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.

Edit: Never mind

 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 you really went to sheep as your argument?

OK go into a pub in Britain, start talking gak, and tell me how many of them are running away and not confronting you.

 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.

From http://autos.aol.com/article/gun-control-road-rage-legislation-AAA/


I would also point out that the very term 'Road Rage' originated in the US, after a spate of freeway shootings back in the '80s...

 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. 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.

 djones520 wrote:

 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. 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....

Would the DC sniper be counted in this as he shot people from his car?

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
Would the DC sniper be counted in this as he shot people from his car?

No. Premeditated shooting of people from your getaway vehicle does not count as road rage.

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.

 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.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
Breotan you really went to sheep as your argument?

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!

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

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.

 djones520 wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

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.

 MetalOxide wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
Breotan you really went to sheep as your argument?

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."

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

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!

 djones520 wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

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?

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

 MetalOxide wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
Breotan you really went to sheep as your argument?

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?

 Breotan wrote:

 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:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

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!

Unlikely.

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?

 whembly wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

 MetalOxide wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
Breotan you really went to sheep as your argument?

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.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Mattman154 wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

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!

Unlikely.

Fictional bar buddy brawl! Winner takes all the



I rolled a 7, your turn!

 whembly wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

 MetalOxide wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
Breotan you really went to sheep as your argument?

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.

Snake Plisken Eyes trumps all.

 Breotan wrote:

 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...

"I told that teachin lady..."

 azazel the cat wrote:

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?