Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Melissia wrote:

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

Why?

Self defense is ethical.

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

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

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

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

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

Frazzled wrote:

Joey wrote:

Melissia wrote:

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

Lacking in empathy towards criminals, sure.

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

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

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

Melissia wrote:

Joey wrote:You have no moral authority whatsoever.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frazzled wrote:

Joey wrote:

Melissia wrote:

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

Lacking in empathy towards criminals, sure.

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

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

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

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

Just saying that does not make you right.

ShumaGorath wrote:They get press every five seconds

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

Melissia wrote:

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

Why?

Self defense is ethical.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Melissia wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Melissia wrote:

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

Why?

Self defense is ethical.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Melissia wrote:

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

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

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

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

No, it didn't.

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

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

Joey wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Joey wrote:

Melissia wrote:

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

Lacking in empathy towards criminals, sure.

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

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

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

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

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

So does pretty much everything Joey is saying.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Joey wrote:

Melissia wrote:

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

Lacking in empathy towards criminals, sure.

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

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

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

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:

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

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

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

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

Frazzled wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Joey wrote:

Melissia wrote:

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

Lacking in empathy towards criminals, sure.

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

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

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

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

Melissia wrote:

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

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

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

Joey wrote:The jury made that decision.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lol.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Much obliged.

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

Joey wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're welcome

Glad someone got the joke instead of taking it completely seriously

Joey wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Frazzled wrote:

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

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

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

Joey wrote:

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

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

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

reds8n wrote:

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

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

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

Much obliged.

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Joey wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

I can.

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

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

At least not until they educate themselves on the topic.

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

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

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

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