Recommended Posts
Kallend bit my GSD once, and now all the dog can do is bitch and moan about young people, and gun crime.
Well that and humming annoying buddy holly songs
Hmmmmm contagious vector?
Well that and humming annoying buddy holly songs
Hmmmmm contagious vector?
JohnRich 4
Quoteeven though 'guns don't kill people, people do' , that people armed with guns can do so with a good deal more deadly certainty, especially from a bit of a distance, than people armed with most other things.
I don't think any pro-gun people deny this. In fact, it's exactly why a gun is THE best means of lawful self defense. Take this story, for example. With any other tool, you would have had to close within stabbing distance to get the attacker off the woman, thus putting your own life in jeopardy. But with a gun, you could have stood back and stopped him from a relatively safe distance, out of imminent harm's way. Most people can't safely grapple in hand-to-hand combat with an attacker, and a gun gives them the edge they need to save themself. That's not a negative factor about guns for self defense, that's a positive.
kallend 2,182
QuoteKallend bit my GSD once, and now all the dog can do is bitch and moan about young people, and gun crime.
Well that and humming annoying buddy holly songs
Hmmmmm contagious vector?
Buddy Holly - something good that came out of Lubbock, TX. The music LIVES.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Andy9o8 3
QuoteQuoteeven though 'guns don't kill people, people do' , that people armed with guns can do so with a good deal more deadly certainty, especially from a bit of a distance, than people armed with most other things.
I don't think any pro-gun people deny this. In fact, it's exactly why a gun is THE best means of lawful self defense. Take this story, for example. With any other tool, you would have had to close within stabbing distance to get the attacker off the woman, thus putting your own life in jeopardy. But with a gun, you could have stood back and stopped him from a relatively safe distance, out of imminent harm's way. Most people can't safely grapple in hand-to-hand combat with an attacker, and a gun gives them the edge they need to save themself. That's not a negative factor about guns for self defense, that's a positive.
Then we're in agreement on this point. A gun is:
(a) often (not always) the best tool with which to defend oneself or another;
AND
(b) often (not always) the weapon most likely to produce a lethal result to the largest number of victims of an unlawful attack.
It's a double-edged (Samurai?
) sword. The two concerns exist co-equally. Our job as responsible citizens is to craft rules of society that reasonably address both concerns.
willard 0
QuoteQuoteKallend bit my GSD once, and now all the dog can do is bitch and moan about young people, and gun crime.
Well that and humming annoying buddy holly songs
Hmmmmm contagious vector?
Buddy Holly - something good that came out of Lubbock, TX. The music LIVES.
But he died in a plane crash. Ban airplanes!
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteYep, but the tool helped here don't ya think? I mean someone *could* have taken a tire iron to the guy, or be an expert at jujitsu at rolled him up...But that didn't happen. We saw a tool that some think as evil being used for good by a common man.
Exactly, cause a gun is much more effective/efficient at killing than most other tools designed to do so. Something that is frequently denied when this conversation is being doen the other way around.
Usually the argument is that if guns were around, people would use anything else for killing purposes. This situation shows that argument really isn't all that true.
DaVinci 0
QuoteThe two concerns exist co-equally. Our job as responsible citizens is to craft rules of society that reasonably address both concerns.
We already have the rules.
It is illegal to carry a gun without a permit. It is illegal to use a weapon (even with a permit to carry). It is illegal to hurt another person (weapon or not).
SkyDekker 1,465
Quote5 - (the other 99% of the populace - means well, but just freeze up or go away because they have themselves and their own family to care for) Ed stares in disbelief, unable to move, hoping somebody does something. He means well, but can only get out a "hey, stop that". Then, finally when he talks himself into action, it's too late. The guy is already running away and the girl is crying and balling herself up and shivering. Damn, it happened so fast. Ed calls the cops and walks away. It's not really his problem, anyway. Even so, he feels like crap and promises to never hesitate again.
I remember reading a study in which they argued that fear of being ridiculed is a large part of not doing something.
Often these scenarios are so out of the ordinary that many people think it can't really be happening, that it is fake or a set up etc. hence, they fear that by jumping in they would end up looking stupid/be humiliated/ridiculed etc. It also explains that once one person goes, many follow, cause now it is wouldn't be a 1 person humiliation anymore.....really back to basics of group behaviour.
DaVinci 0
QuoteExactly, cause a gun is much more effective/efficient at killing than most other tools designed to do so. Something that is frequently denied when this conversation is being doen the other way around.
Nice try, but this gun didn't kill anyone.
I never deny that a gun is a better weapon for killing. What I do say is that a person set on doing harm will do it anyway. Something your type seems to ignore. You think that a guy will see gun and then decide to kill. He decides to kill *then* looks for the best weapon. Get rid of the gun and he would use a club or knife as this story shows.
QuoteUsually the argument is that if guns were around, people would use anything else for killing purposes. This situation shows that argument really isn't all that true.
The guy that attacked the woman attacked using a knife and a can of gas. He had the desire to do harm and used whatever tool he had to do it. That proves our point quite well.
The BYSTANDERS didn't want to do harm. They clearly didn't want to risk their lives to step in either. The one guy with the gun felt it was safe to get involved.
Like it or not a guy intent on doing harm grabbed a knife (BAN KNIVES!!!!!) and attacked a woman. A bunch of folks stood around and did nothing...Most likely afraid to get involved in a knife fight. Then a guy with a gun stopped the attack and didn't even have to fire the weapon.
SkyDekker 1,465
my type? What's that O negative?
So, this man with the intent to stop this incident, would have likely have stopped it without his gun as well you think? Or did the gun lower the level of intent needed for him to intervene? Would some of the people who didn't intervene have intervened if they had a gun?
So, this man with the intent to stop this incident, would have likely have stopped it without his gun as well you think? Or did the gun lower the level of intent needed for him to intervene? Would some of the people who didn't intervene have intervened if they had a gun?
DaVinci 0
Quotemy type? What's that O negative?
Anti gun.
QuoteSo, this man with the intent to stop this incident, would have likely have stopped it without his gun as well you think? Or did the gun lower the level of intent needed for him to intervene? Would some of the people who didn't intervene have intervened if they had a gun?
You stated that this incident shows that people would not do harm if they didn't have guns.
QuoteUsually the argument is that if guns were around, people would use anything else for killing purposes. This situation shows that argument really isn't all that true.
The attacker used a knife. That eliminates your argument that without a gun people would not bother to kill.
As for the bystanders....Maybe they would have stepped in with a gun, maybe not. But your argument that killers will not kill unless they have a gun was shown false.
If you want to make the statement that people are more likely to step in to help a stranger if they had a gun....I would agree.
QuoteQuoteQuoteYup...dial 911 and die...
Sounds like "911" and the meaning behind it is not working that well, right.... ?
If some one broke into your house while you are in it and you had no weapon with you and you just called the police. Do you think the police would get there quick enough to keep the guy from shooting you?
Burglary is not that a huge issue here ...especially not armed ones. That's absolutely rare.
Of course, especially in day times when people are at work, picklocks violently break into homes and steal and nick whatever they could carry away: Doing it quick, no noise, within minutes at homes where even heavy doors are just closed and not locked. Those fellows try to avoid any contact with home owners or neighbours.
Perhaps that's reason why home owners do not feel the need to keep a weapon in their house. Additionally, our homes mainly are solid built stone houses (I know nobody who's living in a wooden house), neighbours know each others. We do not fear our next neighbour is walking around with a CCW
But I think main reason is: We are not used to carry weapons in daily life with us. This fact alone might do the difference.
dudeist skydiver # 3105
A good friend of mine stopped a guy from beating his wife to a pulp by choking him out.
She responded to his act of courage in her defense by stabbing him with a knife 1.5" from his heart.
A few of you know who I am talking about.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites