With all the things out there that cause so much death and mahem, why is it that guns seem to get such a, in my mind anyway, disproportionate amount of blame? I keep seeing references to Columbine and all of the students killed there along with well publicized yearly memorials, gun crimes, ect., and it seems that the news does not lose step talking about how more gun control should be put in place.
I don't ever see anything about this, though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrollton,_Kentucky_bus_collision

Just to put this in context, I remember when this was on the news years ago, and there were nothing more th an scattered reports after a couple of weeks.

There were more than twice as many children killed, but there isn't any breast beating here on the news. If a teenager walked into a party blindfolded and started shooting at random, not knowing if he was going to hit someone or not, it'd be a major news item that would be hashedover for weeks. Put the same teen driving drunk in a car and hitting someone, it'd likely be a one or two day news item, quickly forgotten.
I wonder how many advocates of gun control don't think twice about driving drunk or stoned or buy drugs from Mexico.
Just some half formed thoughts I have going on at the moment. Feel free to add to this or tell me I'm up in the night.

I'd say its because by their very nature guns are made to destroy or kill - buses and cars, while they kill more on average than guns, aren't really made to kill things.

Because to some people, perceived intent supersedes reality.

A car is automatically morally superior to a firearm, even if the car kills 100,000 times more people than all firearms combined, because the car is not "Designed to kill"....as if this mattered, and as if that function did not have merit all on its own.

Second, you have these same people generally seem to equate the word "Killing" with "Murder"...which it is not, but when you are of the mind that the man who crushes another mans skull because he found this person raping his mother is no different than the man who kills another for the sake of killing...well...my opinions of this "thinking" aside, this person will view ANY weapon as a morally disgusting -idea-, let alone as a real physical object.

Thirdly, you have the camp of "It's dishonorable or too easy to use a gun!" .....This group in my experience contains the masses who may have watched too much anime and lord of the rings, and somehow attach "Honor" to the idea of people trying to hack each other apart like animals, which is simultaneously something missing when the parties are shooting at each other. These people may also be ignorant of the realities of fighting with a sword, polearm, other melee weapon, a firearm, unarmed, or in my experience...all of the above.

You have the group that projects themselves, for example, if you have ever heard the words "People shouldn't have guns. They'll get angry and shoot someone." ...well...I have five bucks towards what most of them are REALLY saying is "-I- have zero self control, and if I got mad I would physically attack someone, and I can't be unusual or weird...I HAVE to be normal! Thus, everyone else would have the same reaction as me!"

You have those who actively fear their neighbors. You have statists, who have their own interests in making sure that the peasantry cannot one day get angry and decide to knock them off their throne. You have people who cannot function without the status-quo being maintained and want to avoid the previous scenario as a result.

....I could go on and on.

Oh, but I will finish with this:

I wonder how many advocates of gun control don't think twice about driving drunk or stoned or buy drugs from Mexico.

How about politicians that advocate gun control and also carry concealed? For me, but not for thee...

However much blame you attach on the drunk driver in that incident it is still, at it's base, an accident. He didn't intend to cause those deaths. Comparing that to a massacre where the facilitating components are guns is not going to help you much as far as your argument is concerned.

It's an inherently dangerous tool. Guns give one person the ability to kill many with no more than the twitch of a finger (and generally a modicum of practice). A HAND gun is by it's very design meant to kill people and serves little other purpose. I've hunted bot large and small game with pistols and it's not practical it's a challenge.
A good comparison, though much older, is a sword. Where a bow, axe, even a spear all have functional uses out side homicide; a sword does not. Guns in a similar fashion carry the same connotation swords once held. A weapon carried by a man (or woman) ready and willing to kill another man.
Especially in a culture where guns are not a part of ordinary life they carry an even greater threat. Lack of experience makes an already deadly tool a hazard as dangerous as a downed powerline. In a culture where guns ARE a part of ordinary life, but two opposing camps are arguing their continuing legality both sides have a vested interest in inculcating the general public with two pretty basic messages: guns good and guns bad. There's plenty of room in between but the opposing camps and their supporters can't allow that space to exist lest they compromise and lose monetary and political power.
If you've taken a look at the various gun/shooting threads that have popped up on Dakka you've probably seen mattyrm's comments. He has a really good grasp on reality, where it's ok to like and respect guns and feel safer without them. But also to accept a country where the proliferation of firearms, and the firearms industry are as deeply rooted (sometimes more deeply) as the law of the land, and not feel the need to rail against it.

He didn't intend to cause those deaths.

Tell me, if someone goes to a gun range drunk, and while drunk, sweeps the line with his rifle and puts a rifle round through five or six people, does he still get a pass because he didn't have an intention of causing harm to anything but a piece of paper?

If I go to the welding shop drunk, and drop my O/A torch onto my gas lines/tanks, and blow up half the building, should I survive do I also get a pass because "But I didn't MEAAAAN to!"?

There is a point at which someones disregard for others becomes just as bad as outright malice. Getting yourself drunk or high and then operating a very dangerous machine qualifies.

Yah do not hear about school shootings with crossbows.

ifStatement wrote:However much blame you attach on the drunk driver in that incident it is still, at it's base, an accident. He didn't intend to cause those deaths. Comparing that to a massacre where the facilitating components are guns is not going to help you much as far as your argument is concerned.

I can make a bomb out of Vaseline and the salt for your water softener. If I use them for a massacre do I still get the moral high ground to site my artillery?

Yah do not hear about school shootings with crossbows.

Australia begs to differ. If someone is intent on attacking a school, they will. Crossbow, knife, gun, flamethrower (Hi Germany.)...

Political reasons. The right to own guns is in the constitution. Taking about restricting guns or easing restrictions can be used in a way to get more votes or reduce the votes of the opponent.

The news jumps on this as it helps with ratings as a murder spree would appear much more interesting at glance than a bus crash. Both have a similar result, but the one with the weapon can be played up as being brutal, there being also an easy target to throw blame and hatred at. If someone did the same with a knife it would be roughly the same, the reason they don't is it's going to be easier to walk into a place and unload a gun then run around stabbing people. Not to mention it's easier for the victims to defend themselves against a knife attack than it is against a shooting.

SOFDC wrote:There is a point at which someones disregard for others becomes just as bad as outright malice. Getting yourself drunk or high and then operating a very dangerous machine qualifies.

You do realise in the context of what you are responding to you are saying several deaths caused by a drunk driver in a car accident is comparable to a couple of guys walking into a school and shooting down a bunch of kids? That was the comparison he made and which i was commenting on.

You do realise in the context of what you are responding to you are saying several deaths caused by a drunk driver in a car accident is comparable to a couple of guys walking into a school and shooting down a bunch of kids?

Yes. Carefully read my post, specifically the last two lines.

SOFDC wrote:

You do realise in the context of what you are responding to you are saying several deaths caused by a drunk driver in a car accident is comparable to a couple of guys walking into a school and shooting down a bunch of kids?

Yes. Carefully read my post, specifically the last two lines.

I did. You seem to have gone off on a tangent about how it should be considered a guilty act regardless of intent. When I didn't say any different. I was commenting on his silly comparison between those two examples.

The difference is murder and manslaughter.

n0t_u wrote:The difference is murder and manslaughter.

No the difference is mass murder and Involuntary manslaughter.

You seem to have gone off on a tangent about how it should be considered a guilty act regardless of intent. When I didn't say any different.

No? Then how are they different? Because one was "An accident"? Again "I didn't MEAN to!" doesn't work very well as a defense in the drunk drivers case..or any similar situation.

I was commenting on his silly comparison between those two examples.

Not the best comparison in the world, but I wouldn't call it silly either.

EDIT: I am not speaking in terms of legal charges, defenses, or the like. I am trying to keep the legal side out of this as much as possible, frankly.

SOFDC wrote:EDIT: I am not speaking in terms of legal charges, defenses, or the like. I am trying to keep the legal side out of this as much as possible, frankly.

I'm not speaking in legal terms either. Mass murder and murder, manslaughter and involuntay manslaughter. They are the same thing on a legal level. It's just one statement doesn't give a good enough picture of how utterly stupid the comparison of these two events are in this context. ...and how ridiculous it is that someone would wonder why one got less news coverage than the other.

They are not the same legally, as they are legal terms used to break up the same thing depending on the circumstances behind it such as intent and state of mind.

n0t_u wrote:They are not the same legally, as they are legal terms used to break up the same thing depending on the circumstances behind it such as intent and state of mind.

You know what I mean....Involuntary manslaughter is manslaughter. Mass murder is murder.

Let me throw this into the mix:

How many times have we heard about multiple offence drunk drivers killing someone? Someone who was as dangerous with a gun is more often than not sent off to jail after a first offence.
True, it's easy to kill someone with a gun, and cars aren't meant to kill. However, the full point of my original post is about the people that combine operating a car with diminished capability through drugs or alcohol, who kill and injure people, and then essentually get ignored on the news in favor of someone with a gun.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Some stats on drunk driving versus gun deaths:

Drunk drivers:

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

By guns:

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/09/14/2009-fbi-murder-statistics-by-state-and-type-of-weapon-used/

If I were you I would have started with that rather than comparing a drink related school bus crash with the Columbine massacre.

Rather than "throwing it into the mix" as you put it.

Being personally touched by a drunk driver I have to say I rank it murder, no matter what the law says

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention wrote: In 2009, 10,839 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes

(http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html)

Firearm homicides
• Number of deaths: 11,493
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.7
Source: Deaths: Final Data for 2009, tables 9, 10, 11

(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm)

From these stats, just on alchohol related traffic deaths, ignoring industrial accidents causing death, home accidents causing death, and peoples bodies just giving out, I'd say alcohol debilitated people appear a bigger killer than guns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ifStatement wrote:If I were you I would have started with that rather than comparing a drink related school bus crash with the Columbine massacre.

Rather than "throwing it into the mix" as you put it.

True, just didn't think to do it earlier, but it definitely puts it out there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Johnny-Crass wrote:Being personally touched by a drunk driver I have to say I rank it murder, no matter what the law says

I'm with you on this. I've talked to a number of habitual drunk drivers and they excuse themselves by saying they can't be expected to drive as well while drunk. Crazy logic.

Relapse wrote:I'm with you on this. I've talked to a number of habitual drunk drivers and they excuse themselves by saying they can't be expected to drive as well while drunk. Crazy logic.

Yeah, I hate those idiots.

I don't EXPECT them to drive well while drunk.

I expect them NOT to drive while drunk...

Melissia wrote:

Relapse wrote:I'm with you on this. I've talked to a number of habitual drunk drivers and they excuse themselves by saying they can't be expected to drive as well while drunk. Crazy logic.

Yeah, I hate those idiots.

I don't EXPECT them to drive well while drunk.

I expect them NOT to drive while drunk...

I know really well several people that have been killed or maimed by drunk drivers. One of them is a man with a wife and three kids that was hit by a by a trucker on speed. The pickup he was in burned while he was trapped, fully concious as his legs were burned off at his knees.

I had a friend run over by a methhead while he was riding his bike. Killed him, the case finally closed two weeks ago and all she got was manslaughter and possession of drugs. It was disgusting.

If she had shot him she would of gotten murder.... The justice system truly is disgusting sometimes

Guns are made for one reason, and one reason only, to take another human beings life, not to defend someone's or yours, but to kill another person. Gun's should't be sold anywhere and should only be permitted to Military personal only.

I say this every time, but every American comes back with "What if a guy breaks into my house? I'm going to defend my family with what ever means I have to." Then get a bat and hit across the head with it and call the cops. There is no need to kill the guy, he's probably a bit funny in the head and hasn't had the best of times, why kill him?

Guns are the death of humanity, but people (Americans) seem to see them as some sort of "defender of the peace"... I don't know but something stupid like that. If guns weren't issued to civilians, then why have a gun, maybe cept for hunting and getting food? Cause there be no one to defend yourself because you have nothing to defend against, and the only thing they have to attack you with is their fists or a blunt object, something that anyone can overcome. I've lost a grandfather, a teacher, an uncle, and a cousin to guns, not because they broke into some house or tried to attack someone, but because some idiot decided that it was their time to go for some reason

Paratrooper, check the death stats for guns versus drunk drivers I posted.
You are proving my point, by not coming down on drunk drivers the way you do gun ownership. I'm sorry about your family, but I know more people affected by drunk drivers than guns.

Johnny-Crass wrote:I had a friend run over by a methhead while he was riding his bike. Killed him, the case finally closed two weeks ago and all she got was manslaughter and possession of drugs. It was disgusting.

If she had shot him she would of gotten murder.... The justice system truly is disgusting sometimes

That sucks.

My uncle was hit while on his bike by a truck making a right turn at a no right turn intersection while there was a red light... He lived but lost his left leg for it. It's not the same, but you have my condolences.

ParatrooperSimon wrote:not to defend someone's or yours

That's not true.

They're called personal defense weapons for a reason.

Melissia wrote:They're called personal defense weapons for a reason.

Culpability insurance?

Melissia wrote:

ParatrooperSimon wrote:not to defend someone's or yours

That's not true.

They're called personal defense weapons for a reason.

I know more than a few people that have defended themselves with guns where they otherwise would have ended up dead or injured.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ifStatement wrote:

Melissia wrote:They're called personal defense weapons for a reason.

Culpability insurance?

This brings up another good point. Time and again gun manufacturerers get sued by family members of someone that was killed by a gun.
Would not a distiller or brewer be equally liable over someone that lost a relative to a drunk driver?

Sometimes the bartenders are.

Relapse wrote:Time and again gun manufacturerers get sued by family members of someone that was killed by a gun.

That actually happens?

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DZs5DxwzEXHQ&v=Zs5DxwzEXHQ&gl=US

Yup.

SOFDC wrote:Because to some people, perceived intent supersedes reality.

A car is automatically morally superior to a firearm, even if the car kills 100,000 times more people than all firearms combined, because the car is not "Designed to kill"....as if this mattered, and as if that function did not have merit all on its own.

Intention doesn't matter?

I don't know of many people carrying torches in order to take down the mass murderers at Ford, GM, and Chrysler, but there was dancing in the street when Osama bin Laden was killed.

And, before you talk about the conflation of killing and murder, the difference is basically whatever we want it to be.

SOFDC wrote:
How about politicians that advocate gun control and also carry concealed? For me, but not for thee...

I advocate gun control, and while I don't have concealed carry, I own a couple guns, with one on the way. My perfect world is one in which only I am allowed to own firearms, your rights are absolutely meaningless to me in the face of my own.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
Would not a distiller or brewer be equally liable over someone that lost a relative to a drunk driver?

In many states commercial vendors of alcohol are liable for injuries their drunk patrons cause.

Gun stores are similarly liable in certain states when they do not follow the relevant laws.

So far as I know, suits against manufacturers in either case are little more than grandstanding.

Here's a lil' Penn and Teller take on gun control

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=SCXtfR0_roE

It' s the first of a three parter. Just a warning, it's got a bit of language not for youngsters.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If I know how to killa person with my fist, should I get my fist confinscated? It's just another way to enslave mankind, yet again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Johnny-Crass wrote:Yah do not hear about school shootings with crossbows.

That's the School's fault for not controlling bullying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ParatrooperSimon wrote:Guns are made for one reason, and one reason only, to take another human beings life, not to defend someone's or yours, but to kill another person. Gun's should't be sold anywhere and should only be permitted to Military personal only.

What will happen if a Military Coup happens?

rockerbikie wrote:Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If I know how to killa person with my fist, should I get my fist confinscated? It's just another way to enslave mankind, yet again.

That tube you feel is your trachea. Think of it as a handle. Your thumb is on your carotid artery, that's your button. Now remember, grab the handle, push the button.

Private_Joker wrote:

What will happen if a Military Coup happens?

I don't know. Most people who don't shoot guns have no idea what people who shoot are like. We already have laws that prevent us from owning machine guns, grenades, mortars, anti-aircraft weapons, artillery, tanks and RPGs. That takes care of most everything seriously dangerous to the population. So what does that leave us with? Shotguns, rifles and pistols?

I'd be interested to know how many people were killed by machine guns and grenades before the ban.

Guns are not dangerous. Americans with guns are dangerous

Bad joke aside I think that only former military may own guns.

You should be able to own a weapon, but like the military a quatermaster or clerk should hang onto it maybe even local police, so everytime you want to use it, sign out for it and put it back again. You do NOT need a firearm in your house.

Starting a firefight is not the smartest move with your family in the house. No matter how accurate you think you are a single missed round goes straight through your wall into your kids bedroom. If you want to learn how to protect your family invest in things like a panic room or security systems for your home. I don't care if it costs too much its worth less than a persons life, even if they are a criminal.

Part 2 of my rant: Do you really want everyone to own firearms? Sure if you want to suppress a military coup using civilians...be my guest. Trust me it would be a useless slaughter. Also what's to stop a minority group who do not represent the majority from utilising there new found weapons to overthrow your goverment? Give the populace some leash and they will run amock. So what if your a little oppressed, beats the heck out of drive-by Tuesday.

Rather than "deaths caused" maybe you should look at "intentional
deaths caused", i.e. homicide. I think the homicide rate with guns is
that over 50% of homicides are committed with guns? Not sure, I'll
have to check later.

Because I think most deaths are caused in america by heart disease.

malfred wrote:Rather than "deaths caused" maybe you should look at "intentional
deaths caused", i.e. homicide. I think the homicide rate with guns is
that over 50% of homicides are committed with guns? Not sure, I'll
have to check later.

Because I think most deaths are caused in america by heart disease.

The presence of intent makes no difference to the families I know of people killed or crippled by drunk or stoned drivers. Their loved ones are dead at the hands of people that well know the risks of driving impaired. It's the same as murder in their minds.

Private_Joker wrote:You do NOT need a firearm in your house.

Home defense.

We have a security system. But it still takes several minutes for police to respond.

You seem to think that the moment a criminal trips the alarm, police are right there to respond, and that's completely detached from reality.

Melissia wrote:

Private_Joker wrote:You do NOT need a firearm in your house.

Home defense.

We have a security system. But it still takes several minutes for police to respond.

You seem to think that the moment a criminal trips the alarm, police are right there to respond, and that's completely detached from reality.

An alarm blaring away making a deafening sound? I'm sure any criminal trying to pull off a break and enter would be deterred from continuing once he knows he is revealed. Also I never said anything about police responding?

I love this scene from Family Guy



Some years ago while I was at University and walking home from a night out. A friend of mine who was an amount over 6ft tall with weight to match and a hoodie pulled up over his head, decided he couldn't wait until he got home to take a pee and so relieved himself in a bush, near the doorway of someone's house. However, perhaps unluckily for him the place was home to a guy with anger issues. Not having the mental ability to say his own name let alone a reasoned response to why he was watering the guy's flowers, the latter decided to run out of his house and bop him on the nose.

While the house owner could have taken a more diplomatic approach, from his perspective seeing a the silhouette of a massive guy with a hood up walk past his window late at night I can understand his response (especially considering the area had a pretty bad crime rate). But I can't help but think that the worst my friend woke up with the next morning was a fuzzy head and a slightly larger nose than normal, whereas had he been in the States it could well have been on a slab with a tag on his toe.

In response to the OP, the arms industry carried massive weight in American politics, to the point where it would be political suicide to go up against it. I believe Clinton tried, but considering the money that lobbyists give towards campaign funds I think for the most part their hands are tied. In the meantime, people are lead by the nose and told that having a significant population walking around with the capacity to deal death at the twitch of a finger is somehow a good thing.

Private_Joker wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Private_Joker wrote:You do NOT need a firearm in your house.

Home defense.

We have a security system. But it still takes several minutes for police to respond.

You seem to think that the moment a criminal trips the alarm, police are right there to respond, and that's completely detached from reality.

An alarm blaring away making a deafening sound? I'm sure any criminal trying to pull off a break and enter would be deterred from continuing once he knows he is revealed. Also I never said anything about police responding?

During the LA riots, the property owners that were armed were well able to defend their homes and businesses from the mobs. Those that had no weapons were often told by the police that they were on their own and got robbed blind. I can tell you there were a lot of blaring alarms that did no good.

Giving the mob weapons is suicide. Just look at what happened in Paris during the Commune.

Warrior Squirrel wrote:Giving the mob weapons is suicide. Just look at what happened in Paris during the Commune.

On the other hand look at the American Revolution.

Relapse wrote:

Warrior Squirrel wrote:Giving the mob weapons is suicide. Just look at what happened in Paris during the Commune.

On the other hand look at the American Revolution.

A bunch of incompetent former prisoners in red coats got lost a lot and beat up by angry conservative farmers?

Is that what you are saying the British armies consisted of during the Revolution? This could be an interesting topic for another thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5337a2.htm#tab

According to these stats, alcohol caused over 75,000 deaths in the U.S. in 2001. If guns were responsible for even half that number, there wouldn't even be squirt guns for sale these days.
Instead what we get are ads on TV and in magazines talking about the good times to be had with alcohol.

Relapse wrote:Is that what you are saying the British armies consisted of during the Revolution? This could be an interesting topic for another thread.

Let's be honest, there have been several periods of history where the Redcoats were a joke. It's not that they weren't capable of winning battles so much as they seemed unable to, and with a professional army, that's a very embarassing trait.
But I digress, I must admit. Sorry, history's kinda my thing.

Private_Joker wrote:An alarm blaring away making a deafening sound? I'm sure any criminal trying to pull off a break and enter would be deterred from continuing once he knows he is revealed. Also I never said anything about police responding?

... oooor they could just decide to rush the job and shoot anyone they come across, taking their chances that the police won't arrive in time.

Nevermind if they know there's an emergency going on an the police CAN'T respond.

Yes, most criminals want to avoid confrontation. But most isn't equivalent to all.

Relapse wrote:With all the things out there that cause so much death and mahem, why is it that guns seem to get such a, in my mind anyway, disproportionate amount of blame? I keep seeing references to Columbine and all of the students killed there along with well publicized yearly memorials, gun crimes, ect., and it seems that the news does not lose step talking about how more gun control should be put in place.
I don't ever see anything about this, though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrollton,_Kentucky_bus_collision

You're absolutely kidding yourself if you think there isn't constant media coverage over alcohol and drug consumption. The media is saturated with stories of drugs and alcohol.

Just to put this in context, I remember when this was on the news years ago, and there were nothing more th an scattered reports after a couple of weeks.

If you look purely at stories that exist as media circuses for a few weeks, then the only thing the media concerns itself with are school massacres, terrorism, celebrities doing too many drugs and the abduction of pretty young white girls. But if you expand that out and consider the daily news, you'll realise that every violent death gets coverage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SOFDC wrote:Because to some people, perceived intent supersedes reality.

A car is automatically morally superior to a firearm, even if the car kills 100,000 times more people than all firearms combined, because the car is not "Designed to kill"....as if this mattered, and as if that function did not have merit all on its own.

You've gotten yourself all confused there. It's not that the car isn't intended for killing, it's that the car is very valuable outside of it's ability to kill people.

Consider a society in which, for whatever quirk of history or science you care to imagine, guns were never invented. It isn't hard to do at all, because if you took the guns out of society the lives of 90% of people wouldn't change, and the other 10% would change only slightly. Because guns are a minor part of society.

Now consider a society in which, for whatever quirk of history or science you care to imagine, cars were never invented. That's a right mindfuck, because cars are the foundation of a modern economy (can't have mass markets without transport) and a major part of just about everyone's lives (you can look for work anywhere within 50kms or more, but if you're stuck walking to work then that distance becomes about 2kms).

That's why cars are thought of very differently to guns, despite both killing a lot of people. Because cars do so much else within society. Guns just kill people.

How about politicians that advocate gun control and also carry concealed? For me, but not for thee...

Only if they were in favour of banning CC for other people, or you were silly enough to consider the gun debate to be entirely a matter of more control vs less control. Instead, a person can form an opinion that CC is a good and constitutional right, and one the individual is in favour of exercising and protecting the right of others to exercise, but believe that improved background checks and similar laws are essential.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rockerbikie wrote:Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If I know how to killa person with my fist, should I get my fist confinscated? It's just another way to enslave mankind, yet again.

There is an interesting debate to be had on guns, but it can't be had with people who think the above is a sensible line of argument.

What will happen if a Military Coup happens?

Then the people with guns will almost certainly side with the military.

And if it doesn't, then you can smuggle guns in. When you undertake armed resistance against a government you need a sophisticated cell structure so that individual parts can support and supplement each other, but also remain seperate so that if one cell is compromised the others are not. If you can build a network like that, then getting your hands on some guns is a piece of cake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Let's be honest, there have been several periods of history where the Redcoats were a joke. It's not that they weren't capable of winning battles so much as they seemed unable to, and with a professional army, that's a very embarassing trait.
But I digress, I must admit. Sorry, history's kinda my thing.

Politics have infected presentation of the American Revolution very badly, and I think it may have influenced your reading. It is, for instance, very hard to reconcile your argument above with the fact that actual Redcoats made up a fraction of the colonial army. Or that Revolutionary casualties were more than double that of the English forces.

Fact is they were too few, too far from home, with a government that didn't want, or have, the blood and treasure needed to defeat the revolutionary forces.

Most Europeans want to live in a society without guns. Americans do not understand this.
Similarly I don't want to live in a society that allows the populace to own firearms.

Joey wrote:Most Europeans want to live in a society without guns. Americans do not understand this.

We understand this.

We just don't understand why you want to force that on us.

Aside from arrogance anyway.

Melissia wrote:We understand this.

We just don't understand why you want to force that on us.

Aside from arrogance anyway.

Most of it is complete ignorance over US gun laws. People elsewhere in the world are told Americans can buy whatever ridiculous ordinance they want, with no effective checks and they believe it. They don't know the story of gun legislation, and how full of fail most of those efforts have been, nor do they know about the issues with poor enforcement of existing laws. They just think you guys all be crazy.

And it isn't as though Americans are reluctant to place their values onto other society's, I'm frankly surprised we haven't seen any Americans claim how we can't be really free because we don't have guns to protect us from our government.

If people are going to talk about American gun culture, it may be wise for them to actually understand our gun laws so that they don't look stupid when they comment. It may be too much to ask, though, considering our own politicians can't even read what's right in front of them.

The 2nd Amendment states that it is necessary to have a well-armed/ready-to-fight militia, and therefore everybody has the right to bear arms. The Militia Code of the US defines what the militia is...it's every citizen able to serve in the military, and not currently doing so. Our own law states flat-out that it is necessary for millions of citizens to be armed. If anything, our government has a mandate to see that we are armed. See, the funny thing about a country's sovereignty is that it's the duty of every citizen to defend it, otherwise you can't really complain when some insane mass murdering dictator steamrolls over it with his army and takes all your freedoms away. You'd think Europe would've learned this lesson by now. Pretty sad that so many Americans had to go over there and die just so that lesson could be forgotten within a few decades.

lol @ all this "only the military should have the ability to do nothing but kill people (because that's all guns are for and only the military should have them)" nonsense. The naivety of some people is just absurd...

Most of it is complete ignorance over US gun laws. People elsewhere in the world are told Americans can buy whatever ridiculous ordinance they want, with no effective checks and they believe it. They don't know the story of gun legislation, and how full of fail most of those efforts have been, nor do they know about the issues with poor enforcement of existing laws. They just think you guys all be crazy.

Anecdotal evidence supporting this: When I was studying in Japan, some of the Japanese students asked some of the American students (I was not part of this discussion) if they had ever been in a gunfight, as if this were an everyday occurrence for most Americans.

I think you'll find that Japanese people are weird.

In a fun way.

Cadorius wrote:See, the funny thing about a country's sovereignty is that it's the duty of every citizen to defend it, otherwise you can't really complain when some insane mass murdering dictator steamrolls over it with his army and takes all your freedoms away. You'd think Europe would've learned this lesson by now. Pretty sad that so many Americans had to go over there and die just so that lesson could be forgotten within a few decades.

This is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen written on the internet. What part of German blitzkrieg do you think armed civilians would have been able to prevent?

Once they pass and you can hit their supply lines? Plenty!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Note that I'm not supporting the point so much as stating that there is more to war than the front lines

Joey wrote:Most Europeans want to live in a society without guns. Americans do not understand this.
Similarly I don't want to live in a society that allows the populace to own firearms.

I dont understand it either.
If we actively worked to make a place safer we would have to let the populace bear arms.

Melissia wrote:Once they pass and you can hit their supply lines? Plenty!

Okay? So knowing the civilians in a country carry arms the invaders are just going to leave a ton of vunerable troops around them. No if the civilians haven't already been massacred because of the threat they pose they will be well held down.

Seriously I understood the idea of allowing gun ownership due to the rights of the people to tyake against an oppresive government. But the idea that it 's in place to aid in the event of an invasion is completely absurd.

Melissia wrote:I think you'll find that Japanese people are weird.

In a fun way.

Well... yes, that goes without saying.

Cadorius wrote:lol @ all this "only the military should have the ability to do nothing but kill people (because that's all guns are for and only the military should have them)" nonsense. The naivety of some people is just absurd...

Your naivety is in assuming that having guns means you can form effective resistance against a dictator. You need to reconcile your belief above with the fact that people in Hitler's Germany had access to guns, as they did in Saddam's Iraq.

That reconciliation will mean throwing away the naive belief that having guns means you're safe from a tyrant. The sad reality is, as I said before, the people with guns generally support the tyrant. Where they don't, the challenge is in forming effective cells that undertake meaningful operations while maintaining individual security, getting your hands on some guns is pretty easy in comparison.

You'll know that the resistance is winning when a thread titled only "WOLVERINES!" appears in the Dakka OT forum.

ifStatement wrote:This is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen written on the internet. What part of German blitzkrieg do you think armed civilians would have been able to prevent?

To be fair, blitzkrieg (such that it ever really existed) did very well open field engagements, and broke down in urban environments.

Nah, the issue is that with guns or without, people rarely take up arms against their government. Especially not when the government is oppressing other people.

sebster wrote:

Cadorius wrote:lol @ all this "only the military should have the ability to do nothing but kill people (because that's all guns are for and only the military should have them)" nonsense. The naivety of some people is just absurd...

