Enough with the gun talk...lets talk about violence.

[ManagingPrime 0]

The gun debate is obviously quite polarizing and I suspect that no one is converting members from "the other camp". In fact, the word divisive might be better suited than polarizing....let's talk about violence.

I'm sure most would agree that violence in nearly all cases is a "bad" thing, but I think if we dig deeper into the issue of violence as opposed to gun violence the discussion would be much more nuanced and provide greater understanding between the parties.

For example, I can pretty confidently state that we can all agree that killing 1, 2, 20 innocent children, by any means, is a case of unacceptable violence. When is violence acceptable?

Is violence an acceptable means to defend oneself? What about property?

Is it ok to use violence preemptively in order to defend oneself, others or property?

Is it ever ok to use violence for some reason other than the defense of life, liberty or property?

Are there special licenses for violence? By this I mean, it's ok for person A to use violence in a particular situation, but it's not ok for person B to use it.

Is violence a bad thing? If so, are there any cases where depictions of violence, real or imagined, are wrong?

For the most part, i'm sure we can all agree that guns are efficient and fairly readily available tools for violence...some more so than others. This is the debate, but should it be the focus of attention or should the core issue of violence be?

Are we (Americans) as a society more violent than others? And if so, why?

I would really like to avoid the discussion of guns, as it's kind of boring at this point and I'm finding the discussion about violence much more interesting.

If anyone is interested in making it more interesting we can turn this into a drinking game. Mention the word "gun" and you have to drink.

Let's step out of the box folks.

[freethefly 6]

Violence is often viewed as entertainment. It is what sells movies and video games. Our culture in America is based on violence. Just listen to someone talk about the Feds taking their gun. How many times have we heard someone claim that they will use their gun if the government tries to take it? I say, "really?." How many will actually be willing to kill another American just to keep a gun? It's the culture of violence that many believe is their god given right. They talk about how the gun was instrumental in founding this country. How the gun made America great. Actually, it was nothing more than genocide in regards to the Indians. How many of us played cowboys and Indians as children? We need to change this ill-perceived notion that we can solve our problems with a gun. Now, I am a gun owner. I deer hunt. I no more wish to lose my rifle due to to violent nature of those who should never have a gun in the first place. I would use my gun to protect myself and family, if need be. However, I do see need to find a way to reduce the number of guns that get into the wrong hands. How? Maybe, by changing the culture in America from violent entertainment to a more nurturing society by instilling a more positive outlook on life.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[chutem 0]

I will use violence to protect myself and my family from those who seek to do us physical harm. I have presented a weapon to stop a man from breaking through the wall between his apartment and mine with my family at home. I have no doubt it would have ended much worse if I had not been able to convince him that his life would end now if he did not back off. He had his head and one arm/shoulder through the hole he made yelling about killing someone when I put a stop to things. I find it intersting that I had to take the phone from my wife as she called information to get the police number while yelling "you need information to get the number to 911".

Property on the other hand, the threat of deadly force is ok to protect property. Bad guy leaves with or without property=not getting shot. Make me fear for myself or family and all bets are off. I'm sure some will find fault untill they have been there themselves.

[chutem 0]

Quote

Violence is often viewed as entertainment. It is what sells movies and video games. Our culture in America is based on violence. Just listen to someone talk about the Feds taking their gun. How many times have we heard someone claim that they will use their gun if the government tries to take it? I say, "really?." How many will actually be willing to kill another American just to keep a gun? It's the culture of violence that many believe is their god given right. They talk about how the gun was instrumental in founding this country. How the gun made America great. Actually, it was nothing more than genocide in regards to the Indians. How many of us played cowboys and Indians as children? We need to change this ill-perceived notion that we can solve our problems with a gun. Now, I am a gun owner. I deer hunt. I no more wish to lose my rifle due to to violent nature of those who should never have a gun in the first place. I would use my gun to protect myself and family, if need be. However, I do see need to find a way to reduce the number of guns that get into the wrong hands. How? Maybe, by changing the culture in America from violent entertainment to a more nurturing society by instilling a more positive outlook on life.

That's 9 drinks if I count right (per the op).

[quade 4]

I think violence is only one part of the core issue. I think like a lot of disasters the root cause is a chain of events. I believe guns are the final enabler of that chain but I think it starts before the person even gets angry enough to do any violence whatsoever.

I think part of it is our culture isn't any more inherently violent than any other, but it's our sense we can literally do anything, anywhere and any time we want regardless of who is involved and how many lives we trample over. We also easily recognize this mindset in others which stokes both our ego to ensure it's not us who get trampled on and ironically makes it easier for the situation to escalate. You can call that a form of entitlement if you want to.

Now, add in a little crazy and a sprinkle of how easy it is to get the weapons.

I even think both sides recognize this.

The weapon is both the great equalizer and unfortunately the tool of choice when it comes to a crazy person acting out against the innocent, which is an obviously not equal situation.

I am ALL for self defense. You want to keep a gun in your home to defend against intruders? Go for it.

On the other hand, the situation has gotten out of hand when it comes to how many guns, the amount of destruction they can cause in just a few moments and how many crazy people have easy access to them.

This entire issue didn't just spring up over night. It's been decades of incremental increases in the ever increasing umbrage quotient. Decades in the ever increasing fear and paranoia quotient fueled by the people who profit from it. It's a vicious cycle.

We need to turn it down.

The average person does not need a weapon of any kind in their lives. Really, they don't. The odds of being attacked do not, for the vast majority of people, justify the increased risk of danger to ones own family members.

So what is the real motivating factor? Okay, I'm just going to say it even though I am 100% certain I'm going to catch flack for it from the usual suspects, it makes them feel like they're "in charge" of the situation. And I'm NOT talking about the gun. I'm talking about the posturing, the escalation of violence and only after it's gone too far . . . the mass murder.

Any ya know what? To a certain extent, I understand it. Look at every case and you'll find somebody who thought it gave them power, even if only for a short moment, complete and total power over the situation.

And why do I understand it? Because every single one of us feels the same damn thing at one point or another, we're just not crazy enough to act on it.

Look at how many people whine, bitch and moan about this issue or that issue and why? Because they feel as if they don't have control over their situation.

Well, suck it up cupcake. Nobody ever really said you did, just like nobody ever said life was fair.

No. You do NOT have full control of the universe. You live in it with other people. Society will actually dictate certain things whether you want it to or not.

Unless, of course, you go live on your own island isolated from the rest of the world, then knock yourself out. Just don't go crazy.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Bolas 5]

Quote

The average person does not need a weapon of any kind in their lives. Really, they don't. The odds of being attacked do not, for the vast majority of people, justify the increased risk of danger to ones own family members.

The reason the average person doesn't is because they can. The uncertainty of if a criminal's intended target having a gun in itself is a deterrent.

As for the violence, it's because sex is so taboo. One can watch a movie on basic cable during the day and see all the violence and gore. The only thing that's edited out is the nudity and the cuss words.

Another cause is politeness and political correctness. People are afraid to speak their minds for fear of the consequences.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

The average person does not need a weapon of any kind in their lives. Really, they don't. The odds of being attacked do not, for the vast majority of people, justify the increased risk of danger to ones own family members.

The reason the average person doesn't is because they can. The uncertainty of if a criminal's intended target having a gun in itself is a deterrent.

Is it? Isn't the argument that criminals can get any weapons they please and therefore you HAVE to have the biggest, badest assed weapon possible to stop them? Oh God! Anything smaller than a .40 simply will not be sufficient . . . unless it's a .223 with a 30 round magazine.

Well, can't the criminal have an even bigger weapon and assume only a small percentage have the balls to stand up to him?

See, it's an arms race.

