"Drive to the police station"...... I will admit that the title for the youtube clip is inflammatory, but this man was a victim when he shouldn't have to be.
Are front windows weaker than side windows? I had to attempt to break into my truck before, and those windows shrugged off being struck by a piece of rebar like it was nothing. Left a scratch or two, and that was it. Considering the strength in the swings I was doing and with little effect, and the after effects of the guy in that video slapping a window and cracking the hell out of it, I'm not sure what to think.
Edit - Not a slap, but still.
Also, if someone keeps trying to assault you in that matter, why not just run their dumb ass over? Seems a bit more sensible than weaving into traffic.
He got away with no injury. If he had a gun you might have had one dead person. If guns were more prevalent then the guy in the other car might have just shot him, so yes, not having guns available made it safer.
And people say the "anti gun" lobby (as if they are all saying all guns should be banned...) bring up silly arguments. This is a good argument for bailing guns in public, not encouraging them.
And, no, the windscreen should be stronger than side windows.
Steve steveson wrote: He got away with no injury. If he had a gun you might have had one dead person. If guns were more prevalent then the guy in the other car might have just shot him, so yes, not having guns available made it safer.
And people say the "anti gun" lobby (as if they are all saying all guns should be banned...) bring up silly arguments.
And, no, the windscreen should be stronger than side windows.
If the victim had had a gun, then you might have one dead maniac road rager. Not a huge loss, all things considered.
The victim was a former police officer. Anyone who tries a stunt like that with a former police officer in the US is likely to get plugged.
Ok... So that's they way this is going... "He deserves to die...." Brilliant argument and way to avoid my point that either of them could have had a gun. Just what we need, people shooting each other over traffic problems. Nice to see you value life so low.
Him being a former police officer has no baring on the situation at all.
Steve steveson wrote: Ok... So that's they way this is going... "He deserves to die...." Brilliant argument and way to avoid my point that either of them could have had a gun. Just what we need, people shooting each other over traffic problems. Nice to see you value life so low.
Him being a former police officer has no baring on the situation at all.
I'm not saying the dude deserves to die. I'm saying someone whose life is being threatened deserves to be able to defend him- or herself. It's possible that the simple act of presenting a firearm would have defused the situation without any shots having to be fired.
The guy who was road raging could have had a gun anyway. Criminals by definition don't follow the law.
Hordini wrote: It's possible that the simple act of presenting a firearm would have defused the situation without any shots having to be fired.
The guy was crazy enough to stop in the middle of a highway, reverse into someone's car, and then jump out and punch his way through a windscreen. You seriously think he was in any state to spot that the guy he was attacking had a gun, and pass a rational enough thought that this meant he should stop what he's doing?
If either party had a gun, the end result would likely have been at least one dead person. As it was, the end result was one broken windscreen and some panel damage.
Yes, certainly it's a crap situation to find yourself in... but a gun wouldn't have improved it any.
Hordini wrote: It's possible that the simple act of presenting a firearm would have defused the situation without any shots having to be fired.
The guy was crazy enough to stop in the middle of a highway, reverse into someone's car, and then jump out and punch his way through a windscreen. You seriously think he was in any state to spot that the guy he was attacking had a gun, and pass a rational enough thought that this meant he should stop what he's doing?
If either party had a gun, the end result would likely have been at least one dead person. As it was, the end result was one broken windscreen and some panel damage.
Yes, certainly it's a crap situation to find yourself in... but a gun wouldn't have improved it any.
I agree with you that two people walking away from the situation alive is better than one walking away and one being dead. However, for as insane as the perpetrator was in this case, I would say that the victim was lucky to get away. If the victim had had to defend himself with a weapon, I don't think it would have been going too far. If the road rager was too berserk to realize the victim was pointing a weapon at him, that is nobody's fault but his own. I realize we're getting into the realm of speculation here, but what if the victim had theoretically had his wife or children in the vehicle? Continuously ramming the vehicle and driving it off the road could have seriously injured the driver or a passenger. The fact that that didn't happen in this case, considering how out of control the attacker was, is pretty much just pure luck.
Yes, certainly it's a crap situation to find yourself in... but a gun wouldn't have improved it any.
So it's preferable to be a victim then? If you'll notice he was never told "the police are on their way" He was told "drive to the police station". There was no help coming. Only pure luck, and driving skills saved him from great bodily harm. Also, according to the video the perpetrator is still at large, free to victimize others in the same manner.
EDIT: The perpetrator was actually endangering countless others with his behaviour as well; They weren't alone on those roads.
Steve steveson wrote: Ok... So that's they way this is going... "He deserves to die...." Brilliant argument and way to avoid my point that either of them could have had a gun. Just what we need, people shooting each other over traffic problems. Nice to see you value life so low.
Him being a former police officer has no baring on the situation at all.
I'm not saying the dude deserves to die. I'm saying someone whose life is being threatened deserves to be able to defend him- or herself. It's possible that the simple act of presenting a firearm would have defused the situation without any shots having to be fired.
The guy who was road raging could have had a gun anyway. Criminals by definition don't follow the law.
Or made it worse as the guy went back to the car and got his gun out and started shooting and made it allot worse...
I'm sorry, but your reducing it to good guy/bad guy which just silly. The guy looses it on the road for some reason, that is not the same as someone who carrys an illigal gun. We have all broken the law at some point in some minor way at some point. Tha argument "Criminals by definition don't follow the law." is overly symplistic to the point of absurdity.
The idea that the world is black and white seems to be somthign that comes up allot in gun debates. Pro/Anti. Good Guy/Bad Guy. Deadly consiquences/no consiquences. That is just not how the world works.
Honestly, if gun laws in Australia were like those in the US, I could easily see the guy in the black truck being the one with a gun. And I could easily see how that would turn out.
Hordini wrote:I'm not saying the dude deserves to die. I'm saying someone whose life is being threatened deserves to be able to defend him- or herself.
You mention people being able to defend themselves if they had a weapon like a gun. He didn't need a gun to defend himself, he was driving a car. A thing made of metal that weighs in excess of 1000kg. How much more of a weapon do you need? Just run the blighter over and be done with him if your intent is to defend yourself. He had a camera watching everything that happened, so proof of self defence wouldn't have been an issue.
Hordini wrote:It's possible that the simple act of presenting a firearm would have defused the situation without any shots having to be fired.
So escalation of force is the way to safety is it?
Hordini wrote:The guy who was road raging could have had a gun anyway. Criminals by definition don't follow the law.
True crims don't really tend to follow the law. But if the guy in the black ute had of went back to his car to get a gun then the victim could have just drove away. Good luck trying to shoot me when i'm 200 meters down the road speeding at 120klicks.
Necroshea wrote: Are front windows weaker than side windows? I had to attempt to break into my truck before, and those windows shrugged off being struck by a piece of rebar like it was nothing. Left a scratch or two, and that was it. Considering the strength in the swings I was doing and with little effect, and the after effects of the guy in that video slapping a window and cracking the hell out of it, I'm not sure what to think.
Edit - Not a slap, but still.
Also, if someone keeps trying to assault you in that matter, why not just run their dumb ass over? Seems a bit more sensible than weaving into traffic.
In the US, our windshields have a layer of fairly sticky film designed to prevent shattering that is not required in other parts of the world (i know germany is such a place, not sure about Oz though)
Hordini wrote: It's possible that the simple act of presenting a firearm would have defused the situation without any shots having to be fired.
The guy was crazy enough to stop in the middle of a highway, reverse into someone's car, and then jump out and punch his way through a windscreen. You seriously think he was in any state to spot that the guy he was attacking had a gun, and pass a rational enough thought that this meant he should stop what he's doing?
If either party had a gun, the end result would likely have been at least one dead person. As it was, the end result was one broken windscreen and some panel damage.
Yes, certainly it's a crap situation to find yourself in... but a gun wouldn't have improved it any.
I agree with you that two people walking away from the situation alive is better than one walking away and one being dead. However, for as insane as the perpetrator was in this case, I would say that the victim was lucky to get away. If the victim had had to defend himself with a weapon, I don't think it would have been going too far. If the road rager was too berserk to realize the victim was pointing a weapon at him, that is nobody's fault but his own. I realize we're getting into the realm of speculation here, but what if the victim had theoretically had his wife or children in the vehicle? Continuously ramming the vehicle and driving it off the road could have seriously injured the driver or a passenger. The fact that that didn't happen in this case, considering how out of control the attacker was, is pretty much just pure luck.
I think you are assuming he's a criminal and not a guy who had a Really bad day. Yes criminals can get guns but not everyone is a criminal. There are people who just got news that their house burnt down, the wife wants a divorce, and you are one your way home after loosing your job due to no fault of your own. That's enough even for the strongest sun shinny person to go balistic!
And then who's to say the victim misses and hits a buss full of kindergartners!? Hell, in Chicago do you know how many are killed by a bullet going through a house to kill a little kids that are playing inside? And that was because someone was playing with their dads legal gun.
So yes. I think we can say for sure that having no guns in this case have certainly saved a life! While having a gun may make you feel safer, the chances of someone like the fella with road rage having a gun is just as likely, if not even more probable, thus rendering that feeling of safety useless when you come face to face with someone who might not think twice about shooting you on the spot.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. If that citizen had been carrying a firearm and shot the perpetrator for the actions taken place, it was well deserved.
Some people choose not to defend themselves, and to be a victim instead of asserting their right to self defense. That's just the way society is. Would I rather not pull a firearm on someone? Of course, regardless of who it is, you're taking someone's life, however I'm more than willing to do it to survive any bodily harm someone might try to cause to me. In all honesty, not my problem if they die as a result of it. Violence is my current profession however, so its a little different for your average person.
Yes, guns make people safer... from criminals. That man may not have been a criminal the day before this, but the second he did all that he did, he became one. Had this been my state of Arizona, he *might* have thought twice about attempting assault if he knew there was a good chance the driver was armed. Makes you think twice about being stupid.
Commander Cain wrote: So yes. I think we can say for sure that having no guns in this case have certainly saved a life! While having a gun may make you feel safer, the chances of someone like the fella with road rage having a gun is just as likely, if not even more probable, thus rendering that feeling of safety useless when you come face to face with someone who might not think twice about shooting you on the spot.
Commander Cain wrote: So yes. I think we can say for sure that having no guns in this case have certainly saved a life! While having a gun may make you feel safer, the chances of someone like the fella with road rage having a gun is just as likely, if not even more probable, thus rendering that feeling of safety useless when you come face to face with someone who might not think twice about shooting you on the spot.
So... being unarmed is better... gotcha.
It's better to be the victim?
Some people think that someone getting shot after he's showing murderous intent, makes them the victim. I tend to just roll my eyes at them.
Commander Cain wrote: So yes. I think we can say for sure that having no guns in this case have certainly saved a life! While having a gun may make you feel safer, the chances of someone like the fella with road rage having a gun is just as likely, if not even more probable, thus rendering that feeling of safety useless when you come face to face with someone who might not think twice about shooting you on the spot.
So... being unarmed is better... gotcha.
It's better to be the victim?
Some people think that someone getting shot after he's showing murderous intent, makes them the victim. I tend to just roll my eyes at them.
I know... it's really bugging me of late... it's part of the whole modern liberal ideology... in that the idea that injustice drives these acts of rage/violence/terrorism to the point that we're COMPELLED to understand why these aggressors go postal.
feth 'em... they're threatening me.
I'll tell you what, if any of my loved ones were in the car and someone did that to me. I'll be doing my damnedest to ensure they'll have an acute lead poisoning.
Yes, certainly it's a crap situation to find yourself in... but a gun wouldn't have improved it any.
So it's preferable to be a victim then? If you'll notice he was never told "the police are on their way" He was told "drive to the police station". There was no help coming. Only pure luck, and driving skills saved him from great bodily harm. Also, according to the video the perpetrator is still at large, free to victimize others in the same manner.
Wat. Seriously, you're saying you'd rather one of them was put through immense pain and suffering, possible death and the very likely possibility that similar damage could occur?
In this situation, nobody really needs to attack. People with that sort of idiotic rage often cause accidents.
Yes, certainly it's a crap situation to find yourself in... but a gun wouldn't have improved it any.
So it's preferable to be a victim then? If you'll notice he was never told "the police are on their way" He was told "drive to the police station". There was no help coming. Only pure luck, and driving skills saved him from great bodily harm. Also, according to the video the perpetrator is still at large, free to victimize others in the same manner.
Wat. Seriously, you're saying you'd rather one of them was put through immense pain and suffering, possible death and the very likely possibility that similar damage could occur?
In this situation, nobody really needs to attack. People with that sort of idiotic rage often cause accidents.
Dude, did you watch the video? The guy was attacking and his idiotic rage was causing an accident (on purpose)!
Automatically Appended Next Post: I also don't like the implication of some posters in this thread that gun owners are more likely to snap and be violent. That's painting a large group of people with a grossly broad brush.
Steve steveson wrote: He got away with no injury. If he had a gun you might have had one dead person. If guns were more prevalent then the guy in the other car might have just shot him, so yes, not having guns available made it safer.
And people say the "anti gun" lobby (as if they are all saying all guns should be banned...) bring up silly arguments.
And, no, the windscreen should be stronger than side windows.
If the victim had had a gun, then you might have one dead maniac road rager. Not a huge loss, all things considered.
The victim was a former police officer. Anyone who tries a stunt like that with a former police officer in the US is likely to get plugged.
Here's the problem with this argument: it assumes that only the victim will have a firearm, when the likelihood of the victim having a firearm is equally as likely as it is for the attacker to have a firearm. Given the video, it's reasonable to assume that the attacker would have drawn and fired several shots before the victim even understood what was going on.
So yes, not having guns in this situation made the victim safer. Any belief to the contrary is just an action hero fantasy.
Yes, certainly it's a crap situation to find yourself in... but a gun wouldn't have improved it any.
So it's preferable to be a victim then? If you'll notice he was never told "the police are on their way" He was told "drive to the police station". There was no help coming. Only pure luck, and driving skills saved him from great bodily harm. Also, according to the video the perpetrator is still at large, free to victimize others in the same manner.
Wat. Seriously, you're saying you'd rather one of them was put through immense pain and suffering, possible death and the very likely possibility that similar damage could occur?
In this situation, nobody really needs to attack. People with that sort of idiotic rage often cause accidents.
Awesome. All you feren devils feel better now? I too feel healed and fully converted to the anti gun agenda. PRAISE SWEET BABY JEBUS I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT!
Oh wait, what if that had been a woman being attacked in the car?
Steve steveson wrote: He got away with no injury. If he had a gun you might have had one dead person. If guns were more prevalent then the guy in the other car might have just shot him, so yes, not having guns available made it safer.
And people say the "anti gun" lobby (as if they are all saying all guns should be banned...) bring up silly arguments.
And, no, the windscreen should be stronger than side windows.
If the victim had had a gun, then you might have one dead maniac road rager. Not a huge loss, all things considered.
The victim was a former police officer. Anyone who tries a stunt like that with a former police officer in the US is likely to get plugged.
Here's the problem with this argument: it assumes that only the victim will have a firearm, when the likelihood of the victim having a firearm is equally as likely as it is for the attacker to have a firearm. Given the video, it's reasonable to assume that the attacker would have drawn and fired several shots before the victim even understood what was going on.
So yes, not having guns in this situation made the victim safer. Any belief to the contrary is just an action hero fantasy.
Azazel... you're missing the point. If the driver couldn't get away, then what?
Steve steveson wrote: He got away with no injury. If he had a gun you might have had one dead person. If guns were more prevalent then the guy in the other car might have just shot him, so yes, not having guns available made it safer.
And people say the "anti gun" lobby (as if they are all saying all guns should be banned...) bring up silly arguments.
And, no, the windscreen should be stronger than side windows.
If the victim had had a gun, then you might have one dead maniac road rager. Not a huge loss, all things considered.
The victim was a former police officer. Anyone who tries a stunt like that with a former police officer in the US is likely to get plugged.
Here's the problem with this argument: it assumes that only the victim will have a firearm, when the likelihood of the victim having a firearm is equally as likely as it is for the attacker to have a firearm. Given the video, it's reasonable to assume that the attacker would have drawn and fired several shots before the victim even understood what was going on.
So yes, not having guns in this situation made the victim safer. Any belief to the contrary is just an action hero fantasy.
My point is, with the victim being a former police officer, if a similar situation had happened in the US it would not have been equally likely that the attacker would have a firearm. It's also not necessarily the case that the attacker would have pulled his gun immediately anyway. It has nothing to do with an action hero fantasy.
Steve steveson wrote: He got away with no injury. If he had a gun you might have had one dead person. If guns were more prevalent then the guy in the other car might have just shot him, so yes, not having guns available made it safer.
And people say the "anti gun" lobby (as if they are all saying all guns should be banned...) bring up silly arguments.
And, no, the windscreen should be stronger than side windows.
If the victim had had a gun, then you might have one dead maniac road rager. Not a huge loss, all things considered.
The victim was a former police officer. Anyone who tries a stunt like that with a former police officer in the US is likely to get plugged.
Here's the problem with this argument: it assumes that only the victim will have a firearm, when the likelihood of the victim having a firearm is equally as likely as it is for the attacker to have a firearm. Given the video, it's reasonable to assume that the attacker would have drawn and fired several shots before the victim even understood what was going on.
So yes, not having guns in this situation made the victim safer. Any belief to the contrary is just an action hero fantasy.
Lets say this guy was a career criminal, known to flip out for little to no reason, and guns are illegal. A career criminal...illegal guns? Tracking so far? Okay, good. Now lets say this criminal shot him, or at him, and the man had no chance to defend himself, and he dies. How is he "safer"? The only person who was safer was the criminal(you know, the guy who didn't care about laws enough and illegally has possession of the said firearm) because he didn't have to worry about return fire.
whembly wrote:Azazel... you're missing the point. If the driver couldn't get away, then what?
Again, if you're going to hypothetically place a gun in the hands of the victim, then you must hypothetically place a gun in the hands of the attacker.
1. The attacker is the aggressor.
2. The attacker was the first out of his vehicle and 'got the drop' on the victim.
3. The attacker had time to punch the victim's truck, and thus clearly would have time to fire into the windshield at the stationary victim.
= The victim would be in far more danger if firearms were present.
Hordini wrote:My point is, with the victim being a former police officer, if a similar situation had happened in the US it would not have been equally likely that the attacker would have a firearm. It's also not necessarily the case that the attacker would have pulled his gun immediately anyway. It has nothing to do with an action hero fantasy.
And why would it not be equally likely? The US has 0.88 firearms for every person. It most definitely is equally likely that the attacker would have a firearm as the victim.
You are making these assumptions:
A1. The attacker, seen in the video, would not draw a firearm when making a crazed attack against the victim.
A2. The attacker, seen in the video, would have the advantage of initiative and yet fail to hit the static victim with a firearm.
B. The victim would have the situational awareness to step out of the vehicle and draw their own firearm, having not been shot despite being seated in a fixed location.
C. The victim would be more skilled with their firearm to win in a gunfight despite having been essentially 'ambushed' by the attacker.
Every bit of that is an action hero fantasy.
If you want to realistically assume the outcome of that video, had firearms been present, then the video would end shortly after the attacker got out of the truck, and began to fire into the driver-side of the from windshield, behind which would be a static, seated victim.
I'm all in favour of firearm ownership, as I've said before. But there is no reasonable way to say that this particular instance would have been safer for the victim, if firearms were as prevalent as they are in the US.
Steve steveson wrote: He got away with no injury. If he had a gun you might have had one dead person. If guns were more prevalent then the guy in the other car might have just shot him, so yes, not having guns available made it safer.
And people say the "anti gun" lobby (as if they are all saying all guns should be banned...) bring up silly arguments.
And, no, the windscreen should be stronger than side windows.
If the victim had had a gun, then you might have one dead maniac road rager. Not a huge loss, all things considered.
The victim was a former police officer. Anyone who tries a stunt like that with a former police officer in the US is likely to get plugged.
Here's the problem with this argument: it assumes that only the victim will have a firearm, when the likelihood of the victim having a firearm is equally as likely as it is for the attacker to have a firearm. Given the video, it's reasonable to assume that the attacker would have drawn and fired several shots before the victim even understood what was going on.
So yes, not having guns in this situation made the victim safer. Any belief to the contrary is just an action hero fantasy.
Which is precisely why its best to have a gun. The other guy might have one.
Given his disregard for the law(confirmed by his actions) he may have a gun.
A law abiding citizen can have a gun for protection from just this sort of thing.
If everyone has a gun, the playing field is level.
Its on the victim to defend themselves. To deliberatly put yourself in a position of disadvantage is the height of stupidity. I'm going to stack the odds as far in my favor as I can.
If someone who does legally own a gun snaps and attacks someone who isn't armed, then it is the fault of the victim that he wasn't prepared to defend himself.
You have the choice on how to defend yourself, make the best decision for you. The one that lets you go home at the end of the day.
Hordini wrote:My point is, with the victim being a former police officer, if a similar situation had happened in the US it would not have been equally likely that the attacker would have a firearm. It's also not necessarily the case that the attacker would have pulled his gun immediately anyway. It has nothing to do with an action hero fantasy.
And why would it not be equally likely? The US has 0.88 firearms for every person. It most definitely is equally likely that the attacker would have a firearm as the victim.
You are making these assumptions:
A1. The attacker, seen in the video, would not draw a firearm when making a crazed attack against the victim.
A2. The attacker, seen in the video, would have the advantage of initiative and yet fail to hit the static victim with a firearm.
B. The victim would have the situational awareness to step out of the vehicle and draw their own firearm, having not been shot despite being seated in a fixed location.
C. The victim would be more skilled with their firearm to win in a gunfight despite having been essentially 'ambushed' by the attacker.
Every bit of that is an action hero fantasy.
If you want to realistically assume the outcome of that video, had firearms been present, then the video would end shortly after the attacker got out of the truck, and began to fire into the driver-side of the from windshield, behind which would be a static, seated victim.
I'm all in favour of firearm ownership, as I've said before. But there is no reasonable way to say that this particular instance would have been safer for the victim, if firearms were as prevalent as they are in the US.
It would not be equally likely because police and former police are more likely to be carrying a firearm than the general public (I'm saying if this had happened in the US). The attacker didn't have a weapon. If someone is saying, "If the victim had had a firearm, he would have been safer," that doesn't mean you have to assume the attacker would have a firearm too. Also, there is no reason whatsoever that the victim would have had to step out of his vehicle to draw or fire his weapon, had he had one. The victim, being a former police officer is also more likely to more skilled with a firearm than the general populace.
whembly wrote:Azazel... you're missing the point. If the driver couldn't get away, then what?
Again, if you're going to hypothetically place a gun in the hands of the victim, then you must hypothetically place a gun in the hands of the attacker.
1. The attacker is the aggressor.
2. The attacker was the first out of his vehicle and 'got the drop' on the victim.
3. The attacker had time to punch the victim's truck, and thus clearly would have time to fire into the windshield at the stationary victim.
= The victim would be in far more danger if firearms were present.
Hordini wrote:My point is, with the victim being a former police officer, if a similar situation had happened in the US it would not have been equally likely that the attacker would have a firearm. It's also not necessarily the case that the attacker would have pulled his gun immediately anyway. It has nothing to do with an action hero fantasy.
And why would it not be equally likely? The US has 0.88 firearms for every person. It most definitely is equally likely that the attacker would have a firearm as the victim.
You are making these assumptions:
A1. The attacker, seen in the video, would not draw a firearm when making a crazed attack against the victim.
A2. The attacker, seen in the video, would have the advantage of initiative and yet fail to hit the static victim with a firearm.
B. The victim would have the situational awareness to step out of the vehicle and draw their own firearm, having not been shot despite being seated in a fixed location.
C. The victim would be more skilled with their firearm to win in a gunfight despite having been essentially 'ambushed' by the attacker.
Every bit of that is an action hero fantasy.
If you want to realistically assume the outcome of that video, had firearms been present, then the video would end shortly after the attacker got out of the truck, and began to fire into the driver-side of the from windshield, behind which would be a static, seated victim.
I'm all in favour of firearm ownership, as I've said before. But there is no reasonable way to say that this particular instance would have been safer for the victim, if firearms were as prevalent as they are in the US.
They you clearly haven't been in a similar altercation. I have... and what you do is if you cannot drive away, and someone ahead of you gets out of the car, you immediately get out too (but, stand behind your door).
When I got out, that signalled the aggressor that I wasn't going to take any gak from him and he got back in his car.
Kilkrazy wrote: How many road rage incidents are there in the USA in which a gun gets used?
Not nearly as many as incidents where a gun is not used. But most road rage incidents don't involve someone jumping onto the hood and breaking the windshield with their fist.
Kilkrazy wrote: How many road rage incidents are there in the USA in which a gun gets used?
Not nearly as many as incidents where a gun is not used. But most road rage incidents don't involve someone jumping onto the hood and breaking the windshield with their fist.
whembly wrote:Azazel... you're missing the point. If the driver couldn't get away, then what?
Again, if you're going to hypothetically place a gun in the hands of the victim, then you must hypothetically place a gun in the hands of the attacker. 1. The attacker is the aggressor. 2. The attacker was the first out of his vehicle and 'got the drop' on the victim. 3. The attacker had time to punch the victim's truck, and thus clearly would have time to fire into the windshield at the stationary victim. = The victim would be in far more danger if firearms were present. .
And what was he to do? He didn't have a firearm to defend himself. If you don't want to get out and fight the guy, what do you do without any other means to defend yourself? Sit in the car and call the police, and that's what he did. I'm sure if he had a battle axe in the car he might have stepped out to go toe to toe with the guy. So does not carrying a battleaxe make him safer? Your point really sucks. If you have zero means to defend yourself, of course you'll sit on your pud and do nothing(ETA: Unless you're confident in your ability to beat the bejeezuz out of someone)
(Yes, I know, I'm reaching very far to make a point)
Yeah. Even in all your scenarios the guy still got out of the car and behaving erratically; having a gun wouldn't keep that from happening. All you did was elaborate on my premise that the outcome would have been different if a gun was there. In other words, with an almost 1:1 people to guns ration in the US, people still have road rage fairly frequently. Guns don't prevent road rage.
Given that the lunatic made the first aggressive move and only had access to a truck instead of a gun.... that would be a resounding yes!
Without guns: Drives into the victim's car, chases him for a considerable time.
With guns: Drives up alongside victim's car, blows victim's brains out via side window.
Because folks, if the good guys have guns... so do the bad guys...
You, and thousands of people before you, have missed the point. The point isn't "can the criminal hurt the victim" its can the victim defend himself, or defend other people around him from someone intent on harming another person.
Lets look at this way. How about a bystander seeing that perpetrator has pulled the guy out of his car and is beating him to death. Bystander shoots the perpetrator, and saves the life of the victim. Bystander is a little scrawny dude who is most likely incapable(just hypothetical) of kicking the perps 4th point of contact. One could then argue what if he might be able to? My answer would be what if he doesn't. All he does is get a beatdown for trying to help a fellow human being in a life threatening situation. If you would stand idly by and watch this take place with no intervention you are what is wrong with the world. Most people would rather take out their cell phone and video tape it. Yes, it may help catch the guy later down the road who did it, but people don't think like that. Its "oh cool, this is gunna be cool to rewatch".
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Because folks, if the good guys have guns... so do the bad guys...
And if the good guys don't, neither do the bad guys!
Yeah, that's not always true. Sometimes the bad guys have guns, sometimes the good guys have guns, sometimes they both have guns, and sometimes neither of them have guns.
One person being armed doesn't automatically mean the other person will be too.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Because folks, if the good guys have guns... so do the bad guys...
And if the good guys don't, neither do the bad guys!
Yeah, that's not always true. Sometimes the bad guys have guns, sometimes the good guys have guns, sometimes they both have guns, and sometimes neither of them have guns.
One person being armed doesn't automatically mean the other person will be too.
I was just joking. I'm of the opinion that everyone should be able to defend themselves, and if someone was at the point of breaking my windshield with his bare fists in rage I would use deadly force to keep him away from me.
1) Victim is armed, and because of this pulls over to confront the guy. Who is not armed.
a) guy approaches in a hostile manner, victim pulls gun and tells him to cool it, and the guy backs off. Nobody gets hurt.
b) guy approaches in hostile manner, victim pulls gun, guy doesn't back down, guy gets shot. Guy gets what he deserves.
2) scenerio in video. neither are armed.
a) victim manages to avoid attacker as in video.
b) victim does not manage to avoid attacker. Is severely beaten and/or possably killed.
c) victim does not manage to avoid attacker. beats attacker severely and looks like a total badass.
3) both are armed with a gun. Victim pulls over.
a) Victim is wounded/killed by attacker.
b) Victim kills/wounds his attacker.
4) Only attacker is armed.
a) victim manages to escape anyway.
b) victim is killed/wounded.
So we have 8 potential outcomes.
With the victim being unarmed, we have 4 possable outcomes. 2 result in the victim surviving, 2 result in bodily injury and/or death for the victim.
With the victim being armed, we have 4 possable outcomes as well. Instead, 3 result in the victim surviving with only 1 resulting in him being harmed.
Its better to be armed.
You left one out. Fixed that for you.
Also, you are not factoring probability into this. Assuming both are armed, you are giving equal weight to the victim successfully defending against an attacker who has the advantage of initiative, as you are to the victim losing that fight. That is not a reasonable assumption. If you are seated in your car, and someone gets out fo their and opens fire on you, you are likely going to get shot.
Additionally, you don't get to assume that the victim has a gun and the attacker doesn't. That's a flight of fancy. Doing so is not different than saying "well, what if the victim was driving a tank?" or "well, what if the victim had a car full of ninjas?"
If you want to insert guns into this situation, then you give a firearm to both the attacker and the victim. Saying "well the vicitm should have had a combat multiplying tool and the attacker shouldn't" is a simplistic statement of the obvious on par with "some dogs are big".
I'm not arguing that it's better to be unarmed versus being armed. I'm arguing that it's better for both parties in this situaiton to be unarmed, as the attacker has the advantage.
I'm not arguing that it's better to be unarmed versus being armed. I'm arguing that it's better for both parties in this situaiton to be unarmed, as the attacker has the advantage.
Instead of making excuses to ban guns, cant we make bullet resistant/proof windows for cars mandatory safety gear like airbags? ya know since its such a dangerous world.
Given that the lunatic made the first aggressive move and only had access to a truck instead of a gun.... that would be a resounding yes!
Without guns: Drives into the victim's car, chases him for a considerable time.
With guns: Drives up alongside victim's car, blows victim's brains out via side window.
Because folks, if the good guys have guns... so do the bad guys...
You, and thousands of people before you, have missed the point. The point isn't "can the criminal hurt the victim" its can the victim defend himself, or defend other people around him from someone intent on harming another person.
***and then a long winded story abut the guy being saved by another guy who also has a gun***
I haven't missed the point, you're just ducking that terrifying thing called logic I deployed. The one who loses their temper and intends to do harm is the one that strikes first, in this case with his car and in the case where EVERYONE IS ARMED he shoots first.
So, you jump from an alarming several minutes of car chase to a few seconds of gunfire and several people dead. Or perhaps you can give us more of your fantasy about the bystander getting into it and shooting the angry driver and perhaps the angry driver's girlfriend then picks up his gun and shoots the bystanding crimefighter for killing her beloved, then perhaps the bystander's significant other responds with deadly force... yeah whatever pal.
YOU have missed the point, adding guns to this encounter adds fatality to an otherwise nonfatal but very dangerous incident.
God, the pro-gun crowd are just fething fantasist morons, aren't they? As they seem to be on the increase here, I'm pretty much done with dakka for the time being. It's turned into an ultra-right wing armchair commando echo-chamber.
Albatross wrote: God, the pro-gun crowd are just fething fantasist morons, aren't they? As they seem to be on the increase here, I'm pretty much done with dakka for the time being. It's turned into an ultra-right wing armchair commando echo-chamber.
Almost as bad as the ultra liberal hippy "criminals aren't bad, just in a bad spot in life" everyone deserves to live folk.
Albatross wrote: God, the pro-gun crowd are just fething fantasist morons, aren't they? As they seem to be on the increase here, I'm pretty much done with dakka for the time being. It's turned into an ultra-right wing armchair commando echo-chamber.
No need to get butthurt Alby, there are plenty of anti-gun people on Dakka for you to attaboy and pat on the back while insulting law-abiding pro-gun posters.
With as many armed citizens as we have in the US, you'd think scenarios like MGS is describing would be happening on highways on a daily basis. I know you guys are probably disappointed to find out that America isn't actually the wild west that some Europeans imagine it to be.
Am i the only one who finds this argument Asinine? What happened happened. Putting guns into the mix changes very few. Anything could have happened if you put guns into the mix. The same exact thing could have happened. It could have not.
How does roid rage translate into " Hur durr, all people need is guns to be safe"
Albatross wrote: God, the pro-gun crowd are just fething fantasist morons, aren't they? As they seem to be on the increase here, I'm pretty much done with dakka for the time being. It's turned into an ultra-right wing armchair commando echo-chamber.
No need to get butthurt Alby, there are plenty of anti-gun people on Dakka for you to attaboy and pat on the back while insulting law-abiding pro-gun posters.
With as many armed citizens as we have in the US, you'd think scenarios like MGS is describing would be happening on highways on a daily basis. I know you guys are probably disappointed to find out that America isn't actually the wild west that some Europeans imagine it to be.
That's interesting that they don't include Mexico. I wonder where they'd fall on the chart.
And my point still stands. The scenarios you are describing don't really happen much, MGS. The other countries on that list don't have nearly the number of guns we do, so it makes sense that gun-related murders would be higher. That still doesn't make the US some European wild west fantasy land where everybody is gunning each other down on the highway at having gunfights at high noon at the OK corral.
Given that the lunatic made the first aggressive move and only had access to a truck instead of a gun.... that would be a resounding yes!
Without guns: Drives into the victim's car, chases him for a considerable time.
With guns: Drives up alongside victim's car, blows victim's brains out via side window.
Because folks, if the good guys have guns... so do the bad guys...
You, and thousands of people before you, have missed the point. The point isn't "can the criminal hurt the victim" its can the victim defend himself, or defend other people around him from someone intent on harming another person.
***and then a long winded story abut the guy being saved by another guy who also has a gun***
I haven't missed the point, you're just ducking that terrifying thing called logic I deployed. The one who loses their temper and intends to do harm is the one that strikes first, in this case with his car and in the case where EVERYONE IS ARMED he shoots first.
So, you jump from an alarming several minutes of car chase to a few seconds of gunfire and several people dead. Or perhaps you can give us more of your fantasy about the bystander getting into it and shooting the angry driver and perhaps the angry driver's girlfriend then picks up his gun and shoots the bystanding crimefighter for killing her beloved, then perhaps the bystander's significant other responds with deadly force... yeah whatever pal.
YOU have missed the point, adding guns to this encounter adds fatality to an otherwise nonfatal but very dangerous incident.
Fantasy? It happens regularly, just maybe not in a car situation. Nothing fantasy about it. Do some research, and read a few articles where producing a firearm has saved a life or several, EVEN when the attacker has the initiative. It has been proven time and time again that an aggressive attack met with force deters, or eliminates the threat. Just because the attacker has initiative doesn't mean that he will win the fight. I don't know how proficient you are with a firearm, or what you have been exposed to, but it isn't Hollywood where someone gets into a gunfight and ends it with two well placed shots. The shooter might fire first, it happens. I can see your point of view, yes, adding a firearm into the mix may turn a non-lethal situation into a lethal one. The attacker probably should have thought about that, shouldn't he? Regardless of whether the victim had a gun, if he attacker does, he is no more or less safe, but at least he can protect himself. I'm curious about what exposure to violence you may have other than school yard fights? This isn't an insult, I'm just curious given your location in the US. Have you ever been assaulted? Have you ever seen someone shooting at someone else? Have you ever seen someone get shot in front of you? Again, I'm not insulting you, just curious, thats all. In some situations, it might not warrant a firearm coming out at all, but its better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. Saying having no firearms makes you safer isn't true, it just limits ones ability to defend themself.
oh and his girlfriend gets out of the car, and grabs his gun? She gets some too, I certainly won't hesitate if she wants to join in. I'll say it again, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Albatross wrote: God, the pro-gun crowd are just fething fantasist morons, aren't they? As they seem to be on the increase here, I'm pretty much done with dakka for the time being. It's turned into an ultra-right wing armchair commando echo-chamber.
No need to get butthurt Alby, there are plenty of anti-gun people on Dakka for you to attaboy and pat on the back while insulting law-abiding pro-gun posters.
With as many armed citizens as we have in the US, you'd think scenarios like MGS is describing would be happening on highways on a daily basis. I know you guys are probably disappointed to find out that America isn't actually the wild west that some Europeans imagine it to be.
Nope, nothing to see here...
I wonder what the non gun related crimes per country look like in comparison. (like the video)
Mattman154 wrote: Simple, hotsauceman1, we need these gun threads to keep OT interesting.
Except they aren't very interesting as the same arguments keep getting repeated, people oversimplify a complicated issue and very few people are as well-educated on the subject as they would like you to believe, these threads are the exact opposite of interesting they're completely
predicable crap that get's repeated over and over, like the zombie craze (I like zombies, but I don't like having zombies spammed in every form of entertainment).
I'm sorry, but I don't trust a study that doesn't include America's Pants (mexico).
Honestly though I'd be more worried about Chile than us. They're averaging 9 murders per 400,000 people*, but they have like 1/20th the population of the US.
Though to be fair, I'm curious to what the murder rates would be if Chicago, Detroit, and New Orleans could get their ish together. These cities were the murder capitals of the states, but let's not look at their insane gang problem that Chicago has, the horrible economy that Detroit has, and well... I'm sure there are plenty of reasons to kill people in New Orleans, probably has something to do with Voodoo.
