rehmwa 2 #101 March 9, 2007 QuoteI remember reading a study in which they argued that fear of being ridiculed is a large part of not doing something. that's why I do nothing - all the time ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #102 March 9, 2007 QuoteThe guy that attacked the woman attacked using a knife and a can of gas. If we would just ban cans, then it would all be ok. Won't the people just become more evolved and admit it? You laugh now, but remember the problems caused to Navin Johnson due to cans. (those same problems would also have disappeared had phone books been banned). ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #103 March 9, 2007 QuoteA gun is: (b) often (not always) the weapon most likely to produce a lethal result to the largest number of victims of an unlawful attack. If I wanted to kill a whole bunch of people indiscriminately, I would use bombs and/or fire, like those Iraqii suicide bombers. Those nuts couldn't kill nearly as many people if all they had was a gun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #104 March 9, 2007 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. Um, I don't know how you got that idea. In this situation the man didn't have a gun, but he had a knife, and gasoline. And he was doing a bang-up job of trying to kill the woman with them. So what this situation really shows is that the phrase "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is true. The problem here was not with a gun, but with a murderous person. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #105 March 9, 2007 The actions of an INDIVIDUAL are always the causation of any violent criminal act. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #106 March 9, 2007 QuoteOften 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. Group psychology also says that the larger the group of observers, the less likely that someone will step forward and help. Because it makes it so easy for everyone to sit back and remain anonymous, and make excuses, because someone else surely must be more qualified to do something. The best chance of getting help is when there is only one observer. Then that person knows that it's up to him, and no one else. If he walks away and someone dies, he can't blame it on anyone but himself for failing to help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #107 March 9, 2007 Quotebut he had a knife, and gasoline. he had a knife, and a "can" cans are the problem ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #108 March 9, 2007 QuoteAnti gun. Misconception 1 QuoteYou stated that this incident shows that people would not do harm if they didn't have guns That's not what I said. QuoteThe attacker used a knife. That eliminates your argument that without a gun people would not bother to kill. Also not what I said. QuoteAs 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. Again, not what I said. Impossible to have a debate/discussion/conversation with somebody who makes things up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #109 March 9, 2007 QuoteUm, I don't know how you got that idea. In this situation the man didn't have a gun, but he had a knife, and gasoline. And he was doing a bang-up job of trying to kill the woman with them. So what this situation really shows is that the phrase "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is true. The problem here was not with a gun, but with a murderous person. Actually nobody got killed, so we can't say that. I do wonder if the woman would be dead if the guy did have a gun? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #110 March 9, 2007 QuoteGroup psychology also says that the larger the group of observers, the less likely that someone will step forward and help. Because it makes it so easy for everyone to sit back and remain anonymous, and make excuses, because someone else surely must be more qualified to do something. The best chance of getting help is when there is only one observer. Then that person knows that it's up to him, and no one else. If he walks away and someone dies, he can't blame it on anyone but himself for failing to help. aboslutely, very true. I agree. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #111 March 9, 2007 QuoteAgain, not what I said. Impossible to have a debate/discussion/conversation with somebody who makes things up. well, at least you can admit that you said you were wearing a tu tu and smearing melted ice cream on your kitchen windows this morning ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #112 March 9, 2007 That is some funny shit Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #113 March 9, 2007 Quotewell, at least you can admit that you said you were wearing a tu tu and smearing melted ice cream on your kitchen windows this morning I'd have no problem admitting to that if I had windows in my kitchen....mind you, I guess I could be like some around here and just make up that I do.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #114 March 9, 2007 QuoteQuotewell, at least you can admit that you said you were wearing a tu tu and smearing melted ice cream on your kitchen windows this morning I'd have no problem admitting to that if I had windows in my kitchen....mind you, I guess I could be like some around here and just make up that I do.... it's not worth it, windows are really expensive - true story ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #115 March 9, 2007 QuoteI do wonder if the woman would be dead if the guy did have a gun? If not, she might wish she were. Most people don't take well be being doused with gasoline and lit up. You really don't want to admit that the gunman saved her from considerable suffering, don't you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #116 March 9, 2007 QuoteYou really don't want to admit that the gunman saved her from considerable suffering, don't you? Of course he did. I am certainly not disputing that, nor did I write anywhere that I did dispute that. The argument generally made is that murders committed with firearms would also be committed if firearms where not around. That intent is what is important. This incident shows that argument to be untrue. (for those who can only think in black and white, that doesn't mean that the exact opposite is true by definition). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #117 March 9, 2007 Quote The argument generally made is that murders committed with firearms would also be committed if firearms where not around. That intent is what is important. This incident shows that argument to be untrue. The only way this incident supports this claim is because a gun owned by an unrelated party prevented the murder. How obtuse are you trying to be here? The would be murderer did not have a gun. The victim almost assuredly would have died. How exactly does that support your contention? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #118 March 9, 2007 1) if the guy had a gun, the woman would have already been dead. 2) intent alone isn't enough, or more people would have likely jumped in already 3) guns make it easier to kill, that's why the thread with the gun worked and the thread with a car didn't. IN this case the gun was a great thing and in all likelihood prevented a murder from taking place. It also dispells some of the arguments generally brought forward when discussing the negative sides of guns. (This is generally when the blinders go on, when the words negative and gun are used in the same sentence) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #119 March 9, 2007 QuoteAnd he was doing a bang-up job of trying to kill the woman with them. Actually, we're told the hospital said she was in "good condition". A definition of "good condition" is "little significant injury; patient may be discharged shortly". Sounds like her 10 (or was it 20?) stab wounds were on the order of papercuts. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jarrodh 0 #120 March 10, 2007 Quote1) if the guy had a gun, the woman would have already been dead. 2) intent alone isn't enough, or more people would have likely jumped in already 3) guns make it easier to kill, that's why the thread with the gun worked and the thread with a car didn't. IN this case the gun was a great thing and in all likelihood prevented a murder from taking place. It also dispells some of the arguments generally brought forward when discussing the negative sides of guns. (This is generally when the blinders go on, when the words negative and gun are used in the same sentence) Face it buddy, very few advocates of guns on these forums have been willing to recognize their negative effects. This is a prime example. A man attacked his wife with deadly intent, which his clear from his use of a knife and gasoline. If this man had a gun in his possesion then his wife surely would have been dead. What I dont understand is why some people just dont see that... (Yes , I know a gun saved this ladys life. Its not the first time a gun has save a life and its not the last. However I am arguing that there are more cases out there where guns have been used to take a life and less cases where guns have been used to save a life. Therefore more guns IN MY OPINION are not going to decrease crimes/murder)2 BITS....4 BITS....6 BITS....A DOLLAR!....ALL FOR THE GATORS....STAND UP AND HOLLER!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #121 March 10, 2007 Quote(Yes , I know a gun saved this ladys life. Its not the first time a gun has save a life and its not the last. However I am arguing that there are more cases out there where guns have been used to take a life and less cases where guns have been used to save a life. Therefore more guns IN MY OPINION are not going to decrease crimes/murder) That is an argument that is difficult for either side to claim victory on due to the fact that while virtually all instances of guns being used to take a life or injure are reported and documented, the number of times guns are used to prevent injury or death are not always reported. In fact, the of times these instances are not reported is often argued about as is the influence of the threat of attacking an armed citizen on a criminal. Guns are like any other object in that merely by there existence there is an inherent threat of danger. People have been beat to death with Bibles...how ironic is that? Yet we don't see groups trying to ban Bibles (Ok, maybe a couple fringe groups). Alcohol and tobacco cause hundreds of thousands of deaths each year and do little if anything to save lives. Should they be banned because of that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jarrodh 0 #122 March 10, 2007 QuoteQuote(Yes , I know a gun saved this ladys life. Its not the first time a gun has save a life and its not the last. However I am arguing that there are more cases out there where guns have been used to take a life and less cases where guns have been used to save a life. Therefore more guns IN MY OPINION are not going to decrease crimes/murder) That is an argument that is difficult for either side to claim victory on due to the fact that while virtually all instances of guns being used to take a life or injure are reported and documented, the number of times guns are used to prevent injury or death are not always reported. In fact, the of times these instances are not reported is often argued about as is the influence of the threat of attacking an armed citizen on a criminal. Guns