U.S. Senator Says Videogames Are Worse Than Guns

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Your taxes pay his salary folks. Yup... That's a politician for you. -.-

 

[Milkman]

Yep. Because video games are designed to kill things. Guns? No, don't be silly. Those don't hurt anybody. It's not like the express purpose of a firearm is to cause physical damage, right? I think we can all safely assume that there are more cartridge/disc/digital download-related deaths each year than there are gunshot victims.

 

[Zanderinfal]

Oh wow... am I fucked up for laughing at that?

Yes, you horrible monster. I bet you play video games for FUN! Kids these days, gosh.

OT: Well, isn't this fine and fucking dandy, an old fart got into power and is now shifting blame from legitimate problems such as assault weapons and mental health onto an interactive medium of entertainment that is known to help increase brain function. If I were of age, this would be my Que to drink.

Play us off, keyboard Republican!
Cappy: "edgar degas" Man, these capchas have grown a taste in art. Are they becoming sentient?

EDIT: I feel this is the appropriate response if this man is re-elected.

 

[FalloutJack]

Quotey

Hey there, people. My name is FalloutJack and I know enough about what this guy's talking about to know that HE KNOWS what he's talking about. It is clear and obvious that he understands his hardware, responsibilities, and himself to a degree more than acceptable by professionals in his field.

I should also like to point out that the arguments against gun ownership for defense - should defense be your honest intent - is not pointless. What kind of person deliberately lops off an option in life to take control of your life, given a world which is random and unpredictable? It's simple logistics, really. Which of these will actually give you any chance at all in preventing victimization and possible death? Is it ownership of a firearm or not ownership of a firearm? If you chose the second option, congratulations. In the event of an armed intruder, the chances of your being dead in the next few seconds just skyrocketed.

Now, if the dissenters still want to make an argument after that, they're free to do so, but give up trying to sound legit. It makes a'no sense. If you believe you have no chance with even the most basic of firearms, I wouldn't hold your breath on improvised weaponry either.

OT: Now then...

On the topic of dumb old guy making rash statement about games #485, I want to say that if they didn't nip this shit in the bud back when the gaing industry was weaker and the topic was Mortal Kombat, and they failed at SOPA and all of its copycats, then they won't make a dent with this guy. In short, hakuna matata.

 

[DataSnake]

That's fantasy. It's exactly what the hippies of the 1960s thought, before they grew up and got more greedy and corrupt. There's an old saying about how power corrupts. If anything, society has been on a rightward trajectory, with a resurgence of fundamentalist religion and right wing politics like nothing we saw in the 90s. There are new right-wing (and left-wing, for that matter) nutjobs being born every day. There's no shortage of supply.

When you're young, you have lots of energy, you're generally healthy. You spend a lot of time in school thinking about ideas. Money isn't a big issue, you can survive on very little. As you get older, you have more bills to pay. You might have a boring job that takes most of your energy away. You develop medical conditions, and pay more bills. Maybe have a family to support. You find that your idealism takes a battering from the practical realities of life. That's how it is for most people - just living a modest life and paying the bills is enough. But for the people who are wealthy and connected enough to get into positions of power, the game's completely different. For them, "just getting by" is having millions in the bank and having the power to make or break people.

You don't get into positions of power, whether political or corporate, without sacrificing some ideals. And people will always crave power and money. How many of us would turn down billions of dollars and a CEO position at a tech company, even if it meant us tolerating child labor abuses or environmental destruction in return for profit? How many of our ideals could survive when it comes to the actual practical issues of running a country with a vast military and huge economy? The military-industrial complex does not change course easily, and even if you are the President, you have to make compromises to feed the machine.

Basically, every generation of youth says "things will be better when we young people are running things." The problem is that every generation of young people turns into old people just like the last one. Not that there's anything wrong with being old... lots of good things come with age and experience, like knowing that we've seen all of this happen before.

Things are improving, albeit slowly. 150 years ago, black people were considered property. Today, one is President of the United States. 100 years ago, women couldn't vote. Today, three are justices on the Supreme Court. 50 years ago, just being gay was a felony. Today, gays are allowed to serve openly in the armed forces, and several states have given them the right to marry. 100 years from now, who knows? We have a long way to go, but we're definitely making strides.

"The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

[Saika Renegade]

M16A1 assault rifle: designed to cause the deaths of at least one human being per trigger pull by the application of chemical oxidization and a small metal slug, with a theoretical maximum of one hundred deaths per minute (on an unrealistic one-shot one-kill basis, with regards to the practical rate of fire).

Average FPS video game: designed to entertain through a series of electronic signals sent through a control system to a processor where, even in multiplayer, no actual harm comes to another through the program interactions alone. Verbal interactions, on the other hand, are not the responsibility of the programmers and in turn remains in the realm of the individuals.

I don't know about you, but confronted by the business end a physical M16 and a copy of the same projected on my TV and pointed at me by a guy in Alabama, I think I'm going to be considerably more worried about the M16 firing real bullets.

 

[144_v1legacy]

You seem to agree that this demonstrates that guns are dangerous and I should simply wait for the police to arrive while he is free to do anything he wants to do to me and my home.

I think that's absurd.

Having a gun chambered and ready and waiting for the police are not the only options. I think it's considered acceptable behavior to verify the threat, and then go get your gun. You could say that there are situations where this is impossible, but if we're going to escalate hypothetical situations, how would you stop a professional assassin, or arson, or anyone else who made insufficient noise to wake you up, and then killed you without giving you a chance to retaliate? If we operate on terms of likelihood and statistics, I think your protocol is an overreaction, as is your defense of its sensibility and your statement that to think otherwise is absurd.

Gun safety is taught through physical correction if safety protocol is disobeyed where I was introduced to it.

Again, if gun safety has to be taught, then they have the potential to be unsafe. Like cars and fire and table saws and mountain climbing and skiing and anything else with the potential to cause injury to yourself or those around you.

Choosing to remain forever ignorant of something isn't something to be proud of. Do you use a bottle of canned air on your computer or consoles to get the dust out? All you do is open the firearm, and clear all the dust out.

I assume you are not one of the people that causes dust build up to destroy their electronics due to neglect. Would it be that much of a leap that a mechanical device that is a firearm has the same basic need?