* - I went for the 400,000 number, because I didn't want to deal in the 2.25 that Chile has, in comparison at 400,000 people, the USA averages 13 gun related deaths.
A gun would have only made this situation worse and may have ended with someone dead.
Honestly I find it kind of scary that some of you think everyone should have a gun at all times, and pull it out all willy nilly when someone else is trying to be a tough guy.
nectarprime wrote: A gun would have only made this situation worse and may have ended with someone dead.
Honestly I find it kind of scary that some of you think everyone should have a gun at all times, and pull it out all willy nilly when someone else is trying to be a tough guy.
Because there is a difference between a guy beat the gak out of your car and a guy flexing his muscles? You can talk to Purplefood, Mr DWhitey, Soladrin, and Avatar 720. They all know I have at least 1 gun, and they would probably say that I'm a decently level headed guy. My gun is for home defense. If some "tough guy" wants to steal my things, he's going to receive the gift of a bullet.
nectarprime wrote: A gun would have only made this situation worse and may have ended with someone dead.
Honestly I find it kind of scary that some of you think everyone should have a gun at all times, and pull it out all willy nilly when someone else is trying to be a tough guy.
Yup, someone punching his way through a windshield is just trying to be a tough guy.
nectarprime wrote: A gun would have only made this situation worse and may have ended with someone dead.
Honestly I find it kind of scary that some of you think everyone should have a gun at all times, and pull it out all willy nilly when someone else is trying to be a tough guy.
I didn't realize Piers Morgan posted on Dakka!
Seriously though, I don't think anyone here thinks or is proposing that everyone should have a gun at all times. Supporting the right to bear arms and carry a weapon does not equal wanting everyone to be armed.
It's one of the dumbest strawmen I've ever heard, really, and people just keep using it. Someone says they think people should have a right to carry a firearm or that a person who is armed is safer than a person who isn't, and someone comes back with, "Oh, so you think EVERYONE should be armed at all times?!" No, that's not what anybody is saying.
Notice how the title of the graph and the actual graph data key shown on the left aren't worded the same? The top says "murders" and the actual data says homicides. What you're seeing here is a severely misleading statistic. Homicides include all death by gun including justifiable, people shot by cops, suicides which would happen with or without a gun, etc. etc.
That aside, most of the actual gun crime that occurs within the US is concentrated in a few urban areas with very strict gun control and usually gang problems (Chcago, etc.) So in other words no your graph is completely dishonest and misleading, and posting it in the way you did can only be chalked up to yes man propaganda.
Aside from that, many people here in this thread are missing the basic premise:
I'd rather have a gun and chance that the guy attacking me may or may not have one, than not have a gun and chance that the guy attacking me may or may not have one. It's that simple.
You may not want to have one, but that doesn't mean you can tell me I'm not allowed one if I feel the need (unless you can get your politicians to enforce taking it from me, ironically at the point of their own guns)
nectarprime wrote: A gun would have only made this situation worse and may have ended with someone dead.
Honestly I find it kind of scary that some of you think everyone should have a gun at all times, and pull it out all willy nilly when someone else is trying to be a tough guy.
I agree,
i also find it silly for people to think no one should have guns and expect the government to take care of everything.
I figured you'd be great character witnesses, "Nah he's a fether, your Honor, he's a layabout and a racist." - Whitey
"In all fairness your honor, they are British." - Alf
"The defendant is hereby cleared of all charges." - Judge
On topic - I'm with Hordini, none of this gun talk revolves around 'MURICANS being armed to the tooth at all times. It's about those that want to carry a weapon to defend themselves having the right to do so. Now we need to figure out if there is if those weapons should be "limited" but that's a debate for a different thread.
nectarprime wrote: A gun would have only made this situation worse and may have ended with someone dead.
Honestly I find it kind of scary that some of you think everyone should have a gun at all times, and pull it out all willy nilly when someone else is trying to be a tough guy.
Because there is a difference between a guy beat the gak out of your car and a guy flexing his muscles? You can talk to Purplefood, Mr DWhitey, Soladrin, and Avatar 720. They all know I have at least 1 gun, and they would probably say that I'm a decently level headed guy. My gun is for home defense. If some "tough guy" wants to steal my things, he's going to receive the gift of a bullet.
If you believe that a person deserves to die over theft or damage to property, then I would have to disagree about the level headed remark!
Notice how the title of the graph and the actual graph data key shown on the left aren't worded the same? The top says "murders" and the actual data says homicides. What you're seeing here is a severely misleading statistic. Homicides include all death by gun including justifiable, people shot by cops, suicides which would happen with or without a gun, etc. etc.
That aside, most of the actual gun crime that occurs within the US is concentrated in a few urban areas with very strict gun control and usually gang problems (Chcago, etc.) So in other words no your graph is completely dishonest and misleading, and posting it in the way you did can only be chalked up to yes man propaganda.
Good catch, I missed that the first time I looked at the graph. Yeah, that is misleading.
And that's the thing that gets me. The urban areas where we have the most gun murders also usually have some of the strictest gun control in the country. It's almost like the guns themselves aren't the problem, but maybe there are cultural issues we should try to address.
nectarprime wrote: A gun would have only made this situation worse and may have ended with someone dead.
Honestly I find it kind of scary that some of you think everyone should have a gun at all times, and pull it out all willy nilly when someone else is trying to be a tough guy.
Because there is a difference between a guy beat the gak out of your car and a guy flexing his muscles? You can talk to Purplefood, Mr DWhitey, Soladrin, and Avatar 720. They all know I have at least 1 gun, and they would probably say that I'm a decently level headed guy. My gun is for home defense. If some "tough guy" wants to steal my things, he's going to receive the gift of a bullet.
If you believe that a person deserves to die over theft or damage to property, then I would have to disagree about the level headed remark!
By the way, I own guns too.
Where did I ever say I would kill the man? Do I want him to die? no, but I'm a big proponent of a bullet wound being an excellent motivator to tell someone to get the feth away from my family and my house. Especially considering that he be receiving said wound after he has broken into my house, set off my alarm, and waited for me to travel from my room in the attic to wherever I encounter him, if he's still in my house after all that, then he probably deserves a good grazing shot. I pray to God I never have to use it, but I was also a boy scout. I'd rather not have to use it, but I would rather be prepared if I had to.
nectarprime wrote: A gun would have only made this situation worse and may have ended with someone dead.
Honestly I find it kind of scary that some of you think everyone should have a gun at all times, and pull it out all willy nilly when someone else is trying to be a tough guy.
I didn't realize Piers Morgan posted on Dakka!
Seriously though, I don't think anyone here thinks or is proposing that everyone should have a gun at all times. Supporting the right to bear arms and carry a weapon does not equal wanting everyone to be armed.
It's one of the dumbest strawmen I've ever heard, really, and people just keep using it. Someone says they think people should have a right to carry a firearm or that a person who is armed is safer than a person who isn't, and someone comes back with, "Oh, so you think EVERYONE should be armed at all times?!" No, that's not what anybody is saying.
If the opinion you have is that "anyone with a gun is safer" then why wouldn't you want everyone to be armed at all times?
nectarprime wrote: A gun would have only made this situation worse and may have ended with someone dead.
Honestly I find it kind of scary that some of you think everyone should have a gun at all times, and pull it out all willy nilly when someone else is trying to be a tough guy.
Because there is a difference between a guy beat the gak out of your car and a guy flexing his muscles? You can talk to Purplefood, Mr DWhitey, Soladrin, and Avatar 720. They all know I have at least 1 gun, and they would probably say that I'm a decently level headed guy. My gun is for home defense. If some "tough guy" wants to steal my things, he's going to receive the gift of a bullet.
If you believe that a person deserves to die over theft or damage to property, then I would have to disagree about the level headed remark!
By the way, I own guns too.
Where did I ever say I would kill the man?
Do I want him to die? no, but I'm a big proponent of a bullet wound being an excellent motivator to tell someone to get the feth away from my family and my house. Especially considering that he be receiving said wound after he has broken into my house, set off my alarm, and waited for me to travel from my room in the attic to wherever I encounter him, if he's still in my house after all that, then he probably deserves a good grazing shot. I pray to God I never have to use it, but I was also a boy scout. I'd rather not have to use it, but I would rather be prepared if I had to.
I guess we must agree to disagree. I was always taught that using a firearm is deadly force, and that one should only be utilized as a last resort. I do not see the point of using a gun for defense if your intent is not to kill.
I guess we must agree to disagree. I was always taught that using a firearm is deadly force, and that one should only be utilized as a last resort. I do not see the point of using a gun for defense if your intent is not to kill.
You are 100% correct.
Being a gun owner means you need to be responsible. Know when, and when not, to apply deadly force.
I carry because I'm willing to defend myself and others with deadly force. I don't pull it out when someone pisses me off, and I don't wave it around and show it to everyone, and if I ever have to actually fire it, I'm going to do so until the threat has stopped, or has left the area.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the life of someone who forces their way in to people's houses to steal their property as something worth defending.
And before someone accuses me, no I'm not saying shoot to kill if you don't have to, but I wouldn't condemn someone for killing an intruder.
nectarprime wrote: A gun would have only made this situation worse and may have ended with someone dead.
Honestly I find it kind of scary that some of you think everyone should have a gun at all times, and pull it out all willy nilly when someone else is trying to be a tough guy.
I didn't realize Piers Morgan posted on Dakka!
Seriously though, I don't think anyone here thinks or is proposing that everyone should have a gun at all times. Supporting the right to bear arms and carry a weapon does not equal wanting everyone to be armed.
It's one of the dumbest strawmen I've ever heard, really, and people just keep using it. Someone says they think people should have a right to carry a firearm or that a person who is armed is safer than a person who isn't, and someone comes back with, "Oh, so you think EVERYONE should be armed at all times?!" No, that's not what anybody is saying.
If the opinion you have is that "anyone with a gun is safer" then why wouldn't you want everyone to be armed at all times?
Because this a free country and if someone doesn't want to carry a gun they shouldn't have to, just as if a law-abiding citizen wants to they should be allowed to. There are a lot of people who have no desire to carry a weapon, so it's not really that huge of a concern. Someone who is properly trained and can safely handle a firearm and is armed is going to have more options than someone who is unarmed. If someone chooses to go unarmed, they are taking a risk that they might need a weapon not have one, but that is up for the individual to decide.
And my point still stands. The scenarios you are describing don't really happen much, MGS. The other countries on that list don't have nearly the number of guns we do, so it makes sense that gun-related murders would be higher. That still doesn't make the US some European wild west fantasy land where everybody is gunning each other down on the highway at having gunfights at high noon at the OK corral.
America: We're a bit safer than Mexico... America: because you wouldn't want to live in Chile, amirite?
Is that what you want the superpower of the first world to be recognized as?
The scenario I described, H, was a ridiculously far fetched hyperbolic response to the ridiculously far fetched hyperbolic nonsense that 'Firehead' posted about 'well if the bad guy did shoot first they you don't know that there might have been a bystander that could shoot him etc'... it's puerile conjuring and too many hero fantasies.
And my point still stands, you're gun death rate is very high when compared with other first world democracies, but reasonable when you're comparing with military junta controlled south american hell holes, fanatic controlled desert wastelands and african lawless pits. Depends on what company you want to keep on the world stage and what society you want to live in and raise the kids I guess.
Because this a free country and if someone doesn't want to carry a gun they shouldn't have to, just as if a law-abiding citizen wants to they should be allowed to.
Is the UK or Ireland or Germany not free?
Are you going to measure a person's freedom in their country by the right to carry lethal weaponry? Why is that a yardstick?
I guess we must agree to disagree. I was always taught that using a firearm is deadly force, and that one should only be utilized as a last resort. I do not see the point of using a gun for defense if your intent is not to kill.
You are 100% correct.
Being a gun owner means you need to be responsible. Know when, and when not, to apply deadly force.
I carry because I'm willing to defend myself and others with deadly force. I don't pull it out when someone pisses me off, and I don't wave it around and show it to everyone, and if I ever have to actually fire it, I'm going to do so until the threat has stopped, or has left the area.
Bolded for emphasis. This is important to note, responsible gun owners don't do this. This is a great way to lose your CCW and no longer be allowed to own firearms.
nectarprime wrote: I guess we must agree to disagree. I was always taught that using a firearm is deadly force, and that one should only be utilized as a last resort. I do not see the point of using a gun for defense if your intent is not to kill.
So I should only want to use my gun if I want to kill the intruder? 1) Any and all gunshot wounds at a hospital MUST be reported to the cops, so the criminal either goes there, or tries to take care of it himself (pretty painful) 2) It's my property, I'm allowed to defend it as I see fit. If he runs away after being hit once, I'm not going to chase him down or shoot him in the back 3) My gun and it's intent is a deterrent for people seeking entrance into my house without my permission to either remove my property or to do my family bodily harm. If 1 bullet doesn't work, 2 might, if 2 doesn't work... well you get my point. I don't want to kill the guy if I don't have to. A bullet hurts. I've never been shot by one, but I've been hit by plenty of airsoft pellets, and those fethers hurt, I can only imagine the pain someone would feel if they got hit with an actual bullet.
Edit: I'm not sure if Firehead read nectarprime's post, or the quotes got messed up... His words don't seem to match up with his "agreement" to nectarprime's post... But then again I'm on cold meds, and could be reading this wrong.
I would argue that anyone with a gun, no matter how well their training has been, could be disarmed and have that weapon used against them. I couldn't label someone who does not walk around with a weapon as "at risk".
Of course these are just my opinions on the subject.
daedalus wrote: I'm still kind of upset that no one considered my humble and bipartisan recommendation...
I considered it, but I'm a people and I don't like the idea of having to be eradicated for the good of humanity... Next you'll be telling me that I need to cover myself in sandtrouts for 3500 years...
nectarprime wrote: I guess we must agree to disagree. I was always taught that using a firearm is deadly force, and that one should only be utilized as a last resort. I do not see the point of using a gun for defense if your intent is not to kill.
So I should only want to use my gun if I want to kill the intruder? 1) Any and all gunshot wounds at a hospital MUST be reported to the cops, so the criminal either goes there, or tries to take care of it himself (pretty painful) 2) It's my property, I'm allowed to defend it as I see fit. If he runs away after being hit once, I'm not going to chase him down or shoot him in the back 3) My gun and it's intent is a deterrent for people seeking entrance into my house without my permission to either remove my property or to do my family bodily harm. If 1 bullet doesn't work, 2 might, if 2 doesn't work... well you get my point. I don't want to kill the guy if I don't have to. A bullet hurts. I've never been shot by one, but I've been hit by plenty of airsoft pellets, and those fethers hurt, I can only imagine the pain someone would feel if they got hit with an actual bullet.
I don't think you realize that hollowpoints, they types of bullets most used for home defense (also the safest) are designed to kill, not wound.
If you are at risk, and only wound your attacker and he is also armed, he will attempt to kill you.
If you truly think that your possessions are worth ANY human life, then I don't really see the point in discussing this further.
There are a bajillion things that go into firearms ownership and carry. I can't tell you all of it that I've learned over the last 8 years of training to fight people with a firearm in my hands.
@MeanGreen: Again, my scenario is not fantasy, its fact. It happens, look it up, do some research and create a well informed opinion. Just recently in a movie theater an armed citizen stopped a man who had entered brandishing a firearm by shooting him. Don't accuse me of creating "hero" fantasies that are a reality, in attempt to justify your closet reality of firearms and their use in public.
Anecdote: I was roughly 16 or 17 and my father was overseas in Italy, and I awoke at 3 AM to the sounds of rifle fire. I looked out my window to see two men standing near their car firing rifles down the street. I grabbed my rifle and headed into my living room. My mother, was peering out the window and I told her to call the police. As she did so I took aim with my rifle. I hesitated, however, and chose not to fire. The two men got in their car and left. I went outside to check for casualties and to assist them if need be. Upon talking with the police who arrived about an hour later, I would have been justified in the shoot. Had this happened to me now, with the level of training and knowledge I have, I would have fired. Again I chose not to. Armed citizens don't intervene though, right? I tell you this because YOU live in a fantasy world where this stuff doesn't happen, and apparently the opportunity for a citizen to help his fellow man in a time of need doesn't exist.
@Nectar: You're right, its always a possibility that you could be disarmed and have it used against you. It has happened.
Bottom line, we live in an imperfect world where someone will attempt to take your life, or anothers, without even a second thought. If you choose to take on the responsibility of helping your fellow man, then that is great. Good on you. However, you're unwillingness to fight for your or another persons life shouldn't infringe on my ability to do so. Crime will happen, only the tools change.
nectarprime wrote: I guess we must agree to disagree. I was always taught that using a firearm is deadly force, and that one should only be utilized as a last resort. I do not see the point of using a gun for defense if your intent is not to kill.
So I should only want to use my gun if I want to kill the intruder? 1) Any and all gunshot wounds at a hospital MUST be reported to the cops, so the criminal either goes there, or tries to take care of it himself (pretty painful) 2) It's my property, I'm allowed to defend it as I see fit. If he runs away after being hit once, I'm not going to chase him down or shoot him in the back 3) My gun and it's intent is a deterrent for people seeking entrance into my house without my permission to either remove my property or to do my family bodily harm. If 1 bullet doesn't work, 2 might, if 2 doesn't work... well you get my point. I don't want to kill the guy if I don't have to. A bullet hurts. I've never been shot by one, but I've been hit by plenty of airsoft pellets, and those fethers hurt, I can only imagine the pain someone would feel if they got hit with an actual bullet.
I don't think you realize that hollowpoints, they types of bullets most used for home defense (also the safest) are designed to kill, not wound.
If you are at risk, and only wound your attacker and he is also armed, he will attempt to kill you.
If you truly think that your possessions are worth ANY human life, then I don't really see the point in discussing this further.
The ammunition for the gun I own doesn't come in hollow point form... to my knowledge... Granted... I use this for home defense (until I get my handgun):
It should be noted: That I have plenty of hallway space, AND... in the 10 years I've lived in this house/city... we've never had a break-in, so I use it mostly for target practice.
And my point still stands. The scenarios you are describing don't really happen much, MGS. The other countries on that list don't have nearly the number of guns we do, so it makes sense that gun-related murders would be higher. That still doesn't make the US some European wild west fantasy land where everybody is gunning each other down on the highway at having gunfights at high noon at the OK corral.
America: We're a bit safer than Mexico... America: because you wouldn't want to live in Chile, amirite?
Is that what you want the superpower of the first world to be recognized as?
The scenario I described, H, was a ridiculously far fetched hyperbolic response to the ridiculously far fetched hyperbolic nonsense that 'Firehead' posted about 'well if the bad guy did shoot first they you don't know that there might have been a bystander that could shoot him etc'... it's puerile conjuring and too many hero fantasies.
And my point still stands, you're gun death rate is very high when compared with other first world democracies, but reasonable when you're comparing with military junta controlled south american hell holes, fanatic controlled desert wastelands and african lawless pits. Depends on what company you want to keep on the world stage and what society you want to live in and raise the kids I guess.