Unless, of course, you choose not to participate in the paranoia.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[skybill 22]

Quote

The gun debate is obviously quite polarizing and I suspect that no one is converting members from "the other camp". In fact, the word divisive might be better suited than polarizing....let's talk about violence.

I'm sure most would agree that violence in nearly all cases is a "bad" thing, but I think if we dig deeper into the issue of violence as opposed to gun violence the discussion would be much more nuanced and provide greater understanding between the parties.

For example, I can pretty confidently state that we can all agree that killing 1, 2, 20 innocent children, by any means, is a case of unacceptable violence. When is violence acceptable?

Is violence an acceptable means to defend oneself? What about property?

Is it ok to use violence preemptively in order to defend oneself, others or property?

Is it ever ok to use violence for some reason other than the defense of life, liberty or property?

Are there special licenses for violence? By this I mean, it's ok for person A to use violence in a particular situation, but it's not ok for person B to use it.

Is violence a bad thing? If so, are there any cases where depictions of violence, real or imagined, are wrong?

For the most part, i'm sure we can all agree that guns are efficient and fairly readily available tools for violence...some more so than others. This is the debate, but should it be the focus of attention or should the core issue of violence be?

Are we (Americans) as a society more violent than others? And if so, why?

I would really like to avoid the discussion of guns, as it's kind of boring at this point and I'm finding the discussion about violence much more interesting.

If anyone is interested in making it more interesting we can turn this into a drinking game. Mention the word "gun" and you have to drink.

Let's step out of the box folks.

Hi MP,
First off,"What is 'Violence????'" According to the American Century Dictionary 'Violence is 1. being violent, 2. violent conduct or treatment and ...#3. unlawful use of force!!!!! And above is the definition of "Violate," which I think is here the term "Violence" is derived, (disregard, break, treat profanely and last but not least, "Desecrate!!!") So come at me with a weapon,"Gun, knife, meat cleaver and or baseball bat," and I respond to you in kind defending my carcass from getting my bodily fluids leaked all over the ground, "Who's being 'Violent????'"

SCR-2034, SCS-680

III%,
Deli-out

[skypuppy 1]

The average person does not need a weapon of any kind in their lives. Really, they don't. The odds of being attacked do not, for the vast majority of people, justify the increased risk of danger to ones own family members


Where do you get off telling me what I can or can't do to defend myself? You don't want a gun. fine. Don't tell me how to live my life.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[quade 4]

Quote

Where do you get off telling me what I can or can't do to defend myself? Don't tell me how to live my life.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I rest my case.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[skypuppy 1]

you said yourself, the average person.

You can't be sure that any single person will not need a weapon to defend himself or his household.

and until you can do that, you have no right to refuse to allow him the means to defend himself.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[ManagingPrime 0]

There are a lot of alcoholics in this thread...I'm trying to keep up.

[toolbox 0]