That's very cute, making an analogy to something I'm more familiar with. Yes, I do clean the dust out from my keyboard. You see, I use my keyboard every day. In fact, it's essential to my job and education, a big part of my personal life, and to neglect it would result in immediate damage to my happiness and lifestyle. While choosing to remain ignorant of anything isn't something to be proud of, remaining (important choice of words here) ignorant through lack of necessity is certainly not something to be ashamed of either. There are some people who I would expect can speak several languages, or know a great deal about particle physics, or can build a house, but no one can fail to be ignorant of everything, and if one has no need to become familiar with firearms, you can't blame them for not being familiar with firearms. I'm an architect. I know a great deal about the structure of a house. You live in a house, right? Do you know what I know? Maybe. But I wouldn't blame you if you didn't.

Dropping the magazine and opening the chamber insures no bullets are in it or can enter the weapon. We call it clearing. That makes it SAFE.

Temporarily, i.e., until the next time it is used.

You also treat any weapon that hasn't been cleared as unsafe.

Not quite. I don't declare them unsafe, I declare them potentially unsafe. Like any weapon, or any item that has lethal capabilities.

Gun safety tips can fit on a business card. So long as they are applied. People don't get hurt.

So can car safety tips. And yet you still need to take a test and get a license.

Yes those individuals and I could then compare service. Are you aware that most military units are only allowed to qualify those 2 times a year that would mean they get no more practice?

The misuse of the word "qualify" vs. "skilled" was the bulk of my point this is responding to. The lack of commas here made this sentence tough to follow, but I'll do my best. By your own admission, one would only need to go to a range twice a year to be suitably skilled. However, unless that person is deemed responsible, if even only once, by a higher power, they can't be considered qualified to use the item for safety measures, because no one has any word to go on regarding his capabilities but his own. Again, I might have a better response here if you give a better sentence.

You are aware that if I as a civilian make a mistake and get someone hurt I'm completely liable while the taxpayer is liable for actions that the police do when in uniform right?

I fail to see your point here. Are you saying that putting on a uniform makes you immune to liability? Lawsuits have proven that to not be the case, but the aforementioned qualification discussion makes it clear that I think that those in uniform deserve a bit of trust regarding their actions, at least more so than a civilian.

You do the crime, you do the time. The time (punishment) is complete. The state says, you are free to go.

I think this is simply a fundamental difference between your opinion of what constitutes acceptable behavior and mine (and Aardvarkman's). And really, everyone I know. The fundamental problem is that, while your crime/time phrase might be reasonable regarding the criminal, it is unfair to the innocent victim. I'm not okay with someone killing me, no matter what penalty the murderer gets. Parents of murdered children are probably not willing to exchange the lives of their children for the punishments that the criminals receive.

Make the price greater than one is willing to spend, after all time is money.

See above.

 

[karamazovnew]

Does the NRA need a scapegoat for all these school shootings? Hell yeah. The NRA and any gun lover can not and will not ever be able to convince anyone else that having assault rifles for sale in the supermarket because of some 250 year old law is a good idea. The fact that some shooters used handguns instead of 4-3 (Counterstrike reference) doesn't change this image problem. Even the NRA are not stupid enough to miss the point that just banning high capacity rifles will do nothing to stem the occasional mass murder extravaganza. "When will it end? Just ban every weapon? Criminals will still get illegal weapons, but the peace loving american citizen will no longer have any defense against a zionist gov". We all know the story. It's been talked about to death...
You don't have to be a genius to say that low access to guns would reduce the body count, maybe even prevent the attacks. But that's missing the whole picture... For any attack has three stages: run-up, encounter, aftermath.

The run-up:
GUNS: guns actually don't have a LOT to say here. Not every shooter has been tempted into mass murder by walking by the Wallmart gun department. On the contrary, prevalence of guns on the street make it seem all normal and socially accepted (and shooters are NOT looking for that). You need to separate the love for guns from the love of shooting living things. Considering just how many 'muricans looooooove their weapons, you'd expect them to use them more... Having a gun in your home actually provides a safety valve. You never feel trapped in a conflict when you know that at any point you can just kill the bastards and be done with it. It's a Cold-War like phenomenon. Can it go to hell? Sure, but this accounts for a vast majority of home and neighborhood shootings, not school mass murders.

GAMES: games do have a problem here. Games are an escapism that can go too far. I have a first account experience of how easy it is to sink inside games when your life goes to shit. I've spent 3 years of my life literally doing NOTHING else but eat, sleep, piss, shit, go to my shit paid job and play World of Warcraft. When I bought my "Wrath of the Lich King" box just before a botched finals session, I told my friends that I had just bought my gold bullet (the one you keep to shoot your brains out some day). I knew what it would do to me, I knew that it would slowly kill me, but that's precisely what I wanted. And while I didn't die, I took on the full brunt of my isolation. I'm a smooth peaceful guy, I hate hurting people and the only reason why I didn't just kill myself was the fear of hurting the few people who still cared about me. But I'm a rare breed. And seeing how even non-violent panda-riddled social games affected me, I do fear about secluded people who play more violent and realistic games. Some might just LOVE their games and that's the end of it. But my guess is that most teens have problems with their families, my guess is that most have problems at school, my guess is that their monkey hormones are running wild and they're having "romantic" problems as well. Why is it so hard to accept that escapism in games (in general) is affecting their lives? And why is it so hard to accept that violent games (in particular) are really messing with their brains? I'm not talking about anyone here, since you still have enough grammar and social skills to complete full sentences (not just "die fucker die... reloading! dieeeeee!" 12 year olds).
Are games thus more dangerous than guns? I think so. Why? Because just like with drugs, nobody starts on that road thinking about the possible end results. Nobody thinks about the implications. Nobody gets a game to kill somebody. But everyone that touches a gun will think "shit, this can actually kill, better point it to the ground". Yes we are just killing polygons, but from the brain's perspective, it's still socially acceptable, rewarding, achievement unlocking killing.

MEDIA: Above all, I hold the Media responsible for the lion share of guilt here. News about past killings, the prevalence of cheap entertainment, the lack of classic culture... I could go on and on and on. They tell you that you're important, and you are... but not in their Beyonce Becham way. I could start quoting Fight Club here, but just see that movie instead. No mass murdered ignores the media. He thrives on it and vice versa. There comes a moment in a loner's life when he realizes just how tiny he is. And the greater his intelligence, the worse the results... Most killers are sophisticated people. Yes, games are part of the media, but you all know I'm talking about TV news in particular. Games are rarely news, while some "vip"'s ***** kids are more important than the pope. I can ignore shit music by not going to those channels, but when I want to find out about international events and Beckam's ass takes more time on screen than some distant war... that pisses me off. For TV shows us what's "normal", what goes on in the world. Our view about the world is shaped by the information we get about it. It shapes our role in it too. Just for fun, try watching BBC news instead of anything else for a while. It will be an eye-opener. And they're not exactly perfect either. Then switch to your usual news channel and marvel at the stupidity. Media provides a background for the rage to flourish in. School bullying and teenage problems are so wrongly represented that instead of educating, it worsens the isolation of some. It feeds their hate and self-importance, turns them into sleep-walking killers.

The Attack: guns, guns, guns... and children. Because children are easy targets. Plus they'll look better on the news. Plus they represent the "lucky bastards who don't have to deal with my shit every day, those smug smiles, bastards". The bigger the guns, the more will die. Say what you will about illegal guns, they're harder to come by for some basement-dwelling creep. This is NRA's problem... they can't win here. They don't pull the trigger, but they create the trigger, the gun, the bullets. They don't put it in the killer's hand, but they put it in easy reach.

The Aftermath:
The media: duuuh. Just watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PezlFNTGWv4
Again, the bloody media. One aftermath leads to the next incident. Every time they get more sophisticated. I once said on this forum that this is the new face of terrorism (the real one, not the fake CIA one). And guess what... they are actually making it WORSE by blaming games. Because they put in the idea that if you play a violent game, you might just start killing people. Every god damn time the media says that something is WRONG, people start doing it, while people who already did it, start to do it worse. Case in point? Ethnobotanic drugs in Romania. Guess what... now everytime some impressionable kid buys his Call of Duty 11 box, his brain will think "this thing is dangerous... cool". A direct association has been made between games and killing, for all the wrong reasons.

It's not the violence in games, it's the escapism they provide. A pokemon fan can just as well snap out after years of school abuse and get his mom's gun. It's not just everyday real life, it's also what you think your role in society is, and unfortunately, part of that is what the media tells you it is. And TV pales in comparison with the power that games have over your brain. Games hold more power in this than you think. You are everything they say you are: the hero, the soldier, the villain, the demon-hunter, the collector, the savior. Yeah... right...

Wow, LOOONG post

 

[aelreth]

Having a gun chambered and ready and waiting for the police are not the only options. I think it's considered acceptable behavior to verify the threat, and then go get your gun. You could say that there are situations where this is impossible, but if we're going to escalate hypothetical situations, how would you stop a professional assassin, or arson, or anyone else who made insufficient noise to wake you up, and then killed you without giving you a chance to retaliate? If we operate on terms of likelihood and statistics, I think your protocol is an overreaction, as is your defense of its sensibility and your statement that to think otherwise is absurd.

The final verification I need to be able to pull the trigger is when they break into my home.

Your opinion is that when I verify the need for the gun, then I go get it.

By that time the person is already potentially on top of me.

Utterly absurd.

Again, if gun safety has to be taught, then they have the potential to be unsafe. Like cars and fire and table saws and mountain climbing and skiing and anything else with the potential to cause injury to yourself or those around you.

Didn't your parents teach you how to adapt to the world? If your parents did not teach you something maybe you should learn so you can fill the gaps.

Choosing to remain forever ignorant of something isn't something to be proud of. Do you use a bottle of canned air on your computer or consoles to get the dust out? All you do is open the firearm, and clear all the dust out.

That's very cute, making an analogy to something I'm more familiar with. Yes, I do clean the dust out from my keyboard. You see, I use my keyboard every day. In fact, it's essential to my job and education, a big part of my personal life, and to neglect it would result in immediate damage to my happiness and lifestyle. While choosing to remain ignorant of anything isn't something to be proud of, remaining (important choice of words here) ignorant through lack of necessity is certainly not something to be ashamed of either. There are some people who I would expect can speak several languages, or know a great deal about particle physics, or can build a house, but no one can fail to be ignorant of everything, and if one has no need to become familiar with firearms, you can't blame them for not being familiar with firearms. I'm an architect. I know a great deal about the structure of a house. You live in a house, right? Do you know what I know? Maybe. But I wouldn't blame you if you didn't.

Is 144 code for obfuscate? I'm trying to explain gun maintenance.

Temporarily, i.e., until the next time it is used.

Then when you are done using it you clear it. Again.

Which are you worried as; A potential gun owner, the target, or as a bystander?

As a civilian I am fully liable and accountable for where I point my weapon. This is much the same as accidentally running someone over with a car, in the case of a firearm, rightfully the penalties for my negligent operation with a firearm are much harsher.

As a potential target of someone. Like that assassin you conjured earlier, it doesn't matter the gun laws, if someone has the resources and a deep enough grudge less than a thousand people have the resources to stop that in this country.

You arming yourself makes you a slightly harder target. Why should only the elite have protection?

Not quite. I don't declare them unsafe, I declare them potentially unsafe. Like any weapon, or any item that has lethal capabilities.

If it's potentially unsafe, then you take steps to minimize the risk to yourself and those around you. If I follow those three steps on the safety first signs, how would I be a danger?

So can car safety tips. And yet you still need to take a test and get a license.

You are aware that you are legally allowed to operate motorized vehicles without a license or a permit. This is the case for kids raised on the farm, where they learn early how to take care of the business. These kids are also taught firearms discipline around 7 or 8 years old.

If you want to discuss licensing firearms please start a thread and send me a message.

The misuse of the word "qualify" vs. "skilled" was the bulk of my point this is responding to. The lack of commas here made this sentence tough to follow, but I'll do my best. By your own admission, one would only need to go to a range twice a year to be suitably skilled. However, unless that person is deemed responsible, if even only once, by a higher power, they can't be considered qualified to use the item for safety measures, because no one has any word to go on regarding his capabilities but his own. Again, I might have a better response here if you give a better sentence.

He made the statement that people can't devote that much time to maintain and train with it. I gave him the example of what is the standard for the military.

There is a gulf between qualified and skilled. Have you been to a range yet?

You can stay on the range as long as you want, you can get as skilled as you see fit. Military members are only allowed to have their weapons & ammunition for that for target practice for an extremely finite amount of time and are only issued a limited number of rounds.

I fail to see your point here. Are you saying that putting on a uniform makes you immune to liability? Lawsuits have proven that to not be the case, but the aforementioned qualification discussion makes it clear that I think that those in uniform deserve a bit of trust regarding their actions, at least more so than a civilian.

Yes, so long as I follow the protocol, I am not personally liable, the taxpayer pays.

I think this is simply a fundamental difference between your opinion of what constitutes acceptable behavior and mine (and Aardvarkman's). And really, everyone I know. The fundamental problem is that, while your crime/time phrase might be reasonable regarding the criminal, it is unfair to the innocent victim. I'm not okay with someone killing me, no matter what penalty the murderer gets. Parents of murdered children are probably not willing to exchange the lives of their children for the punishments that the criminals receive.