As other people have already posted, those statistics do not only include gun murders. The vast majority of our gun murders take place in urban areas that have gang and drug problems, and also happen to be places with strict gun control. Comparing the US to military junta's and South American "hell holes" grossly ignores the cultural issues that cause high gun murders in urban areas in the US.
Because this a free country and if someone doesn't want to carry a gun they shouldn't have to, just as if a law-abiding citizen wants to they should be allowed to.
Is the UK or Ireland or Germany not free?
Are you going to measure a person's freedom in their country by the right to carry lethal weaponry? Why is that a yardstick?
Don't start that crap with me. I did not say that nor have I ever implied that. I've spent several years living in Germany and Austria, and I hold both of those countries in high regard. That doesn't mean I love everything about them, but I'd be the last Dakkaite to come on here and make some stupid claim that America is a free country and the UK or Ireland or Germany are not. Neither am I a self-hating American. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. As an expat, I'm guessing you can relate.
In the United States, however, we have the right to bear arms and as I'm sure you already know, that is something many of us take seriously. It is a yardstick within the US, because it is what we expect and is how we have done things since the nation was founded. In the UK, Ireland, and Germany, there is no right to bear arms so it's no surprise that they don't have many firearms and have stricter gun control than the US. A lot of that comes down to cultural differences. There are things you can do more easily in Germany than you can in the US, and vice versa; both countries have their pros and cons.
So from the perspective from within a country with the right to bear arms, yes, being able to choose to carry a weapon or choose not to is a measure of freedom within that country, and I stand by my previous post. This a free country and if someone doesn't want to carry a gun they shouldn't have to, just as if a law-abiding citizen wants to they should be allowed to.
nectarprime wrote: I guess we must agree to disagree. I was always taught that using a firearm is deadly force, and that one should only be utilized as a last resort. I do not see the point of using a gun for defense if your intent is not to kill.
So I should only want to use my gun if I want to kill the intruder? 1) Any and all gunshot wounds at a hospital MUST be reported to the cops, so the criminal either goes there, or tries to take care of it himself (pretty painful) 2) It's my property, I'm allowed to defend it as I see fit. If he runs away after being hit once, I'm not going to chase him down or shoot him in the back 3) My gun and it's intent is a deterrent for people seeking entrance into my house without my permission to either remove my property or to do my family bodily harm. If 1 bullet doesn't work, 2 might, if 2 doesn't work... well you get my point. I don't want to kill the guy if I don't have to. A bullet hurts. I've never been shot by one, but I've been hit by plenty of airsoft pellets, and those fethers hurt, I can only imagine the pain someone would feel if they got hit with an actual bullet.
I don't think you realize that hollowpoints, they types of bullets most used for home defense (also the safest) are designed to kill, not wound.
If you are at risk, and only wound your attacker and he is also armed, he will attempt to kill you.
If you truly think that your possessions are worth ANY human life, then I don't really see the point in discussing this further.
what are you defending from. bears? lol
kinda silly to try to defend with a rifle like that, (not the easiest to quickload, or to bring to bare, in an inclosed area)
The ammunition for the gun I own doesn't come in hollow point form... to my knowledge... Granted... I use this for home defense (until I get my handgun):
It should be noted: That I have plenty of hallway space, AND... in the 10 years I've lived in this house/city... we've never had a break-in, so I use it mostly for target practice.
kinda silly to try to defend with a rifle like that, (not the easiest to quickload, or to bring to bare, in an inclosed area)
Maybe... >_>
It's what I have atm, and I can load the clip (yes it is a clip) into it quick, and fire off 5 shots at a decent pace. Is it semi-auto handgun pace? Nope! That's 1 of the reasons why I want the 1911 that I'm buying, which does have hollow points, and it probably/might be the type of ammo I pick up for home defense. In that case I will have to be okay with the possibility that my shot is going to kill someone instead of just scaring them off (as is the intent that I wish to get across with wounding them with a gun).
Though, what might you do if strobe lights are flashing (what happens when my alarm goes off), and you are starting down the muzzle of that gun? Is it perfect? nope, but it's my stop gap. Like I said again, 10 years where I'm at, and we've yet to have a break in (thankfully). The ADT sign might be the biggest deterrent to that.
I would think with all the stuff trying to kill you in Austrailia that would be reason enough to carry a gun
EDIT: got a chance to watch the video.
The victim handled that as best he could. Were I in that situation, I probably would've tried to do the same. That guy had to have a lot of guts to keep his cool during that, and I'm amazed he didn't run the guy over.
The only difference had I been the one in that scenario is that near the end, when the guy started punching through the window, he WOULD have been shot by me, especially if I didn't think my car could get away. Everything else I would just attribute to road rage, call the cops, and try to get the guy to calm down. But at that point, he's shown that he's lost all control over his temper.
I don't care what you people say, any man furious enough to drive into oncoming traffic, sideswipe you, follow you off the road, intentionally tries to wreck your vehicle, and PUNCH HIS WAY THROUGH A WINDSHIELD, is beyond reasoning with. He's already assaulted you multiple times with a deadly weapon (or at least, that's how it's seen in the USA if you ram someone with a car) and by that point, he's proved that he's not wanting to just exchange numbers. He's already attempted to harm you with lethal force, he shouldn't be surprised if the victim defends himself with lethal force as well.
To everyone saying "if he'd had a gun, that man would've died." Well, yeah, that's kind of the point. But what if this guy's car hadn't started up again? What if that guy was allowed to keep bashing through the windshield. Then there's a pretty good chance the victim would've died. The fact that the guy went into the opposite lane, off the road, oncoming traffic, etc, proved he wouldn't stop. Do you honestly think a guy that angry would've just pulled you out, hit you a few times, and been done with it? Best case scenario is that you would've been beat to within an inch of your life. To be honest, the only reason he finally stopped was probably because he was seriously wounded when he fell off the car. Had he missed that rearview mirror, it's pretty obvious he would've kept coming. You have to realize, in hindsight, we can always say "well, it all worked out alright, so he didn't need it." But in the heat of the moment, you don't have time to wonder about if it's going to end peacefully or not. You've got a very short period of time in what could very well be a life or death situation. You say you're glad that the victim didn't have a gun, but were you in his shoes, I'm pretty sure you'd be begging for one when that guy started bashing through the windshield. Of course, at this point, everyone has picked a side so no amount of arguing can sway the other, so I'm kind of wasting my time here sadly.
Also, what the heck do you Australians smoke that makes you that angry?
FINAL EDIT: To alfndrate, no man can call his nugget a home defense weapon without the bayonet attached
It's what I have atm, and I can load the clip (yes it is a clip) into it quick, and fire off 5 shots at a decent pace. Is it semi-auto handgun pace? Nope! That's 1 of the reasons why I want the 1911 that I'm buying, which does have hollow points, and it probably/might be the type of ammo I pick up for home defense. In that case I will have to be okay with the possibility that my shot is going to kill someone instead of just scaring them off (as is the intent that I wish to get across with wounding them with a gun).
Though, what might you do if strobe lights are flashing (what happens when my alarm goes off), and you are starting down the muzzle of that gun? Is it perfect? nope, but it's my stop gap. Like I said again, 10 years where I'm at, and we've yet to have a break in (thankfully). The ADT sign might be the biggest deterrent to that.
Im actually jelly because i wanna get a 1911. (curse you plastic crack addiction)
It's what I have atm, and I can load the clip (yes it is a clip) into it quick, and fire off 5 shots at a decent pace. Is it semi-auto handgun pace? Nope! That's 1 of the reasons why I want the 1911 that I'm buying, which does have hollow points, and it probably/might be the type of ammo I pick up for home defense. In that case I will have to be okay with the possibility that my shot is going to kill someone instead of just scaring them off (as is the intent that I wish to get across with wounding them with a gun).
Though, what might you do if strobe lights are flashing (what happens when my alarm goes off), and you are starting down the muzzle of that gun? Is it perfect? nope, but it's my stop gap. Like I said again, 10 years where I'm at, and we've yet to have a break in (thankfully). The ADT sign might be the biggest deterrent to that.
Im actually jelly because i wanna get a 1911. (curse you plastic crack addiction)
Edited because i broke quotes.
My boss is an ex-military guy, that I would consider a gun-nut... he has some weird views on the world, government, and... things... But it's got some custom pieces to it (after market springs, grips and a recoil pad), I made a very good argument that people weren't buying handguns and that they were buying "assault weapons" (of which he wants) and that he would be hard pressed to find a buyer... he didn't think too much about it and made the deal
Notice how the title of the graph and the actual graph data key shown on the left aren't worded the same? The top says "murders" and the actual data says homicides. What you're seeing here is a severely misleading statistic. Homicides include all death by gun including justifiable, people shot by cops, suicides which would happen with or without a gun, etc. etc.
That aside, most of the actual gun crime that occurs within the US is concentrated in a few urban areas with very strict gun control and usually gang problems (Chcago, etc.) So in other words no your graph is completely dishonest and misleading, and posting it in the way you did can only be chalked up to yes man propaganda.
Um suicides are homicides now? And for the record, suicides with a gun would not always lead to a suicide without the gun. Its a fact; part of the reason why suicide attempts amongst men are more likely to end in death than attempts by women, because a gun is more oftenly used. And pills can be pumped from stomachs while brains can't be put back together.
Also this whole tread is needlessly dumb. It's the exact same posters arguing with the exact same arguments on the exact same topics.
I'll let you get back to regurgitating the same arguments you've all been having since Newtown.
I'd bring back boob pictures but apparently those are frowned on in this establishment. But recycled arguments with no amount of progressive dialogue are the soup du jour. I'm with you Alby. OT used to be fun, so see you when its fun again.
Um suicides are homicides now? And for the record, suicides with a gun would not always lead to a suicide without the gun. Its a fact; part of the reason why suicide attempts amongst men are more likely to end in death than attempts by women, because a gun is more oftenly used. And pills can be pumped from stomachs while brains can't be put back together.
Japan has an extremely high suicide rate without having many guns.
Grey Templar wrote: b) guy approaches in hostile manner, victim pulls gun, guy doesn't back down, guy gets shot. Guy gets what he deserves.
Not in some people's opinion. Some folks like to think that person's life is just as precious as the victim's.
Who are you to decide that his life isn't?
You're some anonymous person on the Internet putting forth the idea that a guy who was involved in a road rage incident deserves to be shot dead.
Do you see where that idea falls apart?
Um suicides are homicides now? And for the record, suicides with a gun would not always lead to a suicide without the gun. Its a fact; part of the reason why suicide attempts amongst men are more likely to end in death than attempts by women, because a gun is more oftenly used. And pills can be pumped from stomachs while brains can't be put back together.
Japan has an extremely high suicide without having many guns.
It also has an amazingly different culture. Of course, to actually be on track you would need to compare the number of attempted suicides to successful suicides between the two countries, as well as the different methods used, as that is what is being presented, not just what the base number of suicide are.
And my point still stands. The scenarios you are describing don't really happen much, MGS. The other countries on that list don't have nearly the number of guns we do, so it makes sense that gun-related murders would be higher. That still doesn't make the US some European wild west fantasy land where everybody is gunning each other down on the highway at having gunfights at high noon at the OK corral.
America: We're a bit safer than Mexico... America: because you wouldn't want to live in Chile, amirite?
Is that what you want the superpower of the first world to be recognized as?
The scenario I described, H, was a ridiculously far fetched hyperbolic response to the ridiculously far fetched hyperbolic nonsense that 'Firehead' posted about 'well if the bad guy did shoot first they you don't know that there might have been a bystander that could shoot him etc'... it's puerile conjuring and too many hero fantasies.
And my point still stands, you're gun death rate is very high when compared with other first world democracies, but reasonable when you're comparing with military junta controlled south american hell holes, fanatic controlled desert wastelands and african lawless pits. Depends on what company you want to keep on the world stage and what society you want to live in and raise the kids I guess.
As other people have already posted, those statistics do not only include gun murders. The vast majority of our gun murders take place in urban areas that have gang and drug problems, and also happen to be places with strict gun control. Comparing the US to military junta's and South American "hell holes" grossly ignores the cultural issues that cause high gun murders in urban areas in the US.
Did you just tell me that more gun murders occur in America where there are more people? Of course there will be a higher rate of murder in urban areas.
You then say it's down to crime and drugs, if this was the case, there would be an equal rate of homicide in inner cities in other first world nations, like the UK or Australia or Germany, I'm guessing that's not the case and the rate is far higher in the US. All these countries have their share of crime and poverty in the cities, yet their homicide rate is dramatically lower. Perhaps the lack of ready access to lethal weaponry might play at least a part in those figures?
Because this a free country and if someone doesn't want to carry a gun they shouldn't have to, just as if a law-abiding citizen wants to they should be allowed to.
Is the UK or Ireland or Germany not free?
Are you going to measure a person's freedom in their country by the right to carry lethal weaponry? Why is that a yardstick?
Don't start that crap with me. I did not say that nor have I ever implied that. I've spent several years living in Germany and Austria, and I hold both of those countries in high regard. That doesn't mean I love everything about them, but I'd be the last Dakkaite to come on here and make some stupid claim that America is a free country and the UK or Ireland or Germany are not. Neither am I a self-hating American. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. As an expat, I'm guessing you can relate.
In the United States, however, we have the right to bear arms and as I'm sure you already know, that is something many of us take seriously. It is a yardstick within the US, because it is what we expect and is how we have done things since the nation was founded. In the UK, Ireland, and Germany, there is no right to bear arms so it's no surprise that they don't have many firearms and have stricter gun control than the US. A lot of that comes down to cultural differences. There are things you can do more easily in Germany than you can in the US, and vice versa; both countries have their pros and cons.
So from the perspective from within a country with the right to bear arms, yes, being able to choose to carry a weapon or choose not to is a measure of freedom within that country, and I stand by my previous post. This a free country and if someone doesn't want to carry a gun they shouldn't have to, just as if a law-abiding citizen wants to they should be allowed to.
I'm sorry, here I am guilty of layering what you have said with the accusation I was on the receiving end of several times in central PA, that my country is a socialist state with no personal freedoms, that I am a pussy for letting 'yur guvmunt take away yur guns'. You see, I hear this spoken about in utterly sacrosanct terms, the 'right' to bear arms as being utter and absolute, like the right to draw breath or fall in love or feel the sunlight.
All those things have been denied to many people due to the 'right' to guns, I come from a society where we don't have them, I was utterly unaware of feeling oppressed or being denied a basic right and quite certain I felt a damned cite safer there.
And honestly, cultural differences between the Western Europeans and the United States are fairly slim, it's why we Euros can't understand the obsession with guns.
Um suicides are homicides now? And for the record, suicides with a gun would not always lead to a suicide without the gun. Its a fact; part of the reason why suicide attempts amongst men are more likely to end in death than attempts by women, because a gun is more oftenly used. And pills can be pumped from stomachs while brains can't be put back together.
Japan has an extremely high suicide without having many guns.
It also has an amazingly different culture. Of course, to actually be on track you would need to compare the number of attempted suicides to successful suicides between the two countries, as well as the different methods used, as that is what is being presented, not just what the base number of suicide are.
Woah, so you mean like, culture makes a difference? I feel like I've heard that before somewhere.
I'd bring back boob pictures but apparently those are frowned on in this establishment. .
Since when is it frown'ed upon??
BRING IT BACK! They make the world go a'round!
Last time I tried to put an American flag bikini photo in a gun thread one of the mods took it down. Apparently a family site means discussions of anointing your armor with the blood of women is ok, but a picture of a woman is wrong.
I'd bring back boob pictures but apparently those are frowned on in this establishment. .
Since when is it frown'ed upon??
BRING IT BACK! They make the world go a'round!
Last time I tried to put an American flag bikini photo in a gun thread one of the mods took it down. Apparently a family site means discussions of anointing your armor with the blood of women is ok, but a picture of a woman is wrong.
Bah... dat's what is wrong with our 'Murrican culture. We readily show violence, blood & gore... but boobeh is bad.
And my point still stands. The scenarios you are describing don't really happen much, MGS. The other countries on that list don't have nearly the number of guns we do, so it makes sense that gun-related murders would be higher. That still doesn't make the US some European wild west fantasy land where everybody is gunning each other down on the highway at having gunfights at high noon at the OK corral.
America: We're a bit safer than Mexico... America: because you wouldn't want to live in Chile, amirite?
Is that what you want the superpower of the first world to be recognized as?
The scenario I described, H, was a ridiculously far fetched hyperbolic response to the ridiculously far fetched hyperbolic nonsense that 'Firehead' posted about 'well if the bad guy did shoot first they you don't know that there might have been a bystander that could shoot him etc'... it's puerile conjuring and too many hero fantasies.
And my point still stands, you're gun death rate is very high when compared with other first world democracies, but reasonable when you're comparing with military junta controlled south american hell holes, fanatic controlled desert wastelands and african lawless pits. Depends on what company you want to keep on the world stage and what society you want to live in and raise the kids I guess.
As other people have already posted, those statistics do not only include gun murders. The vast majority of our gun murders take place in urban areas that have gang and drug problems, and also happen to be places with strict gun control. Comparing the US to military junta's and South American "hell holes" grossly ignores the cultural issues that cause high gun murders in urban areas in the US.
Did you just tell me that more gun murders occur in America where there are more people? Of course there will be a higher rate of murder in urban areas.
You then say it's down to crime and drugs, if this was the case, there would be an equal rate of homicide in inner cities in other first world nations, like the UK or Australia or Germany, I'm guessing that's not the case and the rate is far higher in the US. All these countries have their share of crime and poverty in the cities, yet their homicide rate is dramatically lower. Perhaps the lack of ready access to lethal weaponry might play at least a part in those figures?
My point is, our cities that have the highest murder rates also tend to have some of the strictest gun control laws. It's a cultural problem, and gangs and drugs are a factor. Yes, we have more guns so more people will be killed with guns, but the presence of guns is not the sole driving force behind the high murder rate in those areas.
Because this a free country and if someone doesn't want to carry a gun they shouldn't have to, just as if a law-abiding citizen wants to they should be allowed to.
Is the UK or Ireland or Germany not free?
Are you going to measure a person's freedom in their country by the right to carry lethal weaponry? Why is that a yardstick?
Don't start that crap with me. I did not say that nor have I ever implied that. I've spent several years living in Germany and Austria, and I hold both of those countries in high regard. That doesn't mean I love everything about them, but I'd be the last Dakkaite to come on here and make some stupid claim that America is a free country and the UK or Ireland or Germany are not. Neither am I a self-hating American. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. As an expat, I'm guessing you can relate.
In the United States, however, we have the right to bear arms and as I'm sure you already know, that is something many of us take seriously. It is a yardstick within the US, because it is what we expect and is how we have done things since the nation was founded. In the UK, Ireland, and Germany, there is no right to bear arms so it's no surprise that they don't have many firearms and have stricter gun control than the US. A lot of that comes down to cultural differences. There are things you can do more easily in Germany than you can in the US, and vice versa; both countries have their pros and cons.
So from the perspective from within a country with the right to bear arms, yes, being able to choose to carry a weapon or choose not to is a measure of freedom within that country, and I stand by my previous post. This a free country and if someone doesn't want to carry a gun they shouldn't have to, just as if a law-abiding citizen wants to they should be allowed to.