Violence is part of nature.
When a lion pride takes down prey,it is violent is it not?
Humans are inherently inclined towards violence it seems, as are almost all other organism that are able to inflict harm against other organisms.
Even herbivores use violence, even upon their own kind.
Just watch horses or girraffs as they fight for food,mates,ect.
Humans have learned to live together in peace for common good,we are more socialized than almost any other animals,and we have long standing and diverse cultures that seem to evolve with our existence.
But humans are still drivin by our Ids,the animal urges within us all, that has alot more influence upon our decisions and behavior than most would admit.
Human history is full of violence,and like most animals,we are most violent when we are hungry,thirsty,uncomfortable,ect.
Humans are also inherently greedy just like other animals,and will horde wealth in the form of food,or other needed or desired things.
Unlike other earthly creatures we have even created symbols of wealth called money to be used in place of actual rescources or goods.
Humans tend to have a strong sense of individualism when compared to most creatures.
If we had no individualism we would be like ants or bees, and even they have a collective identity as can be seen when they war against other nest of the same species.
Humans also exhibit a collective identity between cultures,which can and has caused much violence.
It seems we are monkeys with upright posture,good opposing thumbs and big brains capable of abstract thought,which have led to huge levels of technological advancement that no other earthly creatures have come close to,as far as we know.
We have all this capability,yet our use of it is still selfish and greedy,very animal like,and so we have poverty and hunger. Those who have and those who have not.
I also feel that some humans are more prone to selfish and violent expresion because it's in their DNA.
If you look at human history,we have had our greatest growth in science,art,technology,and peaceful coexistence,when our populations were brought incheck by disease or other natural disasters.
For instance,the period that followed the black death in europe called the renaissance.
Less people,more rescources,less time spent competing for survival,more freedom from greedy rulers leading to more free time for contemplation and innovation,and more peace.
Now here we are in 2013, and we have individual sefish desires, overpopulation,poverty,hunger,greedy leaders,ect,ect.
Add to all this our technological advancements in weapons and I am surprised we do not see more carnage,everywhere.
Do you think the romans would have less carnage with such destructive potential at their disposal?

[quade 4]

Quote

. . . you have no right to refuse to allow him the means to defend himself.

Here's exactly what I said,

Quote

I am ALL for self defense. You want to keep a gun in your home to defend against intruders? Go for it.

Thanks for puffing up your testosterone level though and going apeshit. It proves my larger point.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The average person does not need a weapon of any kind in their lives. Really, they don't. The odds of being attacked do not, for the vast majority of people, justify the increased risk of danger to ones own family members.

The reason the average person doesn't is because they can. The uncertainty of if a criminal's intended target having a gun in itself is a deterrent.

Is it? Isn't the argument that criminals can get any weapons they please and therefore you HAVE to have the biggest, badest assed weapon possible to stop them? Oh God! Anything smaller than a .40 simply will not be sufficient . . . unless it's a .223 with a 30 round magazine.

Well, can't the criminal have an even bigger weapon and assume only a small percentage have the balls to stand up to him?

See, it's an arms race.

Unless, of course, you choose not to participate in the paranoia.

One does not need a bigger weapon, just shoot first and/or have better aim.
For the record, I don't own any weapons, but like you, still benefit from private citizens that do.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[1969912 0]

Quote

Where do you get off telling me what I can or can't do to defend myself? You don't want a gun. fine. Don't tell me how to live my life.

Right on! That's all that needs to be said.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[Stumpy 284]

Quote

Quote

Where do you get off telling me what I can or can't do to defend myself? You don't want a gun. fine. Don't tell me how to live my life.

Great. Another one that can't read.

Right on! That's all that needs to be said.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[chutem 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The average person does not need a weapon of any kind in their lives. Really, they don't. The odds of being attacked do not, for the vast majority of people, justify the increased risk of danger to ones own family members.

The reason the average person doesn't is because they can. The uncertainty of if a criminal's intended target having a gun in itself is a deterrent.

Is it? Isn't the argument that criminals can get any weapons they please and therefore you HAVE to have the biggest, badest assed weapon possible to stop them? Oh God! Anything smaller than a .40 simply will not be sufficient . . . unless it's a .223 with a 30 round magazine.

Well, can't the criminal have an even bigger weapon and assume only a small percentage have the balls to stand up to him?

See, it's an arms race.

Unless, of course, you choose not to participate in the paranoia.

One does not need a bigger weapon, just shoot first and/or have better aim.
For the record, I don't own any weapons, but like you, still benefit from private citizens that do.

I could be wrong, but I think I read that Quade does have weapons in his home. It appears it's mainly the "average" people that he sees as not "needing" a weapon of any sort.

[davjohns 1]

I'll come back and post more comprehensively. I think the OP is trying to start something useful. For the moment, I'll address the average need for a weapon.

The average person does NOT need a weapon to defend themselves. They also do not need a fire extinguisher, first aid kit, spare tire, death and dismembership insurance, seat belts, motorcycle helmets and a host of other things.