Your naivety is in assuming that having guns means you can form effective resistance against a dictator. You need to reconcile your belief above with the fact that people in Hitler's Germany had access to guns, as they did in Saddam's Iraq.

That reconciliation will mean throwing away the naive belief that having guns means you're safe from a tyrant. The sad reality is, as I said before, the people with guns generally support the tyrant. Where they don't, the challenge is in forming effective cells that undertake meaningful operations while maintaining individual security, getting your hands on some guns is pretty easy in comparison.

That's why we need ASSAULT GUNS. Duh.

I live in the UK. If someone breaks into my home, I won't need a gun because the person breaking in is very unlikely to have one either. Such is the effect of banning guns. Who'd have thought?

@Sebster,

I refer you to the links I posted earlier comparing gun deaths to deaths caused by drunk driving and a linkmfrom the CDC stating that there are over 75,000deaths yearly that are alcohol caused.

If you look, you will see the drunk drivers are running kneck and kneck with guns for killing people.
Alcohol caused 75,000 deaths in 2001 due to various reasons.

As I said earlier, if guns caused even half that many deaths, the news would be even more up in arms than it now.
However, the truth is we get saturated with ads on the fine fun there is to be had from drinking.
People like you who don't think twice about such ads would be having fits if gun ads were as prolific on TV.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sturmtruppen wrote:I live in the UK. If someone breaks into my home, I won't need a gun because the person breaking in is very unlikely to have one either. Such is the effect of banning guns. Who'd have thought?

If alcohol were banned, maybe some of my friends that were killed by drunk drivers would be alive today. Who'd have thought?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I just want to thak those of you coming down on guns while ignoring the fact that far greater numbers of people are killed by alcohol.
You're proving my point beautifully.

Pretty much, this:

SOFDC wrote:Because to some people, perceived intent supersedes reality.

A car is automatically morally superior to a firearm, even if the car kills 100,000 times more people than all firearms combined, because the car is not "Designed to kill"....as if this mattered, and as if that function did not have merit all on its own.

Second, you have these same people generally seem to equate the word "Killing" with "Murder"...which it is not, but when you are of the mind that the man who crushes another mans skull because he found this person raping his mother is no different than the man who kills another for the sake of killing...well...my opinions of this "thinking" aside, this person will view ANY weapon as a morally disgusting -idea-, let alone as a real physical object.

Thirdly, you have the camp of "It's dishonorable or too easy to use a gun!" .....This group in my experience contains the masses who may have watched too much anime and lord of the rings, and somehow attach "Honor" to the idea of people trying to hack each other apart like animals, which is simultaneously something missing when the parties are shooting at each other. These people may also be ignorant of the realities of fighting with a sword, polearm, other melee weapon, a firearm, unarmed, or in my experience...all of the above.

You have the group that projects themselves, for example, if you have ever heard the words "People shouldn't have guns. They'll get angry and shoot someone." ...well...I have five bucks towards what most of them are REALLY saying is "-I- have zero self control, and if I got mad I would physically attack someone, and I can't be unusual or weird...I HAVE to be normal! Thus, everyone else would have the same reaction as me!"

You have those who actively fear their neighbors. You have statists, who have their own interests in making sure that the peasantry cannot one day get angry and decide to knock them off their throne. You have people who cannot function without the status-quo being maintained and want to avoid the previous scenario as a result.

....I could go on and on.

Oh, but I will finish with this:

I wonder how many advocates of gun control don't think twice about driving drunk or stoned or buy drugs from Mexico.

How about politicians that advocate gun control and also carry concealed? For me, but not for thee...

ifStatement wrote:

Melissia wrote:Once they pass and you can hit their supply lines? Plenty!

Okay? So knowing the civilians in a country carry arms the invaders are just going to leave a ton of vunerable troops around them. No if the civilians haven't already been massacred because of the threat they pose they will be well held down.

Seriously I understood the idea of allowing gun ownership due to the rights of the people to tyake against an oppresive government. But the idea that it 's in place to aid in the event of an invasion is completely absurd.

Ummm, Afganastan?

Relapse wrote:

ifStatement wrote:

Melissia wrote:Once they pass and you can hit their supply lines? Plenty!

Okay? So knowing the civilians in a country carry arms the invaders are just going to leave a ton of vunerable troops around them. No if the civilians haven't already been massacred because of the threat they pose they will be well held down.

Seriously I understood the idea of allowing gun ownership due to the rights of the people to tyake against an oppresive government. But the idea that it 's in place to aid in the event of an invasion is completely absurd.

Ummm, Afganastan?

Is Afganistan invading the united states?

ifStatement wrote:Is Afganistan invading the united states?

Not anymore, thanks to the Bush Doctrine!

Take that, Commies!

ifStatement wrote:

Relapse wrote:

ifStatement wrote:

Melissia wrote:Once they pass and you can hit their supply lines? Plenty!

Okay? So knowing the civilians in a country carry arms the invaders are just going to leave a ton of vunerable troops around them. No if the civilians haven't already been massacred because of the threat they pose they will be well held down.

Seriously I understood the idea of allowing gun ownership due to the rights of the people to tyake against an oppresive government. But the idea that it 's in place to aid in the event of an invasion is completely absurd.

Ummm, Afganastan?

Is Afganistan invading the united states?

You aren't much up on current events. Allow me to refresh you. Afganastan has a largely armed population, they have been invaded by Russia, and got the Russians out. More recently they have had US and other countries invade because of 9/11.
A large part of the population of the US is tired of the drain in money and lives because of the armed resistance and we are leaving,
much like Britain left the Colonies during the Revolution.
This is made possible in large part, thanks to an armed populace.

Relapse wrote:@Sebster,

I refer you to the links I posted earlier comparing gun deaths to deaths caused by drunk driving and a linkmfrom the CDC stating that there are over 75,000deaths yearly that are alcohol caused.

If you look, you will see the drunk drivers are running kneck and kneck with guns for killing people.
Alcohol caused 75,000 deaths in 2001 due to various reasons.

As I said earlier, if guns caused even half that many deaths, the news would be even more up in arms than it now.

Except, as I already pointed out, that's bs. The news will show every violent death, whether it's from a gun or in a car crash. I mean, seriously, just watch the news.

At the same time you get no shortage of stories on alcohol abuse, especially when it comes to the dangers young people expose themselves to from drinking too much.

People like you who don't think twice about such ads would be having fits if gun ads were as prolific on TV.

People like me? What do you know about me, or my stance on guns or drinking? Don't just make things up so you can pidgeon hole me away to protect your little theory.

Just in case you're actually trying to learn something here and not just pick a fight with whoever thinks your theory is contrived at best, I have no problem with advertising guns on TV. None. It's a legal product with a decent purpose. I'm not sure it'd be a sensible idea, given it's only an occasional purchase and typically made by an informed consumer, but that'd be up for the marketing division of gun stores to decide.

Alcohol is the same, it's a legal product with decent purpose, so if they want to put ads on the telly then let them.

For both products there should be some level of community oversight to make sure any information presented is truthful, and they should be appropriate. So no ads implying people under the legal age were drinking, and no ads involving vehicles, and similarly no ads on telly about guns should give misleading figures on, like, home invasions.

And at the same time government should endeavour to make people aware of the dangers of drink driving, and the needs of gun safety.

I just want to thak those of you coming down on guns while ignoring the fact that far greater numbers of people are killed by alcohol.
You're proving my point beautifully.

No-one is ignoring it. We're just looking a

Your point is not being proved because it is a shambles.

Relapse wrote:

ifStatement wrote:

Relapse wrote:

ifStatement wrote:

Melissia wrote:Once they pass and you can hit their supply lines? Plenty!

Okay? So knowing the civilians in a country carry arms the invaders are just going to leave a ton of vunerable troops around them. No if the civilians haven't already been massacred because of the threat they pose they will be well held down.

Seriously I understood the idea of allowing gun ownership due to the rights of the people to tyake against an oppresive government. But the idea that it 's in place to aid in the event of an invasion is completely absurd.

Ummm, Afganastan?

Is Afganistan invading the united states?

You aren't much up on current events. Allow me to refresh you. Afganastan has a largely armed population, they have been invaded by Russia, and got the Russians out. More recently they have had US and other countries invade because of 9/11. .

The Mujahideen aren't exactly civilians squire.

@Sebster,

I have a very good veiw on your stance with guns from past posts you've made.
You call alcohol a legal product with a decent purpose, yet it kills more than 5 times the number of people yearly that guns do.

As far as the news goes, I don't recall seeing the stats I've provided put forward like gun violence stats.
I don't see mayors of major cities going on the news with lawsuits against distillers and brewers the way I've seen them go after gun makers.
I don't recall a million mom march against alcohol being covered on the news.

I could go on, but you just prove my point with your comments. People focus on guns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@IfStatement,

They pretty much were back before all the invasions.

Relapse wrote:You aren't much up on current events. Allow me to refresh you. Afganastan has a largely armed population, they have been invaded by Russia, and got the Russians out. More recently they have had US and other countries invade because of 9/11.
A large part of the population of the US is tired of the drain in money and lives because of the armed resistance and we are leaving,
much like Britain left the Colonies during the Revolution.
This is made possible in large part, thanks to an armed populace.

I think you need to read a lot more on the nature of both the Soviet and US operations in Afghanistan. At least enough so that you actually learn how to spell Afghanistan.

Seriously, the war isn't being won by farmers with AK-47s. Most of the heavy soviet defeats were delivered by infantry borne anti-tank and anti-air weapons, many of which were delivered by the US. Similarly, most of the kills inflicted against the US troops are coming from IEDs and RPGs, all of which are being supplied from outside sources.

The idea of local patriots battling invading forces with small arms is a complete myth, it ignores the reality of how warfare works today. Outside of very localised, small scale ambush operations you simply aren't going to kill that many people with small arms, and in the modern age if you're capable of deploying such an ambush you're simply better off using an IED. As such, it makes no sense to argue small arms are essential to needs of the populace to defend itself from invasion, but at the same time deny heavy machine guns and anti-tank and anti-air weapons.

I'll repeat my point from earlier, an effective resistance requires an organisation structure where individual cells can support and supplement each other, while maintaining independence that if one is compromised the others are not. If you can establish such an organisation, then you can easily access all the small arms you'll ever need, as well as some more meaningful heavy weapons.

Simply thinking you can buy a rifle and that's that, you're as capable as any revolutionary, is playing a fantasy game.

Relapse wrote:@IfStatement,

They pretty much were back before all the invasions.

No. It was a country run by territorial warlords before all the invasions. It wasn't a bunch of people who have 9-5 jobs and have firearms they bought from wallmart in their bedside cabinets.

Relapse wrote:
If you look, you will see the drunk drivers are running kneck and kneck with guns for killing people.

Illicitly. The statistics you provided indicate that guns are involved in more illicit deaths than alcohol.

Relapse wrote:
Alcohol caused 75,000 deaths in 2001 due to various reasons.
As I said earlier, if guns caused even half that many deaths, the news would be even more up in arms than it now.

In 2007 there were 31,224 gun related deaths in the US

Not quite half, but closer than you seem to believe.

Relapse wrote:
However, the truth is we get saturated with ads on the fine fun there is to be had from drinking.

I don't see why that's an issue. Automotive accidents kill more perople than guns, but fewer than booze, but car commercials are jut as prevalent as alcohol adds, and cars don't have warning labels.

Cars aren't designed to kill, booze isn't designed to kill, guns are. Its not quite that simple, but that's the thrust of it.

No revolutionary ever started out as a full blown killer. They had to start somewhere. French and Norwegian resistance?
As far as spelling goes, whatever, the point is made.

But then again driving while drunk is illeagal, in the pro-guns argument owning a firearm is not illeagal. Maybe if there was a pro-drunk driving advocate you could complain. I most definately would rather be killed in a car accident then shot in a local convienient store by a crook who had a readily available source for finding a weapon. Completely do away with weapons, people are not morally stable enough to have such power.

@Dogma,

I'm talking of cars driven by impaired drivers, not cars being driven by sober people. The fact that booze isn't meant to kill doesn't matter to the people and families of those that have died because of it.
Straight up, alcohol is a poison that causes death on a greater scale than guns, yet people get more upset over gun deaths.

If you were approaching this argument from the standpoint of: alcohol is a bigger killer than guns therefore why isn't there a similar amount of debate over it. You might get a lot further.

Arguing that it is the worse of two evils isn't going to get you anywhere.

Relapse wrote:@Sebster,

I have a very good veiw on your stance with guns from past posts you've made.

Then you will have noticed that time and again I've made the point that further laws on gun control in the US are unlikely to achieve anything but jerk around honest gun owners. You will have noticed that I have said I've gone shooting myself and had a great time and see nothing wrong with either target shooting or hunting as a hobby.

I'm simply opposed to the nonsense arguments.

You call alcohol a legal product with a decent purpose, yet it kills more than 5 times the number of people yearly that guns do.

Yes, I do call it that. Because it is a legal product, and it has a decent purpose. You can't argue this, because it simply is legal, and it simply is used daily by millions of people, who enjoy it's benefits.

Instead you throw in a non-sequitur about deaths, as if the number of death caused (and your figure is about double what most studies put it at) stops a thing being legal, or stops it having a decent purpose.

Because those deaths come from misuse of the product, and in ignoring that you're doing exactly what so many people do when it comes to guns, hyper-focus on the misuse and completely ignore the majority of reasonable, beneficial use.

As far as the news goes, I don't recall seeing the stats I've provided put forward like gun violence stats.

I haven't seen stats for much of anything on the news, because the news typically hides away from stats. If you really study the news, you start noticing what you're seeing is all these odd, unrelated little anecdotes of misery from the days events, a car crash late last night, then a dude arrested in a drugs bust, then an assault from an unknown attacker, and then the day's sport.

I don't see mayors of major cities going on the news with lawsuits against distillers and brewers the way I've seen them go after gun makers.

Probably because you don't read enough.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-05-13-alcopops-usat_x.htm

I could go on, but you just prove my point with your comments. People focus on guns.

You started a thread on guns. We talk about that. And that's evidence of us focusing on guns? If we came into your gun thread and talked about horticulture would you consider your point disproved?

Relapse wrote:
I'm talking of cars driven by impaired drivers, not cars being driven by sober people.

Well, yeah, illicit deaths due to alcohol. There are non-DUI illicit deaths due to alcohol, but they're related to over-service, and those only apply in some states, and generally not to package dealers.

Relapse wrote:
The fact that booze isn't meant to kill doesn't matter to the people and families of those that have died because of it.

Sure, but it does matter to everyone else.

The thing I always tell people is that you should never expect a random Joe to care about your loved one just because you loved said loved one.

My old man was a hospital chaplain for a few years (Worst job ever, if he is anything to go by.) but he describes it as "Professional, random, concerned person."

Relapse wrote:
Straight up, alcohol is a poison that causes death on a greater scale than guns, yet people get more upset over gun deaths.

Again, alcohol isn't designed to kill. It may kill more people than guns do, but its much harder to kill someone else with booze.

Relapse wrote:No revolutionary ever started out as a full blown killer. They had to start somewhere. French and Norwegian resistance?

That's incoherent, and addresses none of the issues I raised with your position.

I'll repeat it again, what is needed to undertake an effective resistance is not dependant on small arms, and if you have the other capabilities, then getting your hands on small arms is very, very easy.

As such, your argument that a country needs small arms in order to defend itself from foreign invaders is simply wrong.

Please read that, think about it, and give a response that means something.

As far as spelling goes, whatever, the point is made.

As much as I don't like calling people up on their spelling, I like people dismissing others as naive when they themselves are so poorly informed on a subject they can't even spell the nation' name correctly.

@Sebster

CDC stats, not mine

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5337a2.htm#tab

As you see the number is where I said it was. Over75,000

Relapse wrote:@Dogma,

I'm talking of cars driven by impaired drivers, not cars being driven by sober people. The fact that booze isn't meant to kill doesn't matter to the people and families of those that have died because of it.
Straight up, alcohol is a poison that causes death on a greater scale than guns, yet people get more upset over gun deaths.

If you remove liver related deaths and similar, and focus purely at drink driving then your argument falls over, because drink driving kills about 20,000 people a year, whereas firearms kill about 30,000.

And meanwhile, I'm having a really hard time finding anyone on the planet who defends drink driving.

Yet a lot of people that come out against drunk driving drive while impaired.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

Relapse wrote:@Dogma,

I'm talking of cars driven by impaired drivers, not cars being driven by sober people. The fact that booze isn't meant to kill doesn't matter to the people and families of those that have died because of it.
Straight up, alcohol is a poison that causes death on a greater scale than guns, yet people get more upset over gun deaths.

If you remove liver related deaths and similar, and focus purely at drink driving then your argument falls over, because drink driving kills about 20,000 people a year, whereas firearms kill about 30,000.

And meanwhile, I'm having a really hard time finding anyone on the planet who defends drink driving.

I believe you mean drunk driving, not drink driving. If you wish to talk intellegently about something, please learn how to spell it....now where did I just read that?

Relapse wrote:I believe you mean drunk driving, not drink driving. If you wish to talk intellegently about something, please learn how to spell it....now where did I just read that?

It is drink driving dude. I'd bail out if I were you these two (sebster, dogma) seem to like arguing with you.

ifStatement wrote:

Relapse wrote:I believe you mean drunk driving, not drink driving. If you wish to talk intellegently about something, please learn how to spell it....now where did I just read that?

It is drink driving dude. I'd bail out if I were you these two (sebster, dogma) seem to like arguing with you.

It must be a way of saying it over there because here it's called drunk driving.

Relapse wrote:

ifStatement wrote:

Relapse wrote:I believe you mean drunk driving, not drink driving. If you wish to talk intellegently about something, please learn how to spell it....now where did I just read that?

It is drink driving dude. I'd bail out if I were you these two (sebster, dogma) seem to like arguing with you.

It must be a way of saying it over there, then because here, it's called drunk driving.

Could be.

Either way I'd leave these two. I've read a few of their posts here. They are like a pair of vultures. They circle the off topic forum waiting for someones argument to falter, then they dive in and rip them to pieces.

Thanks for the heads up. I respect a lot of what they have to say, but facts are, more people die from alcohol than guns, yet there seems to be more of a firestorm over gun deaths than alcohol related deaths.


If I didn't have the CDC stats to look at, I would have doubted my own view.

Relapse wrote:@Sebster

CDC stats, not mine

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5337a2.htm#tab

Are you really, honest and truly, going to claim a life lost to liver damage, so a guy who's in his 40s at the earliest, and more like 60 or 70, is the same as a firearm death that is overwhelmingly more common among the young?

And you've stopped trying to respond to most of my arguments against various parts of your position. Is that it, just going to ignore the problems with your argument, so you can keep believing whatever you want to believe.

Relapse wrote:Thanks for the heads up. I respect a lot of what they have to say, but facts are, more people die from alcohol than guns, yet there seems to be more of a firestorm over gun deaths than alcohol related deaths.


If I didn't have the CDC stats to look at, I would have doubted my own view.

Yeh I'm just saying some of these bitter internet dwellers aren't worth arguing with.

In any case like I said earlier. If you were approaching this argument from the standpoint of: alcohol is a bigger killer than guns therefore why isn't there a similar amount of debate over it. You might get a lot further. Rather than arguing that drink is the worse of the two evils.

Relapse wrote:I believe you mean drunk driving, not drink driving. If you wish to talk intellegently about something, please learn how to spell it....now where did I just read that?

There was deliberate shift in terminology made a couple of decades ago, to emphasise that any amount of alcohol is dangerous when driving. So it went from 'don't drunk drive' to 'don't drink then drive'. It's all part of the progression from .15 to .08 to .05. I don't believe it's a difference between countries, though I could be wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ifStatement wrote:Either way I'd leave these two. I've read a few of their posts here. They are like a pair of vultures. They circle the off topic forum waiting for someones argument to falter, then they dive in and rip them to pieces.

If someone is posting nonsense, and someone else corrects it, then isn't that a good thing? Why would you warn someone away from getting into a debate? To protect them from the horrors having a foolish argument corrected?

sebster wrote:

Relapse wrote:@Sebster

CDC stats, not mine

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5337a2.htm#tab

Are you really, honest and truly, going to claim a life lost to liver damage, so a guy who's in his 40s at the earliest, and more like 60 or 70, is the same as a firearm death that is overwhelmingly more common among the young?

And you've stopped trying to respond to most of my arguments against various parts of your position. Is that it, just going to ignore the problems with your argument, so you can keep believing whatever you want to believe.

It's late and I'm getting ready to go to bed. I have niether time nor inclination now to pursue every minor point you are bringing up. If you wish to carry this discussion tomorrow, I'll be glad to oblige.
If that guy in his upper years you so cavalierly give up to alcohol related death were killed by a gun, would you truly not say guns were bad
because the guy was old?

You just make my point stronger with each post like that you make.
People make more noise about gun deaths than alcohol deaths.
Case closed

sebster wrote:

ifStatement wrote:Either way I'd leave these two. I've read a few of their posts here. They are like a pair of vultures. They circle the off topic forum waiting for someones argument to falter, then they dive in and rip them to pieces.

If someone is posting nonsense, and someone else corrects it, then isn't that a good thing? Why would you warn someone away from getting into a debate? To protect them from the horrors having a foolish argument corrected?

No, to limit the amount of time they spend on a pointless activity. It's pretty clear that you do this internet argument gak for a sport.

Relapse wrote:It's late and I'm getting ready to go to bed. I have niether time nor inclination now to pursue every minor point you are bringing up. If you wish to carry this discussion tomorrow, I'll be glad to oblige.
If that guy in his upper years you so cavalierly give up to alcohol related death were killed by a gun, would you truly not say guns were bad
because the guy was old?

First up, I don't think guns are bad. I've explained this you several times, please stop ignoring it. The issue I have with you is that your claim that guns are picked on while the issues of alcohol are just ignored is completely wrong.

Second of all, yes, a person who dies at 70 is less tragic than a person that dies at 20, regardless of the cause. This is just common fething sense.

You just make my point stronger with each post like that you make.
People make more noise about gun deaths than alcohol deaths.
Case closed

You started on guns. Then when people talk about guns you claim victory because people are talking about guns. That's so ridiculous I actually kind of like it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ifStatement wrote:No, to limit the amount of time they spend on a pointless activity. It's pretty clear that you do this internet argument gak for a sport.

No, I don't. I do it because I happen to think it is a good thing when people stop believing stupid things.

Sure, I'm disappointed at the number of people who continue believing nonsense after it's been demonstrated that it's wrong (either because their ego demands they can't admit to being wrong, or because they believe the nonsense because it makes them feel better and it being nonsense doesn't change how it makes them feel about themselves), but all you can do is keep on making the point.

sebster wrote:

ifStatement wrote:No, to limit the amount of time they spend on a pointless activity. It's pretty clear that you do this internet argument gak for a sport.

No, I don't. I do it because I happen to think it is a good thing when people stop believing stupid things.

Sure, I'm disappointed at the number of people who continue believing nonsense after it's been demonstrated that it's wrong (either because their ego demands they can't admit to being wrong, or because they believe the nonsense because it makes them feel better and it being nonsense doesn't change how it makes them feel about themselves), but all you can do is keep on making the point.

lol

The sheer arrogance of your statement aside. If your aim is seriously to enlighten others towards your path of superior knowledge you may want to consider how some of the condescending language you use may be counter productive to your aim. Most people turn the learning part of their mind off when the person they are speaking to is being so obnoxious.

What about percentages?

How much guns/ammunition is sold in the country

vs.

How much alcohol is sold/consumed in the country.

I wonder what the deaths per $ ratio would be

Freakonomics people?

ifStatement wrote:
lol

The sheer arrogance of your statement aside. If your aim is seriously to enlighten others towards your path of superior knowledge you may want to consider how some of the condescending language you use may be counter productive to your aim. Most people turn the learning part of their mind off when the person they are speaking to is being so obnoxious.

You said something after you posted that XKCD comic?

dogma wrote:

ifStatement wrote:
lol

The sheer arrogance of your statement aside. If your aim is seriously to enlighten others towards your path of superior knowledge you may want to consider how some of the condescending language you use may be counter productive to your aim. Most people turn the learning part of their mind off when the person they are speaking to is being so obnoxious.

You said something after you posted that XKCD comic?

I did. I think your effort to dis-merit it on the basis of it being such is out-weighed by the fact that that particular cartoon is a rather apt and amusing caricature of yourself and sebster. It's a favourite of mine as I see quite a lot of people who fit the same image in the comments sections on various sites I look at.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you are looking for a more intellectual reference I would choose the idiom: you have been weighed on the scales and found wanting. I would say it is fair to draw the conclusion, that a man who seeks outs fallacy on the off topic forum of a war gaming massage board in order to rebut and disqualify it does so in order to rebuild the self esteem which for whatever reason is not being gained in other areas of your life.

ifStatement wrote:
I did. I think your effort to dis-merit it on the basis of it being such is out-weighed by the fact that that particular cartoon is a rather apt and amusing caricature of yourself and sebster. It's a favourite of mine as I see quite a lot of people who fit the same image in the comments sections on various sites I look at.

So, when you engage in multiple posts in criticism of those that sebster, and myself, have made you are clearly not concerned with a person being "wrong", on the internet?

ifStatement wrote:
If you are looking for a more intellectual reference I would choose the idiom: you have been weighed on the scales and found wanting.

Indeed.

ifStatement wrote:I would say it is fair to draw the conclusion, that a man who seeks outs fallacy on the off topic forum of a war gaming massage board in order to rebut and disqualify it does so in order to rebuild the self esteem which for whatever reason is not being gained in other areas of your life.

So, then, why are you here?

dogma wrote:

ifStatement wrote:
I did. I think your effort to dis-merit it on the basis of it being such is out-weighed by the fact that that particular cartoon is a rather apt and amusing caricature of yourself and sebster. It's a favourite of mine as I see quite a lot of people who fit the same image in the comments sections on various sites I look at.

So, when you engage in multiple posts in criticism of those that sebster, and myself, have made you are clearly not concerned with a person being "wrong", on the internet?

ifStatement wrote:
If you are looking for a more intellectual reference I would choose the idiom: you have been weighed on the scales and found wanting.

Indeed.

ifStatement wrote:I would say it is fair to draw the conclusion, that a man who seeks outs fallacy on the off topic forum of a war gaming massage board in order to rebut and disqualify it does so in order to rebuild the self esteem which for whatever reason is not being gained in other areas of your life.

So, then, why are you here?

A taste of your own medicine is your just deserts. Sorry to be so sharp old boy, but on the evidence I have my earlier conclusion remains the most logical inference.

ifStatement wrote:
A taste of your own medicine is your just deserts. Sorry to be so sharp old boy, but on the evidence I have my earlier conclusion remains the most logical inference.

What medicine?

I don't go around trying to claim other people ignore more important, or tempting, matters when they respond to me, or when they make any particular statement.

Assuming you're at GMT (based on flag) you're either unemployed, preparing for work, work from home, on holiday, or off for the day.

Should I assume the worst of you?

Nice deductions Sherlock. But lets be honest, the thing it proves most is you don't know much about me at all. Certainly not enough to make your suggested implication. Whereas I've seen your campaign against off topic fallacy with my own eyes.

Anyway, can't hang around. Off to work.

ifStatement wrote:Nice deductions Sherlock. But lets be honest, the thing it proves most is you don't know much about me at all. Certainly not enough to make your suggested implication. Whereas I've seen your campaign against off topic fallacy with my own eyes.

It proves I know as much about you, as you know about me.

ifStatement wrote:lol

The sheer arrogance of your statement aside. If your aim is seriously to enlighten others towards your path of superior knowledge you may want to consider how some of the condescending language you use may be counter productive to your aim. Most people turn the learning part of their mind off when the person they are speaking to is being so obnoxious.

If I'd come in here just presuming that I know better than someone else, then I could see the charge of arrogance sticking. But my belief that I know more about this subject, and have a more sound argument, is drawn from reading the thread.

Sometimes some people know more about a thing than someone else. Seriously, it really happens. When it does then it does no-one any favours to pretend that isn't true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ifStatement wrote:If you are looking for a more intellectual reference I would choose the idiom: you have been weighed on the scales and found wanting. I would say it is fair to draw the conclusion, that a man who seeks outs fallacy on the off topic forum of a war gaming massage board in order to rebut and disqualify it does so in order to rebuild the self esteem which for whatever reason is not being gained in other areas of your life.

This is a thing you've made up inside your own head.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ifStatement wrote:A taste of your own medicine is your just deserts. Sorry to be so sharp old boy, but on the evidence I have my earlier conclusion remains the most logical inference.

If that's your aim I really, really recommend you get a lot better at this. I mean, if you really wanted to give us what-for or whatever, then this thing you've done here where you've just repeated over and over again 'you're rude and shouldn't tell other people they're wrong when they're wrong' is basically just silly. The best way to do give either dogma or myself a taste of this horrible, horrible thing we apparently do to other people would be to find an argument one of us has made that's wrong, then disprove it.

The trick is, of course, and the place where you silly little crusade will be found wanting, is that I've been shown to be wrong on this forum on quite a few occasions, and each time I've withdrawn my position, and thanked the person for correcting me. Because I'm really, really not here to just tell other people off. If you'd read more carefully you'd have seen that.

Wow, well thanks for your invitation but I really don't intend on making a habit of this. Far from wanting to start a crusade against the two of you and find something wrong you've said, some people have better things to do. Sorry I can't help you feel better about yourself.

ifStatement wrote:Wow, well thanks for your invitation but I really don't intend on making a habit of this. Far from wanting to start a crusade against the two of you and find something wrong you've said, some people have better things to do. Sorry I can't help you feel better about yourself.

So, this whole line of conversation, mentioning two posters by name, isn't a crusade?

I can only imagine one other thing that it might be, and that one other thing isn't something you want to be labeled as.

ifStatement wrote:Wow, well thanks for your invitation but I really don't intend on making a habit of this. Far from wanting to start a crusade against the two of you and find something wrong you've said, some people have better things to do.

So you don't care to actually do what you said you came in to this thread to do, nor do you care to find out that I'm nothing like whatever image you'd invented in your head.

Way to do... whatever it is you did here.

Sorry I can't help you feel better about yourself.

I feel just fine. What is this thing you've made up in your head about me?

Like I said I have better things to do.

Take a look at yourselves. Two people who choose a message board about war-gaming to spend a significant amount of their lives obnoxiously stamping their intellect on the off-topic section and barely ever contributing to the other forums which make up the main reason for this site. What conclusions would you draw?

Label me what you want. I don't care. I'm fairly comfortable with who I am. I aint wanting. I don't get worked up about people making judgements about me when I know they aren't true, just like everybody else.

sebster wrote:

ifStatement wrote:Wow, well thanks for your invitation but I really don't intend on making a habit of this. Far from wanting to start a crusade against the two of you and find something wrong you've said, some people have better things to do.

So you don't care to actually do what you said you came in to this thread to do, nor do you care to find out that I'm nothing like whatever image you'd invented in your head.

I didn't come into this thread for your merry self actually as much as you would have liked that. I posted on it before you did in fact.

ifStatement wrote:Like I said I have better things to do.

Apparently, you don't.

ifStatement wrote:What conclusions would you draw?

None, particularly if I had only been around the board in question for 3-4 months while at least one of the people I was attempting to lampoon had been here for 4 years.

Plus: However long under prior iterations of Dakka.

Oh seriously, I do. When you were asking me to crusade against you I thought you meant like almost everyday. I'm afraid I can't come on here and argue that often.

But I can spare a few minutes here and there this morning for you. Don't you worry yourself about that.

dogma wrote:

ifStatement wrote:What conclusions would you draw?

None.

Well that's where you and me differ old boy.

ifStatement wrote:Oh seriously, I do. When you were asking me to crusade against you I thought you meant like almost everyday. I'm afraid I can't come on here and argue that often.

But I can spare a few minutes here and there this morning for you. Don't you worry yourself about that.

I never asked you to crusade against me, I wondered as to whether or not you were engaged in a crusade, given that you seem so intent upon targeting myself and sebster.

But, if you can "spare" a moment, might not we have the same ability?

Or are you just pretending?

I'm sure you'll get to see just how much time I spend on here if that concerns you so much. Like I said, I don't intend on making a habit of this. I don't find fulfilment in arguing with people I don't know.

Gents, can you either take it to PM or start a new thread where you can bicker in peace instead of de-railing this thread further.

filbert wrote:Gents, can you either take it to PM or start a new thread where you can bicker in peace instead of de-railing this thread further.

Indeed.

Thanks

Fo Shaw.

I'll see if we can get back on track with my twopenneth.

I have no objection to people owning guns so long as they have a damn good demonstrable reason for owning one.

The fact that someone else might have a gun and I might need to defend myself against them; is NOT a good reason; it is a good reason for not allowing the other person to have a gun in the first place.

Guns are power tools; they aren't things you just stick in your pocket on the off chance you might need it. They are things you take out to serve a specific purpose.
Hand guns and fully automatic weapons have only one purpose and that is an illegal and imoral purpose.

The comparison that the OP makes is fatuous as a car is a tool for another job.

Joey wrote:Most Europeans want to live in a society without guns. Americans do not understand this.
Similarly I don't want to live in a society that allows the populace to own firearms.

When the EU collapses you may want to change your tune. WWMMD!*


*What would Mad Max do?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RatBot wrote:

Most of it is complete ignorance over US gun laws. People elsewhere in the world are told Americans can buy whatever ridiculous ordinance they want, with no effective checks and they believe it. They don't know the story of gun legislation, and how full of fail most of those efforts have been, nor do they know about the issues with poor enforcement of existing laws. They just think you guys all be crazy.

Anecdotal evidence supporting this: When I was studying in Japan, some of the Japanese students asked some of the American students (I was not part of this discussion) if they had ever been in a gunfight, as if this were an everyday occurrence for most Americans.

In these circumstances, its best just to say "of course!" and point to some minor scar. Tell them you got it in 'Nam.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sturmtruppen wrote:I live in the UK. If someone breaks into my home, I won't need a gun because the person breaking in is very unlikely to have one either. Such is the effect of banning guns. Who'd have thought?

What if there are three of them, and they've come to rape you?

There's no doubt about it, for most men and probably quite a few women, walking around with a gun in your hand feels great / cool. I'd love to run a range tooled up blasting away, however I don't feel that letting people have access to such weapons is a good idea.

If you are a hunter fine, you can have a hunting rifle. If you are a sportsman, fine, but they are locked up at a secure location. The types of weapons and amounts of weapons that an American can have access to is just wrong.

The whole defending yourselves against criminals is just one big vicious circle. Defending yourself against your own government is just paranoia. When your Constitution was written, I can't imagine that the founding fathers could ever envisage the changes to society that were to come. They were people of their time and could not of foreseen how much society would of changed. In their time invasion was a big possibility still and you still had a wild frontier. In someways your Constitution reminds me of the Koran. The content of it is treated as being set in stone, which is how you treat the Constitution.

If you were able to take away all guns from every criminal, what reason would be left, that it's written in the Constitution?

sebster wrote:Yes, I do call it that. Because it is a legal product, and it has a decent purpose. You can't argue this, because it simply is legal, and it simply is used daily by millions of people, who enjoy it's benefits.

Somehow, this statement seems to seethe with wrongness, but at seven in the morning I'm having a hard time putting my finger on it.

But if I had to guess, my objections are as follows:

1: It being legal does not make it morally upstanding.
2: It being popular does not make it have a "decent purpose".

Wolfstan wrote:There's no doubt about it, for most men and probably quite a few women, walking around with a gun in your hand feels great / cool.

It feels dangerous to me, because I have a respect for the weapon. Someone who says it feels "cool" doesn't really respect the weapon enough...

Wolfstan wrote:The whole defending yourselves against criminals is just one big vicious circle.

No it isn't.

Sonophos wrote:I have no objection to people owning guns so long as they have a damn good demonstrable reason for owning one.

Self defense is the only reason anyone needs so long as they are proven to be both mentally stable and a non-criminal.

Even if the criminal doesn't have a gun, I still want one to fend them off with. Peace through superior firepower and all that. Guns allow me to stand up to a six foot something two hundred something pound criminal, shoot him three times in the chest, then bravely... run the hell away knowing that he's probably down for the count as I try to find somewhere to hide while I call the cops. Regardless of what weapon he has.

If I didn't have the equalizer of a firearm, I'd just be another victim instead. I don't want to risk that. The best way to avoid such a situation is to pay attention, and I do, but you can't ever be perfectly safe so it's still good to be prepared just in case.

Frazzled wrote:

Sturmtruppen wrote:I live in the UK. If someone breaks into my home, I won't need a gun because the person breaking in is very unlikely to have one either. Such is the effect of banning guns. Who'd have thought?

What if there are three of them, and they've come to rape you?

Kitchen knife.
Also, generally speaking, the levels of violent crime to petty crime are different in the UK and Europe to the levels in the US.
This is something people don't seem to have considered; violent crime is actually more prevalent compared to petty crime in America compared to over here, and so guns may be considered more acceptable to own because of it.
I don't think it's a good idea to judge the laws of another country by the conditions we have here, as they may not apply over there.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Kitchen knife.

They have a greater reach, a hundred pounds of muscle, and a lifetime of knifefighting on the streets over you. The kitchen knife does not equalize.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Sturmtruppen wrote:I live in the UK. If someone breaks into my home, I won't need a gun because the person breaking in is very unlikely to have one either. Such is the effect of banning guns. Who'd have thought?

What if there are three of them, and they've come to rape you?

Kitchen knife.
Also, generally speaking, the levels of violent crime to petty crime are different in the UK and Europe to the levels in the US.

How do you know? We've had recent stuides that were surprising to say the least.

People will turn to anything in times of desperation. There are numerous cases where police go knocking on someones door on a warrant. The stubborn resident fires a few rounds and a siege situation happens. Same goes for repo men, bounty hunters and anyone that has to deal with people on the street or in there homes.

Now on another point most of these crimes are illegally owned firearms so as far as the majority who abide by the law, I have no problem. The availability of firearms is however a problem.

A citizen should be allowed a firearm, but it should only be the lowest caliber and lowest firing rate. Something that does the least damage and still makes a nice bang to scare off your opponent. Even waving the thing at them would deter them.

I know before in this thread I said NOONE should own these things but at a bare minimum the firearm should be stored in a secure location with at least a lock,keypad or completely unaccessible to anyone else. Don't just hide the damn thing under your bed. Before you even gain this firearm you would have to pass a criminal/police background test, a phsycological test and a strict inspection of the weapon itself and where it is going to be stored. Then the person should be properly schooled on the safety, laws and regulations by a professional.

If you have special circumstances such as you are in the witness protection program or your job requires it you may also be eligable for a concealed weapon permit or to carry it in specific places utilising proper transportable storage. Even then if you need a specific weapon for a job it should be signed out for and brought back to a clerk or a police station who can keep tabs on them.

That is my 2 cents anyway.

Melissia wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Kitchen knife.

They have a greater reach, a hundred pounds of muscle, and a lifetime of knifefighting on the streets over you. The kitchen knife does not equalize.

Well, I can hardly pull out a handgun, as that would get me arrested and sent to jail for a long time.
That's how things are in the UK.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Sturmtruppen wrote:I live in the UK. If someone breaks into my home, I won't need a gun because the person breaking in is very unlikely to have one either. Such is the effect of banning guns. Who'd have thought?

What if there are three of them, and they've come to rape you?

Kitchen knife.
Also, generally speaking, the levels of violent crime to petty crime are different in the UK and Europe to the levels in the US.

How do you know? We've had recent stuides that were surprising to say the least.

As I understood it, that was the rationale for guns as protection in the US.
Do you have a link to said studies? They sound like interesting reading.

It feels dangerous to me, because I have a respect for the weapon. Someone who says it feels "cool" doesn't really respect the weapon enough...

Sorry, generalizing. Just trying to make the point that there is "something" about handling weapons. Call it a buzz, excitement, wow, sense of power... whatever you want to call it. I can understand why there is a fascination in weapons.

Private_Joker So you suggest the only guns civvies should be allowed to have are .17 caliber?

That kinda defeats the purpose. The gun needs to quickly disable an opponent, not just scare them-- the round is meant to take down small animals like wildcats or small fur creatures (IE for skinning and making their fur in to clothing) causing minimal damage to the creature and the fur so the fur can be sold at the highest price possible, not for disabling a human. Furthermore guns of such small caliber are hard to maintain, and foul up quickly leading to wild inaccuracy-- they have to be cleaned every ten shots basically. That's definitely not ideal and in fact is highly impractical for a self defense weapon for people who are not members of the military.

Even a .38 purse gun revolver is better than that. A full handgun would be even better-- the famous old standby of the M1911A1 for example is easy to maintain, easy to use, easy to get parts for if it's broken, has decent stopping power, is louder and so on, making it far better for a self defense weapon than the measely pistols taht use the .17 caliber "wildcatter" round.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Well, I can hardly pull out a handgun, as that would get me arrested and sent to jail for a long time.
That's how things are in the UK.

The UK kinda sucks like that. Your laws benefit criminals even more than ours, and ours has the benefit to criminals constitutionally protected...

Melissia wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Well, I can hardly pull out a handgun, as that would get me arrested and sent to jail for a long time.
That's how things are in the UK.

The UK kinda sucks like that. Your laws benefit criminals even more than ours, and ours has the benefit to criminals constitutionally protected...

Eh, yes and no. I'd say there was little need for guns in the UK, personally, but I can see why you'd want one. Ultimately, they're kind of a subjective and heated issue, I guess.
As I recall, the reason handguns are no longer allowed in UK law is because they're easily concealable. Other weapons, such as shotguns and some rifles, are allowed under very strict circumstances,
and I think they only tend to be owned by landowners and people rich enough for the license.
Frankly, given the strictness of UK gun laws, I often laugh at people who think they should be even tighter over here.

Look up rape studies Gorskar.

Melissia wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Well, I can hardly pull out a handgun, as that would get me arrested and sent to jail for a long time.
That's how things are in the UK.

The UK kinda sucks like that. Your laws benefit criminals even more than ours, and ours has the benefit to criminals constitutionally protected...

What? Has someone been linking to the Daily Mail again?
Criminal breaks into your house -> smash his face in -> win.
It's not against the law to feth up a criminal who's broken into your home.

Same goes for Australia on anal law restrictions.

@ Melissa .As to the calibre of the weapon that can be decided at a later date. Even modern 5.56mm rounds in the defence force is not going to stop your target. The idea of a home defence weapon should be focused more on detterent rather than stopping power.

Frazzled wrote:Look up rape studies Gorskar.

Hm. Well, that's dark.
I have to say, this actually makes a lot of sense. Rape is notorious for being badly handled in UK law, and these figures probably don't tell the whole story either.
Also, though the UK number does seem lower, I guess you also have to take into account how big each country is, so by proportion... hm.
I think I'll go look at something less uncomfortable, now.

Joey wrote:What? Has someone been linking to the Daily Mail again?
Criminal breaks into your house -> smash his face in -> win.
It's not against the law to feth up a criminal who's broken into your home.

From that right-wing rag the BBC.

Private_Joker wrote:The idea of a home defence weapon should be focused more on detterent rather than stopping power.

Stopping power IS a deterrent. The bigger a hole you put in them the more deterred they are.

Making the target bleed out is the only surefire way to ensure that they will be incapacitated, because even a druggie can't do anything if they've lost too much blood.

Melissia wrote:

Private_Joker wrote:The idea of a home defence weapon should be focused more on detterent rather than stopping power.

Stopping power IS a deterrent. The bigger a hole you put in them the more deterred they are.

A comment that made me chuckle so much it made the sig, as an example of proper orkish thinking at it's best.
Brilliant.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Look up rape studies Gorskar.

Hm. Well, that's dark.
I have to say, this actually makes a lot of sense. Rape is notorious for being badly handled in UK law, and these figures probably don't tell the whole story either.
Also, though the UK number does seem lower, I guess you also have to take into account how big each country is, so by proportion... hm.
I think I'll go look at something less uncomfortable, now.

Not trying to be dark or cryptic. Just can't pull at work. Recent rape studies/statistics are coming up showing far higher rates than originally thought.

Melissia wrote:

Private_Joker wrote:The idea of a home defence weapon should be focused more on detterent rather than stopping power.

Stopping power IS a deterrent. The bigger a hole you put in them the more deterred they are.

Making the target bleed out is the only surefire way to ensure that they will be incapacitated, because even a druggie can't do anything if they've lost too much blood.

Then you have problems with overpenetration. Same reason the police use smaller rounds, your ultimate goal should be to not kill. This is why tazer technology is also more advised.

Private_Joker wrote:Then you have problems with overpenetration.

False. A bigger round does not necessarily mean a better penetrating round.

A .357 magnum revolver, for example, has bigger ammunition than an M16, but the M16 has more problems with overpenetrating.

Frazzled wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Look up rape studies Gorskar.