I'm sorry, here I am guilty of layering what you have said with the accusation I was on the receiving end of several times in central PA, that my country is a socialist state with no personal freedoms, that I am a pussy for letting 'yur guvmunt take away yur guns'. You see, I hear this spoken about in utterly sacrosanct terms, the 'right' to bear arms as being utter and absolute, like the right to draw breath or fall in love or feel the sunlight.
All those things have been denied to many people due to the 'right' to guns, I come from a society where we don't have them, I was utterly unaware of feeling oppressed or being denied a basic right and quite certain I felt a damned cite safer there.
And honestly, cultural differences between the Western Europeans and the United States are fairly slim, it's why we Euros can't understand the obsession with guns.
I'm sorry that you had to be on the receiving end of that kind of idiocy, but just because there are morons who support the second amendment doesn't mean that everyone who supports believes that kind of crap about America being the only free country. Just because I refer to America as a free country doesn't mean I think that every other country is less free by default.
I definitely agree with you that most of Western Europe and the United States have more in common than they have differences, but the United States' right to bear arms is a significant difference and one that a lot of us don't take lightly. That doesn't mean it's wrong for European countries to do things the way they do, but neither is the way we've decided to handle things either.
And honestly, cultural differences between the Western Europeans and the United States are fairly slim, it's why we Euros can't understand the obsession with guns.
Ahtman wrote: Having a gun wouldn't have made a difference in safety, as the incident would have still happened, but with a different outcome.
You have to admit though, if the GG had a claymore it would have been a waymore interesting video. Further, if the GG was in a pinky bunny suit AND had a claymore, imagine the shenanigans! BG goes berserk. The next thing you hear the BG screaming and running, followed by a giant sword wielding killer bunny.
Grey Templar wrote: b) guy approaches in hostile manner, victim pulls gun, guy doesn't back down, guy gets shot. Guy gets what he deserves.
Not in some people's opinion. Some folks like to think that person's life is just as precious as the victim's.
Who are you to decide that his life isn't?
You're some anonymous person on the Internet putting forth the idea that a guy who was involved in a road rage incident deserves to be shot dead.
Do you see where that idea falls apart?
At what point is it more than road rage and just plain ol' assault?
Albatross wrote: God, the pro-gun crowd are just fething fantasist morons, aren't they? As they seem to be on the increase here, I'm pretty much done with dakka for the time being. It's turned into an ultra-right wing armchair commando echo-chamber.
Well, when you are a master swordsmen, can hurl refrigerator sized objects at people, and can stop plasma bolts with your hand, you'd not care about guns either.
The fact that made me post this video is the violation of what I perceive to be Australia's social contract: "We the government will deny you the ability to protect yourself. In exchange, we promise to provide you that protection instead." There was no protection provided to the victim in this situation. He couldn't provide it for himself, and the government couldn't provide it for him. It was merely a matter of luck that he escaped unharmed. Tell me how the man was made safe because he wasn't permitted to carry a firearm.
Lordhat wrote: The fact that made me post this video is the violation of what I perceive to be Australia's social contract: "We the government will deny you the ability to protect yourself. In exchange, we promise to provide you that protection instead." There was no protection provided to the victim in this situation. He couldn't provide it for himself, and the government couldn't provide it for him. It was merely a matter of luck that he escaped unharmed. Tell me how the man was made safe because he wasn't permitted to carry a firearm.
When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.
*OK in Austin here they are only about 150 seconds away. In Houston, however, you're talking 15 - 18 minutes, at best.
Well, when you are a master swordsmen, can hurl refrigerator sized objects at people, and can stop plasma bolts with your hand, you'd not care about guns either.
Why would he need a gun when he has a death star. well had.
Lordhat wrote: The fact that made me post this video is the violation of what I perceive to be Australia's social contract: "We the government will deny you the ability to protect yourself. In exchange, we promise to provide you that protection instead." There was no protection provided to the victim in this situation. He couldn't provide it for himself, and the government couldn't provide it for him. It was merely a matter of luck that he escaped unharmed. Tell me how the man was made safe because he wasn't permitted to carry a firearm.
Since he wasn't harmed I think it is you who ought to explain how he was harmed by being denied a gun by his democratically elected government.
Did you know people in the USA die in road accidents at more than double the rate of Australians?
Lordhat wrote: The fact that made me post this video is the violation of what I perceive to be Australia's social contract: "We the government will deny you the ability to protect yourself. In exchange, we promise to provide you that protection instead." There was no protection provided to the victim in this situation. He couldn't provide it for himself, and the government couldn't provide it for him. It was merely a matter of luck that he escaped unharmed. Tell me how the man was made safe because he wasn't permitted to carry a firearm.
Since he wasn't harmed I think it is you who ought to explain how he was harmed by being denied a gun by his democratically elected government.
Did you know people in the USA die in road accidents at more than double the rate of Australians?
Lordhat wrote: The fact that made me post this video is the violation of what I perceive to be Australia's social contract: "We the government will deny you the ability to protect yourself. In exchange, we promise to provide you that protection instead." There was no protection provided to the victim in this situation. He couldn't provide it for himself, and the government couldn't provide it for him. It was merely a matter of luck that he escaped unharmed. Tell me how the man was made safe because he wasn't permitted to carry a firearm.
Since he wasn't harmed I think it is you who ought to explain how he was harmed by being denied a gun by his democratically elected government.
Did you know people in the USA die in road accidents at more than double the rate of Australians?
That's really hard to measure. There is 1.1 deaths per every 100,000,000 miles driven in the US (per the US Census). Australia doesn't post a statistic like that. That would be a true comparison, since the amount of time on the road to the amount of deaths will be the strongest correlation of safety.
Lordhat wrote: The fact that made me post this video is the violation of what I perceive to be Australia's social contract: "We the government will deny you the ability to protect yourself. In exchange, we promise to provide you that protection instead." There was no protection provided to the victim in this situation. He couldn't provide it for himself, and the government couldn't provide it for him. It was merely a matter of luck that he escaped unharmed. Tell me how the man was made safe because he wasn't permitted to carry a firearm.
Since he wasn't harmed I think it is you who ought to explain how he was harmed by being denied a gun by his democratically elected government.Did you know people in the USA die in road accidents at more than double the rate of Australians?
I don't think "road rage" and "accident" work as compatible terms. Also, given the number of firearms circulating in America, shouldn't that figure be significantly higher?
So, having just watched the video, I'm struck by the stupiditiy of that emergency call handler. Did I hear her actually advise the caller/driver to go back and give aid to the perp? Also, unmanned police stations? Seriously? I also thought I heard her ask what the caller did to instigate the situation. Did I hear that right? Oh, and one more thing, as of the show the perp hadn't been caught? The video has his car, plate, and a fair pic of him yet he's still on the loose. After seeing this, I think I'd rather buy a truck like Christopher Dorner's and take my chances with the LAPD.
Lordhat wrote: The fact that made me post this video is the violation of what I perceive to be Australia's social contract: "We the government will deny you the ability to protect yourself. In exchange, we promise to provide you that protection instead." There was no protection provided to the victim in this situation. He couldn't provide it for himself, and the government couldn't provide it for him. It was merely a matter of luck that he escaped unharmed. Tell me how the man was made safe because he wasn't permitted to carry a firearm.
No, you posted it, now you explain how his situation would have been better off if he was in an environment where he and his attacker both had firearms.
Lordhat wrote:The fact that made me post this video is the violation of what I perceive to be Australia's social contract: "We the government will deny you the ability to protect yourself. In exchange, we promise to provide you that protection instead." There was no protection provided to the victim in this situation. He couldn't provide it for himself, and the government couldn't provide it for him. It was merely a matter of luck that he escaped unharmed. Tell me how the man was made safe because he wasn't permitted to carry a firearm.
Well, as I said originally... if the victim was permitted to carry a firearm, then in all likelihood the attacker also would have been permitted to carry a firearm.
If the attacker was carrying a firearm, the victim likely would have been shot through his window, and possibly killed.
That did not happen.
Therefore, the victim was made safer than he would have been had the attacker been carrying a firearm.
Lordhat wrote: "We the government will deny you the ability to protect yourself.
What? He has the ability to protect himself. Just not with a firearm.
In exchange, we promise to provide you that protection instead." There was no protection provided to the victim in this situation.
That was indeed a failure. There are many places in Oz where police coverage is spread thin, or is only part-time. The town I went to high school in had a police station manned by 3 officers. After 10pm, emergency calls were routed to another town half an hour away. While it creates sucky situations, it's part of the price we pay for having a small population that is rather spread out.
That being said, I still have yet to see anyone explain how adding firearms to the mix would have made this specific situation better. You say he was 'lucky' to escape unscathed. I would say from looking at the video that the attacker, while quite clearly a little bit mental, was venting his frustration at (in his perception) being cut off, and was taking it out on the car, not the driver. If the victim had moved to defend himself, that would have turned it into a personal confrontation... and that might not have ended so 'luckily'...
It's really easy to sit behind a keyboard and say that the attacker would have deserved whatever he got, and that pulling a gun to defend yourself is perfectly justified. It's quite another thing to actually have to live with the fact that you've just killed someone.
Guns make you safer? Stop kidding yourself. I think that firearms in this case would make the situation unecessarily more messy; if the victim had a gun, I'm pretty sure the other dude would of had one as well.
Lordhat wrote:The fact that made me post this video is the violation of what I perceive to be Australia's social contract: "We the government will deny you the ability to protect yourself. In exchange, we promise to provide you that protection instead." There was no protection provided to the victim in this situation. He couldn't provide it for himself, and the government couldn't provide it for him. It was merely a matter of luck that he escaped unharmed. Tell me how the man was made safe because he wasn't permitted to carry a firearm.
Well, as I said originally... if the victim was permitted to carry a firearm, then in all likelihood the attacker also would have been permitted to carry a firearm.
If the attacker was carrying a firearm, the victim likely would have been shot through his window, and possibly killed.
That did not happen.
Therefore, the victim was made safer than he would have been had the attacker been carrying a firearm.
Well said! Firearms increase the probability of death; it could of only took one shot to kill the victim.
Breotan wrote: Oh, and one more thing, as of the show the perp hadn't been caught? The video has his car, plate, and a fair pic of him yet he's still on the loose.
Not sure of the full story there, but video evidence from Jo Public is still a bit of a grey area here in Oz. While it's been used in certain situations, like catching hoons who have foolishly posted videos of their exploits on youtube and the like, for an incident like this they would have to consider the idea that the video may have been edited to make the situation look different to what actually happened.
This situation was already taking a deadly turn, and the person more likely to die was the person being attacked.
If I have a gun, I am more likely to survive a violent encounter regardless if my attacker has a gun or not.
I should have the option to make my chances for survival the best they can be, especially if the local police arn't going to arrive for a while(or never as the video showed)
Breotan wrote: Oh, and one more thing, as of the show the perp hadn't been caught? The video has his car, plate, and a fair pic of him yet he's still on the loose.
Not sure of the full story there, but video evidence from Jo Public is still a bit of a grey area here in Oz. While it's been used in certain situations, like catching hoons who have foolishly posted videos of their exploits on youtube and the like, for an incident like this they would have to consider the idea that the video may have been edited to make the situation look different to what actually happened.
Its fairly easy to tell if a video has been altered unless its been done in a very professional manner, which is not going to be worth it.
Grey Templar wrote: This situation was already taking a deadly turn, and the person more likely to die was the person being attacked.
If I have a gun, I am more likely to survive a violent encounter regardless if my attacker has a gun or not.
I should have the option to make my chances for survival the best they can be, especially if the local police arn't going to arrive for a while(or never as the video showed)
Yeah, if only it was a simple as *pew* *pew* all the bad guys dead
Grey Templar wrote: This situation was already taking a deadly turn, and the person more likely to die was the person being attacked.
If I have a gun, I am more likely to survive a violent encounter regardless if my attacker has a gun or not.
I should have the option to make my chances for survival the best they can be, especially if the local police arn't going to arrive for a while(or never as the video showed)
Yeah, if only it was a simple as *pew* *pew* all the bad guys dead
I'd rather go down fighting than roll over and accept the situation.
Grey Templar wrote: This situation was already taking a deadly turn, and the person more likely to die was the person being attacked.
If I have a gun, I am more likely to survive a violent encounter regardless if my attacker has a gun or not.
I should have the option to make my chances for survival the best they can be, especially if the local police arn't going to arrive for a while(or never as the video showed)
Yeah, if only it was a simple as *pew* *pew* all the bad guys dead
I'd rather go down fighting than roll over and accept the situation.
He's from the UK. They seem to be born and raised with the "Why fight when I can flee" mentality.
Grey Templar wrote: This situation was already taking a deadly turn, and the person more likely to die was the person being attacked.
If I have a gun, I am more likely to survive a violent encounter regardless if my attacker has a gun or not.
I should have the option to make my chances for survival the best they can be, especially if the local police arn't going to arrive for a while(or never as the video showed)
Yeah, if only it was a simple as *pew* *pew* all the bad guys dead
I'd rather go down fighting than roll over and accept the situation.
I'd rather back out of the situation than get blood on my hands; even if I killed in self defence and the person was a total scum bag, it would still haunt me for the rest of my life.
Grey Templar wrote: This situation was already taking a deadly turn, and the person more likely to die was the person being attacked.
If I have a gun, I am more likely to survive a violent encounter regardless if my attacker has a gun or not.
I should have the option to make my chances for survival the best they can be, especially if the local police arn't going to arrive for a while(or never as the video showed)
Yeah, if only it was a simple as *pew* *pew* all the bad guys dead
I'd rather go down fighting than roll over and accept the situation.
He's from the UK. They seem to be born and raised with the "Why fight when I can flee" mentality.
Yeah remember when all those pussy Brits just threw their hands up during the Battle of Britain? Complete wusses.
azazel the cat wrote: Well, as I said originally... if the victim was permitted to carry a firearm, then in all likelihood the attacker also would have been permitted to carry a firearm.
If the attacker was carrying a firearm, the victim likely would have been shot through his window, and possibly killed.
That did not happen.
Therefore, the victim was made safer than he would have been had the attacker been carrying a firearm.
Your logic is faulty on so many levels.
1. One person being armed has no bearing on the odds of another person also being armed. If I decide to do my (still pending) Wally Walk, exactly how will my possession of a pistol in any way affect the probability that anyone I meet along the way will also be armed?
2. In the USA, road rage incidents rarely seem to erupt into gunfire so I contest there is any inherent validity to your argument. You're making a statement based solely on your own prejudice and not on any evidence or factually based data. Still, given the behavior displayed by victim in the video, your scenario of him (specifically) winding up being shot through the window seems to be the most likely outcome. I base my reasoning on the passive and fearful conduct displayed in the video however, not any demonstrated validity of your arguments.
3. You can't draw a valid conclusion because the faulty arguments you offered previously "did not happen". Also, your conclusion precludes the possibilty of the victim being armed and capable of effectively defending himself.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Yeah remember when all those pussy Brits just threw their hands up during the Battle of Britain? Complete wusses.
Seriously? You had to go all the way back to the Battle of Britain? How long ago was that? While I share Mattman154's view that there is a serious sheep-like passivity being engrained into British society today, surely you can find a more recent example to support your viewpoint?
One-line quips don't contribute to the conversation, and actually run the risk of derailing the thread into off-topic bickering. Knock it off, or you'll lose your ability to post in the OT forum at all.
Breotan wrote: 2. In the USA, road rage incidents rarely seem to erupt into gunfire so I contest there is any inherent validity to your argument.
I'll just leave this here...
In Lomax's case, he thought he saw the passengers in the car ahead point a firearm at him, and he followed the car to get a better description for the 911 operator. The driver of the third car, Brian Jones, 24, was arrested on suspicion of murder and for parole violations.
Here's a sampling of other road-rage shootings just in the past month:
- Two drivers got into a fight while merging on a Salt Lake City highway on Tuesday, and troopers said the driver of a Toyota Camry fired multiple shots at the driver of a Chevy as it exited the highway. No injuries were reported. The assailant remains at large.
- Two men have been charged in the murder of 20-year-old man near Dallas, Texas. Police say a road-rage incident between two drivers started the incident, in which Miguel Moncada was shot through the window of his pickup truck.
- Veronica Soto, 30, was fatally shot in the head during a road-rage altercation in Houston, Texas, on Dec. 20, during which one of her assailants boxed her in her car. One of them entered a nearby home and returned with a rifle that he used to shoot Soto as she attempted to flee the scene.
- A man noticed a pickup truck pull up behind him and the driver began honking the horn and making angry gestures in a New Orleans suburb on Jan. 12. They pulled into a gas station parking lot where an argument ensued. They returned to their cars and drove away. But police say that Carl Mitchell, 48, of Gretna, La., caught up to the victim at a traffic light, exited his vehicle and began firing. The victim was treated for non-life-threatening injuries.
2. In the USA, road rage incidents rarely seem to erupt into gunfire so I contest there is any inherent validity to your argument. You're making a statement based solely on your own prejudice and not on any evidence or factually based data. Still, given the behavior displayed by victim in the video, your scenario of him (specifically) winding up being shot through the window seems to be the most likely outcome. I base my reasoning on the passive and fearful conduct displayed in the video however, not any demonstrated validity of your arguments.
The most recent story I found online regarding the use of a gun in a road rage incident happend to be in December, where a man was being beaten by a couple (who had 4 children in their car). He pulled a gun, and simple waved it around, and it prompted them to leave him alone. They were afterwards arrested.
He only did that after he was forcibly removed from the car, and stabbed in his stomach with keys. Verified by witness reports.
Without that firearm, he quite possibly would have been killed.
2. In the USA, road rage incidents rarely seem to erupt into gunfire so I contest there is any inherent validity to your argument. You're making a statement based solely on your own prejudice and not on any evidence or factually based data. Still, given the behavior displayed by victim in the video, your scenario of him (specifically) winding up being shot through the window seems to be the most likely outcome. I base my reasoning on the passive and fearful conduct displayed in the video however, not any demonstrated validity of your arguments.
The most recent story I found online regarding the use of a gun in a road rage incident happend to be in December, where a man was being beaten by a couple (who had 4 children in their car). He pulled a gun, and simple waved it around, and it prompted them to leave him alone. They were afterwards arrested.
He only did that after he was forcibly removed from the car, and stabbed in his stomach with keys. Verified by witness reports.
Without that firearm, he quite possibly would have been killed.
Yeah... I remember hearing that story on the local radio. Lemme see if I can find it in the papers....
Mattman154 wrote:
He's from the UK. They seem to be born and raised with the "Why fight when I can flee" mentality.
Breotan wrote:Seriously? You had to go all the way back to the Battle of Britain? How long ago was that? While I share Mattman154's view that there is a serious sheep-like passivity being engrained into British society today, surely you can find a more recent example to support your viewpoint?
Ah, such brave words from men extolling the virtues of hiding behind firearms instead of throwing down in the traditional manner.
Know what I've found since coming over here? Your lot talk a really good fight, all wavy arm gestures and hollywood threats and then??? They stand around and wait for their friends to hold them back. 'No bro, you come at me'...
Both of you take your tough guy asses over to The Swordfish in Newlyn, UK, where you won't be allowed to carry guns. Try and pick a landing day when the harbor's full of trawlers, then you tell those chaps your wonderful theories and I'll run a book on how many pieces you end up in. In fact, wander into any town in the UK on a Friday night and tell them all they're pussies and see what your brave talk gets you.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Would the DC sniper be counted in this as he shot people from his car?
No, because his car was parked, he was taking careful aim at vehicles that were not near him, and there is no evidence to support the notion that his targets were the result of any road rage.
Grey Templar wrote:This situation was already taking a deadly turn, and the person more likely to die was the person being attacked.
If I have a gun, I am more likely to survive a violent encounter regardless if my attacker has a gun or not.
I should have the option to make my chances for survival the best they can be, especially if the local police arn't going to arrive for a while(or never as the video showed)
What an incredibly juvenile idea.
Let's pretend you are sitting in your car. You're sipping your morning coffee, waiting for the light to turn green, or whatever the "go" colour is in the reality you've invented for yourself. You're armed to the teeth. One the seat beside you is your trusty Tek-9, and you've got a Desert Eagle in shoulder holsters under each arm. Hell, even that's not enough. You've damn well replaced your right forearm with a shotgun. You, sir, are once step closer to being a living Rifleman Dreadnought.
Then some guy walks up to your car and shoots you in the head. And to think, maybe this was your final thought:
"If I have a gun, I am more likely to survive a violent encounter regardless if my attacker has a gun or not."
Breotan wrote:
azazel the cat wrote: Well, as I said originally... if the victim was permitted to carry a firearm, then in all likelihood the attacker also would have been permitted to carry a firearm.
If the attacker was carrying a firearm, the victim likely would have been shot through his window, and possibly killed.
That did not happen.
Therefore, the victim was made safer than he would have been had the attacker been carrying a firearm.
Your logic is faulty on so many levels.
1. One person being armed has no bearing on the odds of another person also being armed. If I decide to do my (still pending) Wally Walk, exactly how will my possession of a pistol in any way affect the probability that anyone I meet along the way will also be armed?
if we are going to play the "this-never-would-have-happened-if-only-he-had-been-armed" game, then I am merely not allowing for the childish notion that only the "good guy" would have a firearm. If you want to think about how different things would have been if firearms are introduced to the situation, then I insist that you give just as much credibility to the idea that the "bad guy" also has a gun.
The question was this: would he have been safer in a country without strict gun control laws?
And my answer was this: no.
And my reason is thus: to think the victim would be safer in a country that permits him to have a gun is fallacious because it assumes that the attacker would not also have a gun. There is no doubt the victim would be safer if he and only he had a gun, but that is a pointless argument to make as it merely proves that a firearm will trump no-firearms. However, that is a situation that cannot ever be accounted for, as the freedom to have a firearm is given to all, not just to people who self-identify with ridiculous concepts like "good guys". Therefor, if you want to make the claim that the victim would have been safer, had firearms been permitted, then it is necessary to assume that the attacker will have a firearm to the same likelihood as the victim. Thus, the victim would not be any safer, as the video incident clearly shows the attacker had the benefit of initiative over the victim. This benefit would be compounded exponentially by the presence of firearms.
And that is why my answer was the presence of a firearm in this situation would have greatly increased the odds of harm coming to the victim.
If you want to play the "only the good guy gets a gun" fantasy game, then you are welcome to have fun doing that, but it is not a make-believe circumstance anyone who doesn't construct their own reality is willing to share.
Mattman154 wrote:
He's from the UK. They seem to be born and raised with the "Why fight when I can flee" mentality.
Breotan wrote:Seriously? You had to go all the way back to the Battle of Britain? How long ago was that? While I share Mattman154's view that there is a serious sheep-like passivity being engrained into British society today, surely you can find a more recent example to support your viewpoint?
Ah, such brave words from men extolling the virtues of hiding behind firearms instead of throwing down in the traditional manner.
Know what I've found since coming over here? Your lot talk a really good fight, all wavy arm gestures and hollywood threats and then??? They stand around and wait for their friends to hold them back. 'No bro, you come at me'...
Both of you take your tough guy asses over to The Swordfish in Newlyn, UK, where you won't be allowed to carry guns. Try and pick a landing day when the harbor's full of trawlers, then you tell those chaps your wonderful theories and I'll run a book on how many pieces you end up in. In fact, wander into any town in the UK on a Friday night and tell them all they're pussies and see what your brave talk gets you.
I highly recommend it.
You can stick to your fists in a life or death situation. While I've been extensively trained in how to kill people with my bare hands, I'd still prefer to use a gun to defend my life if it's necessary.
Mattman154 wrote:
He's from the UK. They seem to be born and raised with the "Why fight when I can flee" mentality.
Breotan wrote:Seriously? You had to go all the way back to the Battle of Britain? How long ago was that? While I share Mattman154's view that there is a serious sheep-like passivity being engrained into British society today, surely you can find a more recent example to support your viewpoint?
Ah, such brave words from men extolling the virtues of hiding behind firearms instead of throwing down in the traditional manner.
Know what I've found since coming over here? Your lot talk a really good fight, all wavy arm gestures and hollywood threats and then??? They stand around and wait for their friends to hold them back. 'No bro, you come at me'...
Both of you take your tough guy asses over to The Swordfish in Newlyn, UK, where you won't be allowed to carry guns. Try and pick a landing day when the harbor's full of trawlers, then you tell those chaps your wonderful theories and I'll run a book on how many pieces you end up in. In fact, wander into any town in the UK on a Friday night and tell them all they're pussies and see what your brave talk gets you.
I highly recommend it.
You can stick to your fists in a life or death situation. While I've been extensively trained in how to kill people with my bare hands, I'd still prefer to use a gun to defend my life if it's necessary.
Yeah because life is really survival of the fittest and everyday is full of dangers.
OK go into a pub in Britain, start talking gak, and tell me how many of them are running away and not confronting you.
Haha you are such a joker!
I just love how in the previous gun threads there were charts and graphs showing the UK to be more violent than the US, and now you guys are apparently all fleeing from fights. Just dumb.
How about this? UK members can't understand our fascination with guns. US members can't understand why they can't understand our fascination with guns. We're not changing any societal views on this on Dakka, Seriously. All we're doing is rehashing small differences for the umpteenth time. Americans have different views than those in the UK. This isn't shocking, so why are we still debating it?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Both of you take your tough guy asses over to The Swordfish in Newlyn, UK, where you won't be allowed to carry guns. Try and pick a landing day when the harbor's full of trawlers, then you tell those chaps your wonderful theories and I'll run a book on how many pieces you end up in. In fact, wander into any town in the UK on a Friday night and tell them all they're pussies and see what your brave talk gets you.
I highly recommend it.
If the video is any indication, they'll just drive away while trying to convince a moron emergency operator that the police need to be contacted. And if they all drive away in different directions, there'll be no chance of me catching them all.
@ Metaloxide: Has anyone here ever said it was? I can recall specifically on here arguing that life is anything but. That being said though, I do live 5 miles from E. St. Louis. I do frequently visit Detroit. I am in the military. My life does involve higher risk then most.
And even if it didn't, well you just never know, and as the saying goes "It's better to have one, and never need to use it, then to need one, and not have it."
Mattman154 wrote:
He's from the UK. They seem to be born and raised with the "Why fight when I can flee" mentality.
Breotan wrote:Seriously? You had to go all the way back to the Battle of Britain? How long ago was that? While I share Mattman154's view that there is a serious sheep-like passivity being engrained into British society today, surely you can find a more recent example to support your viewpoint?
Ah, such brave words from men extolling the virtues of hiding behind firearms instead of throwing down in the traditional manner.
Know what I've found since coming over here? Your lot talk a really good fight, all wavy arm gestures and hollywood threats and then??? They stand around and wait for their friends to hold them back. 'No bro, you come at me'...
Both of you take your tough guy asses over to The Swordfish in Newlyn, UK, where you won't be allowed to carry guns. Try and pick a landing day when the harbor's full of trawlers, then you tell those chaps your wonderful theories and I'll run a book on how many pieces you end up in. In fact, wander into any town in the UK on a Friday night and tell them all they're pussies and see what your brave talk gets you.
Mattman154 wrote:
He's from the UK. They seem to be born and raised with the "Why fight when I can flee" mentality.
Breotan wrote:Seriously? You had to go all the way back to the Battle of Britain? How long ago was that? While I share Mattman154's view that there is a serious sheep-like passivity being engrained into British society today, surely you can find a more recent example to support your viewpoint?
Ah, such brave words from men extolling the virtues of hiding behind firearms instead of throwing down in the traditional manner.
Know what I've found since coming over here? Your lot talk a really good fight, all wavy arm gestures and hollywood threats and then??? They stand around and wait for their friends to hold them back. 'No bro, you come at me'...
Both of you take your tough guy asses over to The Swordfish in Newlyn, UK, where you won't be allowed to carry guns. Try and pick a landing day when the harbor's full of trawlers, then you tell those chaps your wonderful theories and I'll run a book on how many pieces you end up in. In fact, wander into any town in the UK on a Friday night and tell them all they're pussies and see what your brave talk gets you.
I highly recommend it.
You can stick to your fists in a life or death situation. While I've been extensively trained in how to kill people with my bare hands, I'd still prefer to use a gun to defend my life if it's necessary.
Indeed, it's got to be wonderful when you're the only guy with the gun, it does fall down when the society around you is all armed to the teeth and you are then relying on somehow interpreting that you are about to be shot and can preemptively strike. In the case of the video we were shown in the OP, the other driver seemingly struck for no reason from a distance behind the victim. Realistically what would you chances or anyone's be if someone drives up alongside you and fires into your car for no reason. You may have received training, that's great, did it include ESP or divining the future from runes or chicken entrails?
OK go into a pub in Britain, start talking gak, and tell me how many of them are running away and not confronting you.
Haha you are such a joker!
I just love how in the previous gun threads there were charts and graphs showing the UK to be more violent than the US, and now you guys are apparently all fleeing from fights. Just dumb.
How about this? UK members can't understand our fascination with guns. US members can't understand why they can't understand our fascination with guns. We're not changing any societal views on this on Dakka, Seriously. All we're doing is rehashing small differences for the umpteenth time. Americans have different views than those in the UK. This isn't shocking, so why are we still debating it?
Good points!
Can we go back to scantily clad women?
and oh... Stay safe from Nemo... looks like you're in the storm path?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Both of you take your tough guy asses over to The Swordfish in Newlyn, UK, where you won't be allowed to carry guns. Try and pick a landing day when the harbor's full of trawlers, then you tell those chaps your wonderful theories and I'll run a book on how many pieces you end up in. In fact, wander into any town in the UK on a Friday night and tell them all they're pussies and see what your brave talk gets you.
I highly recommend it.
If the video is any indication, they'll just drive away while trying to convince a moron emergency operator that the police need to be contacted. And if they all drive away in different directions, there'll be no chance of me catching them all.
Um, the video is from Australia. Wrong country brah.
Mattman154 wrote:
He's from the UK. They seem to be born and raised with the "Why fight when I can flee" mentality.
Breotan wrote:Seriously? You had to go all the way back to the Battle of Britain? How long ago was that? While I share Mattman154's view that there is a serious sheep-like passivity being engrained into British society today, surely you can find a more recent example to support your viewpoint?
Ah, such brave words from men extolling the virtues of hiding behind firearms instead of throwing down in the traditional manner.
Know what I've found since coming over here? Your lot talk a really good fight, all wavy arm gestures and hollywood threats and then??? They stand around and wait for their friends to hold them back. 'No bro, you come at me'...
Both of you take your tough guy asses over to The Swordfish in Newlyn, UK, where you won't be allowed to carry guns. Try and pick a landing day when the harbor's full of trawlers, then you tell those chaps your wonderful theories and I'll run a book on how many pieces you end up in. In fact, wander into any town in the UK on a Friday night and tell them all they're pussies and see what your brave talk gets you.
djones520 wrote:You can stick to your fists in a life or death situation. While I've been extensively trained in how to kill people with my bare hands, I'd still prefer to use a gun to defend my life if it's necessary.
Uh-huh. Have you registered your bare hands as lethal weapons, too?
OK go into a pub in Britain, start talking gak, and tell me how many of them are running away and not confronting you.
Haha you are such a joker!
I just love how in the previous gun threads there were charts and graphs showing the UK to be more violent than the US, and now you guys are apparently all fleeing from fights. Just dumb.
How about this? UK members can't understand our fascination with guns. US members can't understand why they can't understand our fascination with guns. We're not changing any societal views on this on Dakka, Seriously. All we're doing is rehashing small differences for the umpteenth time. Americans have different views than those in the UK. This isn't shocking, so why are we still debating it?
Good points!
Can we go back to scantily clad women?
and oh... Stay safe from Nemo... looks like you're in the storm path?
Notice how quick your pics were deleted?
And yes indeed Nemo has forced me into another night in East TN as my flight was cancelled. Fun times to be had in an East TN strip club drinking moonshine the other night though. So rough getting into training class the next morning lol.
Mattman154 wrote:
He's from the UK. They seem to be born and raised with the "Why fight when I can flee" mentality.
Breotan wrote:Seriously? You had to go all the way back to the Battle of Britain? How long ago was that? While I share Mattman154's view that there is a serious sheep-like passivity being engrained into British society today, surely you can find a more recent example to support your viewpoint?
Ah, such brave words from men extolling the virtues of hiding behind firearms instead of throwing down in the traditional manner.
Know what I've found since coming over here? Your lot talk a really good fight, all wavy arm gestures and hollywood threats and then??? They stand around and wait for their friends to hold them back. 'No bro, you come at me'...
Both of you take your tough guy asses over to The Swordfish in Newlyn, UK, where you won't be allowed to carry guns. Try and pick a landing day when the harbor's full of trawlers, then you tell those chaps your wonderful theories and I'll run a book on how many pieces you end up in. In fact, wander into any town in the UK on a Friday night and tell them all they're pussies and see what your brave talk gets you.
OK go into a pub in Britain, start talking gak, and tell me how many of them are running away and not confronting you.
Haha you are such a joker!
I just love how in the previous gun threads there were charts and graphs showing the UK to be more violent than the US, and now you guys are apparently all fleeing from fights. Just dumb.
How about this? UK members can't understand our fascination with guns. US members can't understand why they can't understand our fascination with guns. We're not changing any societal views on this on Dakka, Seriously. All we're doing is rehashing small differences for the umpteenth time. Americans have different views than those in the UK. This isn't shocking, so why are we still debating it?
Good points!
Can we go back to scantily clad women?
and oh... Stay safe from Nemo... looks like you're in the storm path?
Please... do not refer to this Nor'Easter as a named storm. There is one category of storms that are named, and they are Tropical. IE, Tropical Cyclones, Hurricanes, Typhoons, etc... This is not that, and it pisses me off to no end that the media named this thing.
This has been brought to by your local forum weather man.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Both of you take your tough guy asses over to The Swordfish in Newlyn, UK, where you won't be allowed to carry guns. Try and pick a landing day when the harbor's full of trawlers, then you tell those chaps your wonderful theories and I'll run a book on how many pieces you end up in. In fact, wander into any town in the UK on a Friday night and tell them all they're pussies and see what your brave talk gets you.
I highly recommend it.
If the video is any indication, they'll just drive away while trying to convince a moron emergency operator that the police need to be contacted. And if they all drive away in different directions, there'll be no chance of me catching them all.
That video was shot in Australia. You're only off by half the surface of the earth...
djones520 wrote:You can stick to your fists in a life or death situation. While I've been extensively trained in how to kill people with my bare hands, I'd still prefer to use a gun to defend my life if it's necessary.
Uh-huh. Have you registered your bare hands as lethal weapons, too?
No laws required for that yet. Maybe one day I will have to. But since more people are beaten to death every year then killed with semi-automatic assault weapon style rifles, maybe they should be?
UK? Australia? Canada? It's all "English people" to us in the USA. Except for those hotties I see from India. That whole Indo-Persian-Anglican mix just seems to produce so much win.
OK go into a pub in Britain, start talking gak, and tell me how many of them are running away and not confronting you.
Haha you are such a joker!
I just love how in the previous gun threads there were charts and graphs showing the UK to be more violent than the US, and now you guys are apparently all fleeing from fights. Just dumb.
How about this? UK members can't understand our fascination with guns. US members can't understand why they can't understand our fascination with guns. We're not changing any societal views on this on Dakka, Seriously. All we're doing is rehashing small differences for the umpteenth time. Americans have different views than those in the UK. This isn't shocking, so why are we still debating it?
Good points!
Can we go back to scantily clad women?
and oh... Stay safe from Nemo... looks like you're in the storm path?
Notice how quick your pics were deleted?
And yes indeed Nemo has forced me into another night in East TN as my flight was cancelled. Fun times to be had in an East TN strip club drinking moonshine the other night though. So rough getting into training class the next morning lol.
Yup... just trying to cheer everyone up... it was getting tense a bit.
Ohh... tough life man. Moonshining at a local strip club!!! The aftermath is always worth it!
OK go into a pub in Britain, start talking gak, and tell me how many of them are running away and not confronting you.
Haha you are such a joker!
I just love how in the previous gun threads there were charts and graphs showing the UK to be more violent than the US, and now you guys are apparently all fleeing from fights. Just dumb.
How about this? UK members can't understand our fascination with guns. US members can't understand why they can't understand our fascination with guns. We're not changing any societal views on this on Dakka, Seriously. All we're doing is rehashing small differences for the umpteenth time. Americans have different views than those in the UK. This isn't shocking, so why are we still debating it?
Good points!
Can we go back to scantily clad women?
and oh... Stay safe from Nemo... looks like you're in the storm path?
Please... do not refer to this Nor'Easter as a named storm. There is one category of storms that are named, and they are Tropical. IE, Tropical Cyclones, Hurricanes, Typhoons, etc... This is not that, and it pisses me off to no end that the media named this thing.
This has been brought to by your local forum weather man.
djones520 wrote:You can stick to your fists in a life or death situation. While I've been extensively trained in how to kill people with my bare hands, I'd still prefer to use a gun to defend my life if it's necessary.
Uh-huh. Have you registered your bare hands as lethal weapons, too?
No laws required for that yet. Maybe one day I will have to. But since more people are beaten to death every year then killed with semi-automatic assault weapon style rifles, maybe they should be?
Actually, I believe that if you hold certain levels in certain martial arts your very body becomes legally defined as a deadly weapon. And if you attack someone it will count in a court of law as Assault with a deadly weapon.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Both of you take your tough guy asses over to The Swordfish in Newlyn, UK, where you won't be allowed to carry guns. Try and pick a landing day when the harbor's full of trawlers, then you tell those chaps your wonderful theories and I'll run a book on how many pieces you end up in. In fact, wander into any town in the UK on a Friday night and tell them all they're pussies and see what your brave talk gets you.
I highly recommend it.
If the video is any indication, they'll just drive away while trying to convince a moron emergency operator that the police need to be contacted. And if they all drive away in different directions, there'll be no chance of me catching them all.
That video was shot in Australia. You're only off by half the surface of the earth...
Give it twelve hours, then.
Still, why are all the Aussies on this site silent while the Brits disrespect them like this?
I don't see how any of the Brits are being disrespectful to Aussies.
djones520 wrote:You can stick to your fists in a life or death situation. While I've been extensively trained in how to kill people with my bare hands, I'd still prefer to use a gun to defend my life if it's necessary.
Uh-huh. Have you registered your bare hands as lethal weapons, too?
No laws required for that yet. Maybe one day I will have to. But since more people are beaten to death every year then killed with semi-automatic assault weapon style rifles, maybe they should be?
Actually, I believe that if you hold certain levels in certain martial arts your very body becomes legally defined as a deadly weapon. And if you attack someone it will count in a court of law as Assault with a deadly weapon.
djones520 wrote:You can stick to your fists in a life or death situation. While I've been extensively trained in how to kill people with my bare hands, I'd still prefer to use a gun to defend my life if it's necessary.
Uh-huh. Have you registered your bare hands as lethal weapons, too?
No laws required for that yet. Maybe one day I will have to. But since more people are beaten to death every year then killed with semi-automatic assault weapon style rifles, maybe they should be?
Actually, I believe that if you hold certain levels in certain martial arts your very body becomes legally defined as a deadly weapon. And if you attack someone it will count in a court of law as Assault with a deadly weapon.
Really? Never heard of that. I've trained my whole life, and am friends with people have who have actively trained for more then 50 years, and have heard nothing of the sort.
djones520 wrote:You can stick to your fists in a life or death situation. While I've been extensively trained in how to kill people with my bare hands, I'd still prefer to use a gun to defend my life if it's necessary.
Uh-huh. Have you registered your bare hands as lethal weapons, too?
No laws required for that yet. Maybe one day I will have to. But since more people are beaten to death every year then killed with semi-automatic assault weapon style rifles, maybe they should be?
Actually, I believe that if you hold certain levels in certain martial arts your very body becomes legally defined as a deadly weapon. And if you attack someone it will count in a court of law as Assault with a deadly weapon.
... (
That's only at township level.
I should know... I turned down my black belt years ago because I didn't want to be "registered". Whatever that means.... not sure if that meant fingerprinting/photos... but, no, I ain't doing that.
djones520 wrote:You can stick to your fists in a life or death situation. While I've been extensively trained in how to kill people with my bare hands, I'd still prefer to use a gun to defend my life if it's necessary.
Uh-huh. Have you registered your bare hands as lethal weapons, too?
No laws required for that yet. Maybe one day I will have to. But since more people are beaten to death every year then killed with semi-automatic assault weapon style rifles, maybe they should be?
Actually, I believe that if you hold certain levels in certain martial arts your very body becomes legally defined as a deadly weapon. And if you attack someone it will count in a court of law as Assault with a deadly weapon.
Really? Never heard of that. I've trained my whole life, and am friends with people have who have actively trained for more then 50 years, and have heard nothing of the sort.
Again, it depends on local laws... it's not in anywhere in St. Louis anymore (there was one town).
I think there's an old Federal Case that prevents townships from doing that now.
OK go into a pub in Britain, start talking gak, and tell me how many of them are running away and not confronting you.
Haha you are such a joker!
I just love how in the previous gun threads there were charts and graphs showing the UK to be more violent than the US, and now you guys are apparently all fleeing from fights. Just dumb.
How about this? UK members can't understand our fascination with guns. US members can't understand why they can't understand our fascination with guns. We're not changing any societal views on this on Dakka, Seriously. All we're doing is rehashing small differences for the umpteenth time. Americans have different views than those in the UK. This isn't shocking, so why are we still debating it?
That's because most UK citizens don't need to defend themselves every time they step out of the front door. Also you cannot compare crime rates of two completely different countries because they will have different ways of reporting and recording crimes as well as a different ratio of crime to population, for example 1 crime per every 10 people. We may have a higher crime to population ratio (one of the worst in Europe apparently) but claiming that there is more crime overall in the UK than the US is just stupid when the US has a population of 313,914,040 whereas the UK has a population of 63,181,775 so by defult the US should have more crimes committed.
OK go into a pub in Britain, start talking gak, and tell me how many of them are running away and not confronting you.
Haha you are such a joker!
I just love how in the previous gun threads there were charts and graphs showing the UK to be more violent than the US, and now you guys are apparently all fleeing from fights. Just dumb.
How about this? UK members can't understand our fascination with guns. US members can't understand why they can't understand our fascination with guns. We're not changing any societal views on this on Dakka, Seriously. All we're doing is rehashing small differences for the umpteenth time. Americans have different views than those in the UK. This isn't shocking, so why are we still debating it?
That's because most UK citizens don't need to defend themselves every time they step out of the front door. Also you cannot compare crime rates of two completely different countries because they will have different ways of reporting and recording crimes as well as a different ratio of crime to population. We may have a higher crime to population ratio (one of the worst in Europe apparently) but claiming that there is more crime overall in the UK than the US is just stupid when the US has a population of 313,914,040 whereas the UK has a population of 63,181,775 so by defult the US should have more crimes committed.
It's not the number of crimes that is a concern it's the crime rates that is and how it compares to other similar nations.
Breotan wrote:UK? Australia? Canada? It's all "English people" to us in the USA. Except for those hotties I see from India. That whole Indo-Persian-Anglican mix just seems to produce so much win.
djones520 wrote:You can stick to your fists in a life or death situation. While I've been extensively trained in how to kill people with my bare hands, I'd still prefer to use a gun to defend my life if it's necessary.
Uh-huh. Have you registered your bare hands as lethal weapons, too?
No laws required for that yet. Maybe one day I will have to. But since more people are beaten to death every year then killed with semi-automatic assault weapon style rifles, maybe they should be?
Actually, I believe that if you hold certain levels in certain martial arts your very body becomes legally defined as a deadly weapon. And if you attack someone it will count in a court of law as Assault with a deadly weapon.
This is a fiction that only children believe.
EDIT: and if you ever encounter someone that claims they did have to register themselves as a weapon, then that is a good indicator that if you were to fight them, your only fear should be that you get covered in the complete horsegak they are full of.
azazel the cat wrote: Well, as I said originally... if the victim was permitted to carry a firearm, then in all likelihood the attacker also would have been permitted to carry a firearm.
If the attacker was carrying a firearm, the victim likely would have been shot through his window, and possibly killed.
That did not happen.
Therefore, the victim was made safer than he would have been had the attacker been carrying a firearm.
Your logic is faulty on so many levels.
1. One person being armed has no bearing on the odds of another person also being armed. If I decide to do my (still pending) Wally Walk, exactly how will my possession of a pistol in any way affect the probability that anyone I meet along the way will also be armed?
2. In the USA, road rage incidents rarely seem to erupt into gunfire so I contest there is any inherent validity to your argument. You're making a statement based solely on your own prejudice and not on any evidence or factually based data. Still, given the behavior displayed by victim in the video, your scenario of him (specifically) winding up being shot through the window seems to be the most likely outcome. I base my reasoning on the passive and fearful conduct displayed in the video however, not any demonstrated validity of your arguments.
3. You can't draw a valid conclusion because the faulty arguments you offered previously "did not happen". Also, your conclusion precludes the possibilty of the victim being armed and capable of effectively defending himself.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Yeah remember when all those pussy Brits just threw their hands up during the Battle of Britain? Complete wusses.
Seriously? You had to go all the way back to the Battle of Britain? How long ago was that? While I share Mattman154's view that there is a serious sheep-like passivity being engrained into British society today, surely you can find a more recent example to support your viewpoint?
Wait, so on the one hand Brits are engraining "sheep-like passivity" into their society, and on the other, we're so violent that we should need guns to prevent all the violent crime that goes on*?
wut?
Breotan wrote:UK? Australia? Canada? It's all "English people" to us in the USA. Except for those hotties I see from India. That whole Indo-Persian-Anglican mix just seems to produce so much win.
djones520 wrote:You can stick to your fists in a life or death situation. While I've been extensively trained in how to kill people with my bare hands, I'd still prefer to use a gun to defend my life if it's necessary.
Uh-huh. Have you registered your bare hands as lethal weapons, too?
No laws required for that yet. Maybe one day I will have to. But since more people are beaten to death every year then killed with semi-automatic assault weapon style rifles, maybe they should be?
Actually, I believe that if you hold certain levels in certain martial arts your very body becomes legally defined as a deadly weapon. And if you attack someone it will count in a court of law as Assault with a deadly weapon.
This is a fiction that only children believe.
EDIT: and if you ever encounter someone that claims they did have to register themselves as a weapon, then that is a good indicator that if you were to fight them, your only fear should be that you get covered in the complete horsegak they are full of.
Breotan wrote:UK? Australia? Canada? It's all "English people" to us in the USA. Except for those hotties I see from India. That whole Indo-Persian-Anglican mix just seems to produce so much win.
djones520 wrote:You can stick to your fists in a life or death situation. While I've been extensively trained in how to kill people with my bare hands, I'd still prefer to use a gun to defend my life if it's necessary.
Uh-huh. Have you registered your bare hands as lethal weapons, too?
No laws required for that yet. Maybe one day I will have to. But since more people are beaten to death every year then killed with semi-automatic assault weapon style rifles, maybe they should be?
Actually, I believe that if you hold certain levels in certain martial arts your very body becomes legally defined as a deadly weapon. And if you attack someone it will count in a court of law as Assault with a deadly weapon.
This is a fiction that only children believe.
EDIT: and if you ever encounter someone that claims they did have to register themselves as a weapon, then that is a good indicator that if you were to fight them, your only fear should be that you get covered in the complete horsegak they are full of.
Your right on that mark.
I think it mostly came from those “registration cards” they’d gotten from their instructors. These instructors, would charged them a hefty fee to be registered. Much ado about nuthing.
OK go into a pub in Britain, start talking gak, and tell me how many of them are running away and not confronting you.
Haha you are such a joker!
I just love how in the previous gun threads there were charts and graphs showing the UK to be more violent than the US, and now you guys are apparently all fleeing from fights. Just dumb.
How about this? UK members can't understand our fascination with guns. US members can't understand why they can't understand our fascination with guns. We're not changing any societal views on this on Dakka, Seriously. All we're doing is rehashing small differences for the umpteenth time. Americans have different views than those in the UK. This isn't shocking, so why are we still debating it?
That's because most UK citizens don't need to defend themselves every time they step out of the front door. Also you cannot compare crime rates of two completely different countries because they will have different ways of reporting and recording crimes as well as a different ratio of crime to population. We may have a higher crime to population ratio (one of the worst in Europe apparently) but claiming that there is more crime overall in the UK than the US is just stupid when the US has a population of 313,914,040 whereas the UK has a population of 63,181,775 so by defult the US should have more crimes committed.
It's not the number of crimes that is a concern it's the crime rates that is and how it compares to other similar nations.
But before you can copare the rates of violent crimes between countries you need to find out what counts as a violent crime in both countries as well as how effective the doucmentation of these crimes are. Simply comparing statistics without looking at the differences in how they were collected is silly and does not work.
1. One person being armed has no bearing on the odds of another person also being armed. If I decide to do my (still pending) Wally Walk, exactly how will my possession of a pistol in any way affect the probability that anyone I meet along the way will also be armed?
Root cause analysis suggest that if you are armed with a gun, probability supports you existing in a gun friendly society, this dramatically affects the odds of encountering another person armed with a gun. In the OP video, the chances of the attacking driver being armed, given a gun friendly society, would be likely.
2. In the USA, road rage incidents rarely seem to erupt into gunfire so I contest there is any inherent validity to your argument. You're making a statement based solely on your own prejudice and not on any evidence or factually based data. Still, given the behavior displayed by victim in the video, your scenario of him (specifically) winding up being shot through the window seems to be the most likely outcome. I base my reasoning on the passive and fearful conduct displayed in the video however, not any demonstrated validity of your arguments.
Rarely vs any inherent validity, you see the obvious flaw in this I hope? Also your wonderful psychoanalysis of the probability of the victim being shot is amazing, especially as you base the outcome of being shot as a result of showing fear and being passive, when you have absolutely no evidence to suggest that link. It can be argued that the victim would be shot by the attacker as the attacker... attacks... So the attacker uses the first weapon he can, his truck, when instead, if presented with a gun, it would be a more logical choice to use as a weapon than a vehicle, thus the first action of the attacker isn't to ram, but to shoot and so the victim dies not through 'cowardice' but simply because he was attacked...
I want to do you harm - I have a gun or a truck... I will use the truck as transport and the gun to cause harm... because that's what both are principally designed to do. Logical progression is about looking at the most likely outcomes, it is most likely that people will use tools for their intended purposes.
3. You can't draw a valid conclusion because the faulty arguments you offered previously "did not happen". Also, your conclusion precludes the possibilty of the victim being armed and capable of effectively defending himself.
And you use the very same daydreamy hypothesis to come up with the cowardice argument you presented above, so you're guilty of conjuring up the same bs. There were a billion outcomes to the events in the video, adding firearms to the same situation adds another multitude of potential outcomes but most certainly ups the potential for one to many fatalities, whether carried by the victim, the aggressor or likely both.
I'm sure if the victim had a gun, it would look just like this:
After all, I've played enough Call of Duty to know how to defend myself. I'm sure that even if my attacker got the first shot in, I'd get him back on the respawn.
Sturmtruppen wrote: I'm sure if the victim had a gun, it would look just like this:
After all, I've played enough Call of Duty to know how to defend myself. I'm sure that even if my attacker got the first shot in, I'd get him back on the respawn.
Only in America is having a gun a right but access to medical treatment with no large bills (like NHS) is a privilage. What a strange country. At least that will be a lot of money for the hospitals fixing up all those gunshot wounds.
MetalOxide wrote: Only in America is having a gun a right but access to medical treatment with no large bills (like NHS) is a privilage. What a strange country. At least that will be a lot of money for the hospitals fixing up all those gunshot wounds.
Breotan wrote:UK? Australia? Canada? It's all "English people" to us in the USA. Except for those hotties I see from India. That whole Indo-Persian-Anglican mix just seems to produce so much win.
djones520 wrote:You can stick to your fists in a life or death situation. While I've been extensively trained in how to kill people with my bare hands, I'd still prefer to use a gun to defend my life if it's necessary.
Uh-huh. Have you registered your bare hands as lethal weapons, too?
No laws required for that yet. Maybe one day I will have to. But since more people are beaten to death every year then killed with semi-automatic assault weapon style rifles, maybe they should be?
Actually, I believe that if you hold certain levels in certain martial arts your very body becomes legally defined as a deadly weapon. And if you attack someone it will count in a court of law as Assault with a deadly weapon.
This is a fiction that only children believe.
EDIT: and if you ever encounter someone that claims they did have to register themselves as a weapon, then that is a good indicator that if you were to fight them, your only fear should be that you get covered in the complete horsegak they are full of.
MetalOxide wrote: Only in America is having a gun a right but access to medical treatment with no large bills (like NHS) is a privilage. What a strange country. At least that will be a lot of money for the hospitals fixing up all those gunshot wounds.
You have a warp'ed view of "Murica.
I think he's watched Robocop one to many times. Seems to think America is nothing but some wild west urban gang war.
djones520 wrote: Seems to think America is nothing but some wild west urban gang war.
Hate to break it to you but no one actually thinks this. Shocking i know but no one really thinks that there's Predator 2 style street shoot outs going on in the streets of America.
djones520 wrote: Seems to think America is nothing but some wild west urban gang war.
Hate to break it to you but no one actually thinks this. Shocking i know but no one really thinks that there's Predator 2 style street shoot outs going on in the streets of America.
Have you read his posts?
I hope people don't think that, because that was a god awful movie.
djones520 wrote: Seems to think America is nothing but some wild west urban gang war.
Hate to break it to you but no one actually thinks this. Shocking i know but no one really thinks that there's Predator 2 style street shoot outs going on in the streets of America.
Have you read his posts?
I hope people don't think that, because that was a god awful movie.
While Danny Glover is CLEARLY no Arnold, Predator 2 did have Gary Busey. When I want my aliens dead while on cocaine, I look to only one source.
Snrub wrote: What was so wrong about his post? (Assuming you were refering to Metal Oxides post and not Whembly.)
You mean this?
MetalOxide wrote: Only in America is having a gun a right but access to medical treatment with no large bills (like NHS) is a privilage. What a strange country. At least that will be a lot of money for the hospitals fixing up all those gunshot wounds.
Well... he sorta does have a point.
We are a strange country...
....
....
....
....
....
From a non-American view that is.
At least we drive on the right side of the road. (What side do Aussie drive on?)
EDIT: Does anyone know the source why the Brits (and some colonies) drive on the left side of the road? It was due to horses/donkeys being trained to walk on the left side.
Snrub wrote: What was so wrong about his post? (Assuming you were refering to Metal Oxides post and not Whembly.)
You mean this?
MetalOxide wrote: Only in America is having a gun a right but access to medical treatment with no large bills (like NHS) is a privilage. What a strange country. At least that will be a lot of money for the hospitals fixing up all those gunshot wounds.
Well... he sorta does have a point.
We are a strange country...
....
....
....
....
....
From a non-American view that is.
I'd imagine though that every country seems strange to an outsider.
At least we drive on the right side of the road. (What side do Aussie drive on?)
EDIT: Does anyone know the source why the Brits (and some colonies) drive on the left side of the road? It was due to horses/donkeys being trained to walk on the left side.
We drive on the left hand side of the road, which incidently is the correct side.
Now i could be wrong, but i believe driving on the left hand side harks back to the days of when a gentleman was out for a stroll with his lady friend and he would stand on the on the side closer to the road, so that in the event of a horse drawn cart came by and splashed water upon them he would take the brunt of it and spare his female companion the indignity of being soaked. Which is why we drive on the left and park so that the driver has to exit the car onto the road, thereby "protecting" the passenger from the dangers of getting spashed... with car.
OK go into a pub in Britain, start talking gak, and tell me how many of them are running away and not confronting you.
Haha you are such a joker!
I just love how in the previous gun threads there were charts and graphs showing the UK to be more violent than the US, and now you guys are apparently all fleeing from fights. Just dumb.
How about this? UK members can't understand our fascination with guns. US members can't understand why they can't understand our fascination with guns. We're not changing any societal views on this on Dakka, Seriously. All we're doing is rehashing small differences for the umpteenth time. Americans have different views than those in the UK. This isn't shocking, so why are we still debating it?
That's because most UK citizens don't need to defend themselves every time they step out of the front door. Also you cannot compare crime rates of two completely different countries because they will have different ways of reporting and recording crimes as well as a different ratio of crime to population. We may have a higher crime to population ratio (one of the worst in Europe apparently) but claiming that there is more crime overall in the UK than the US is just stupid when the US has a population of 313,914,040 whereas the UK has a population of 63,181,775 so by defult the US should have more crimes committed.
I would also like to point out that most US citizens don't need to defend themselves every time they step out of the front door... Like I said in another thread, I've been living in the same place/city for 10 years, and our house has never been broken into, I've never been held up at gunpoint/knifepoint/phallic silicon... point. The worst that has happened is that I was in a restaurant when some guy flipped out because he was hammered and didn't like what he ordered... I've been hassled by homeless, sold popcorn in bad neighborhoods, and played baseball in the inner city of Cleveland... Nothing has ever happened to me... Those that carry guns do so because they don't wish to be caught off guard. I've said it before, I wouldn't conceal carry because there is no legal point for me to do so. I work in an office building that explicitly says that concealed carry is illegal in the building. I don't need CCW at home because well... I'm at home. The 3 minutes I'm in a parking lot twice a day doesn't worry me.
I have played Grand Theft Auto San Andreas and I've seen people play Saints Row the Third... I've never been accosted by such a thing before... I think those video games are inaccurate representations of real life.
Oh god... i remember those purple monstrosities in GTA. The first time i ever found one in the copshop i wasn't sure what it was. I was young and so wonderfully naive. Then i gave it as a gift to someone and then all of a sudden it clicked and i figured out what it was.
Mattman154 wrote:
He's from the UK. They seem to be born and raised with the "Why fight when I can flee" mentality.
Breotan wrote:Seriously? You had to go all the way back to the Battle of Britain? How long ago was that? While I share Mattman154's view that there is a serious sheep-like passivity being engrained into British society today, surely you can find a more recent example to support your viewpoint?
Ah, such brave words from men extolling the virtues of hiding behind firearms instead of throwing down in the traditional manner.
Know what I've found since coming over here? Your lot talk a really good fight, all wavy arm gestures and hollywood threats and then??? They stand around and wait for their friends to hold them back. 'No bro, you come at me'...
Both of you take your tough guy asses over to The Swordfish in Newlyn, UK, where you won't be allowed to carry guns. Try and pick a landing day when the harbor's full of trawlers, then you tell those chaps your wonderful theories and I'll run a book on how many pieces you end up in. In fact, wander into any town in the UK on a Friday night and tell them all they're pussies and see what your brave talk gets you.
I highly recommend it.
My bar buddies can beat up your bar buddies!
My bar buddies would bore you to death with pics of their kids. We don't need guns. We have IPADs full of mind numbing pics.
Mattman154 wrote:
He's from the UK. They seem to be born and raised with the "Why fight when I can flee" mentality.
Breotan wrote:Seriously? You had to go all the way back to the Battle of Britain? How long ago was that? While I share Mattman154's view that there is a serious sheep-like passivity being engrained into British society today, surely you can find a more recent example to support your viewpoint?
Ah, such brave words from men extolling the virtues of hiding behind firearms instead of throwing down in the traditional manner.
Know what I've found since coming over here? Your lot talk a really good fight, all wavy arm gestures and hollywood threats and then??? They stand around and wait for their friends to hold them back. 'No bro, you come at me'...
Both of you take your tough guy asses over to The Swordfish in Newlyn, UK, where you won't be allowed to carry guns. Try and pick a landing day when the harbor's full of trawlers, then you tell those chaps your wonderful theories and I'll run a book on how many pieces you end up in. In fact, wander into any town in the UK on a Friday night and tell them all they're pussies and see what your brave talk gets you.
I highly recommend it.
My bar buddies can beat up your bar buddies!
My bar buddies would bore you to death with pics of their kids. We don't need guns. We have IPADs full of mind numbing pics.
My bar buddies would make you roll up a character before any violence is enacted.
In Illinois, it’s been more about guns than the state’s gaping pension debt this winter. And that is not about to change, as the top Democratin Illinois has set the agenda for at least one major overhaul of the state’s gun laws.
House Speaker Mike Madigan on Thursday set a pair of public hearings for later this month to focus on concealed-carry legislation.
“In light of events in recent months in Illinois and in other parts of the country, it’s appropriate and necessary that we give a full vetting to proposed state legislation on this matter,” Madigan said.
Illinois is the only state in the nation that does not allow people to carry a weapon in some fashion and with some regulations.
Madigan said the hearings, one in Chicago and the other at the state Capitol, will give advocates, opponents and police officers a chance “to offer their views and argue their cases to legislators and the people of Illinois.”
But the case for concealed carry already may be closed.
In December, a federal appeals court struck down Illinois’ law that stops people from carrying a weapon.
And Todd Vandermyde, a lobbyist for the Illinois State Rifle Association, said that ruling closed the door on many of the “negotiations” that surrounded concealed carry legislation in the past.
"There are certain things that are not negotiable in the process," Vandermyde said last week at a public hearing.
Concealed carry “will be a ‘shall issue’ permit, there will be no discretion by some bureaucrat as to whether you get to exercise your right,” he said.
“It will be a statewide permit, there will be no carve-out for Chicago. There will be no carve-out for Cook County,” Vandermyde said.
State Rep. Brandon Phelps, D-Harrisburg, who has authored several concealed-carry laws during his time in Springfield, said the federal court ruling goes even further.
"The clock is still ticking. June 10 is the deadline," Phelps said. "We filed a bill, a lot of people didn't think we were going to because we don't have to. Constitutional carry will set-in if we don't do something."
Phelps’ plan would require gun owners be trained, pass a background check and obtain a permit. Phelps said he is fine with some limits on where people could take their weapon, including schools, libraries, taverns, amusement parks, airports, government buildings or anyplace prohibited by federal law.
So if lawmakers must act to stop everyone from being able to carry a gun, but will not be able to place broad limits on just who can carry a gun, what can lawmakers do?
State Sen. Kwame Raoul, D-Chicago, will have to figure that out.
Raoul will now head the Illinois Senate’s push to legislate who can carry a weapon in Illinois.
“The negotiations I lead will respect firearm owners’ constitutional protections as interpreted by the Supreme Court and lower courts, and it will acknowledge the fact that there are many law-abiding Illinois gun owners who legitimately wish to use guns for sport and self-protection,” Raoul said in a statement on Thursday. “At the same time, we will also acknowledge the alarming prevalence of gun violence and the need to keep guns out of the hands of those most likely to use them for harm.”
But on Wednesday, Raoul said the focus on guns should not just be on concealed carry or even an assault weapons ban.
"I understand there was a great tragedy that happened at Newtown (Conn.), and Aurora (Colo.), and Columbine (High School in Colorado)," Raoul said. "But on a day-to-day basis, in my neighborhood, in my district, it's these guns being transferred through straw purchases to gang-bangers and people we know will do harm with them."
Raoul said he wants to address that problem as well.
The first House hearing is set from Feb. 19 in Springfield, the second on Feb. 22 in Chicago.
Long past time it happened. I'm hoping to get an assignment real soon, so I'll be leaving shortly after this deadline. Won't affect me much, but i'm glad for the people of Illinois.
whembly wrote: EDIT: Does anyone know the source why the Brits (and some colonies) drive on the left side of the road? It was due to horses/donkeys being trained to walk on the left side.
I heard it that horse riders wore swords on their left, and you kept oncoming 'traffic' to your right.
So, you could see whether their sword hand was empty.
And, as mentioned, curtesy states that if a gentleman is walking with his lady, he stands to the right.
Look at walkabouts of the Queen, with Prince Philip to her rear-right.
So, men would pass each other, and the women on the outside.
I doubt it's anything to do with horses on canal tow-paths.
AFAIR, boats 'drive' on the right here. Towing a barge on the right would mean that the horse would have to be on the right, if there's a choice. Most canals only have a towpath on one side.
As for guns:
"If you outlaw guns, the only people with guns will be the outlaws."
There's usually no need to carry a gun here in the UK, unless you expect to need it. Gun-fight, knife-fight, it's not something the majority of people need to worry about.
I would add that the easy availability of guns would actually increase the amount of outlaws in the first place.
It's much easier to hold up a store when you have a gun anyway. I mean, most of the people that do this are probably in a very desperate situation where they feel this is the only way for them to get any money. And well, since you have a gun for " self defense" anyway, might as well use it for this.
Besides, I don't get how this still needs to be discussed, just check the statistics from every western country without these kind of gun laws (so, just about everyone else) and you'll see the difference in gun related violence.
Soladrin wrote: I would add that the easy availability of guns would actually increase the amount of outlaws in the first place.
Gun amnesties. We often have them, about once a decade or so, IIRC. Any time there's a big shooting in the UK, there's another furore, and a call to 'get guns off the streets'. Doesn't work, of course. See what happened after Dunblane...
Besides, I don't get how this still needs to be discussed, just check the statistics from every western country without these kind of gun laws (so, just about everyone else) and you'll see the difference in gun related violence.
Since gun related violence =/= all violent crime, the stats are usually skewed. I guess that US and gun-carrying countries do not count their gun-death apart from knife-deaths, etc.
When did I ever say gun violence represents all violence? That said, there is a lot less violence in general anyway so I think it's a moot point.
As for the call to get guns off the street, yeah, it doesn't work. You know why? Because the people who have them in countries without acces to legal fire arms most likely feel they need them for their "business".
I'd also add this plays out almost exactly like legalizing drugs. Every country that has done it has seen a rapid decline in drug related crimes, deaths, abuse etc. etc..
More people per capita use drugs in the USA then in the Netherlands. Let that roll about in your head for a bit.
Edit: To clarify, I'm not arguing Legalization vs Banning. I'm just pointing out that people seem to be really good at ignoring things that are obviously proved by the stats.
Edit: To clarify, I'm not arguing Legalization vs Banning. I'm just pointing out that people seem to be really good at ignoring things that are obviously proved by the stats.
It is easier to remember talking points by influential power brokers rather than nerdy facts dug up in research and statistic papers that don't prove a charged point.
Soladrin wrote: When did I ever say gun violence represents all violence? That said, there is a lot less violence in general anyway so I think it's a moot point.
As for the call to get guns off the street, yeah, it doesn't work. You know why? Because the people who have them in countries without acces to legal fire arms most likely feel they need them for their "business".
I'd also add this plays out almost exactly like legalizing drugs. Every country that has done it has seen a rapid decline in drug related crimes, deaths, abuse etc. etc..
More people per capita use drugs in the USA then in the Netherlands. Let that roll about in your head for a bit.
Edit: To clarify, I'm not arguing Legalization vs Banning. I'm just pointing out that people seem to be really good at ignoring things that are obviously proved by the stats.
Jos, the issue with gun-violence stats is that they're often lumped in with violence stats. And then once you have your violence stats, you had to discern what each country counts as violence. KillKrazy has mentioned in other threads (and possibly this one) that there are some types of crimes that are committed in the UK that aren't considered violent crimes in the US (or vice versa). To truly get valid research on run related homicides (which is what we care about). Then you would have to openly ask major cities in the US how many homicides (not including suicide or suicide by cop) that included guns, and technically... but that's hard arduous work that no one anywhere seems to want to do.
Soladrin wrote: I'd argue that the overwhelming difference would still be rather telling.
Anyway, that leaves me with only one valid argument:
'MURICA!
Except that the "MURICA" attitude is an attitude held by a vocal minority of the population. There are plenty of us that agree we live in a good country, and that we have our feth ups, but at least we're not a third world country yet...
Soladrin wrote: When did I ever say gun violence represents all violence? That said, there is a lot less violence in general anyway so I think it's a moot point.
As for the call to get guns off the street, yeah, it doesn't work. You know why? Because the people who have them in countries without acces to legal fire arms most likely feel they need them for their "business".
I'd also add this plays out almost exactly like legalizing drugs. Every country that has done it has seen a rapid decline in drug related crimes, deaths, abuse etc. etc..
More people per capita use drugs in the USA then in the Netherlands. Let that roll about in your head for a bit.
Edit: To clarify, I'm not arguing Legalization vs Banning. I'm just pointing out that people seem to be really good at ignoring things that are obviously proved by the stats.
Jos, the issue with gun-violence stats is that they're often lumped in with violence stats. And then once you have your violence stats, you had to discern what each country counts as violence. KillKrazy has mentioned in other threads (and possibly this one) that there are some types of crimes that are committed in the UK that aren't considered violent crimes in the US (or vice versa). To truly get valid research on run related homicides (which is what we care about). Then you would have to openly ask major cities in the US how many homicides (not including suicide or suicide by cop) that included guns, and technically... but that's hard arduous work that no one anywhere seems to want to do.
All that data is available from the FBI website, which uses the Uniform Crime Reporting definitions to classify the different crimes.
I know it is difficult to compare all violent crimes between US and UK, since the US apparently does not record violent crime unless it involves a weapon of some kind.
Soladrin wrote: Yeah, but I'm not from the UK and I was the one making that point in the first place.
Silly SWEEEEOOOOOO!
sweeeeoooooo?
Also I realize you're not from the UK, but the point(s) that you've brought up have been brought up and extensively argued by both people from the UK and America... though providing some stats might give your argument more weight
I don't know if the French publish their crime stats. I expect it is easier to research in French government web sites if you read French well, and so on for other countries.
Wikipedia publishes a lot of this kind of info with sources. As long as you check the sources, you can quickly find if Wikipedia just makes up the stats or whether they are at all useful for analysis.
Similarly, the WHO, the UN and the CIA publish a lot of this kind of information. In fact the Wiki info is often copied and/or summarised/tabulated from those other sources.
It isn't actually too hard to find info that is roughly comparable. Of course you need to be aware of differences in methodology, and year of collection, but they needn't invalidate all comparisons.
POSTED AT 12:41 PM ON FEBRUARY 15, 2013 BY MARY KATHARINE HAM
I don’t usually post video of myself, but this got a lot of reaction this morning. I imagine my visceral annoyance speaks for a lot of people being accused of not caring about children who die at the hands of murders just because we happen to disagree with President Obama’s preferred federal remedies for said murders (most of which have already been implemented and failed spectacularly).
Juan and I are friends, and as I say at the end of the clip, we will make it up later. But please notice that I do not impugn Juan’s motives. I would have appreciated the same consideration. I have no doubt that he cares deeply about those affected by gun violence, but I think he puts far too much emphasis on the emotional catharsis of passing a law to “fix” a problem, which then doesn’t fix the problem. If one supports a remedy, such as the Assault Weapons Ban, which has already demonstrably failed to prevent mass shootings on a national level (Columbine) and a state level (Newtown), and yet wants to implement that failed policy again, isn’t that effectively just as bad as not caring about the problem? If one supports stricter gun laws, which have demonstrably failed in places like Chicago and Washington, D.C., while ignoring the deeper social problems that cause gang-related shootings and Newtown-like single shooters, isn’t that effectively just as bad as not giving a damn? Ignoring these failures and repeating failed policies arguably goes beyond indifference into a form of criminal negligence, no matter how well-meaning.
I’ve already been accused of racism online for sticking up for gun owners and wanting to address deeper issues that might actually curb gun violence, so let me add this. One, it’s racist and ignorant to assume there are no minorities among the legal gun owners I’m defending. Two, I think there are deeper social issues at play in both gang war and single shooters, who are almost exclusively white and suburban/rural, and reference both problems in this clip, so no I’m not blaming gun violence on cities or minorities. And, finally, strict gun laws in Chicago often prevent people like Otis McDonald, a 76-year-old black South Side resident, from protecting themselves. I would like Mr. McDonald and 70-year-old Detroit basketball coach Ernest Robinson, and others like them to have that right— not be held hostage by the bad intentions of armed criminals and the failed good intentions of their liberal lawmakers.
Yet I’m the one accused of not caring for having the audacity to point out that law-abiding people shouldn’t be punished for criminals’ crimes and asking a federal law to actually produce something other than the moral superiority of its supporters. The conversation wasn’t even really about gun control. It was about being able to disagree with liberal policies or point out their inefficacy, without being smeared as a heartless racist. (Juan didn’t go there with the racism, just the heartlessness, and I appreciate at least that, although my Twitter feed is full of it.) Juan himself has faced the exact same bullying when he strays from the liberal line on issues like school choice, on which we agree. It’s unfair and unhelpful, and dare I say it, uncaring.
I have just seen a YouTube video of Piers Morgan interviewing Alex Jones about gun control. I find Alex Jones hilarious when he talks about needing guns to protect themselves from the government. First of all if the government did attack the general public, the public would get steamrolled over. Secondly why would a government attack its own citizens when they have a good setup going on; most people having money stripped from them by things such as VAT increases and a promotion materialistic consumerist society by the media?
Now back on topic, my thoughts on this so called ‘gun control debate’…
Now don’t get me wrong, the Sandy Hook incident was a terrible, terrible thing; I shed a few tears at the thought of those poor kids not getting to experience the wonders of life, not getting to grow up, find love and have a family. Yet I feel the American government is milking the terrible event to their advantage. The American government will end up doing nothing about gun control. The government probably love the division that has formed; it shifts attention away from the horrendous things that they have done and helps create the illusion that the Democrat and Republican parties are different, isolated entities, whilst in reality both parties are there to serve the corporate elites and the top bankers. Also the gun debate and other political and ethical differences stops us acknowledging our differences and actually working together to create a better society, living in harmony and living without the corporate elites and big bankers milking money and power out of us. There is a profit attached to division, hate and violence in the eyes of the top 1%.
Also simply deciding whether to have gun control, banning the use of certain weapons and limiting the size of clips or leave the guns and let the citizens defend themselves will not reduce the amount of criminals and terrible mass shootings. A psychologically unstable person will always be a hazard no matter if he has a gun or not, they will be determined to carry out the mass murder or whatever crime they are going to commit and it won’t matter to them if they have a gun or a knife, there will still be a chance of at least one poor soul getting killed. Some people are born to be murderers; they derive pleasure from death and pain or/and have heightened aggression, all determined by the DNA, the sequence of bases attached to the sugar-phosphate backbone coding for the different proteins which make up every single feature of your body. Unfortunately helping those people is hard; they need to be sent somewhere, isolated form the rest of society or cured somehow. Most criminal acts are actually for monetary gain, often committed in desperation due to the perpetrator living in poverty and not in a positive, nurturing environment, which links into the general public being treated like cattle, being exploited for money and labour to prop up the elite.
The best way to prevent mass murder will be to prevent the perpetrator committing the crime in the first place. To do this I suggest that more money goes into research and treatment of psychological disorders and what could trigger somebody to kill. Also there needs to be more funding in awareness of psychological disorders and what could make a person snap and kill so that there are better chances of people spotting warning signs and reporting it early. As for other violent crimes such as mugging, there needs to be a shift in society, focusing less on monetary gain and consumerism, making sure that everyone has a roof over their heads, food, water, clothes, and warmth and health services without massive bills. There needs to be fewer imports of resources from countries such as China and more focus on local economies and producing resources. Most importantly everyone needs to feel like they are doing their bit to help somebody and should recognise it, knowing that they are doing a bit of good in the world.
Please feel free to challenge any of the points I have made, just do so respectfully as it has taken me a long time just to gather my thoughts and turn them into something that is cohesive and makes sense. Also it has taken a while to type. Also please, no labelling me a conspiracy theorist just because I don’t have an affiliation to a particular side of the debate and bringing up points which may be out of the norm in mainstream social and political views.
