to you or anyone else
is what leads to the recent shootings of "good guys with a gun". Show nested quote +Aurora Police Chief Nick Metz told reporters on Thursday that body camera video of the incident appears to shows police responding to a scene where they were told a child was being drowned, that they heard shots fired inside the home shortly after arriving — apparently Black killing the intruder — and that they saw Black with a gun in one hand and a flashlight in the other.
Metz said the body camera video shows police repeatedly commanding Black to drop the weapon, he did not drop the gun, and that an officer fired after Black allegedly raised the flashlight at officers. The shooting is still under investigation. Investigators later learned from the family that Black had a significant hearing impairment from his military service, and it’s unclear what he heard. www.nbcnews.comThe desirable outcome is preventing either of you from being injured or killed until professional responders (something we need but don't have) can arrive. As to the deterrent effect of homeowners with guns, it's actually far more effective to focus on people's fear of being caught than attaching a death sentence to it as a matter of what the science currently says. So it appears you're doing some sort of Cost-Benefit Analysis to arrive at the conclusion that accidentally killing family members/themselves, having them stolen and used for crimes, played with by kids, accessed for suicide, etc... is worth the benefits of your perception of deterrent and what appears to be an emotionally based argument of principal. I think if we focus in on the CBA and how you're imagining it we can further pinpoint the conflicts arising out of your position as perceived by others.
There we have it then. Your professional responders that we need, but don't have, and my self defense weapon. That's a good enough exchange on desirability as I think we need.
I wouldn't exactly frame my post as a "Cost-Benefit Analysis," it's just the frame I operated under for Jockmcplop's contention. The right of self defense really operates in the values sphere.
|
On December 07 2018 15:27 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2018 10:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 07 2018 03:37 Danglars wrote:On December 07 2018 01:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 07 2018 01:38 Danglars wrote:On December 07 2018 01:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 07 2018 01:03 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2018 23:48 Jockmcplop wrote:
Yes its always enjoyable when people admit thinking that less death is good.
What a laugh we all had. I prefer not to assume the majority of posters here prefer an unarmed woman fleeing for her life. I'd rather have 100% respond with their honest opinion. How am I to know the number that think the reverse (armed, trained, successfully defending life and property) is zero? I don't even begrudge you your cynical comment; more information is good in this debate and others, regardless of how many people think it's eye-rollingly obvious. Do you understand the reasonable (not some satirized version) thinking of why running from a stranger in your house is preferable to shooting them and disagree with it or reject it on it's face/not comprehend it at all? This example had several aspects that deserve to first be addressed. He kicked down the door, which isn't something a simple stranger in the house usually does. He armed himself to some degree in the kitchen, which also isn't just a kid looking for a quick snatch-and-go. He proceeded to her bedroom. That hits all the alarm bells for intent and communicating intent. I know simply hearing somebody rustling about this house as a stranger is far less likely to justify a shooting. I appreciate you pointing out those details, and it does demonstrate some understanding of the contrary position's reasoning but it's neglecting a few key parts still. Namely that death is an undesirable outcome even for someone who may pose a deadly threat, among others. EDIT: Having read your other response it appears your concern is over a potential increase in burglary if people are able to presume that owners will flee as opposed to occasionally kill. Am I getting that right? It depends on what you mean. I just talked about the stranger trespasser scenario. Clearly, you can take that to mean the most desirable outcome is him/her leaving of his/her own accord. With someone advancing armed with a weapon that could cause you either great injury or death, the desirable outcome is a good shot to kill and no injury to you or anyone else (if we neglect an accidental bad shot and at that point he decides to flee). California, as well as other states, have laws justifying the use of weapons in that scenario and I agree with the principle at its heart. I don't know if this answers your question on what makes something desirable or undesirable, but maybe that's what you were looking for. It's desirable for a lawful citizen presented with imminent killing/maiming/rape on his/her person to kill the attacker in self defense, and undesirable to suffer great bodily injury or death at the hands of the attacker. I think that may be contentious to some, who would prefer two alive parties even if one has sustained permanent injury. For the second issue, I wanted to cover all my bases for reasoning. It's not my primary area of concern, but deserved mention. See, this thinking: With someone advancing armed with a weapon that could cause you either great injury or death, the desirable outcome is a good shot to kill and no injury to you or anyone else
is what leads to the recent shootings of "good guys with a gun". Aurora Police Chief Nick Metz told reporters on Thursday that body camera video of the incident appears to shows police responding to a scene where they were told a child was being drowned, that they heard shots fired inside the home shortly after arriving — apparently Black killing the intruder — and that they saw Black with a gun in one hand and a flashlight in the other.
Metz said the body camera video shows police repeatedly commanding Black to drop the weapon, he did not drop the gun, and that an officer fired after Black allegedly raised the flashlight at officers. The shooting is still under investigation. Investigators later learned from the family that Black had a significant hearing impairment from his military service, and it’s unclear what he heard. www.nbcnews.comThe desirable outcome is preventing either of you from being injured or killed until professional responders (something we need but don't have) can arrive. As to the deterrent effect of homeowners with guns, it's actually far more effective to focus on people's fear of being caught than attaching a death sentence to it as a matter of what the science currently says. So it appears you're doing some sort of Cost-Benefit Analysis to arrive at the conclusion that accidentally killing family members/themselves, having them stolen and used for crimes, played with by kids, accessed for suicide, etc... is worth the benefits of your perception of deterrent and what appears to be an emotionally based argument of principal. I think if we focus in on the CBA and how you're imagining it we can further pinpoint the conflicts arising out of your position as perceived by others. There we have it then. Your professional responders that we need, but don't have, and my self defense weapon. That's a good enough exchange on desirability as I think we need. I wouldn't exactly frame my post as a "Cost-Benefit Analysis," it's just the frame I operated under for Jockmcplop's contention. The right of self defense really operates in the values sphere.
Doesn't this make it that much more imperative that (while we've had hundreds of years with the right to defense and guns) we act immediately to fix our incompetent responders (police forces)?
I can appreciate your reservations toward haphazard gun regulation, but considering the gun (that I thought you didn't have?) statistically makes the owner/people around the owner less safe, inaction on regulation is also harmful (even if an existing harm).
On top of that, incompetent responders (police) not only cause more people to feel the need to endanger themselves and the people around them by owning a firearm, the police also kill those very people when those people are forced to defend themselves in the absence of the incompetent police.
I don't think anyone is opposing one's right to self-defense. As is usually the case in such situations the contention is around under what circumstances fleeing or killing is the ethical/moral/practical choice.
Does anyone better understand where each other are coming from yet?
|
Danglars, as you didn't reply to my debunking your points, the fact that I can run over a bad guy with my car does not mean that cars shouldn't be regulated. You can find cases of someone doing that, they are still a negligible minority of little statistical relevance. One case where a thing is true does not an argument make except in refuting a specific "that never happens". Also, stop being a dick and going into a thread about reactions to mass killings and talking about how gun control is bad; no one wants to hear a person whose opinion is "the right of the shooter to access the guns he used to kill people are greater than the rights of his victims to not be shot" especially when smug about it.
|
On December 07 2018 17:42 Gzerble wrote:
Danglars, as you didn't reply to my debunking your points, the fact that I can run over a bad guy with my car does not mean that cars shouldn't be regulated. You can find cases of someone doing that, they are still a negligible minority of little statistical relevance. One case where a thing is true does not an argument make except in refuting a specific "that never happens". Also, stop being a dick and going into a thread about reactions to mass killings and talking about how gun control is bad; no one wants to hear a person whose opinion is "the right of the shooter to access the guns he used to kill people are greater than the rights of his victims to not be shot" especially when smug about it.
While I have never agreed with any single point Danglars has ever made about any topic, I don't think it reasonable to censor him simply for disagreeing with us. Sure the point about being smug is fine, but on the whole this is not a reaction or live report thread, this is a thread about discussing how to fix the current gun issues in America. As such, sharing the opinion that "nothing should be done" is as legit as anything else, even if it's stupid.
|
|
|
On December 07 2018 17:42 Gzerble wrote:
Danglars, as you didn't reply to my debunking your points, the fact that I can run over a bad guy with my car does not mean that cars shouldn't be regulated. You can find cases of someone doing that, they are still a negligible minority of little statistical relevance. One case where a thing is true does not an argument make except in refuting a specific "that never happens". Also, stop being a dick and going into a thread about reactions to mass killings and talking about how gun control is bad; no one wants to hear a person whose opinion is "the right of the shooter to access the guns he used to kill people are greater than the rights of his victims to not be shot" especially when smug about it.
Our last exchange of posts was snark on both sides and repetitive recriminations (no, you’re dodging because I want you to answer me in this way! No, you’re still ignoring this key fact!) The very long posts are still here, preserved for anyone to read and see who really debunked whom (if anyone).