Hm. Well, that's dark.
I have to say, this actually makes a lot of sense. Rape is notorious for being badly handled in UK law, and these figures probably don't tell the whole story either.
Also, though the UK number does seem lower, I guess you also have to take into account how big each country is, so by proportion... hm.
I think I'll go look at something less uncomfortable, now.

Not trying to be dark or cryptic. Just can't pull at work. Recent rape studies/statistics are coming up showing far higher rates than originally thought.

Don't worry about it, I didn't think you were trying to be either.
And they're probably even higher than that, considering how many cases don't get reported, too.

biccat wrote:

Joey wrote:What? Has someone been linking to the Daily Mail again?
Criminal breaks into your house -> smash his face in -> win.
It's not against the law to feth up a criminal who's broken into your home.

From that right-wing rag the BBC.

That was a huge story at the time. Long story short, the burgler was running away and the farmer shot him in the back.
Also that claim was dropped after it was found to be bs.
So the notion that UK law is "on the side of the criminal" is a grotesque untruth, even worse from a nation as emotionally under-developed as the USA.

With all the things out there that cause so much death and mahem, why is it that guns seem to get such a, in my mind anyway, disproportionate amount of blame? I keep seeing references to Columbine and all of the students killed there along with well publicized yearly memorials, gun crimes, ect., and it seems that the news does not lose step talking about how more gun control should be put in place.

Because we live in a civilized society with the rule of law and guns have no purpose other than killing living things. It's logical that they will stand in low regard as they exist in direct contrast to the concept of the sanctity or importance of life.

In an ideal society guns wouldn't exist because they are tools for murder and nothing more.

Yes, it's too bad that an ideal society is impossible.

Melissia wrote:Yes, it's too bad that an ideal society is impossible.

By the definition of ideal, yes. Conceptually we should strive to be as close as possible though. The removal of guns from society is an important step to be taken in that direction, though I doubt it'll ever happen in America. The United States has far from an idyllic society and it seems pretty happy with it's weird monster-truck-rally civilization as is.

Frazzled wrote:

Sturmtruppen wrote:I live in the UK. If someone breaks into my home, I won't need a gun because the person breaking in is very unlikely to have one either. Such is the effect of banning guns. Who'd have thought?

What if there are three of them, and they've come to rape you?

You will note I also state that I own a BROADSWORD. This is perfectly adquate to wave at a number of British burglars to encourage their expeditious egress from my property.

I have done this before and had no trouble as they tend to get fething scared of the naked mental dude waving 3 feet of sharpened sprung steel.

As for getting threatened in the street this has only happened to me thrice in my life and I am still alive (as are my assailants but they were punished under the law).

Lets not go into weapons ballistics. The argument I'm trying to put out is less damage= more realistic goal for gun laws being passed.

Joey wrote:

biccat wrote:

Joey wrote:What? Has someone been linking to the Daily Mail again?
Criminal breaks into your house -> smash his face in -> win.
It's not against the law to feth up a criminal who's broken into your home.

From that right-wing rag the BBC.

That was a huge story at the time. Long story short, the burgler was running away and the farmer shot him in the back.
Also that claim was dropped after it was found to be bs.
So the notion that UK law is "on the side of the criminal" is a grotesque untruth, even worse from a nation as emotionally under-developed as the USA.

All I did was dispute your assertion that "It's not against the law to feth up a criminal who's broken into your home."

At least in one case, it is. In fact, it's manslaughter.

Also, I laughed at your trollish characterization of the United States as "emotionally under-developed." Especially hilarious coming from a Brit.

Private_Joker wrote:The argument I'm trying to put out is less damage= more realistic goal for gun laws being passed.

Why would you want to do less damage from a gun? If you're determined to harm someone, a through-and-through from a 9mm isn't going to be much of a deterrant. A gaping wound from a hollow-point .38, however, is more likely to give one pause.

Sonophos wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Sturmtruppen wrote:I live in the UK. If someone breaks into my home, I won't need a gun because the person breaking in is very unlikely to have one either. Such is the effect of banning guns. Who'd have thought?

What if there are three of them, and they've come to rape you?

You will note I also state that I own a BROADSWORD. This is perfectly adquate to wave at a number of British burglars to encourage their expeditious egress from my property.

Yeah, but how many people actually own one of those? The best most people can do is cricket bats (which, to be fair, are still pretty handy for bludgeoning people until they bleed)

Private_Joker wrote:Lets not go into weapons ballistics.

Why not? Should those ignorant of the facts be making laws?

Private_Joker wrote: The argument I'm trying to put out is less damage= more realistic goal for gun laws being passed.

On the contrary, the most realistic goal is to study what is most effective as a self defense weapon and use the results of that study to determine what should be used for self defense.

ShumaGorath wrote:Conceptually we should strive to be as close as possible though.

Looking so far ahead that you cannot see waht is right in front of you is not a healthy way to live.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Yeah, but how many people actually own one of those? The best most people can do is cricket bats (which, to be fair, are still pretty handy for bludgeoning people until they bleed)

Furthermore, effectively maintaining and wielding a broadsword requires more training and physical strength than effectively maintaining and wielding a handgun.

biccat wrote:

Joey wrote:

biccat wrote:

Joey wrote:What? Has someone been linking to the Daily Mail again?
Criminal breaks into your house -> smash his face in -> win.
It's not against the law to feth up a criminal who's broken into your home.

From that right-wing rag the BBC.

That was a huge story at the time. Long story short, the burgler was running away and the farmer shot him in the back.
Also that claim was dropped after it was found to be bs.
So the notion that UK law is "on the side of the criminal" is a grotesque untruth, even worse from a nation as emotionally under-developed as the USA.

All I did was dispute your assertion that "It's not against the law to feth up a criminal who's broken into your home."

At least in one case, it is. In fact, it's manslaughter.

Also, I laughed at your trollish characterization of the United States as "emotionally under-developed." Especially hilarious coming from a Brit.

Private_Joker wrote:The argument I'm trying to put out is less damage= more realistic goal for gun laws being passed.

Why would you want to do less damage from a gun? If you're determined to harm someone, a through-and-through from a 9mm isn't going to be much of a deterrant. A gaping wound from a hollow-point .38, however, is more likely to give one pause.

I would sooner characterize U.S. citizens as lacking empathy than I would characterize them underdeveloped. That implies linear development along a sociological pathway which is kinda weird.

Looking so far ahead that you cannot see waht is right in front of you is not a healthy way to live.

And throwing out meaningless idiosyncratic quibbles to avoid meatier arguments is not a healthy way to debate or interface with other peoples opinions.

Joey wrote: a nation as emotionally under-developed as the USA.

biccat wrote:Especially hilarious coming from a Brit.

The national identies are out, there's no turning back now! Take cover, folks.

biccat wrote:

Joey wrote:

biccat wrote:

Joey wrote:What? Has someone been linking to the Daily Mail again?
Criminal breaks into your house -> smash his face in -> win.
It's not against the law to feth up a criminal who's broken into your home.

From that right-wing rag the BBC.

That was a huge story at the time. Long story short, the burgler was running away and the farmer shot him in the back.
Also that claim was dropped after it was found to be bs.
So the notion that UK law is "on the side of the criminal" is a grotesque untruth, even worse from a nation as emotionally under-developed as the USA.

All I did was dispute your assertion that "It's not against the law to feth up a criminal who's broken into your home."

At least in one case, it is. In fact, it's manslaughter.

Also, I laughed at your trollish characterization of the United States as "emotionally under-developed." Especially hilarious coming from a Brit.

Self defence!=feel free to kill someone who's broken into your home at any point in the past. Someone who's broken into your home and is running away from you is not much of a threat. Hell, shooting someone in the back is just wrong.

ShumaGorath wrote:I would sooner characterize U.S. citizens as lacking empathy

Lacking in empathy towards criminals, sure.

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I would sooner characterize U.S. citizens as lacking empathy

Lacking in empathy towards criminals, sure.

You have a device that's specifically designed to kill another human being.
You have no moral authority whatsoever.

Joey wrote:Hell, shooting someone in the back is just wrong.

For all you know he was just running back to his car to grab his own gun.

Melissia wrote:

Joey wrote:Hell, shooting someone in the back is just wrong.

For all you know he was just running back to his car to grab his own gun.

Highly unlikely in the UK. In this case, it seemed pretty clear that the dude had decided to cut his losses, but yeah, there is the point of what constitutes self-defence to consider in these cases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I would sooner characterize U.S. citizens as lacking empathy

Lacking in empathy towards criminals, sure.

You have a device that's specifically designed to kill another human being.
You have no moral authority whatsoever.

Untrue, as that argument doesn't take into account the judgement necessary to decide when to use it.

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I would sooner characterize U.S. citizens as lacking empathy

Lacking in empathy towards criminals, sure.

Criminals, starving people, people with diseases, minorities, the poor, etc. Part of having a self motivated culture of entrepreneurial independence is an inherent lack of empathy for those in positions worse than yours. It's required for it to work at all. of course, no broadly stated "culture" or social zeitgeist is particularly descriptive of an entire nation, so there are plenty in the U.S. who would be incredibly empathetic.

It's more a weighted average.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I would sooner characterize U.S. citizens as lacking empathy

Lacking in empathy towards criminals, sure.

You have a device that's specifically designed to kill another human being.
You have no moral authority whatsoever.

She could. To use such a weapon justly requires an absolute moral authority, but as those are derived by the situation and not legal or hereditary right then it really depends on whats gone down.

Joey wrote:Self defence!=feel free to kill someone who's broken into your home at any point in the past. Someone who's broken into your home and is running away from you is not much of a threat.

They may be a threat, they may not be a threat. I'd rather let the person whose life is at stake make that determination.

Joey wrote:Hell, shooting someone in the back is just wrong.

You're taking the position that shooting someone at all is wrong, is shooting them in the back "more wrong"?

Joey wrote:

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I would sooner characterize U.S. citizens as lacking empathy

Lacking in empathy towards criminals, sure.

You have a device that's specifically designed to kill another human being.
You have no moral authority whatsoever.

I don't need moral authority. With a gun, I have actual authority.

You're arguing against depriving people of the right to defend themselves against violent criminals. I'm not sure you should be claiming the moral high ground.

Why do people always bring up rape in these threads?

ShumaGorath wrote:Criminals, starving people, people with diseases, minorities, the poor, etc.

You're thinking of US conservatives and assuming they represent the entirety of the population. This is inaccurate.

There's plenty of individuals pushing to expand food stamps (IE government compensation to help those whom are going hungry), unemployment compensation, medical coverage paid for by the government, the rights of minorities, and for the poor (the poor do not have to pay income tax, for example, frequently get money back from the government instead of having to pay money to the government).

And that's just the public sector. There's plenty of private non-profit and for-profit organizations that help out all of these. They just don't get much press because it isn't as exciting as political shouting matches.

Joey wrote:You have no moral authority whatsoever.

Still have more than you, I actually care about the victims of crimes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:Why do people always bring up rape in these threads?

Because it is something that happens to people in the real world.

I'm not going to go into weapons ballistics Melissa because I'm not as booksmart on that subject. My statement is that even if you put a small hole through them its more ethical then blowing a gaping hole in there chest. The lesser damaging round is enough to deter the guy.

Say if you were charging me right now, even if I shot you through a limb, hand or so that is enough to register pain in your mind and decide should I continue and do I want another one? Once again even the military/police aim to injure not kill.

Private_Joker wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Private_Joker wrote:The idea of a home defence weapon should be focused more on detterent rather than stopping power.

Stopping power IS a deterrent. The bigger a hole you put in them the more deterred they are.

Making the target bleed out is the only surefire way to ensure that they will be incapacitated, because even a druggie can't do anything if they've lost too much blood.

Then you have problems with overpenetration. Same reason the police use smaller rounds, your ultimate goal should be to not kill. This is why tazer technology is also more advised.

Blindingly incorrect. Your ultimate goal is to stop the attacker from being a threat. I don't know what your police have, but ours (depending on jurisdiction) have anything from 9mm to 45ACP, to .223/.308 or shotguns if they have time or capacity.

Albatross wrote:Why do people always bring up rape in these threads?

It's used as an example of violent crime, and a reason for self-defence.

Melissia wrote:Yes, it's too bad that an ideal society is impossible.

To heck you say! A vote Frazzled is a vote for Utopia...Frazzled's utopia!

Private_Joker wrote:I'm not going to go into weapons ballistics Melissa is because I'm not as booksmart on that subject. My statement is that even if you put a small hole through its more ethical then blowing a gaping hole in there chest.

Why?

Self defense is ethical.

Also, I know you're not book smart on it. That is no reason to ignore the topic, it just means you need to educate yourself on the topic. Setting rules without knowing a damned thing about what you're setting rules about? THAT is unethical *eyes Washington DC*.

biccat wrote:

Joey wrote:Self defence!=feel free to kill someone who's broken into your home at any point in the past. Someone who's broken into your home and is running away from you is not much of a threat.

They may be a threat, they may not be a threat. I'd rather let the person whose life is at stake make that determination.

The jury made that decision.

biccat wrote:

Joey wrote:Hell, shooting someone in the back is just wrong.

You're taking the position that shooting someone at all is wrong, is shooting them in the back "more wrong"?

Shooting someone isn't "wrong". Shooting someone evil is probably a good thing. But shooting someone who's running away, yeah I'd say that's pretty low.

biccat wrote:

Joey wrote:

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I would sooner characterize U.S. citizens as lacking empathy

Lacking in empathy towards criminals, sure.

You have a device that's specifically designed to kill another human being.
You have no moral authority whatsoever.

I don't need moral authority. With a gun, I have actual authority.

You're arguing against depriving people of the right to defend themselves against violent criminals. I'm not sure you should be claiming the moral high ground.

Dear Americans-
Prefixing a statement with "the right to" does not make you correct.
If you want to defend yourself against a violent criminal, why don't you try working out? I have the confidence that I know I could pummel the gak out of any burgler that dared come into my house, because I'm a hard bastard. Why don't you do the same? Why do you insist on putting yourself and your loved ones at risk by having a gun?
You've inadvertantly pointed out the real issue here-you think a gun gives you authority, probably because you have a small penis. That's okay, not everyone can afford a sports car.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Sonophos wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Sturmtruppen wrote:I live in the UK. If someone breaks into my home, I won't need a gun because the person breaking in is very unlikely to have one either. Such is the effect of banning guns. Who'd have thought?

What if there are three of them, and they've come to rape you?

You will note I also state that I own a BROADSWORD. This is perfectly adquate to wave at a number of British burglars to encourage their expeditious egress from my property.

Yeah, but how many people actually own one of those? The best most people can do is cricket bats (which, to be fair, are still pretty handy for bludgeoning people until they bleed)

Fewer women even. My wife doesn't have a broadsword, but she has something far, far worse, a Kia minivan and a firm belief that curbs are merely guidelines.

Melissia wrote:

Private_Joker wrote:I'm not going to go into weapons ballistics Melissa is because I'm not as booksmart on that subject. My statement is that even if you put a small hole through its more ethical then blowing a gaping hole in there chest.

Why?

Self defense is ethical.