are like any other object in that merely by there existence there is an inherent threat of danger. People have been beat to death with Bibles...how ironic is that? Yet we don't see groups trying to ban Bibles (Ok, maybe a couple fringe groups). Alcohol and tobacco cause hundreds of thousands of deaths each year and do little if anything to save lives. Should they be banned because of that? Somebody who is skilled with a hunting rifle can plant themselves in a clocktower and kill dozens of people. No one can do that amount of damage to others with alcohol or tobacco. Tobacco and alcohol use kill more people then guns, true. Those deaths however are against the user of that substance over a long period of time. You cant take a pack of cigarettes and murder someone, you can with a gun.2 BITS....4 BITS....6 BITS....A DOLLAR!....ALL FOR THE GATORS....STAND UP AND HOLLER!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #123 March 10, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote(Yes , I know a gun saved this ladys life. Its not the first time a gun has save a life and its not the last. However I am arguing that there are more cases out there where guns have been used to take a life and less cases where guns have been used to save a life. Therefore more guns IN MY OPINION are not going to decrease crimes/murder) That is an argument that is difficult for either side to claim victory on due to the fact that while virtually all instances of guns being used to take a life or injure are reported and documented, the number of times guns are used to prevent injury or death are not always reported. In fact, the of times these instances are not reported is often argued about as is the influence of the threat of attacking an armed citizen on a criminal. Guns are like any other object in that merely by there existence there is an inherent threat of danger. People have been beat to death with Bibles...how ironic is that? Yet we don't see groups trying to ban Bibles (Ok, maybe a couple fringe groups). Alcohol and tobacco cause hundreds of thousands of deaths each year and do little if anything to save lives. Should they be banned because of that? Somebody who is skilled with a hunting rifle can plant themselves in a clocktower and kill dozens of people. No one can do that amount of damage to others with alcohol or tobacco. Tobacco and alcohol use kill more people then guns, true. Those deaths however are against the user of that substance over a long period of time. You cant take a pack of cigarettes and murder someone, you can with a gun. Conversely, you can't take a pack of ciggs or a bottle of beer and save someones life. My point wasn't to compare numbers of deaths caused by each, merely to point out that while firearms are most defintely used to kill, they are also used to save. Whether they save more than kill is a much debated argument and very hard if not impossible to prove one way or the other. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #124 March 10, 2007 explain people dying from second hand smoke related illness Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,182 #125 March 10, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote(Yes , I know a gun saved this ladys life. Its not the first time a gun has save a life and its not the last. However I am arguing that there are more cases out there where guns have been used to take a life and less cases where guns have been used to save a life. Therefore more guns IN MY OPINION are not going to decrease crimes/murder) That is an argument that is difficult for either side to claim victory on due to the fact that while virtually all instances of guns being used to take a life or injure are reported and documented, the number of times guns are used to prevent injury or death are not always reported. In fact, the of times these instances are not reported is often argued about as is the influence of the threat of attacking an armed citizen on a criminal. Guns are like any other object in that merely by there existence there is an inherent threat of danger. People have been beat to death with Bibles...how ironic is that? Yet we don't see groups trying to ban Bibles (Ok, maybe a couple fringe groups). Alcohol and tobacco cause hundreds of thousands of deaths each year and do little if anything to save lives. Should they be banned because of that? Somebody who is skilled with a hunting rifle can plant themselves in a clocktower and kill dozens of people. No one can do that amount of damage to others with alcohol or tobacco. Tobacco and alcohol use kill more people then guns, true. Those deaths however are against the user of that substance over a long period of time. You cant take a pack of cigarettes and murder someone, you can with a gun. Conversely, you can't take a pack of ciggs or a bottle of beer and save someones life. My point wasn't to compare numbers of deaths caused by each, merely to point out that while firearms are most defintely used to kill, they are also used to save. Whether they save more than kill is a much debated argument and very hard if not impossible to prove one way or the other. If the last two days have been typical, roughly 100 people have been killed by guns in the USA while you all have been debating this one "save".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 5 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
rehmwa 2 #114 March 9, 2007 QuoteQuotewell, at least you can admit that you said you were wearing a tu tu and smearing melted ice cream on your kitchen windows this morning I'd have no problem admitting to that if I had windows in my kitchen....mind you, I guess I could be like some around here and just make up that I do.... it's not worth it, windows are really expensive - true story ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #115 March 9, 2007 QuoteI do wonder if the woman would be dead if the guy did have a gun? If not, she might wish she were. Most people don't take well be being doused with gasoline and lit up. You really don't want to admit that the gunman saved her from considerable suffering, don't you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #116 March 9, 2007 QuoteYou really don't want to admit that the gunman saved her from considerable suffering, don't you? Of course he did. I am certainly not disputing that, nor did I write anywhere that I did dispute that. The argument generally made is that murders committed with firearms would also be committed if firearms where not around. That intent is what is important. This incident shows that argument to be untrue. (for those who can only think in black and white, that doesn't mean that the exact opposite is true by definition). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #117 March 9, 2007 Quote The argument generally made is that murders committed with firearms would also be committed if firearms where not around. That intent is what is important. This incident shows that argument to be untrue. The only way this incident supports this claim is because a gun owned by an unrelated party prevented the murder. How obtuse are you trying to be here? The would be murderer did not have a gun. The victim almost assuredly would have died. How exactly does that support your contention? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #118 March 9, 2007 1) if the guy had a gun, the woman would have already been dead. 2) intent alone isn't enough, or more people would have likely jumped in already 3) guns make it easier to kill, that's why the thread with the gun worked and the thread with a car didn't. IN this case the gun was a great thing and in all likelihood prevented a murder from taking place. It also dispells some of the arguments generally brought forward when discussing the negative sides of guns. (This is generally when the blinders go on, when the words negative and gun are used in the same sentence) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #119 March 9, 2007 QuoteAnd he was doing a bang-up job of trying to kill the woman with them. Actually, we're told the hospital said she was in "good condition". A definition of "good condition" is "little significant injury; patient may be discharged shortly". Sounds like her 10 (or was it 20?) stab wounds were on the order of papercuts. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jarrodh 0 #120 March 10, 2007 Quote1) if the guy had a gun, the woman would have already been dead. 2) intent alone isn't enough, or more people would have likely jumped in already 3) guns make it easier to kill, that's why the thread with the gun worked and the thread with a car didn't. IN this case the gun was a great thing and in all likelihood prevented a murder from taking place. It also dispells some of the arguments generally brought forward when discussing the negative sides of guns. (This is generally when the blinders go on, when the words negative and gun are used in the same sentence) Face it buddy, very few advocates of guns on these forums have been willing to recognize their negative effects. This is a prime example. A man attacked his wife with deadly intent, which his clear from his use of a knife and gasoline. If this man had a gun in his possesion then his wife surely would have been dead. What I dont understand is why some people just dont see that... (Yes , I know a gun saved this ladys life. Its not the first time a gun has save a life and its not the last. However I am arguing that there are more cases out there where guns have been used to take a life and less cases where guns have been used to save a life. Therefore more guns IN MY OPINION are not going to decrease crimes/murder)2 BITS....4 BITS....6 BITS....A DOLLAR!....ALL FOR THE GATORS....STAND UP AND HOLLER!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #121 March 10, 2007 Quote(Yes , I know a gun saved this ladys life. Its not the first time a gun has save a life and its not the last. However I am arguing that there are more cases out there where guns have been used to take a life and less cases where guns have been used to save a life. Therefore more guns IN MY OPINION are not going to decrease crimes/murder) That is an argument that is difficult for either side to claim victory on due to the fact that while virtually all instances of guns being used to take a life or injure are reported and documented, the number of times guns are used to prevent injury or death are not always reported. In fact, the of times these instances are not reported is often argued about as is the influence of the threat of attacking an armed citizen on a criminal. Guns are like any other object in that merely by there existence there is an inherent threat of danger. People have been beat to death with Bibles...how ironic is that? Yet we don't see groups trying to ban Bibles (Ok, maybe a couple fringe groups). Alcohol and tobacco cause hundreds of thousands of deaths each year and do little if anything to save lives. Should they be banned because of that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jarrodh 0 #122 March 10, 2007 QuoteQuote(Yes , I know a gun saved this ladys life. Its not the first time a gun has save a life and its not the last. However I am arguing that there are more cases out there where guns have been used to take a life and less cases where guns have been used to save a life. Therefore more guns IN MY OPINION are not going to decrease crimes/murder) That is an argument that is difficult for either side to claim victory on due to the fact that while virtually all instances of guns being used to take a life or injure are reported and documented, the number of times guns are used to prevent injury or death are not always reported. In fact, the of times these instances are not reported is often argued about as is the influence of the threat of attacking an armed citizen on a criminal. Guns are like any other object in that merely by there existence there is an inherent threat of danger. People have been beat to death with Bibles...how ironic is that? Yet we don't see groups trying to ban Bibles (Ok, maybe a couple fringe groups). Alcohol and tobacco cause hundreds of thousands of deaths each year and do little if anything to save lives. Should they be banned because of that? Somebody who is skilled with a hunting rifle can plant themselves in a clocktower and kill dozens of people. No one can do that amount of damage to others with alcohol or tobacco. Tobacco and alcohol use kill more people then guns, true. Those deaths however are against the user of that substance over a long period of time. You cant take a pack of cigarettes and murder someone, you can with a gun.2 BITS....4 BITS....6 BITS....A DOLLAR!....ALL FOR THE GATORS....STAND UP AND HOLLER!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #123 March 10, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote(Yes , I know a gun saved this ladys life. Its not the first time a gun has save a life and its not the last. However I am arguing that there are more cases out there where guns have been used to take a life and less cases where guns have been used to save a life. Therefore more guns IN MY OPINION are not going to decrease crimes/murder) That is an argument that is difficult for either side to claim victory on due to the fact that while virtually all instances of guns being used to take a life or injure are reported and documented, the number of times guns are used to prevent injury or death are not always reported. In fact, the of times these instances are not reported is often argued about as is the influence of the threat of attacking an armed citizen on a criminal. Guns are like any other object in that merely by there existence there is an inherent threat of danger. People have been beat to death with Bibles...how ironic is that? Yet we don't see groups trying to ban Bibles (Ok, maybe a couple fringe groups). Alcohol and tobacco cause hundreds of thousands of deaths each year and do little if anything to save lives. Should they be banned because of that? Somebody who is skilled with a hunting rifle can plant themselves in a clocktower and kill dozens of people. No one can do that amount of damage to others with alcohol or tobacco. Tobacco and alcohol use kill more people then guns, true. Those deaths however are against the user of that substance over a long period of time. You cant take a pack of cigarettes and murder someone, you can with a gun. Conversely, you can't take a pack of ciggs or a bottle of beer and save someones life. My point wasn't to compare numbers of deaths caused by each, merely to point out that while firearms are most defintely used to kill, they are also used to save. Whether they save more than kill is a much debated argument and very hard if not impossible to prove one way or the other. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #124 March 10, 2007 explain people dying from second hand smoke related illness Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #125 March 10, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote(Yes , I know a gun saved this ladys life. Its not the first time a gun has save a life and its not the last. However I am arguing that there are more cases out there where guns have been used to take a life and less cases where guns have been used to save a life. Therefore more guns IN MY OPINION are not going to decrease crimes/murder) That is an argument that is difficult for either side to claim victory on due to the fact that while virtually all instances of guns being used to take a life or injure are reported and documented, the number of times guns are used to prevent injury or death are not always reported. In fact, the of times these instances are not reported is often argued about as is the influence of the threat of attacking an armed citizen on a criminal. Guns are like any other object in that merely by there existence there is an inherent threat of danger. People have been beat to death with Bibles...how ironic is that? Yet we don't see groups trying to ban Bibles (Ok, maybe a couple fringe groups). Alcohol and tobacco cause hundreds of thousands of deaths each year and do little if anything to save lives. Should they be banned because of that? Somebody who is skilled with a hunting rifle can plant themselves in a clocktower and kill dozens of people. No one can do that amount of damage to others with alcohol or tobacco. Tobacco and alcohol use kill more people then guns, true. Those deaths however are against the user of that substance over a long period of time. You cant take a pack of cigarettes and murder someone, you can with a gun. Conversely, you can't take a pack of ciggs or a bottle of beer and save someones life. My point wasn't to compare numbers of deaths caused by each, merely to point out that while firearms are most defintely used to kill, they are also used to save. Whether they save more than kill is a much debated argument and very hard if not impossible to prove one way or the other. If the last two days have been typical, roughly 100 people have been killed by guns in the USA while you all have been debating this one "save".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