The problem is that you don't know if you are in that statistical average or not until it is too late.

Statistically, no children will die due to mass killing in the US, so the average school doesn't need to do anything new to protect them. But we're having lots of discussions about the ultra rare event, aren't we?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[toolbox 0]

The size of the bullet is not nearly as important as its placement into the target.
You can hit animals or people with a 12 gauge slug and if the shot misses vitals there is no garauntee that they will go down.
Most criminals will be stopped when faced with a 22 cal weapon,without the need to fire a shot.
Gang bangers waging war on each other will be more prone to spray lead back and forth at each other than a thug would be willing to risk getting shot close range by a potential victim with a 22.
The closer you get to the mexican border,the more likely you are to need alot more fire power to defend yourself since the chances are greater that you might be targeted by ruthless mexican gangs with some weapons like the ones the US govt gave them(Holder),in which case a belt fed 30 cal and an RPG or two(which would be overkill in a US city) might not be enough if you were on an isolated ranch,say in Texas,defending your family and property.
It is common knowledge that neither mexican nor US law enforcement has done much to stop these crime armies from doing anything they want down there.
If I lived in South texas,no offense texans,but I would like to have at least a 308 semi auto and alot of magazine capacity to boot.
But guns aside(my turn to take a slug off the bottle) lets talk about the reason for violence like the thread was intended to address.
I'm still leaning towards the shear number of people there are.
I think of it as a numbers game.
For instance some studies have shown that chimps seem to have a small percentage of individuals born that kill youngsters in there own groups,and it is not uncommon for gangs of chimps to war against other groups when the populations get large in relation to the habitat.
Chimps are our closest relatives as far as primates go right?
If you compare the number of helpless victims that are targeted in the US by loner misfits to the huge number of people here,the percentage of victims has a decimal point followed by alot of zeros(divide number of victims by total number of people).
Considering the huge population and increasing poverty,I am surprised that the level of violence is not much,much greater,not just in the US,but worldwide.
I've said this over and over again,the rats in the cage breed out of control and then turn on each other.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

let's talk about violence.

We should. A quick review of murder rates compared to gun ownership shows little relationship that I can see. Israel and Switzerland have universal gun ownership (assault weapons at that) and both have much lower murder rates than the US. Something is wrong with the people, not the tools.

When is violence acceptable?

Various answers. To prevent greater violence. To prevent unjust violence. Jun Fan Lee said react to violence with greater violence. Police are authorized to use a step higher in the violence continuum than the person they are dealing with.

Is violence an acceptable means to defend oneself?

Yes. And others

What about property?

Not including deadly force, I wouldn't think.

Is it ok to use violence preemptively in order to defend oneself, others or property?

Yes. If the belief in imminent harm is reasonable.

Is it ever ok to use violence for some reason other than the defense of life, liberty or property?

No. But it's easy to make an argument that much violence falls into one of those categories. War is generally stupid, but can be argued to defend on of those three things.

Are there special licenses for violence? By this I mean, it's ok for person A to use violence in a particular situation, but it's not ok for person B to use it.

Of course. Police and military have special licenses.

Is violence a bad thing? If so, are there any cases where depictions of violence, real or imagined, are wrong?

Like so many things, violence can be good or bad. It depends on the situation and how it is used. Basically, good and evil are a human invention, so it is on humans that the blame must rest. Animals don't denounce predators for eating.

For the most part, i'm sure we can all agree that guns are efficient and fairly readily available tools for violence...some more so than others. This is the debate, but should it be the focus of attention or should the core issue of violence be?

I think you have hit the nail on the head.

Are we (Americans) as a society more violent than others? And if so, why?

A little research would indicate we are. I don't know why. There are lots of ideas that have merit.

I would really like to avoid the discussion of guns, as it's kind of boring at this point and I'm finding the discussion about violence much more interesting.

Agreed. How's that working for you so far? lol

reply]

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

• Quote

[piisfish 140]

Quote

I had to take the phone from my wife as she called information to get the police number while yelling "you need information to get the number to 911".

does she have a gun ? if yes, did she take a bakground test ?

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[Stumpy 284]

Quote

We should. A quick review of murder rates compared to gun ownership shows little relationship that I can see. Israel and Switzerland have universal gun ownership (assault weapons at that) and both have much lower murder rates than the US. Something is wrong with the people, not the tools.

Sorry - you make some good points but invalidate your argument by saying things like this. Its simply not true, these countries do not have freedom of universal gun use.

"Both Israel and Switzerland put the onus on would-be gun owners to explain why they need these weapons. Israel limits gun ownership to security workers, people who transport valuables or explosives, residents of the West Bank, and hunters. People who don't fall into one of those categories cannot obtain a firearm permit. Moreover, Israel rejects 40 percent of firearm permit applicants, the highest rejection rate in the Western world. Both Switzerland and Israel require yearly (or more frequent) permit renewals to insure that the reasons are still applicable. New Jersey is one of few U.S. states that requires a reason for buying a handgun.

Far from being a gun paradise, Switzerland is one of only six countries in the world that requires comprehensive details of the firearm, owner, and all firearm transfers to be reported to the federal government. It also requires two levels of firearm permits: one for acquisition and one for possession."

(that was just the first of many articles when I searched israeli gun laws)

This gets raised all the time and its bunkum. Please actually do some research before trotting out the hysteria from the NRA

(Source : http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/12/18/a_league_of_our_own?page=full)

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Please actually do some research before trotting out the hysteria from the NRA


Even as the gun-control debate rises again in the U.S. in the aftermath of the horrific school shooting in Newtown, Conn., the gun-loving Swiss are not about to lay down their arms. Guns are ubiquitous in this neutral nation, with sharpshooting considered a fun and wholesome recreational activity for people of all ages.

Even though Switzerland has not been involved in an armed conflict since a standoff between Catholics and Protestants in 1847, the Swiss are very serious not only about their right to own weapons but also to carry them around in public. Because of this general acceptance and even pride in gun ownership, nobody bats an eye at the sight of a civilian riding a bus, bike or motorcycle to the shooting range, with a rifle slung across the shoulder.

http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/

Gun politics in Switzerland are unique in Europe. Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a people's militia for its national defense. The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations; Switzerland thus has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world.[1] In recent times political opposition has expressed a desire for tighter gun regulations.[2] A referendum in February 2011 rejected stricter gun control.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.
The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.

This is in a very large part due to Switzerland's unique system of national defence, developed over the centuries.

Instead of a standing, full-time army, the country requires every man to undergo some form of military training for a few days or weeks a year throughout most of their lives.

Between the ages of 21 and 32 men serve as frontline troops. They are given an M-57 assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition which they are required to keep at home.

Once discharged, men serve in the Swiss equivalent of the US National Guard, but still have to train occasionally and are given bolt rifles. Women do not have to own firearms, but are encouraged to.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1566715.stm

That was easy.

I picked those two countries because they have high rates of firearms possession; assault weapons at that. They are required to for national defense. And yet, those firearms are not resulting in higher murder rates.

I've seen the reports that they don't have many firearms and firearms are strictly monitored. They like to talk about private ownership. They ignore the government owned, but privately stored weapons. Those weapons are clearly available for murder, but don't get used for it. So, my conclusion is that it is not availablility of the weapon, but the intent of the individual. Thus, I agree with the OP that a discussion of the causes of violence would be most productive.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

• Quote

[skypuppy 1]

see davjohns reply above. You clearly have an agenda - you don't like guns or people having access to guns - and it has colored every post you've made here. It's fine if you don't want to have guns in your home. It doesn't give you the right to tell other people they can't have guns in theirs.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone