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.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/08 18:23:05
GW Rules Interpretation Syndrom. GWRIS. Causes people to second guess a rule in a book because that's what they would have had to do in a GW system.
SilverMK2 wrote: "Well, I have epilepsy and was holding a knife when I had a seizure... I couldn't help it! I was just trying to chop the vegetables for dinner!"
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.
azazel the cat wrote: If you want to insert guns into this situation, then you give a firearm to both the attacker and the victim.
He covers that in a list of his examples.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azazel the cat wrote: I'm arguing that it's better for both parties in this situaiton to be unarmed, as the attacker has the advantage.
Seems to be the way Orks do it
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/08 18:26:52
GW Rules Interpretation Syndrom. GWRIS. Causes people to second guess a rule in a book because that's what they would have had to do in a GW system.
SilverMK2 wrote: "Well, I have epilepsy and was holding a knife when I had a seizure... I couldn't help it! I was just trying to chop the vegetables for dinner!"
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.
GW Rules Interpretation Syndrom. GWRIS. Causes people to second guess a rule in a book because that's what they would have had to do in a GW system.
SilverMK2 wrote: "Well, I have epilepsy and was holding a knife when I had a seizure... I couldn't help it! I was just trying to chop the vegetables for dinner!"
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"
Simple, hotsauceman1, we need these gun threads to keep OT interesting.
GW Rules Interpretation Syndrom. GWRIS. Causes people to second guess a rule in a book because that's what they would have had to do in a GW system.
SilverMK2 wrote: "Well, I have epilepsy and was holding a knife when I had a seizure... I couldn't help it! I was just trying to chop the vegetables for dinner!"
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/02/08 19:14:44
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.
"You are judged in life, not by the evil you destroy, but by the light you bring to the darkness" - Reclusiarch Grimaldus of the Black Templars
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/02/08 19:22:59
DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+ Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics
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.
“Yesss! Just as planned!”
–Spoken by Xi’aquan, Lord of Change, in its death throes
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.
DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+ Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics
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.
GW Rules Interpretation Syndrom. GWRIS. Causes people to second guess a rule in a book because that's what they would have had to do in a GW system.
SilverMK2 wrote: "Well, I have epilepsy and was holding a knife when I had a seizure... I couldn't help it! I was just trying to chop the vegetables for dinner!"
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
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)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/08 19:30:07
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.
DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+ Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics
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.
“Yesss! Just as planned!”
–Spoken by Xi’aquan, Lord of Change, in its death throes
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/08 19:34:39
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/08 19:35:13
DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+ Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics