Pistol-Packing Soccer Mom Sues Sheriff

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: Atheus
Not the issue. The issue is - is it logical to be scared becasue someone has a weapon and you do not? Yes it is, because it increases the chances that if there is a confrontation you will be killed, and an increased chance of death causes fear. It's perfectly logical. I don't see how you can claim it's not.

Wow. I could be wrong... I'm still running the numbers... add 1... carry the 7... yes, I think so.

You just made a logical argument why someone should carry a gun. Surely you can see it?

It could be seen as an argment that I should *also* carry a gun, therefore becoming equal with my imaginary opponent, but that wouldn't mean there is no chance of my being killed myself - just that either of us could be killed. This is no better.

Of course it's no guarantee. That's given. However, your chances of survival (you being the armed civilian under attack) just went up, no doubt.

If you are concerned only with yourself then this makes sense, but if you consider the possibility of a 3rd party being hurt too, the chances go up with every gun you add.

To me it seems obvious the best situation is that neither me or this fictional person is armed. Then we both get a bloody nose, everyone laughs, and we have another drink.

 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: Atheus
Suffice to say that simply being black (LOL) does not give you the ability to easily kill a room full of people on a whim whereas carrying weapons does...

Yeah, since people who would not otherwise do so are constantly going off and killing rooms full of people as soon as they have a gun.

Does it, or does it not, give them the ability to do so? It does. With no weapons involved the worst that can happen when someone gets angry is a punchup. With weapons involved the worst that can happen is everyone gets shot.

I could kill you quite easily with my bare hands. Or a knife. Or a bat. Or my drivers license.

1) Bullshit.

2) Statements like that only make you seem even more violent and unhinged.

Moreover, if I suddenly wanted to kill a room of people I could go get a weapon (not my own) in minutes and do so...I don't have to carry it around with me. People do not (statistically) commit crimes with lawfully carried weapons.

Not the issue. The issue is - is it logical to be scared becasue someone has a weapon and you do not? Yes it is, because it increases the chances that if there is a confrontation you will be killed, and an increased chance of death causes fear. It's perfectly logical. I don't see how you can claim it's not.

/edit:

and what about this, from my post above?

If the ability of someone to do something does not make them a threat, then why not just let North Korea have nukes? And other countries too? Shit - why not just give everyone nukes!

No, completely true. In fact we were taught how to use any plastic card (military ID, etc) as a way to cut through soft tissue and assist in killing an enemy when I was in the military. It's pretty standard thing. Grip a card in your hand with just about half an inch corner sticking out, your thumb over it and pressing it into a slight curve. It gains enough rigidity to easily cut soft tissue where there are good surface veins/arteries (neck, inner thigh, wrist, etc). It's not the best, but if it's all you have it works.

As for the other weapons, umm, dude, they (or their equivalents) have been used for thousands of years to kill untold millions of people.

I can't help what I was trained to do, or what human nature dictates. People have known since before civilization how to utilize tools to kill...and they did it instinctively, no formal training required. Not liking it doesn't make it any less true.

It is EXACTLY the issue. If someone is carrying a weapon lawfully (ie concealed, or open carry, with no signs of using it aggressively) then I'm perfectly comfortable around them because I know that odds are on my side they're not going to commit a crime. Moreover, I know they're there in case other trouble starts, so I have more than just myself to rely on to stay alive. The fact that they're carrying a weapon decreases the chance of there being a confrontation, and increases my chance to survive one if it occurs from any other source. If you are unarmed, that's your choice, and your problem, not mine. I'd be happy to suggest a carry weapon for you, and teach you its proper use if you'd like. Again, just because you don't realize or acknowledge that doesn't make it less true.

Personally I don't care who has what weapon or item. I only care if they use it. I don't believe that restricting access restricts use, as the drug war and crime control efforts, have proven perfectly. I happen to be against nuclear arms in general, so I'd rather no one had them. But if anyone does than any legitimate nation might as well...after all, they can just buy one black market Russian surplus if they want one (or make their own, the knowledge is readily available). Nothing can stop someone from doing whatever they want. Nothing. All you can do is defend yourself and pickup the pieces after.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: Atheus
Not the issue. The issue is - is it logical to be scared becasue someone has a weapon and you do not? Yes it is, because it increases the chances that if there is a confrontation you will be killed, and an increased chance of death causes fear. It's perfectly logical. I don't see how you can claim it's not.

Wow. I could be wrong... I'm still running the numbers... add 1... carry the 7... yes, I think so.

You just made a logical argument why someone should carry a gun. Surely you can see it?

It could be seen as an argment that I should *also* carry a gun, therefore becoming equal with my imaginary opponent, but that wouldn't mean there is no chance of my being killed myself - just that either of us could be killed. This is no better.

Of course it's no guarantee. That's given. However, your chances of survival (you being the armed civilian under attack) just went up, no doubt.

If you are concerned only with yourself then this makes sense, but if you consider the possibility of a 3rd party being hurt too, the chances go up with every gun you add.

To me it seems obvious the best situation is that neither me or this fictional person is armed. Then we both get a bloody nose, everyone laughs, and we have another drink.

Except that statistically, they don't, and never have.

Yes, I'd prefer no weapons myself. A gun is a cowards weapon anyway. However, you cannot get rid of them. The genies out of the bottle and it's here to stay. The best you can do is arm yourself well enough to have a fighting chance. If you ever invent a button that instantly destroys all weapons and prevent more from being made I'll push it myself.
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: Atheus
If you are concerned only with yourself then this makes sense, but if you consider the possibility of a 3rd party being hurt too, the chances go up with every gun you add.

To me it seems obvious the best situation is that neither me or this fictional person is armed. Then we both get a bloody nose and everyone laughs then gets another drink.

The problem, Atheus, is that there is no way to guarantee that everyone will be disarmed. Even if all guns were made illegal tomorrow, there are approximately 200 million civilian owned firearms inn the United States. So, you, being the law abiding person you are (presumably) will give up your guns in search of this Utopian ideal, but Mr. Psychotic Shooter (and every other criminal) will not. So, you've just removed your only reasonable means of defense in an "unarmed" society.

Plus, the idea that more guns equating to more crime simply has no factual basis (if anything, it has zero effect on crime).
 

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Again, can I, out of a personal fear of black people, call the police on them and cause them distress when they're violating no law? Wouldn't those people then be right in suing? So haven't my actions in such an instance caused damage to them, myself, the police, the community, the nation, etc? Same thing exactly applies here...in fact, if anything a fear of black people is more logical and supportable than a fear of armed citizens.

This is a completely insane comparison, as I'm sure you are aware, so there's really no point in picking it apart properly. Suffice to say that simply being black (LOL) does not give you the ability to easily kill a room full of people on a whim whereas carrying weapons does...

And I'd *love* to hear how you think a fear of black people is logical and supportable even in the slightest!

If I met you and your weapons I would be, if not scared, then certainly worried for myself and my family. You are frequently unreasonable and quick to anger. That combined with being armed to the teeth is a very worrying proposition.

It's a perfectly logical comparison, right down to basis of fear. Being alive gives you the ability to easily kill a room full of people on a whim. Carrying a weapon is irrelevant, since statistically it does not occur that way. You have a fear that it does, but your fear is entirely irrational and without support.

Most criminals are black. Most firearm murders and injuries are committed by blacks. That's even though there are fewer blacks than whites, making the fear of crime from a black person even greater. It is therefore reasonable to fear a black person. ***please note, I myself do not fear blacks in any way, and fully recognize the lunacy of judging people on this basis...it's being used as an example only***

Almost no weapons are used in a crime (statistically speaking, when looking at the total number of weapons in existence). You have a greater chance to be crushed by a vending machine than to be killed by an assault rifle (outside of a battlefield). We have existed for centuries with 1/3 - 1/2 of all households having firearms, without significant negative impact. It is therefore unreasonable to fear weapons.

Then you are wholly illogical. I have carried a gun 24/7 for 14 years. I have never killed anyone. To believe I suddenly would is lunacy because you would be expecting a result contrary to overwhelming evidence. Even if it were to happen, the odds are astronomical that it would be anyone but a criminal being injured (since statistically there are almost no accidental shootings or injuries).

You construct your sentances as if they are a logical arguement, and use the word therefore, but the one statement does not follow from the next. Plus many of your premises are pure conjecture. For example:

without significant negative impact

You cannot possibly know that. The only way to know that would be to live an alternate timeline in which guns are banned.

And this:

You have a greater chance to be crushed by a vending machine than to be killed by an assault rifle (outside of a battlefield).

You are also more likely to be killed by a chicken sandwich than a 300HP outboard motor (outside a boat race)...

This statistic means nothing...

 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Again, can I, out of a personal fear of black people, call the police on them and cause them distress when they're violating no law? Wouldn't those people then be right in suing? So haven't my actions in such an instance caused damage to them, myself, the police, the community, the nation, etc? Same thing exactly applies here...in fact, if anything a fear of black people is more logical and supportable than a fear of armed citizens.

This is a completely insane comparison, as I'm sure you are aware, so there's really no point in picking it apart properly. Suffice to say that simply being black (LOL) does not give you the ability to easily kill a room full of people on a whim whereas carrying weapons does...

And I'd *love* to hear how you think a fear of black people is logical and supportable even in the slightest!

If I met you and your weapons I would be, if not scared, then certainly worried for myself and my family. You are frequently unreasonable and quick to anger. That combined with being armed to the teeth is a very worrying proposition.

It's a perfectly logical comparison, right down to basis of fear. Being alive gives you the ability to easily kill a room full of people on a whim. Carrying a weapon is irrelevant, since statistically it does not occur that way. You have a fear that it does, but your fear is entirely irrational and without support.

Most criminals are black. Most firearm murders and injuries are committed by blacks. That's even though there are fewer blacks than whites, making the fear of crime from a black person even greater. It is therefore reasonable to fear a black person. ***please note, I myself do not fear blacks in any way, and fully recognize the lunacy of judging people on this basis...it's being used as an example only***

Almost no weapons are used in a crime (statistically speaking, when looking at the total number of weapons in existence). You have a greater chance to be crushed by a vending machine than to be killed by an assault rifle (outside of a battlefield). We have existed for centuries with 1/3 - 1/2 of all households having firearms, without significant negative impact. It is therefore unreasonable to fear weapons.

Then you are wholly illogical. I have carried a gun 24/7 for 14 years. I have never killed anyone. To believe I suddenly would is lunacy because you would be expecting a result contrary to overwhelming evidence. Even if it were to happen, the odds are astronomical that it would be anyone but a criminal being injured (since statistically there are almost no accidental shootings or injuries).

You construct your sentances as if they are a logical arguement, and use the word therefore, but the one statement does not follow from the next. Plus many of your premises are pure conjecture. For example:

without significant negative impact

You cannot possibly know that. The only way to know that would be to live an alternate timeline in which guns are banned.

And this:

You have a greater chance to be crushed by a vending machine than to be killed by an assault rifle (outside of a battlefield).

You are also more likely to be killed by a chicken sandwich than a 300HP outboard motor (outside a boat race)...

This statistic means nothing...

Well let's see: we have all those guns, and yet our total number dead from criminal activity is not running rampant...in fact it's decreasing. We never had a revolution, we didn't attempt genocide on a wide scale, our wealth has increased, our population has increased, our sphere of control has increased, our technology has increased...I see no significant negative impact. I don't need a crystal ball to look out the window. Things aren't bad, and they're getting better. There are far worse places on the planet, some with weapons, some gun-free. This all leads to the inescapable conclusion that guns aren't that big of a deal.

We were discussing rather or not someone was rational in their fear of a weapon in civilian life. An assault rifle is a type of weapon which is greatly feared in America. However, there have been almost no incidents, crimes, injuries, deaths, etc from their ownership or use in civilian life. I excepted the battlefield because obviously people die from them there...but that's outside the scope of civilian fear. As I pointed out, vending machines have killed more people than assault rifles. It is therefore an irrational fear...or if you'd rather fear something, fear vending machines as statistically you're more likely to be injured by one.

Again, you liking it doesn't matter. It's fact.
 

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
No, completely true. In fact we were taught how to use any plastic card (military ID, etc) as a way to cut through soft tissue and assist in killing an enemy when I was in the military. It's pretty standard thing. Grip a card in your hand with just about half an inch corner sticking out, your thumb over it and pressing it into a slight curve. It gains enough rigidity to easily cut soft tissue where there are good surface veins/arteries (neck, inner thigh, wrist, etc). It's not the best, but if it's all you have it works.

Yes yes, I have training too, and I know this trick too - that was my point. I put up a good fight and if you (or someone like you, say, to avoid this becoming personal) was to try and hurt someone I would stop them or at least slow them down. If they had a gun I couldn't. Moreover most people are untrained and the only way they're going to kill anyone *is* with a weapon.
 

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: Atheus
If you are concerned only with yourself then this makes sense, but if you consider the possibility of a 3rd party being hurt too, the chances go up with every gun you add.

To me it seems obvious the best situation is that neither me or this fictional person is armed. Then we both get a bloody nose and everyone laughs then gets another drink.

The problem, Atheus, is that there is no way to guarantee that everyone will be disarmed. Even if all guns were made illegal tomorrow, there are approximately 200 million civilian owned firearms inn the United States. So, you, being the law abiding person you are (presumably) will give up your guns in search of this Utopian ideal, but Mr. Psychotic Shooter (and every other criminal) will not. So, you've just removed your only reasonable means of defense in an "unarmed" society.

Plus, the idea that more guns equating to more crime simply has no factual basis (if anything, it has zero effect on crime).

Good point - if I knew how to solve this I'm sure Obama would hire me instantly. This isn't the issue I was arguing though. I was only arguing that it is logical to be afraid of someone becasue they are more powerful that you, for example, if they carry a weapon. This is almost the definition of fear.

 

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Well let's see: we have all those guns, and yet our total number dead from criminal activity is not running rampant...in fact it's decreasing. We never had a revolution, we didn't attempt genocide on a wide scale, our wealth has increased, our population has increased, our sphere of control has increased, our technology has increased...I see no significant negative impact. I don't need a crystal ball to look out the window. Things aren't bad, and they're getting better. There are far worse places on the planet, some with weapons, some gun-free. This all leads to the inescapable conclusion that guns aren't that big of a deal.

We were discussing rather or not someone was rational in their fear of a weapon in civilian life. An assault rifle is a type of weapon which is greatly feared in America. However, there have been almost no incidents, crimes, injuries, deaths, etc from their ownership or use in civilian life. I excepted the battlefield because obviously people die from them there...but that's outside the scope of civilian fear. As I pointed out, vending machines have killed more people than assault rifles. It is therefore an irrational fear...or if you'd rather fear something, fear vending machines as statistically you're more likely to be injured by one.

Again, you liking it doesn't matter. It's fact.

I'm sorry but your conclusuion is in no way inescapable and still makes no sense to me.

You cannot prove there has been no negative impact with your opinion that things are not 'bad', or that there are 'worse places', nor can I prove the opposite by saying that the USA is one of the most dangerous places in the world - there is no way to know what it would have been like without any guns. The argument makes no sense!

And didn't you understand the point of my silly statistic about chicken sandwiches? Just because the stats show more deaths by chicken sandwich does not mean I am going to be afraid if someone sticks a chicken sandwich in my face, whereas if someone sticks a running outboard motor (or rifle) in my face I am going to be shitting myself!
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
21
81
Originally posted by: Finalnight
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Besides that, in the absence of data showing one method to be either worse or better, the assumption must default to that of both methods being roughly equal.

ZV

Do you have any evidence to support that assumption?

Yes. It's called elementary logic. If it cannot be proven worse, and it cannot be proven better, it must logically be effectively equal. If A !< B and A !>B, then A=B. There are only three options, less than, greater than, and equal to. If it's not less than, and it's not greater than, there is only one option remaining.

This is akin to "If A=B and B=C, then A=C". It's a foundational postulate of basic logic.

ZV
 

adairusmc

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2006
7,095
78
91
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: Atheus
If you are concerned only with yourself then this makes sense, but if you consider the possibility of a 3rd party being hurt too, the chances go up with every gun you add.

To me it seems obvious the best situation is that neither me or this fictional person is armed. Then we both get a bloody nose and everyone laughs then gets another drink.

Even if all guns were made illegal tomorrow, there are approximately 200 million civilian owned firearms inn the United States. So, you, being the law abiding person you are (presumably) will give up your guns in search of this Utopian ideal, but Mr. Psychotic Shooter (and every other criminal) will not. So, you've just removed your only reasonable means of defense in an "unarmed" society.

There will also be the millions of us (like me) who lost all of our firearms in tragic boating accidents.

 

thepd7

Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2005
9,429
0
0
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
No, completely true. In fact we were taught how to use any plastic card (military ID, etc) as a way to cut through soft tissue and assist in killing an enemy when I was in the military. It's pretty standard thing. Grip a card in your hand with just about half an inch corner sticking out, your thumb over it and pressing it into a slight curve. It gains enough rigidity to easily cut soft tissue where there are good surface veins/arteries (neck, inner thigh, wrist, etc). It's not the best, but if it's all you have it works.

Yes yes, I have training too, and I know this trick too - that was my point. I put up a good fight and if you (or someone like you, say, to avoid this becoming personal) was to try and hurt someone I would stop them or at least slow them down. If they had a gun I couldn't. Moreover most people are untrained and the only way they're going to kill anyone *is* with a weapon.

You live in the UK. Stabbings and murders from knives have increased a ridiculous amount over the past decade or two.

Gonna ban those too?

Do you feel the need to carry a knife because many thugs in the UK are carrying them? That's what your logic implied.
 

jlee

Lifer
Sep 12, 2001
48,511
219
106
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: Atheus
Suffice to say that simply being black (LOL) does not give you the ability to easily kill a room full of people on a whim whereas carrying weapons does...

Yeah, since people who would not otherwise do so are constantly going off and killing rooms full of people as soon as they have a gun.

Does it, or does it not, give them the ability to do so? It does. With no weapons involved the worst that can happen when someone gets angry is a punchup. With weapons involved the worst that can happen is everyone gets shot.

If the ability of someone to do something does not make them a threat, then why not just let North Korea have nukes? And other countries too? Shit - why not just give everyone nukes!

So does this mean we can call in teenagers driving SUVs??

Originally posted by: adairusmc
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: Atheus
If you are concerned only with yourself then this makes sense, but if you consider the possibility of a 3rd party being hurt too, the chances go up with every gun you add.

To me it seems obvious the best situation is that neither me or this fictional person is armed. Then we both get a bloody nose and everyone laughs then gets another drink.

Even if all guns were made illegal tomorrow, there are approximately 200 million civilian owned firearms inn the United States. So, you, being the law abiding person you are (presumably) will give up your guns in search of this Utopian ideal, but Mr. Psychotic Shooter (and every other criminal) will not. So, you've just removed your only reasonable means of defense in an "unarmed" society.

There will also be the millions of us (like me) who lost all of our firearms in tragic boating accidents.

You too? My condolences. :(


 

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
Originally posted by: thepd7
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
No, completely true. In fact we were taught how to use any plastic card (military ID, etc) as a way to cut through soft tissue and assist in killing an enemy when I was in the military. It's pretty standard thing. Grip a card in your hand with just about half an inch corner sticking out, your thumb over it and pressing it into a slight curve. It gains enough rigidity to easily cut soft tissue where there are good surface veins/arteries (neck, inner thigh, wrist, etc). It's not the best, but if it's all you have it works.

Yes yes, I have training too, and I know this trick too - that was my point. I put up a good fight and if you (or someone like you, say, to avoid this becoming personal) was to try and hurt someone I would stop them or at least slow them down. If they had a gun I couldn't. Moreover most people are untrained and the only way they're going to kill anyone *is* with a weapon.

You live in the UK. Stabbings and murders from knives have increased a ridiculous amount over the past decade or two.

We are *nowhere near* US murder levels.

Gonna ban those too?

You have to draw a line somewhere - I would draw it well after restricting knifes, but before carrying semiauto handguns on the streets.

Do you feel the need to carry a knife because many thugs in the UK are carrying them?

Yes.

I don't like it though.

/edit: and BTW - I almost let you get away with that - you said 'ban them too'. I have not at any point advocated banning guns. I came here to agrue with Prince's claim that it is illogical to be afraid of an armed man.
 

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
Originally posted by: JLee
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: Atheus
Suffice to say that simply being black (LOL) does not give you the ability to easily kill a room full of people on a whim whereas carrying weapons does...

Yeah, since people who would not otherwise do so are constantly going off and killing rooms full of people as soon as they have a gun.

Does it, or does it not, give them the ability to do so? It does. With no weapons involved the worst that can happen when someone gets angry is a punchup. With weapons involved the worst that can happen is everyone gets shot.

If the ability of someone to do something does not make them a threat, then why not just let North Korea have nukes? And other countries too? Shit - why not just give everyone nukes!

So does this mean we can call in teenagers driving SUVs??

You mean teenagers in fast cars are dangerous too? Damn right they are. That's why you have to have a licence and there are speed limits etc.

 

jlee

Lifer
Sep 12, 2001
48,511
219
106
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: JLee
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: Atheus
Suffice to say that simply being black (LOL) does not give you the ability to easily kill a room full of people on a whim whereas carrying weapons does...

Yeah, since people who would not otherwise do so are constantly going off and killing rooms full of people as soon as they have a gun.

Does it, or does it not, give them the ability to do so? It does. With no weapons involved the worst that can happen when someone gets angry is a punchup. With weapons involved the worst that can happen is everyone gets shot.

If the ability of someone to do something does not make them a threat, then why not just let North Korea have nukes? And other countries too? Shit - why not just give everyone nukes!

So does this mean we can call in teenagers driving SUVs??

You mean teenagers in fast cars are dangerous too? Damn right they are. That's why you have to have a licence and there are speed limits etc.

There are also limits to where you can carry. The individual in the OP broke no law and had her license revoked.

Imagine the public outcry if someone complained about a teenage driver who did nothing wrong- and the DMV revoked his/her license.
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,979
3
71
Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Stupid bitch. She already got the permit back, why sue? Dumbass redneck wise and beautiful woman.

Calm the fuck down.
 

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
Originally posted by: JLee
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: JLee
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: Atheus
Suffice to say that simply being black (LOL) does not give you the ability to easily kill a room full of people on a whim whereas carrying weapons does...

Yeah, since people who would not otherwise do so are constantly going off and killing rooms full of people as soon as they have a gun.

Does it, or does it not, give them the ability to do so? It does. With no weapons involved the worst that can happen when someone gets angry is a punchup. With weapons involved the worst that can happen is everyone gets shot.

If the ability of someone to do something does not make them a threat, then why not just let North Korea have nukes? And other countries too? Shit - why not just give everyone nukes!

So does this mean we can call in teenagers driving SUVs??

You mean teenagers in fast cars are dangerous too? Damn right they are. That's why you have to have a licence and there are speed limits etc.

There are also limits to where you can carry. The individual in the OP broke no law and had her license revoked.

Imagine the public outcry if someone complained about a teenage driver who did nothing wrong- and the DMV revoked his/her license.

I came here to agrue with Prince's claim that it is illogical to be afraid of an armed man. It is also logical - if a bit wussy - to be afraid of teenagers in fast cars.

I said nothing about breaking the law.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,826
13,876
146
Atheus my friend, you have a PM.

And thank you. We may disagree, but I hold much respect for someone like yourself. :thumbsup:
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
No, completely true. In fact we were taught how to use any plastic card (military ID, etc) as a way to cut through soft tissue and assist in killing an enemy when I was in the military. It's pretty standard thing. Grip a card in your hand with just about half an inch corner sticking out, your thumb over it and pressing it into a slight curve. It gains enough rigidity to easily cut soft tissue where there are good surface veins/arteries (neck, inner thigh, wrist, etc). It's not the best, but if it's all you have it works.

Yes yes, I have training too, and I know this trick too - that was my point. I put up a good fight and if you (or someone like you, say, to avoid this becoming personal) was to try and hurt someone I would stop them or at least slow them down. If they had a gun I couldn't. Moreover most people are untrained and the only way they're going to kill anyone *is* with a weapon.

But, as I said, everything is a weapon. There's always something in the area to kill someone with, and people have done it for thousands of years. You never 'need' a gun to kill someone. Now, if they have a gun, it gives you a MUCH better chance to succeed in killing them...which is why I carry a gun. If you don't want to be disadvantaged you too can carry a gun. Since there's no way to get rid of guns, this is your only rational option.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Well let's see: we have all those guns, and yet our total number dead from criminal activity is not running rampant...in fact it's decreasing. We never had a revolution, we didn't attempt genocide on a wide scale, our wealth has increased, our population has increased, our sphere of control has increased, our technology has increased...I see no significant negative impact. I don't need a crystal ball to look out the window. Things aren't bad, and they're getting better. There are far worse places on the planet, some with weapons, some gun-free. This all leads to the inescapable conclusion that guns aren't that big of a deal.

We were discussing rather or not someone was rational in their fear of a weapon in civilian life. An assault rifle is a type of weapon which is greatly feared in America. However, there have been almost no incidents, crimes, injuries, deaths, etc from their ownership or use in civilian life. I excepted the battlefield because obviously people die from them there...but that's outside the scope of civilian fear. As I pointed out, vending machines have killed more people than assault rifles. It is therefore an irrational fear...or if you'd rather fear something, fear vending machines as statistically you're more likely to be injured by one.

Again, you liking it doesn't matter. It's fact.

I'm sorry but your conclusuion is in no way inescapable and still makes no sense to me.

You cannot prove there has been no negative impact with your opinion that things are not 'bad', or that there are 'worse places', nor can I prove the opposite by saying that the USA is one of the most dangerous places in the world - there is no way to know what it would have been like without any guns. The argument makes no sense!

And didn't you understand the point of my silly statistic about chicken sandwiches? Just because the stats show more deaths by chicken sandwich does not mean I am going to be afraid if someone sticks a chicken sandwich in my face, whereas if someone sticks a running outboard motor (or rifle) in my face I am going to be shitting myself!

That defeats the very nature of argument itself. There is nothing true, nor possible, if you hold to your ideas. Nothing. At all. Ever. Get rid of laws, politicians...all of it, because in your view of the world NOTHING is known. After all I can't prove that blacks are equal to whites, that women should vote, that free speech is good, or anything else. We either do the best we can using all available sources to arrive at logical conclusions, or we throw it all up in the air and give up.