This is the de facto gun rights/gun control debate thread. You may not like that there’s a difference in opinion in what, if anything, to do after a mass shooting, but you better get used to it if you ever want anything to change. Disagreements are not “being a dick,” that only flies on children’s playgrounds. Secondly, if nobody really “wants to hear a person whose opinion is,” then stop responding and encourage others. Even your choice in characterization about what rights are at stake shows you need to hear more of it.
|
On December 07 2018 19:52 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2018 17:42 Gzerble wrote:
Danglars, as you didn't reply to my debunking your points, the fact that I can run over a bad guy with my car does not mean that cars shouldn't be regulated. You can find cases of someone doing that, they are still a negligible minority of little statistical relevance. One case where a thing is true does not an argument make except in refuting a specific "that never happens". Also, stop being a dick and going into a thread about reactions to mass killings and talking about how gun control is bad; no one wants to hear a person whose opinion is "the right of the shooter to access the guns he used to kill people are greater than the rights of his victims to not be shot" especially when smug about it. While I have never agreed with any single point Danglars has ever made about any topic, I don't think it reasonable to censor him simply for disagreeing with us. Sure the point about being smug is fine, but on the whole this is not a reaction or live report thread, this is a thread about discussing how to fix the current gun issues in America. As such, sharing the opinion that "nothing should be done" is as legit as anything else, even if it's stupid.
I'm not saying we should censor anyone. I think he's a callous dick for bringing up his point in this forum, subverting the discussion from mass shootings and what should be done to fix them into an argument with someone who will not budge from "everything's fine lol".
On December 08 2018 00:54 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2018 17:42 Gzerble wrote:
Danglars, as you didn't reply to my debunking your points, the fact that I can run over a bad guy with my car does not mean that cars shouldn't be regulated. You can find cases of someone doing that, they are still a negligible minority of little statistical relevance. One case where a thing is true does not an argument make except in refuting a specific "that never happens". Also, stop being a dick and going into a thread about reactions to mass killings and talking about how gun control is bad; no one wants to hear a person whose opinion is "the right of the shooter to access the guns he used to kill people are greater than the rights of his victims to not be shot" especially when smug about it. Our last exchange of posts was snark on both sides and repetitive recriminations (no, you’re dodging because I want you to answer me in this way! No, you’re still ignoring this key fact!) The very long posts are still here, preserved for anyone to read and see who really debunked whom (if anyone). This is the de facto gun rights/gun control debate thread. You may not like that there’s a difference in opinion in what, if anything, to do after a mass shooting, but you better get used to it if you ever want anything to change. Disagreements are not “being a dick,” that only flies on children’s playgrounds. Secondly, if nobody really “wants to hear a person whose opinion is,” then stop responding and encourage others. Even your choice in characterization about what rights are at stake shows you need to hear more of it.
And I'd be willing to hear more in a thread called "The Big Gun Control Debate". Guess what, this isn't named that. You are making it into "The Big Gun Control Debate", but it's actually named something completely different. That's why I'm saying you're being a dick. I don't go into a thread titled "cancer is killing people" and repeatedly posting "US healthcare is fine as it is, if anything, what you perceive as faults that caused deaths is what makes US healthcare great"... because I'm not a dick.
|
The thread ends with “and people disagree on what to do.” A mass shooting happened and people disagree on what to do. You’re making this into a thread about how nobody should really disagree with big gun control measures, and anyone with high disagreements is being a dick.
Go make your thread on “a mass shooting happened and only ingrates disagree on the common sense solutions I’m in favor of.” You’ll have less people that think your suggestions are awful, counterproductive, ignorant, and ineffective (except for harming lawful gun owners that is). You better buckle up in this thread if your current strategy is berating America into agreeing with you. “You’re denying my right not to be shot” and “You’re with me on gun control or you’re a dick that doesn’t care about victims” are better used in protest signs and bumper stickers, where their intellectual heft is better recognized.
|
|
|
On December 08 2018 04:22 JimmiC wrote:
I don't think he is saying anyone who disagree's is a dick, I read him saying that you are being a dick.
And I'd be willing to hear more in a thread called "The Big Gun Control Debate". Guess what, this isn't named that. You are making it into "The Big Gun Control Debate", but it's actually named something completely different. That's why I'm saying you're being a dick.
Watch out if you disagree on what to do, because that might not fall under “and people disagree about what to do” and rather it’s “The Big Gun Control Debate.”
I thought he agreed with me on bump stocks and red flag laws, but funny enough those things disappear when you’re on a roll. Tell me where your big red line is on how much more gun control you have to be in favor of to qualify for debating additional measures. Shade it in “not a dick” and “absolutely a dick” above and below the line if you please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