Also, I know you're not book smart on it. That is no reason to ignore the topic, it just means you need to educate yourself on the topic. Setting rules without knowing a damned thing about what you're setting rules about? THAT is unethical *eyes Washington DC*.

I guess his argument revolves around the idea of correct application of force. He's arguing that if crippling an assailant with a shot would stop him, then there is no need for a more lethal round, as that would be overuse of force. It's one of the issues that I understand gets brought up in gun law legislation a lot.
At least, that's how I've interpreted it. I may be wrong.

Joey wrote:

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I would sooner characterize U.S. citizens as lacking empathy

Lacking in empathy towards criminals, sure.

You have a device that's specifically designed to kill another human being.
You have no moral authority whatsoever.

You must havew a low opinion of your military and police then.

Dear Americans-
Prefixing a statement with "the right to" does not make you correct.

Dear Brit.
It does.

I don't need moral authority. With a gun, I have actual authority.

You're arguing against depriving people of the right to defend themselves against violent criminals. I'm not sure you should be claiming the moral high ground.

Actual authority is meaningless when discussing the rightness of an act. Otherwise hurricanes are justified.

You're thinking of US conservatives and assuming they represent the entirety of the population. This is inaccurate.

Not really. Americans are very inured to the plight of others and that's true of both sides of the political spectrum. We're a xenophobic and independent people.

There's plenty of individuals pushing to expand food stamps (IE government compensation to help those whom are going hungry), unemployment compensation, medical coverage paid for by the government, the rights of minorities, and for the poor (the poor do not have to pay income tax, for example, frequently get money back from the government instead of having to pay money to the government).

And just as many doing the opposite. The popularity of foreign aid and interventionism is at an all time low.

And that's just the public sector. There's plenty of private non-profit and for-profit organizations that help out all of these.

Private charity is also at an all time low, both in volume and per capita.

They just don't get much press because it isn't as exciting as political shouting matches.

They get press every five seconds, they just don't do much that's meaningful or impactful. The numbers don't lie, the average citizen of the U.S. is one of the least charitable citizens out of the whole of the western world. I'm sure it's fun to imagine that we're a great beacon of giving though. Undeserved back patting is one thing that the U.S. does better than anyone (barring south korea).

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Private_Joker wrote:I'm not going to go into weapons ballistics Melissa is because I'm not as booksmart on that subject. My statement is that even if you put a small hole through its more ethical then blowing a gaping hole in there chest.

Why?

Self defense is ethical.

Also, I know you're not book smart on it. That is no reason to ignore the topic, it just means you need to educate yourself on the topic. Setting rules without knowing a damned thing about what you're setting rules about? THAT is unethical *eyes Washington DC*.

I guess his argument revolves around the idea of correct application of force. He's arguing that if crippling an assailant with a shot would stop him, then there is no need for a more lethal round.
At least, that's how I've interpreted it. I may be wrong.

So you are saying that we should have one gun in each caliber ready and make a judgement call on which gun to use against which assailant?

Albatross wrote:Why do people always bring up rape in these threads?

Because ITS A BIG ING DEAL FOR OVER HALF THE POPULATION.

Frazzled wrote:

Joey wrote:

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I would sooner characterize U.S. citizens as lacking empathy

Lacking in empathy towards criminals, sure.

You have a device that's specifically designed to kill another human being.
You have no moral authority whatsoever.

You must havew a low opinion of your military and police then.

Again illustrating my point. Owning a lethal device that is specifically designed to be just that does not automatically deprive an individual of morality.
That all comes down to how said individual chooses to use the device, and under what circumstances they deem it acceptable to use it.

Melissia wrote:

Joey wrote:You have no moral authority whatsoever.

Still have more than you, I actually care about the victims of crimes.

The implication being that he doesn't, of course. Oh, and that not caring about 'the victims of crimes' is the only reason one might be opposed to epidemic levels of gun-ownership, too.

Albatross wrote:Why do people always bring up rape in these threads?

Because it is something that happens to people in the real world.

The implication being that I don't live there, of course. Oh, and that gun-ownership makes a country rape-free, too.

You know, you have about as much rhetorical skill as the right-wing demagogues you consistently lampoon. You might as well have just typed 'why do you hate freedom?'

Frazzled wrote:

Joey wrote:

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I would sooner characterize U.S. citizens as lacking empathy

Lacking in empathy towards criminals, sure.

You have a device that's specifically designed to kill another human being.
You have no moral authority whatsoever.

You must havew a low opinion of your military and police then.

Our police don't have guns.
Soldiers do a job, they kill people with guns using other guns to enact the will of the state.
They don't keep guns around the home on the off chance they get to kill someone. That's just weird.

ShumaGorath wrote:Not really. Americans are very inured to the plight of others and that's true of both sides of the political spectrum.

Just saying that does not make you right.

ShumaGorath wrote:They get press every five seconds

I don't think we're talking about the same country here.

Melissia wrote:

Private_Joker wrote:I'm not going to go into weapons ballistics Melissa is because I'm not as booksmart on that subject. My statement is that even if you put a small hole through its more ethical then blowing a gaping hole in there chest.

Why?

Self defense is ethical.

Also, I know you're not book smart on it. That is no reason to ignore the topic, it just means you need to educate yourself on the topic. Setting rules without knowing a damned thing about what you're setting rules about? THAT is unethical *eyes Washington DC*.

I'm not going to ignore the subject just because I'm not as sure on how much of a hole something makes. The subject still involves me, even if I'm a dim wit gun crime will still somehow effect my life so don't you think I should have a say? So nothing I have said so far made common sense?

Albatross wrote:The implication being that he doesn't, of course

As opposed to his statement that anyone who has a gun is morally bankrupt? Screw him, his opinion isn't worth listening to.

Albatross wrote:Why do people always bring up rape in these threads?

Because the members of dakka are intellectually lazy and it's easier to bring out a red herring and point at it then it is to discuss the actual implications of the handgun as an agent for social justice or debasement.

Melissia wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Private_Joker wrote:I'm not going to go into weapons ballistics Melissa is because I'm not as booksmart on that subject. My statement is that even if you put a small hole through its more ethical then blowing a gaping hole in there chest.

Why?

Self defense is ethical.

Also, I know you're not book smart on it. That is no reason to ignore the topic, it just means you need to educate yourself on the topic. Setting rules without knowing a damned thing about what you're setting rules about? THAT is unethical *eyes Washington DC*.

I guess his argument revolves around the idea of correct application of force. He's arguing that if crippling an assailant with a shot would stop him, then there is no need for a more lethal round.
At least, that's how I've interpreted it. I may be wrong.

So you are saying that we should have one gun in each caliber ready and make a judgement call on which gun to use against which assailant?

No, not really, as that sounds pretty ridiculous.
All I was doing was trying to demonstrate what I thought he was saying; i.e. that lethal force may not be necessary to stop an attacker.

Albatross wrote:
The implication being that he doesn't, of course. Oh, and that not caring about 'the victims of crimes' is the only reason one might be opposed to epidemic levels of gun-ownership, too.

Right-wingers bleating about "the victims of crime" seems to happen in the USA as much as here. Have you ever heard a politician say "Let's oppress the victims of crime"? Have you ever seen any legislation passed that victimized victims?

Melissia wrote:

Albatross wrote:The implication being that he doesn't, of course

As opposed to his statement that anyone who has a gun is morally bankrupt? Screw him, his opinion isn't worth listening to.

Hide yo wife hid you kids, cause they puttin' everyone on ignore out heah. This is a pot kettle black scenario, you're all shouting truisms at eachother.

Private_Joker wrote:So nothing I have said so far made common sense?

No, it didn't.

"Common sense" is based on the person's own psychological context. What is "common sense" to me as a chemist is not to another person who is a business major, for example.

As for me saying you shouldn't say anything-- no, I said you should educate yourself if you want to propose laws on a topic.

Joey wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Joey wrote:

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I would sooner characterize U.S. citizens as lacking empathy

Lacking in empathy towards criminals, sure.

You have a device that's specifically designed to kill another human being.
You have no moral authority whatsoever.

You must havew a low opinion of your military and police then.

Our police don't have guns.
Soldiers do a job, they kill people with guns using other guns to enact the will of the state.
They don't keep guns around the home on the off chance they get to kill someone. That's just weird.

Not entirely true. Our police don't have access to guns all the time; that has to be authorised first.
After all, you can see them armed in airports, sometimes.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:No, not really, as that sounds pretty ridiculous.

So does pretty much everything Joey is saying.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Joey wrote:

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I would sooner characterize U.S. citizens as lacking empathy

Lacking in empathy towards criminals, sure.

You have a device that's specifically designed to kill another human being.
You have no moral authority whatsoever.

You must havew a low opinion of your military and police then.

Again illustrating my point. Owning a lethal device that is specifically designed to be just that does not automatically deprive an individual of morality.
That all comes down to how said individual chooses to use the device, and under what circumstances they deem it acceptable to use it.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Albatross wrote:The implication being that he doesn't, of course

As opposed to his statement that anyone who has a gun is morally bankrupt? Screw him, his opinion isn't worth listening to.

Hide yo wife hid you kids, cause they puttin' everyone on ignore out heah. This is a pot kettle black scenario.

Melissa just wont admit she has phallus envy. There's no empiric reason whatsoever to keep a gun in your home for self-defence. All pro-gun people can do is pull out individual anecdotes.

Frazzled wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Joey wrote:

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I would sooner characterize U.S. citizens as lacking empathy

Lacking in empathy towards criminals, sure.

You have a device that's specifically designed to kill another human being.
You have no moral authority whatsoever.

You must havew a low opinion of your military and police then.

Again illustrating my point. Owning a lethal device that is specifically designed to be just that does not automatically deprive an individual of morality.
That all comes down to how said individual chooses to use the device, and under what circumstances they deem it acceptable to use it.

It does however often times show a lack of critical judgement and tends to demonstrate certain complexes materially.

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Criminals, starving people, people with diseases, minorities, the poor, etc.

You're thinking of US conservatives and assuming they represent the entirety of the population. This is inaccurate.

I'll admit to a bit of curiosity as to how Melissia would handle this. I was amused.

Joey wrote:The jury made that decision.

Was the man allowed to present the affirmative defense of self defense? If not, then he wasn't allowed to make any decision. Reading the Wikipedia article, it looks like the jurry had a choice between Murder and Manslaughter. Not a good position for a defendant.

Joey wrote:Dear Americans-
Prefixing a statement with "the right to" does not make you correct.

Then neither does labeling yourself as having "moral authority." Ultimately, those labels are

Joey wrote:If you want to defend yourself against a violent criminal, why don't you try working out? I have the confidence that I know I could pummel the gak out of any burgler that dared come into my house, because I'm a hard bastard. Why don't you do the same? Why do you insist on putting yourself and your loved ones at risk by having a gun?

I'll bet there's at least 1 criminal out there that could take you out. And if there were 2-3 of them, you wouldn't stand much of a chance. Hell, a 95 pound weakling could take you out if you were sleeping when he broke into your house. I don't care how "hard' you are, try dealing with a burglar when you're half awake and bleeding from several knife wounds.

Joey wrote:You've inadvertantly pointed out the real issue here-you think a gun gives you authority, probably because you have a small penis. That's okay, not everyone can afford a sports car.

Lol.

Authority, whether moral, physical, or spiritual, is ultimately rights granted to you by someone who has power over you. Governments have authority because they're the ones with the guns and military. Force is the ultimate source of authority because it allows you to command others at the risk of bodily harm or death. The only downside to the use of force is the threat that someone else (usually a civil authority) with more force will come down on you.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:
Not entirely true. Our police don't have access to guns all the time; that has to be authorised first.
After all, you can see them armed in airports, sometimes.

True, you see them "down in that London" often, or so I'm told. Personally I think they should be restricted to specialised units rather than scattered around airports as they are at the moment.

Joey wrote: Have you ever seen any legislation passed that victimized victims?

I can assure you that the MOD team is striving to perfect this even as we speak.

It would be better if people took a moment and composed themselves a'fore posting please.

Much obliged.

So your average Joe has no say on topics such as gun laws? I'm sure I have basic working knowledge on real life situations that don't require the need for balistics information.

Joey wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Albatross wrote:The implication being that he doesn't, of course

As opposed to his statement that anyone who has a gun is morally bankrupt? Screw him, his opinion isn't worth listening to.

Hide yo wife hid you kids, cause they puttin' everyone on ignore out heah. This is a pot kettle black scenario.

Melissa just wont admit she has phallus envy. There's no empiric reason whatsoever to keep a gun in your home for self-defence. All pro-gun people can do is pull out individual anecdotes.

There is plenty of empiric reason, but it's causal. If you live in a world by yourself then there is no reason. If you live in a safe place than there is very little reason and probably good reason not to. If you life in Afghanistan then you better fething own a gun otherwise you're in trouble. There are places and situations in the united states and in England where situations exist that would imply the importance of owning a weapon for self defense. This isn't an idyllic world, to pretend otherwise is childish and ignorant.

biccat wrote:I'll admit to a bit of curiosity as to how Melissia would handle this. I was amused.

You're welcome

Glad someone got the joke instead of taking it completely seriously

Joey wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Albatross wrote:The implication being that he doesn't, of course

As opposed to his statement that anyone who has a gun is morally bankrupt? Screw him, his opinion isn't worth listening to.

Hide yo wife hid you kids, cause they puttin' everyone on ignore out heah. This is a pot kettle black scenario.

Melissa just wont admit she has phallus envy. There's no empiric reason whatsoever to keep a gun in your home for self-defence. All pro-gun people can do is pull out individual anecdotes.

Well in truth, not all of us are manly men like you who can crush a mountain lion's throat with our bare hands. Have pity on us.

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Yes, it's too bad that an ideal society is impossible.

To heck you say! A vote Frazzled is a vote for Utopia...Frazzled's utopia!

Ok so who wants to put a Frazzled super pac thingy?

Joey wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:
Not entirely true. Our police don't have access to guns all the time; that has to be authorised first.
After all, you can see them armed in airports, sometimes.

True, you see them "down in that London" often, or so I'm told. Personally I think they should be restricted to specialised units rather than scattered around airports as they are at the moment.

Maybe, but I suppose you can't blame them considering how scared people are about worst case scenarios in these places.

reds8n wrote:

Joey wrote: Have you ever seen any legislation passed that victimized victims?

I can assure you that the MOD team is striving to perfect this even as we speak.

It would be better if people took a moment and composed themselves a'fore posting please.

Much obliged.

Oh god, they're figuring out even more ridiculous ways to almost ban me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Joey wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Albatross wrote:The implication being that he doesn't, of course

As opposed to his statement that anyone who has a gun is morally bankrupt? Screw him, his opinion isn't worth listening to.

Hide yo wife hid you kids, cause they puttin' everyone on ignore out heah. This is a pot kettle black scenario.

Melissa just wont admit she has phallus envy. There's no empiric reason whatsoever to keep a gun in your home for self-defence. All pro-gun people can do is pull out individual anecdotes.

Well in truth, not all of us are manly men like you who can crush a mountain lion's throat with our bare hands. Have pity on us.

I can.

Private_Joker wrote:So your average Joe has no say on topics such as gun laws? I'm sure I have basic working knowledge on real life situations that don't require the need for balistics information.

The average Joe(y) in the UK perhaps, who doesn't know anything about guns-- not how to handle them, not how to maintain them, not their effects on people, etc.

At least not until they educate themselves on the topic.

Or would you say that the idiots in the southern US who try to change π to 3 should be listened to with equal authority over a mathematician?

Joey wrote:Our police don't have guns.
Soldiers do a job, they kill people with guns using other guns to enact the will of the state.
They don't keep guns around the home on the off chance they get to kill someone. That's just weird.

I think the disconnect here is that you assume everyone with a gun is waiting to use it to kill someone. The way you phrase it "they get to kill someone" presupposes that's both what they want to use it for and what they've purchased it for. That's in your head, and your issue.

I own two guns. I have no desire to use either one beyond the fun of target shooting. Skeet shooting with my shotgun is fun, target shooting with my 45 is strangely relaxing. I have no desire to use either weapon for the purpose of ending someone's life. I have, however, used my shotgun twice to defend my property without firing a single shot; that said, if I have to I will.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention wrote: In 2009, 10,839 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes

(http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html)

Firearm homicides
• Number of deaths: 11,493
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.7
Source: Deaths: Final Data for 2009, tables 9, 10, 11

(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm)

Why not use the data from the original post that uses the same year (2009)?

Murders with handguns – 6452 (47.32%)
Murders with rifles – 348 (2.55%)
Murders with shotguns – 418 (3.07%)
Murders with unknown firearms – 1928 (14.14%)
Murder with knives or cutting instruments – 1825 (13.38%)
Murders with other weapons – 1864 (13.67%)
Murders with hands, fists, feet etc.. – 801 (5.87%)

That's around 9000 murders with firearms (about 4500 with other weapons or hand/feet, etc.).

Private_Joker wrote:So your average Joe has no say on topics such as gun laws? I'm sure I have basic working knowledge on real life situations that don't require the need for balistics information.

Of course you can, just be aware where you lack knowledge. All of us should to that (except for me of course).

Melissia wrote:

Albatross wrote:The implication being that he doesn't, of course

As opposed to his statement that anyone who has a gun is morally bankrupt? Screw him, his opinion isn't worth listening to.

Two wrongs there, making a right.


We did it! Hurrah!

Frazzled wrote:
Because ITS A BIG ING DEAL FOR OVER HALF THE POPULATION.

...Because essentially well-meaning folks like yourself make it so, sorry to say, by letting yourself be conned by cheap rhetoric. Rape is an awesome rhetorical tool, because the vast majority of people find it abhorrent. Presented as a simple binary choice between being raped and owning a gun, the gun wins every time. Look at our very own Melissia - she's bought into it hook line and sinker, despite the fact that rape is very rare, and rapes in which owning a gun would make a difference, rarer still.

Sonophos wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Yes, it's too bad that an ideal society is impossible.

To heck you say! A vote Frazzled is a vote for Utopia...Frazzled's utopia!

Ok so who wants to put a Frazzled super pac thingy?

Mmm....negative advertising. Love it!

Frazzled wrote:

Private_Joker wrote:So your average Joe has no say on topics such as gun laws? I'm sure I have basic working knowledge on real life situations that don't require the need for balistics information.

Of course you can, just be aware where you lack knowledge. All of us should to that (except for me of course).

Lecturing others on ignorance is not something you should probably be doing Fraz

If you want to continue the "lack of empathy" argument, I would argue that it is the lack of empathy that causes people to have such vitriol towards anyone who ever dares to propose that anyone anywhere should ever have a gun.

All I'm saying Melissa is re-read the minimum guidelines a gun owner should follow. I know I can't legislate it but I would be damned if I didn't get to have my say in it, whether it be through a vote or a letter to your local politician. If what I'm saying can be understood by the majority thats fine, if I'm coming off as a complete idiot I'm sorry for wasting your time.

biccat wrote:

Joey wrote:The jury made that decision.

Was the man allowed to present the affirmative defense of self defense? If not, then he wasn't allowed to make any decision. Reading the Wikipedia article, it looks like the jurry had a choice between Murder and Manslaughter. Not a good position for a defendant.

It's phrased a little clumsily, but the UK *does* have jury trials, the judges don't just tell the jury which crime they're sent down for

biccat wrote:

Joey wrote:If you want to defend yourself against a violent criminal, why don't you try working out? I have the confidence that I know I could pummel the gak out of any burgler that dared come into my house, because I'm a hard bastard. Why don't you do the same? Why do you insist on putting yourself and your loved ones at risk by having a gun?

I'll bet there's at least 1 criminal out there that could take you out. And if there were 2-3 of them, you wouldn't stand much of a chance. Hell, a 95 pound weakling could take you out if you were sleeping when he broke into your house. I don't care how "hard' you are, try dealing with a burglar when you're half awake and bleeding from several knife wounds.

Why would a burgler stab me? You and I both know that if any burgler gets discovered by the person he's burgling, all he's going to do is run out as fast as he can. The liklihood of a physical struggle with a burgler is virtually nil.

biccat wrote:
Authority, whether moral, physical, or spiritual, is ultimately rights granted to you by someone who has power over you. Governments have authority because they're the ones with the guns and military. Force is the ultimate source of authority because it allows you to command others at the risk of bodily harm or death.The only downside to the use of force is the threat that someone else (usually a civil authority) with more force will come down on you.

Uh...no. Governments have authority because they're elected fairly by the people. We do not live in dictatorships.
Allowing citizens to freely own firearms means allowing them to exact tyranny on their fellow man. America gets this, its raison d'etre is giving citizens the power to oppress one another in the name of freedom, but Europe is less keen.

Albatross wrote:despite the fact that rape is very rare, and rapes in which owning a gun would make a difference, rarer still.

I have home insurance. Home fires are very rare. This doesn't mean that buying home insurance is a bad idea.

Not sure if home insurance exists in the UK. But it's kind of a big deal over here to lose your house.

Melissia wrote:If you want to continue the "lack of empathy" argument, I would argue that it is the lack of empathy that causes people to have such vitriol towards anyone who ever dares to propose that anyone anywhere should ever have a gun.

I have a lack of empathy towards logical fallacies.

Private_Joker wrote:All I'm saying Melissa is re-read the minimum guidelines a gun owner should follow. I know I can't legislate it but I would be damned if I didn't get to have my say in it, whether it be through a vote or a letter to your local politician. If what I'm saying can be understood by the majority thats fine, if I'm coming off as a complete idiot I'm sorry for wasting your time.

The problem with your proposition was that it was too vague. What would take one person down would not necessarily take another. If I didn't have a gun myself, just pointing an airsoft or bb gun would probably scare me in to not doing a criminal act (Though I'm not predisposed to criminal acts to begin with)-- I'm fairly small and (though I have no empirical evidence) I would say that I'm probably fairly frail as well compared to a brutish thug of a criminal who spent five years in prison doing nothing but weight training, brawling, and exercise.

Said thug, however... would take more than a bb-gun to threaten.

Albatross wrote:...Because essentially well-meaning folks like yourself make it so, sorry to say, by letting yourself be conned by cheap rhetoric. Rape is an awesome rhetorical tool, because the vast majority of people find it abhorrent. Presented as a simple binary choice between being raped and owning a gun, the gun wins every time. Look at our very own Melissia - she's bought into it hook line and sinker, despite the fact that rape is very rare, and rapes in which owning a gun would make a difference, rarer still.

Current studies are showing that as many as one in four women are raped in their lifetime. It would be a big damn deal to you too if you had a 25% chance of being raped.
To make light of that is...misplaced thinking.

ShumaGorath wrote:I have a lack of empathy towards logical fallacies.

You don't empathize with your own arguments?

biccat wrote:

Albatross wrote:despite the fact that rape is very rare, and rapes in which owning a gun would make a difference, rarer still.

I have home insurance. Home fires are very rare. This doesn't mean that buying home insurance is a bad idea.

Not sure if home insurance exists in the UK. But it's kind of a big deal over here to lose your house.

You're not sure if we have home insurance in the UK?
We have hot and cold running water, you know...

biccat wrote:

Albatross wrote:despite the fact that rape is very rare, and rapes in which owning a gun would make a difference, rarer still.

I have home insurance. Home fires are very rare. This doesn't mean that buying home insurance is a bad idea.

Not sure if home insurance exists in the UK. But it's kind of a big deal over here to lose your house.

Home fires with insurance are vastly less rare than rape situations wherein a gun could be used as a preventative measure. But hey, it's fun to pretend isn't it?

ShumaGorath wrote:

biccat wrote:

Albatross wrote:despite the fact that rape is very rare, and rapes in which owning a gun would make a difference, rarer still.

I have home insurance. Home fires are very rare. This doesn't mean that buying home insurance is a bad idea.

Not sure if home insurance exists in the UK. But it's kind of a big deal over here to lose your house.

Home fires with insurance are vastly less rare than rape situations wherein a gun could be used as a preventative measure. But hey, it's fun to pretend isn't it?

Yep.
Phallus envy.

Private_Joker wrote:All I'm saying Melissa is re-read the minimum guidelines a gun owner should follow. I know I can't legislate it but I would be damned if I didn't get to have my say in it, whether it be through a vote or a letter to your local politician. If what I'm saying can be understood by the majority thats fine, if I'm coming off as a complete idiot I'm sorry for wasting your time.

In the US that is further limited by the Second Amendment. With a properly functioning court system, that protection is not impacted by politicians/

Well, it didn't take long for the insults to start flying, did it?

Joey wrote:

biccat wrote:

Albatross wrote:despite the fact that rape is very rare, and rapes in which owning a gun would make a difference, rarer still.

I have home insurance. Home fires are very rare. This doesn't mean that buying home insurance is a bad idea.

Not sure if home insurance exists in the UK. But it's kind of a big deal over here to lose your house.

You're not sure if we have home insurance in the UK?
We have hot and cold running water, you know...

yea but your beer is warm. That makes everything else inherently suspect.

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I have a lack of empathy towards logical fallacies.

You don't empathize with your own arguments?

Not when they contain such fallacies. Fortunately I expect better of myself, so I don't do it particularly often. But hey, we're not talking about me here!

Joey wrote:It's phrased a little clumsily, but the UK *does* have jury trials, the judges don't just tell the jury which crime they're sent down for

I assume UK law is like US law and juries are used as fact-finders. It appears that the jury was asked to determine whether the farmer "did not intend to kill or cause serious bodily harm." If they found he did intend to kill, he would be sentenced for murder. If not, then manslaughter.

Joey wrote:Why would a burgler stab me? You and I both know that if any burgler gets discovered by the person he's burgling, all he's going to do is run out as fast as he can.

I do? All of those violent home invasions are just a figment of my imagination then.

Note that burglary does not require theft.

Joey wrote:Uh...no. Governments have authority because they're elected fairly by the people. We do not live in dictatorships.

No, they have authority because they can enforce their authority. We are not self-governing, that is anarchy.

Next time you get pulled over for speeding, inform the officer that you don't support the law so it shouldn't be enforced against you.

Joey wrote:Allowing citizens to freely own firearms means allowing them to exact tyranny on their fellow man. America gets this, its raison d'etre is giving citizens the power to oppress one another in the name of freedom, but Europe is less keen.

Nice rhetoric, but irrelevant and wrong. But mostly irrelevant.

Joey wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

biccat wrote:

Albatross wrote:despite the fact that rape is very rare, and rapes in which owning a gun would make a difference, rarer still.

I have home insurance. Home fires are very rare. This doesn't mean that buying home insurance is a bad idea.

Not sure if home insurance exists in the UK. But it's kind of a big deal over here to lose your house.

Home fires with insurance are vastly less rare than rape situations wherein a gun could be used as a preventative measure. But hey, it's fun to pretend isn't it?

Yep.
Phallus envy.

Please respond to my last post directed at you before agreeing with me repeatedly. I'm not in your camp.

ShumaGorath wrote:Not when they contain such fallacies. Fortunately I expect better of myself, so I don't do it particularly often. But hey, we're not talking about me here!

I was.

There's nothing logically fallacious about the argument that a lack of empathy drives people to feel vitriolic hate towards those who want a handgun to defend themselves with.

That statement does not say no one who has empathy can disagree, by the way.

Frazzled wrote:

Joey wrote:

biccat wrote:

Albatross wrote:despite the fact that rape is very rare, and rapes in which owning a gun would make a difference, rarer still.

I have home insurance. Home fires are very rare. This doesn't mean that buying home insurance is a bad idea.

Not sure if home insurance exists in the UK. But it's kind of a big deal over here to lose your house.

You're not sure if we have home insurance in the UK?
We have hot and cold running water, you know...

yea but your beer is warm. That makes everything else inherently suspect.

Actually, most of it's served chillled - at least if it's lager. God knows it's the only way to make it palateable.

Joey wrote:You're not sure if we have home insurance in the UK?
We have hot and cold running water, you know...

You have the "right" to health care, I wasn't sure if you had socialized the risk of home destruction along with your health care system.

After all, why should poor people who can't afford home insurance lose everything if their house burns down?

ShumaGorath wrote:Home fires with insurance are vastly less rare than rape situations wherein a gun could be used as a preventative measure. But hey, it's fun to pretend isn't it?

And owning a firearm is much less expensive than home owner's insurance.

It's a risk-reward balance.

Next time you get pulled over for speeding, inform the officer that you don't support the law so it shouldn't be enforced against you.

Pro-tip: don't do this in Louisiana or Chicago...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Joey wrote:

biccat wrote:

Albatross wrote:despite the fact that rape is very rare, and rapes in which owning a gun would make a difference, rarer still.

I have home insurance. Home fires are very rare. This doesn't mean that buying home insurance is a bad idea.

Not sure if home insurance exists in the UK. But it's kind of a big deal over here to lose your house.

You're not sure if we have home insurance in the UK?
We have hot and cold running water, you know...

yea but your beer is warm. That makes everything else inherently suspect.

Actually, most of it's served chillled - at least if it's lager. God knows it's the only way to make it palateable.

Really? Excellent.

biccat wrote:

Albatross wrote:despite the fact that rape is very rare, and rapes in which owning a gun would make a difference, rarer still.

I have home insurance. Home fires are very rare. This doesn't mean that buying home insurance is a bad idea.

Of course not, but let's not pretend that a basic structural similarity between two situations makes them identical, or that the two situations have anything in common other than that basic structural similarity. Being raped by a masked intruder is not really similar to a fire in one's kitchen.

Not sure if home insurance exists in the UK. But it's kind of a big deal over here to lose your house.

Yes, we have home insurance here, smart-arse!

It's hard to accidentally shoot one's self in the face with home insurance, incidentally.

Even a brutish thug doesn't deserve death by firing squad. There are simply too many things running through ones mind to comprehend whether to shoot or not in such a confined sense of space unless of course you are trained for it. Identifying whether its a real threat or not cannot be made by the average Joe, hence why I'm saying stricter gun ownership or none. Non-lethal is still a better option. If it turns out the guy wasn't charging you but was trying to get past you how are you going to come to grips with killing him. Was it a moral choice? Civilians can't make these decisions.

really not worth the effort.