If someone actually points a gun at you you should shit yourself. I know I would. However, that's the ONLY way the gun is dangerous. Period. If you shit yourself at any other time over it then you're not rational.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: thepd7
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
No, completely true. In fact we were taught how to use any plastic card (military ID, etc) as a way to cut through soft tissue and assist in killing an enemy when I was in the military. It's pretty standard thing. Grip a card in your hand with just about half an inch corner sticking out, your thumb over it and pressing it into a slight curve. It gains enough rigidity to easily cut soft tissue where there are good surface veins/arteries (neck, inner thigh, wrist, etc). It's not the best, but if it's all you have it works.

Yes yes, I have training too, and I know this trick too - that was my point. I put up a good fight and if you (or someone like you, say, to avoid this becoming personal) was to try and hurt someone I would stop them or at least slow them down. If they had a gun I couldn't. Moreover most people are untrained and the only way they're going to kill anyone *is* with a weapon.

You live in the UK. Stabbings and murders from knives have increased a ridiculous amount over the past decade or two.

We are *nowhere near* US murder levels.

Gonna ban those too?

You have to draw a line somewhere - I would draw it well after restricting knifes, but before carrying semiauto handguns on the streets.

Do you feel the need to carry a knife because many thugs in the UK are carrying them?

Yes.

I don't like it though.

/edit: and BTW - I almost let you get away with that - you said 'ban them too'. I have not at any point advocated banning guns. I came here to agrue with Prince's claim that it is illogical to be afraid of an armed man.

Do you fear soldiers of your own country? Do you fear police? If you do, then fine, you're just that afraid even though it's irrational. I would suggest you seek counseling if that's the case. If you don't, then you're COMPLETELY irrational since armed citizens commit less crimes and have fewer accidents than those others (well, the police at least, I have no data on military). In which case I'd seek education...and possibly still counseling.

 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,826
13,876
146
Okay, I'm going to try to see this from the other point of view.

Atheus has grown up in a country in which the culture is, by it's very nature, afraid of firearms.

It is much the same way in major American cities. Not only does the government and media cultivate and feed these fears, but the very lack of any experience with firearms does it as well.

But go to a rural American town, and the attitude is 100% the opposite. Firearms are seen as tools and are as common as tools. People have a respect, but no fear of them. To see an armed man is a regular thing and produces no fear.

What we have here folks, is a culture difference. And one side will not understand the other without fully experiencing the culture of the other.

I think our side of the argument is trying to make Atheus understand that law abiding folks being armed present no real danger to others. The statistics prove this. But simply telling him that will not remove the fear that he has grown up with and has been spoon fed him by his local culture and media his entire life.
 

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
This is logic:

1 - Fear of death is rational.
2 - A man carrying a weapon has more chance of killing someone, should he want to, than a man not carrying a weapon.
3 - Carrying a weapon does not change a person's personality and will not cause them to want to kill someone any more or less than they usually would.
4 - One's chances of dying are increased in the presence of armed men. (from 2 and 3)
5 - Fear of armed men is rational. (from 1 and 4)

That's the last time I'll make the point. I'm bored of it.

It doesn't mean I am personally sitting here shaking in my boots, or even that I am in any way uncomfortable with guns themselves, but if someone knocks on my door and they have a gun I am going to be a damn sight more worried than if they don't. That is all.
 

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Okay, I'm going to try to see this from the other point of view.

Atheus has grown up in a country in which the culture is, by it's very nature, afraid of firearms.

It is much the same way in major American cities. Not only does the government and media cultivate and feed these fears, but the very lack of any experience with firearms does it as well.

But go to a rural American town, and the attitude is 100% the opposite. Firearms are seen as tools and are as common as tools. People have a respect, but no fear of them. To see an armed man is a regular thing and produces no fear.

What we have here folks, is a culture difference. And one side will not understand the other without fully experiencing the culture of the other.

I think our side of the argument is trying to make Atheus understand that law abiding folks being armed present no real danger to others. The statistics prove this. But simply telling him that will not remove the fear that he has grown up with and has been spoon fed him by his local culture and media his entire life.

Actually I grew up in New Zealand and learned to shoot when I was about 11.