For you no guns solution people
-
On three occasions I have actually faced a madman with a knife (actually one drunk and two muggers - whether they were mad or not didn't come up in the conversation) and have lived to tell the tale (although I got badly slashed once, stabbed another time and was completely uninjured on the third occasion - for those who are interested, all three of my attackers fled the scene alive, but with serious injuries). With guns, I don't know if I would be here at all.
- Life in the fast lane is only fun if you live in a country with no speed limits. - Of all the things I have lost, it is my mind that I miss the most. - I vaguely remember having a good memory...
Forogar wrote:
With guns, I don't know if I would be here at all.
But as long as we are doing hypotheticals we should consider what would have been the outcome in those three cases if you had had a gun and you were trained to use it in combat situations.
-
http://www.courant.com/sns-rt-us-china-stabbingsbre8bd065-20121213,0,5592318.story[^] As I said before, how do you stop the INTENT?
Is it me or does your timing really stink! I'm assuming you posted before the KILLING, not injuring, of a bunch of 5-10 year olds in the US. I support gun laws (I'm from Oz after all) but some of you people are like Fundies where guns are concerned.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Criminals can only get guns if society gives them access, through people having them.
I always wondered why it wasn't possible to buy a little coke, lace it with a bit of meth and then pick out a nice prostitute for the evening.
jschell wrote:
I always wondered why it wasn't possible to buy a little coke, lace it with a bit of meth and then pick out a nice prostitute for the evening.
"You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant on the web." Cheers, Peter
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
-
Andrew Stoute wrote:
It might be worth noting
No, it is not worth noting.
Slacker007 wrote:
No, it is not worth noting.
Yeah, why make a big deal of the difference between life and death? :)
Regards, Nish
My technology blog: voidnish.wordpress.com
-
There is a clear and rational argument. Criminals can only get guns if society gives them access, through people having them. The cases where a gun makes someone safer, are very rare and dwarfed by the number of kids shot in the US. But, I agree, and indeed said, that a time like this, when emotions are high, is a dumb time to try to make that case.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Criminals can only get guns if society gives them access, through people having them.
That is incorrect. The UK permits no guns yet they are routinely used by criminals to shoot people. Anyone intent enough will always find a way to get hold of weapons, regardless of the law.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Christian Graus wrote:
They still don't come from thin air.
Sure, but as long as guns exist in the world, access to them will, too.
Christian Graus wrote:
And I'd rather face a gun with a machete, than a gun.
I guess it depends on who would be alerted, how close you are, who has the jump. But come on, that is silly.
Christian Graus wrote:
You could have the guns without the violence, but you HAVE the violence and a good first step would be better control of the guns.
Actually locking up violent criminals is best first step.
wizardzz wrote:
Sure, but as long as guns exist in the world, access to them will, too.
The question is more, how determined someone has to be, to get access.
wizardzz wrote:
I guess it depends on who would be alerted, how close you are, who has the jump. But come on, that is silly.
Not at all. Dude walks in to your kids classroom, intending to kill people. If you have no other choices, would you prefer a teacher, armed with what's on hand ( I am guessing at a chair ), face someone with a gun, or a knife, no matter how big ? Someone walks up your driveway, intent on violence. You don't have a gun at hand. Or perhaps you do. Would you rather he had a knife or a gun ?
wizardzz wrote:
Actually locking up violent criminals is best first step.
These people tend to be unhinged nut jobs more than people with a history of violent crime. That's also where the link to criminals falls apart
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I think a tragedy like this is the wrong time to point out how stupid the US attitude towards guns is. How can you expect anything but an emotional response ? I will say, I'd rather face a madman with a knife, than one with a gun. And the US seems to breed both the access to weapons, and the intent. So, either way, there's a US centric issue here, although it can happen in other places, it happens in the US a LOT. Note 22 kids stabbed is different to 26 kids killed, proving my point. Access to guns is access to the ability to do more harm, more quickly.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, either way, there's a US centric issue here, although it can happen in other places, it happens in the US a LOT.
It most certainly DOES NOT happen "a lot". We have over 85 million legal gun owners. A mass shooting MIGHT happen a couple of times per year (if you don't count cops shooting civilians). The last time I did the math, 2 out of 85,000,000 could not reasonable be defined as "a lot".
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
At least without guns, it is harder to kill.
That's pretty much the stupidest thing I've seen posted on CodeProject.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
Stay classy America :doh:
There really was no call for that.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
http://www.courant.com/sns-rt-us-china-stabbingsbre8bd065-20121213,0,5592318.story[^] As I said before, how do you stop the INTENT?
Dude your no-guns rampage guy that you're talking about INJURED 22 people with a knife. INJURED. There's just a little difference you know. Getting a phone call saying your kid is INJURED, even slashed up with a knife, versus getting a phone call that your kid is freaking DEAD.
Nigel
-
Christian Graus wrote:
So, either way, there's a US centric issue here, although it can happen in other places, it happens in the US a LOT.
It most certainly DOES NOT happen "a lot". We have over 85 million legal gun owners. A mass shooting MIGHT happen a couple of times per year (if you don't count cops shooting civilians). The last time I did the math, 2 out of 85,000,000 could not reasonable be defined as "a lot".
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997Every time I've looked for figures, your shooting deaths per capita dwarf those of the rest of Western society.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Every time I've looked for figures, your shooting deaths per capita dwarf those of the rest of Western society.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
I thought we were talking about mass shootings.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
I thought we were talking about mass shootings.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997You have more of those too. You win on every front. See my link below, the wiki entry for school shootings breaks out to another, much bigger page, b.c there's a much bigger and longer history in the US, than the rest of the world.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
http://www.courant.com/sns-rt-us-china-stabbingsbre8bd065-20121213,0,5592318.story[^] As I said before, how do you stop the INTENT?
In South Africa we have very strict gun control, and yet 'normal', i.e. one on one shootings are extremely commonplace. Nearly always the guns used in these are not legally owned by the shooter, but stolen or bought on the black market. Yet, we have extremely few mass shootings such as occur on an alarmingly regular basis in the US, and sometimes elsewhere.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
It's almost a matter of religion with people who are raised to think that access to guns makes them free.
Not really. It is however a fundamental right explicitly given by the most fundamental legal document in the US.
The same document also gave us the 3/5ths compromise. Are you willing to stick by that?
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Criminals can only get guns if society gives them access, through people having them.
That is incorrect. The UK permits no guns yet they are routinely used by criminals to shoot people. Anyone intent enough will always find a way to get hold of weapons, regardless of the law.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
mark merrens wrote:
That is incorrect.
Not really, it sure restricts the crime with guns involved. and I dont think it serve any purpose when general population is allowed guns. if a criminal come at you with a gun, you are done, it doent matter if you have gun in your house - in a locker. but it can be deadly when common man who is angry and frustrated and that man has a gun.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
None of this means anything. I never said there was NO gun violence in other countries. There's just more ( quite logically ) in a country awash with guns. If I decide to become a criminal, do you think some network of super villians mails me a gun ? Or do I need to find one ? Isn't it easier to find one when there's lots of them about ? Isn't that logical ?
Based on that then you should be able to easily demonstrate a direct correlation between guns and violence using a number of countries, say 20 at least, where some have restrictive laws and some have liberal laws.
Read these, if you are able to step past your determination that you're - of course - right: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11130511[^] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447364/[^] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17070975[^] It's not that easy of a correlation. There are many underlaying factors. But gun availability is a major one of them. Sometimes people are unable to realize that they're standing on the wrong side, because they're hiding behind the simplified models of reality, and require obvious and meaningless evidence. If that is not presented - as it solves nothing - they consider it as a proof of them being correct. As I already said. It works in Europe and Japan (because you really can't - or rather want - to compare US to third world countries), so you're beating a dead horse - so to speak. I know of nobody, who would know, where to obtain an illegal weapon. Some of us know where to probably obtain a legal one, but it would take complex expensive courses, then to buy an rather expensive gun. So if you get really mad with someone you don't go for gun, and kill him, but at best beat him (then again, I never felt this urge ever). The guns in Europe are usually for one of four major reasons: 1) robbing the banks (usually as a threat) 2) underground disputes - illegal ownership 3) hunt, sports, police, etc. usually harmless legal means 4) properly tested legal owners - hobby, or for a feeling of protection in US it's also: 5) almost anyone - the untested owners (the emotionally unstable people, people who doesn't even know how to handle the gun properly, you name it...)
The wisdom is to see things truthfully.
-
Slacker007 wrote:
No, it is not worth noting.
Yeah, why make a big deal of the difference between life and death? :)
Regards, Nish
My technology blog: voidnish.wordpress.com
Nish Sivakumar wrote:
Yeah, why make a big deal of the difference between life and death?
Life and death, are not the issue here. The intent to do harm to anyone, children in this case, is the issue. Whether he just injured the child or killed the child is inconsequential, he intended to do harm to the child. How do we deal with intent to harm/kill?
-
0bx wrote:
It's the same with nuclear weapons... Most countries have relatively stable governments right? Suppose everybody country in the world has nuclear weapons, nobody will dare to use them and nobody would dare to go to war.
That's the same pattern to how most pro-gun people seem to think. They underestimate the probability of human error and only focus on the 'most people are sensible, so having more sensible people carrying guns is good'. It's absolute bs.Most pro-gun people I know, and I know many (even ones that *gasp* voted for Obama), don't think that criminals or mental ill people should have a right to own guns. Constitutional guarantee's don't apply to criminals (look into convicted felon's voting rights). Will you admit that if nobody can legally carry guns, only criminals would carry them? The sad thing is that pro-gun people are just willing to be realistic, and not idealistic. Can a rogue country get nukes? Yes, probably. Then should reasonable countries have nukes for defense via mutually assured destruction? Yes. Would the world be better without nukes? Maybe, but we don't live in that world. Nor do we live in a world without guns. They exist, bad guys and insane people can and will get their hands on them. Should we restrict law abiding citizens because of this? What purpose does that serve? So people will have a false sense of security and sleep better at night knowing that their law abiding, yet idiotically stupid, neighbor Joe won't accidentally discharge a gun into their condo? Wouldn't they sleep better knowing that criminals may be less likely to burglarize, rape, and murder their family because criminals aren't the only people armed? I'll leave you with this: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities[^]
You talk about accepting reality, but as I said before: carrying a gun doesn't make you bulletproof. It creates the illusion of security, but real security comes form having good locks, quality doors and windows, receiving basic martial arts training, encrypt your laptop, etc... And I do see the ownership of guns separate from the presence of crime. This is the one thing I actually agree on with the pro-gun camp and it's also mentioned in the article. It's only sad that despite their wisdom about crime not having anything to do with guns, they can't seem to be able to shut up about burglars wanting to rape children, etc... Burglars don't typically break in when someone is home. Criminals are humans just like us; they think like us and have the same emotions like us. They would want to avoid confrontation as much as possible. Having guns doesn't increase crime, but it doesn't decrease it either. The only thing it does is making crime more dangerous than it has to be. So, let's focus on the "unintentional deaths" for a while. The article claims that they are very low in the US. Sure who am I to judge how many death children you find acceptable, but may I remind you to the fact that they are 270 times more likely to happen compared to most countries[^]?
.
-
I think a tragedy like this is the wrong time to point out how stupid the US attitude towards guns is. How can you expect anything but an emotional response ? I will say, I'd rather face a madman with a knife, than one with a gun. And the US seems to breed both the access to weapons, and the intent. So, either way, there's a US centric issue here, although it can happen in other places, it happens in the US a LOT. Note 22 kids stabbed is different to 26 kids killed, proving my point. Access to guns is access to the ability to do more harm, more quickly.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
It's a perfect time. As I said to Nish, the "intent" takes issue with me, not the gun laws. I gave the stabbing link, which many in China actually end up in death, as an example of mass harm to children, without a gun. You don't need a gun, to harm.
Christian Graus wrote:
I'd rather face a madman with a knife
I would pay good money to see this.