In regards to heavy crimes, that's why felonies carry a mark that is very difficult to get rid of.

I'm not okay with someone killing me or you, so much that I believe that if I threaten your life or break into the sanctity of your home, you are sanctioned morally and legally to strike me down by any means necessary.

I think that you should be able to have the best tools at your disposal to defend your life. You want to cripple me in favor of my attacker.

Waiting for police is something that takes too long when our lives and property are at risk.

The police in the united states have no obligation to protect

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

 

[144_v1legacy]

Having a gun chambered and ready and waiting for the police are not the only options. I think it's considered acceptable behavior to verify the threat, and then go get your gun. You could say that there are situations where this is impossible, but if we're going to escalate hypothetical situations, how would you stop a professional assassin, or arson, or anyone else who made insufficient noise to wake you up, and then killed you without giving you a chance to retaliate? If we operate on terms of likelihood and statistics, I think your protocol is an overreaction, as is your defense of its sensibility and your statement that to think otherwise is absurd.

(1)
The final verification I need to be able to pull the trigger is when they break into my home.

Your opinion is that when I verify the need for the gun, then I go get it.

By that time the person is already potentially on top of me.

Utterly absurd.

Again, if gun safety has to be taught, then they have the potential to be unsafe. Like cars and fire and table saws and mountain climbing and skiing and anything else with the potential to cause injury to yourself or those around you.

(2)
Didn't your parents teach you how to adapt to the world? If your parents did not teach you something maybe you should learn so you can fill the gaps.

Choosing to remain forever ignorant of something isn't something to be proud of. Do you use a bottle of canned air on your computer or consoles to get the dust out? All you do is open the firearm, and clear all the dust out.

That's very cute, making an analogy to something I'm more familiar with. Yes, I do clean the dust out from my keyboard. You see, I use my keyboard every day. In fact, it's essential to my job and education, a big part of my personal life, and to neglect it would result in immediate damage to my happiness and lifestyle. While choosing to remain ignorant of anything isn't something to be proud of, remaining (important choice of words here) ignorant through lack of necessity is certainly not something to be ashamed of either. There are some people who I would expect can speak several languages, or know a great deal about particle physics, or can build a house, but no one can fail to be ignorant of everything, and if one has no need to become familiar with firearms, you can't blame them for not being familiar with firearms. I'm an architect. I know a great deal about the structure of a house. You live in a house, right? Do you know what I know? Maybe. But I wouldn't blame you if you didn't.

(3)
Is 144 code for obfuscate? I'm trying to explain gun maintenance.

Temporarily, i.e., until the next time it is used.

(4)
Then when you are done using it you clear it. Again.

Which are you worried as; A potential gun owner, the target, or as a bystander?

As a civilian I am fully liable and accountable for where I point my weapon. This is much the same as accidentally running someone over with a car, in the case of a firearm, rightfully the penalties for my negligent operation with a firearm are much harsher.

As a potential target of someone. Like that assassin you conjured earlier, it doesn't matter the gun laws, if someone has the resources and a deep enough grudge less than a thousand people have the resources to stop that in this country.

You arming yourself makes you a slightly harder target. Why should only the elite have protection?

Not quite. I don't declare them unsafe, I declare them potentially unsafe. Like any weapon, or any item that has lethal capabilities.

(5)
If it's potentially unsafe, then you take steps to minimize the risk to yourself and those around you. If I follow those three steps on the safety first signs, how would I be a danger?

So can car safety tips. And yet you still need to take a test and get a license.

(6)
You are aware that you are legally allowed to operate motorized vehicles without a license or a permit. This is the case for kids raised on the farm, where they learn early how to take care of the business. These kids are also taught firearms discipline around 7 or 8 years old.

If you want to discuss licensing firearms please start a thread and send me a message.

The misuse of the word "qualify" vs. "skilled" was the bulk of my point this is responding to. The lack of commas here made this sentence tough to follow, but I'll do my best. By your own admission, one would only need to go to a range twice a year to be suitably skilled. However, unless that person is deemed responsible, if even only once, by a higher power, they can't be considered qualified to use the item for safety measures, because no one has any word to go on regarding his capabilities but his own. Again, I might have a better response here if you give a better sentence.

(7)
He made the statement that people can't devote that much time to maintain and train with it. I gave him the example of what is the standard for the military.

There is a gulf between qualified and skilled. Have you been to a range yet?

You can stay on the range as long as you want, you can get as skilled as you see fit. Military members are only allowed to have their weapons & ammunition for that for target practice for an extremely finite amount of time and are only issued a limited number of rounds.

I fail to see your point here. Are you saying that putting on a uniform makes you immune to liability? Lawsuits have proven that to not be the case, but the aforementioned qualification discussion makes it clear that I think that those in uniform deserve a bit of trust regarding their actions, at least more so than a civilian.

(8)
Yes, so long as I follow the protocol, I am not personally liable, the taxpayer pays.

I think this is simply a fundamental difference between your opinion of what constitutes acceptable behavior and mine (and Aardvarkman's). And really, everyone I know. The fundamental problem is that, while your crime/time phrase might be reasonable regarding the criminal, it is unfair to the innocent victim. I'm not okay with someone killing me, no matter what penalty the murderer gets. Parents of murdered children are probably not willing to exchange the lives of their children for the punishments that the criminals receive.

(9)
In regards to heavy crimes, that's why felonies carry a mark that is very difficult to get rid of.

I'm not okay with someone killing me or you, so much that I believe that if I threaten your life or break into the sanctity of your home, you are sanctioned morally and legally to strike me down by any means necessary.

I think that you should be able to have the best tools at your disposal to defend your life. You want to cripple me in favor of my attacker.

Waiting for police is something that takes too long when our lives and property are at risk.

The police in the united states have no obligation to protect

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

Amazingly, I feel that the best argument against virtually every single response you've listed here is to say "read the above." I could, with little adjustment, flip the statements you've quoted with your respective replies to them, and third parties would likely not notice anything strange.

1: See the reference to extension of hypothetical exaggeration.
2: Potential to be unsafe = potential to be unsafe, see examples.
3: If my analogy was an obfuscation, what was yours (the dust one)? The analogy was an attempt to explain willful and happenstance ignorance.
4: That doesn't actually disprove what I said. It confirms it.
5: See above.
6: There are also race car drivers below driving age. And when they leave the track, they can't legally drive without the license they can't get. Same with the farmers in your analogy.
7: Refer to (3), regarding ignorance.
8: Got it. Thanks for cleaning up your standards of writing.
9: I think what you meant to say was, "touché." Maybe you are able-bodied to the point of self-defense, but my blind grandmother is not. Your statement that the punishment of a crime "makes a crime whole" is a bullshit one, because the victims are not on equal footing.

I will continue this until you say something different, and then I will begin to adapt my argument.

 

[FalloutJack]

Problem

I'm afraid you're at a logical impasse. You see, you're not convincing HIM that his argument and way of life is wrong, so you repeating yourself isn't getting you anywhere. You can claim the same, but I believe - as I stated before - that he speaks with knowledge and realism. I think at this point you should either indeed shift your position to try something different or suspend entirely, agree to disagree. Because otherwise, you will go back and forth forever.

 

[144_v1legacy]

Amazingly, I feel that the best argument against virtually every single response [he's] listed here is to say "read the above." I could, with little adjustment, flip the statements [he's] quoted with [his] respective replies to them, and third parties would likely not notice anything strange.

I'm afraid you're at a logical impasse. You see, you're not convincing HIM that his argument and way of life is wrong, so you repeating yourself isn't getting you anywhere. You can claim the same, but I believe - as I stated before - that he speaks with knowledge and realism. I think at this point you should either indeed shift your position to try something different or suspend entirely, agree to disagree. Because otherwise, you will go back and forth forever.

The problem with me repeating myself ad nauseum, obviously, is that I think that he isn't right, and I think it's not okay. I also think he was lying when he said he chambered his gun at every unexpected noise he hears, which is a bad way to make a point. Because I am adamant, and because he has to create circumstances of increasing suspension of disbelief to make a point, and uses personal attacks to avoid having to back up what he says, I won't stop doing this, as both of us have said. You can say that you agree with him, and maybe you do on the philosophical points and fair enough, but he certainly lacks realism.

[Again, to expect one to go through such lengths as to use peep holes or continual gun-readying, or to claim that he does it himself when it is clearly an exaggeration, is speaking without realism. Anyone who thinks that their owning a gun makes them safe, is speaking without realism. Anyone who states that this is a solution that could work for anyone, is speaking without realism. Anyone who states that a murder is okay if the murderer is willing to take responsibility, and that that is not a worse outcome than having fewer murders in the first place, is speaking without realism. I am not wrong.]

If more attention comes to my arguments, I could go on, so I will.

Spoiler

 

[aelreth]

Amazingly, I feel that the best argument against virtually every single response [he's] listed here is to say "read the above." I could, with little adjustment, flip the statements [he's] quoted with [his] respective replies to them, and third parties would likely not notice anything strange.

I'm afraid you're at a logical impasse. You see, you're not convincing HIM that his argument and way of life is wrong, so you repeating yourself isn't getting you anywhere. You can claim the same, but I believe - as I stated before - that he speaks with knowledge and realism. I think at this point you should either indeed shift your position to try something different or suspend entirely, agree to disagree. Because otherwise, you will go back and forth forever.

The problem with me repeating myself ad nauseum, obviously, is that I think that he isn't right, and I think it's not okay. I also think he was lying when he said he chambered his gun at every unexpected noise he hears, which is a bad way to make a point. Because I am adamant, and because he has to create circumstances of increasing suspension of disbelief to make a point, and uses personal attacks to avoid having to back up what he says, I won't stop doing this, as both of us have said. You can say that you agree with him, and maybe you do on the philosophical points and fair enough, but he certainly lacks realism.

[Again, to expect one to go through such lengths as to use peep holes or continual gun-readying, or to claim that he does it himself when it is clearly an exaggeration, is speaking without realism. Anyone who thinks that their owning a gun makes them safe, is speaking without realism. Anyone who states that this is a solution that could work for anyone, is speaking without realism. Anyone who states that a murder is okay if the murderer is willing to take responsibility, and that that is not a worse outcome than having fewer murders in the first place, is speaking without realism. I am not wrong.]

If more attention comes to my arguments, I could go on, so I will.

Spoiler

Picking up a pistol, inserting the magazine and chambering the round are 3 different steps. A pistol by itself is an inert piece of metal. Perhaps we misunderstand each other between the points of verify and assess. Verification to me is visual sight of the threat. Assessing is, what's going on? When I am assessing I am going to determine whether or not I; move the pistol closer to me, insert the magazine and finally chamber the round. At this point I may or may not be searching for where I last put my phone and/or putting myself in my first firing position.

Being unarmed does not make you safe. It just makes you a sheep. An expectation of less violence simply because you are unarmed means that any enemy can take far more than what was initially expected. Not fighting back also encourages the perp to do this again, in time they will explore new avenues. According to a report by the United States Department of Justice, 38% of assaults and 60% of rapes occur in the home during an invasion. You could also live in an illusion until the time you find yourself in a situation where it would be preferable that you had a gun. If you want to roll the dice, that's on you.

So if a murderer takes responsibility and is executed for his crimes in accordance with the law, that isn't ok? Neither doing that or throwing him in jail for the rest of their life can bring the victim back. If you think that is BS that is a price you pay for living within a society of laws. However if you try to enact your own justice the state takes great issue with that.

 

[144_v1legacy]

Amazingly, I feel that the best argument against virtually every single response [he's] listed here is to say "read the above." I could, with little adjustment, flip the statements [he's] quoted with [his] respective replies to them, and third parties would likely not notice anything strange.

I'm afraid you're at a logical impasse. You see, you're not convincing HIM that his argument and way of life is wrong, so you repeating yourself isn't getting you anywhere. You can claim the same, but I believe - as I stated before - that he speaks with knowledge and realism. I think at this point you should either indeed shift your position to try something different or suspend entirely, agree to disagree. Because otherwise, you will go back and forth forever.

The problem with me repeating myself ad nauseum, obviously, is that I think that he isn't right, and I think it's not okay. I also think he was lying when he said he chambered his gun at every unexpected noise he hears, which is a bad way to make a point. Because I am adamant, and because he has to create circumstances of increasing suspension of disbelief to make a point, and uses personal attacks to avoid having to back up what he says, I won't stop doing this, as both of us have said. You can say that you agree with him, and maybe you do on the philosophical points and fair enough, but he certainly lacks realism.

[Again, to expect one to go through such lengths as to use peep holes or continual gun-readying, or to claim that he does it himself when it is clearly an exaggeration, is speaking without realism. Anyone who thinks that their owning a gun makes them safe, is speaking without realism. Anyone who states that this is a solution that could work for anyone, is speaking without realism. Anyone who states that a murder is okay if the murderer is willing to take responsibility, and that that is not a worse outcome than having fewer murders in the first place, is speaking without realism. I am not wrong.]

If more attention comes to my arguments, I could go on, so I will.

Spoiler

Picking up a pistol, inserting the magazine and chambering the round are 3 different steps. A pistol by itself is an inert piece of metal. Perhaps we misunderstand each other between the points of verify and assess. Verification to me is visual sight of the threat. Assessing is, what's going on? When I am assessing I am going to determine whether or not I; move the pistol closer to me, insert the magazine and finally chamber the round. At this point I may or may not be searching for where I last put my phone and/or putting myself in my first firing position.

Being unarmed does not make you safe. It just makes you a sheep. An expectation of less violence simply because you are unarmed means that any enemy can take far more than what was initially expected. Not fighting back also encourages the perp to do this again, in time they will explore new avenues. According to a report by the United States Department of Justice, 38% of assaults and 60% of rapes occur in the home during an invasion. You could also live in an illusion until the time you find yourself in a situation where it would be preferable that you had a gun. If you want to roll the dice, that's on you.

So if a murderer takes responsibility and is executed for his crimes in accordance with the law, that isn't ok? Neither doing that or throwing him in jail for the rest of their life can bring the victim back. If you think that is BS that is a price you pay for living within a society of laws. However if you try to enact your own justice the state takes great issue with that.

That quote, the one you responded to, isn't the one in which I address those issues. The quip below was:

Amazingly, I feel that the best argument against virtually every single response [he's] listed here is to say "read the above." I could, with little adjustment, flip the statements [he's] quoted with [his] respective replies to them, and third parties would likely not notice anything strange.

[and more]

after that quote was a list of individual responses to yours. Did you read any of it? Because it wasn't much to read.

You keep telling me how safe the chambering process makes guns, but knowing how to use something safely doesn't make the item in question inherently safe. If it did, then nothing, by that logic, is unsafe, because for every item there is a person who knows how to operate it. A scientist could tell you all about how carefully they quarantine strains of viruses in the lab, to ensure that nobody gets infected. They handle it safely. But we both know that a virus can be and often is an inherently dangerous thing.

You keep running me through your hypothetical crime scenario, and keep ignoring me when I point out that a hypothetical scenario such as this is easy to conjure up to prove either side. Imagine, as I brought up before (and which you ignored) that instead of you was a paraplegic, or an old couple, one of whom is hard of hearing and the other of whom is deaf, or someone who is bedridden with the flu, or someone who broke their leg or shoulder, or a child who's parents are out, or many, many more examples that would tear your hypothetical walkthrough to pieces?

Being unarmed doesn't make you safe? No shit Sherlock. But let's go over some basic mathematical logic:
If (if A, then B) is true, then that doesn't mean that (if -A, then -B) is true.
( if [unarmed], then [unsafe]) does not mean that (if [not unarmed], then [not unsafe]).

Also,
Being unarmed is what it takes to be a sheep? Really? That's the benchmark?

Spoiler

And what report, exactly, did you read to get those statistics? Please link to it so I can explain thoroughly why it doesn't apply. It certainly wasn't easily found anywhere on the department of justice website. I also think that an illusory world is one where you ignore pieces of what the other guy says and quote bullshit statistics, when there are better, more prevalent ones to be found through the aid of Wikipedia. I also think that an illusory world is one in which you pretend something is safe when it has the potential to kill people. Recently, there was an article where a guy killed himself to prove that guns were safe. I'm sure you have a lot to say about that as well, but if anyone who was present at that incident had then said, "oh, guns are totally safe," they'd be living in an illusory world as well. However, thinking that someone who posts hypothetical situations and declares them as evidence to a point might be making an error in his judgment doesn't put one in an illusionary world at all.

Also, regarding the law thing, I think I'll try again, because more and more you are showing your lack of willingness to read. I think that criminals should be punished. I think that what that isn't called is "law compliance," it's "punished for law noncompliance." Because the victim can't be brought from death to life, the crime can't change from "noncompliant" to "compliant." You implied that it is ok to break the law of you also get punished for it. I'm disputing that. What I'm not disputing is that the punishments of said crimes should be carried out.
Let's return to logic: for this example, C = [justice brought to criminal], V = [justice brought to victim], O = ["it's okay."]
If (C & V), then O.
If (-C & V), then O.
If (C & -V), then -O.
If (-C & -V), the -O.
i.e., V must be true for O to be true as well.
Example 1 represents a case, such as a robbery, where the criminal serves jail time and the victim receives satisfactory compensation for valuables lost and time spent. This only happens if said valuables are replaceable, so damage to one-of-a-kind items, or body parts, will always prevent [V] from being true. This could also represent something like getting a parking ticket for parking in front of a fire hydrant, even though there was no fire.
Example 2 represents a case where a crime was committed, but no harm done, i.e., illegal parking and no ticket issues, but nothing was inconvenienced.
Example 3 is the situation we are discussing, breaking and entering and killing/raping/hurting, and the criminal receiving punishment for it. The criminal got what he deserved, but the victim did not. You say that this is "compliance with the law," I say that this is "a situation we should strive to prevent," even though it's not as bad as...
Example 4, which represents a criminal getting away with a heinous crime. You accuse me of being okay with this, while I say that being not okay with situation 3 doesn't mean that I am okay with situation 4.

Was this clear enough for you? Did you read the whole thing?

 

[aelreth]

Amazingly, I feel that the best argument against virtually every single response [he's] listed here is to say "read the above." I could, with little adjustment, flip the statements [he's] quoted with [his] respective replies to them, and third parties would likely not notice anything strange.

I'm afraid you're at a logical impasse. You see, you're not convincing HIM that his argument and way of life is wrong, so you repeating yourself isn't getting you anywhere. You can claim the same, but I believe - as I stated before - that he speaks with knowledge and realism. I think at this point you should either indeed shift your position to try something different or suspend entirely, agree to disagree. Because otherwise, you will go back and forth forever.

The problem with me repeating myself ad nauseum, obviously, is that I think that he isn't right, and I think it's not okay. I also think he was lying when he said he chambered his gun at every unexpected noise he hears, which is a bad way to make a point. Because I am adamant, and because he has to create circumstances of increasing suspension of disbelief to make a point, and uses personal attacks to avoid having to back up what he says, I won't stop doing this, as both of us have said. You can say that you agree with him, and maybe you do on the philosophical points and fair enough, but he certainly lacks realism.

[Again, to expect one to go through such lengths as to use peep holes or continual gun-readying, or to claim that he does it himself when it is clearly an exaggeration, is speaking without realism. Anyone who thinks that their owning a gun makes them safe, is speaking without realism. Anyone who states that this is a solution that could work for anyone, is speaking without realism. Anyone who states that a murder is okay if the murderer is willing to take responsibility, and that that is not a worse outcome than having fewer murders in the first place, is speaking without realism. I am not wrong.]

If more attention comes to my arguments, I could go on, so I will.

Spoiler

Picking up a pistol, inserting the magazine and chambering the round are 3 different steps. A pistol by itself is an inert piece of metal. Perhaps we misunderstand each other between the points of verify and assess. Verification to me is visual sight of the threat. Assessing is, what's going on? When I am assessing I am going to determine whether or not I; move the pistol closer to me, insert the magazine and finally chamber the round. At this point I may or may not be searching for where I last put my phone and/or putting myself in my first firing position.

Being unarmed does not make you safe. It just makes you a sheep. An expectation of less violence simply because you are unarmed means that any enemy can take far more than what was initially expected. Not fighting back also encourages the perp to do this again, in time they will explore new avenues. According to a report by the United States Department of Justice, 38% of assaults and 60% of rapes occur in the home during an invasion. You could also live in an illusion until the time you find yourself in a situation where it would be preferable that you had a gun. If you want to roll the dice, that's on you.

So if a murderer takes responsibility and is executed for his crimes in accordance with the law, that isn't ok? Neither doing that or throwing him in jail for the rest of their life can bring the victim back. If you think that is BS that is a price you pay for living within a society of laws. However if you try to enact your own justice the state takes great issue with that.

That quote, the one you responded to, isn't the one in which I address those issues. The quip below was:

Amazingly, I feel that the best argument against virtually every single response [he's] listed here is to say "read the above." I could, with little adjustment, flip the statements [he's] quoted with [his] respective replies to them, and third parties would likely not notice anything strange.

[and more]

after that quote was a list of individual responses to yours. Did you read any of it? Because it wasn't much to read.

You keep telling me how safe the chambering process makes guns, but knowing how to use something safely doesn't make the item in question inherently safe. If it did, then nothing, by that logic, is unsafe, because for every item there is a person who knows how to operate it. A scientist could tell you all about how carefully they quarantine strains of viruses in the lab, to ensure that nobody gets infected. They handle it safely. But we both know that a virus can be and often is an inherently dangerous thing.

You keep running me through your hypothetical crime scenario, and keep ignoring me when I point out that a hypothetical scenario such as this is easy to conjure up to prove either side. Imagine, as I brought up before (and which you ignored) that instead of you was a paraplegic, or an old couple, one of whom is hard of hearing and the other of whom is deaf, or someone who is bedridden with the flu, or someone who broke their leg or shoulder, or a child who's parents are out, or many, many more examples that would tear your hypothetical walkthrough to pieces?

Being unarmed doesn't make you safe? No shit Sherlock. But let's go over some basic mathematical logic:
If (if A, then B) is true, then that doesn't mean that (if -A, then -B) is true.
( if [unarmed], then [unsafe]) does not mean that (if [not unarmed], then [not unsafe]).

Also,
Being unarmed is what it takes to be a sheep? Really? That's the benchmark?

Spoiler

And what report, exactly, did you read to get those statistics? Please link to it so I can explain thoroughly why it doesn't apply. It certainly wasn't easily found anywhere on the department of justice website. I also think that an illusory world is one where you ignore pieces of what the other guy says and quote bullshit statistics, when there are better, more prevalent ones to be found through the aid of Wikipedia. I also think that an illusory world is one in which you pretend something is safe when it has the potential to kill people. Recently, there was an article where a guy killed himself to prove that guns were safe. I'm sure you have a lot to say about that as well, but if anyone who was present at that incident had then said, "oh, guns are totally safe," they'd be living in an illusory world as well. However, thinking that someone who posts hypothetical situations and declares them as evidence to a point might be making an error in his judgment doesn't put one in an illusionary world at all.

Also, regarding the law thing, I think I'll try again, because more and more you are showing your lack of willingness to read. I think that criminals should be punished. I think that what that isn't called is "law compliance," it's "punished for law noncompliance." Because the victim can't be brought from death to life, the crime can't change from "noncompliant" to "compliant." You implied that it is ok to break the law of you also get punished for it. I'm disputing that. What I'm not disputing is that the punishments of said crimes should be carried out.
Let's return to logic: for this example, C = [justice brought to criminal], V = [justice brought to victim], O = ["it's okay."]
If (C & V), then O.
If (-C & V), then O.
If (C & -V), then -O.
If (-C & -V), the -O.
i.e., V must be true for O to be true as well.
Example 1 represents a case, such as a robbery, where the criminal serves jail time and the victim receives satisfactory compensation for valuables lost and time spent. This only happens if said valuables are replaceable, so damage to one-of-a-kind items, or body parts, will always prevent [V] from being true. This could also represent something like getting a parking ticket for parking in front of a fire hydrant, even though there was no fire.
Example 2 represents a case where a crime was committed, but no harm done, i.e., illegal parking and no ticket issues, but nothing was inconvenienced.
Example 3 is the situation we are discussing, breaking and entering and killing/raping/hurting, and the criminal receiving punishment for it. The criminal got what he deserved, but the victim did not. You say that this is "compliance with the law," I say that this is "a situation we should strive to prevent," even though it's not as bad as...
Example 4, which represents a criminal getting away with a heinous crime. You accuse me of being okay with this, while I say that being not okay with situation 3 doesn't mean that I am okay with situation 4.

Was this clear enough for you? Did you read the whole thing?

Let's talk about basic gun mechanics.

Explain to me how an empty gun is dangerous.

Explain to me how & when a loaded gun becomes dangerous.

Also I have yet to find those home invasion statistics, they come from home insurance & home security sites.

 

[144_v1legacy]

Amazingly, I feel that the best argument against virtually every single response [he's] listed here is to say "read the above." I could, with little adjustment, flip the statements [he's] quoted with [his] respective replies to them, and third parties would likely not notice anything strange.

I'm afraid you're at a logical impasse. You see, you're not convincing HIM that his argument and way of life is wrong, so you repeating yourself isn't getting you anywhere. You can claim the same, but I believe - as I stated before - that he speaks with knowledge and realism. I think at this point you should either indeed shift your position to try something different or suspend entirely, agree to disagree. Because otherwise, you will go back and forth forever.

The problem with me repeating myself ad nauseum, obviously, is that I think that he isn't right, and I think it's not okay. I also think he was lying when he said he chambered his gun at every unexpected noise he hears, which is a bad way to make a point. Because I am adamant, and because he has to create circumstances of increasing suspension of disbelief to make a point, and uses personal attacks to avoid having to back up what he says, I won't stop doing this, as both of us have said. You can say that you agree with him, and maybe you do on the philosophical points and fair enough, but he certainly lacks realism.

[Again, to expect one to go through such lengths as to use peep holes or continual gun-readying, or to claim that he does it himself when it is clearly an exaggeration, is speaking without realism. Anyone who thinks that their owning a gun makes them safe, is speaking without realism. Anyone who states that this is a solution that could work for anyone, is speaking without realism. Anyone who states that a murder is okay if the murderer is willing to take responsibility, and that that is not a worse outcome than having fewer murders in the first place, is speaking without realism. I am not wrong.]

If more attention comes to my arguments, I could go on, so I will.

Spoiler

Picking up a pistol, inserting the magazine and chambering the round are 3 different steps. A pistol by itself is an inert piece of metal. Perhaps we misunderstand each other between the points of verify and assess. Verification to me is visual sight of the threat. Assessing is, what's going on? When I am assessing I am going to determine whether or not I; move the pistol closer to me, insert the magazine and finally chamber the round. At this point I may or may not be searching for where I last put my phone and/or putting myself in my first firing position.

Being unarmed does not make you safe. It just makes you a sheep. An expectation of less violence simply because you are unarmed means that any enemy can take far more than what was initially expected. Not fighting back also encourages the perp to do this again, in time they will explore new avenues. According to a report by the United States Department of Justice, 38% of assaults and 60% of rapes occur in the home during an invasion. You could also live in an illusion until the time you find yourself in a situation where it would be preferable that you had a gun. If you want to roll the dice, that's on you.

So if a murderer takes responsibility and is executed for his crimes in accordance with the law, that isn't ok? Neither doing that or throwing him in jail for the rest of their life can bring the victim back. If you think that is BS that is a price you pay for living within a society of laws. However if you try to enact your own justice the state takes great issue with that.

That quote, the one you responded to, isn't the one in which I address those issues. The quip below was:

Amazingly, I feel that the best argument against virtually every single response [he's] listed here is to say "read the above." I could, with little adjustment, flip the statements [he's] quoted with [his] respective replies to them, and third parties would likely not notice anything strange.

[and more]

after that quote was a list of individual responses to yours. Did you read any of it? Because it wasn't much to read.

You keep telling me how safe the chambering process makes guns, but knowing how to use something safely doesn't make the item in question inherently safe. If it did, then nothing, by that logic, is unsafe, because for every item there is a person who knows how to operate it. A scientist could tell you all about how carefully they quarantine strains of viruses in the lab, to ensure that nobody gets infected. They handle it safely. But we both know that a virus can be and often is an inherently dangerous thing.

You keep running me through your hypothetical crime scenario, and keep ignoring me when I point out that a hypothetical scenario such as this is easy to conjure up to prove either side. Imagine, as I brought up before (and which you ignored) that instead of you was a paraplegic, or an old couple, one of whom is hard of hearing and the other of whom is deaf, or someone who is bedridden with the flu, or someone who broke their leg or shoulder, or a child who's parents are out, or many, many more examples that would tear your hypothetical walkthrough to pieces?

Being unarmed doesn't make you safe? No shit Sherlock. But let's go over some basic mathematical logic:
If (if A, then B) is true, then that doesn't mean that (if -A, then -B) is true.
( if [unarmed], then [unsafe]) does not mean that (if [not unarmed], then [not unsafe]).

Also,
Being unarmed is what it takes to be a sheep? Really? That's the benchmark?

Spoiler

And what report, exactly, did you read to get those statistics? Please link to it so I can explain thoroughly why it doesn't apply. It certainly wasn't easily found anywhere on the department of justice website. I also think that an illusory world is one where you ignore pieces of what the other guy says and quote bullshit statistics, when there are better, more prevalent ones to be found through the aid of Wikipedia. I also think that an illusory world is one in which you pretend something is safe when it has the potential to kill people. Recently, there was an article where a guy killed himself to prove that guns were safe. I'm sure you have a lot to say about that as well, but if anyone who was present at that incident had then said, "oh, guns are totally safe," they'd be living in an illusory world as well. However, thinking that someone who posts hypothetical situations and declares them as evidence to a point might be making an error in his judgment doesn't put one in an illusionary world at all.

Also, regarding the law thing, I think I'll try again, because more and more you are showing your lack of willingness to read. I think that criminals should be punished. I think that what that isn't called is "law compliance," it's "punished for law noncompliance." Because the victim can't be brought from death to life, the crime can't change from "noncompliant" to "compliant." You implied that it is ok to break the law of you also get punished for it. I'm disputing that. What I'm not disputing is that the punishments of said crimes should be carried out.
Let's return to logic: for this example, C = [justice brought to criminal], V = [justice brought to victim], O = ["it's okay."]
If (C & V), then O.
If (-C & V), then O.
If (C & -V), then -O.
If (-C & -V), the -O.
i.e., V must be true for O to be true as well.
Example 1 represents a case, such as a robbery, where the criminal serves jail time and the victim receives satisfactory compensation for valuables lost and time spent. This only happens if said valuables are replaceable, so damage to one-of-a-kind items, or body parts, will always prevent [V] from being true. This could also represent something like getting a parking ticket for parking in front of a fire hydrant, even though there was no fire.
Example 2 represents a case where a crime was committed, but no harm done, i.e., illegal parking and no ticket issues, but nothing was inconvenienced.
Example 3 is the situation we are discussing, breaking and entering and killing/raping/hurting, and the criminal receiving punishment for it. The criminal got what he deserved, but the victim did not. You say that this is "compliance with the law," I say that this is "a situation we should strive to prevent," even though it's not as bad as...
Example 4, which represents a criminal getting away with a heinous crime. You accuse me of being okay with this, while I say that being not okay with situation 3 doesn't mean that I am okay with situation 4.

Was this clear enough for you? Did you read the whole thing?

Let's talk about basic gun mechanics.

Explain to me how an empty gun is dangerous.

Explain to me how & when a loaded gun becomes dangerous.

Also I have yet to find those home invasion statistics, they come from home insurance & home security sites.

I'll take your non-response to the punishment section as conceding.

An empty gun is as dangerous as an empty car. In other words, safe for the time being, but not to be used carelessly.

"How and when a loaded gun becomes dangerous?" Gee, I wonder. A loaded gun is in a position that, if treated carelessly, will kill people. Ignoring this makes reference to that illusory world you brought up earlier. A loaded gun is a dangerous weapon. That's the whole point of the gun. Giving someone the power to shoot and kill someone else.

If you can't link to statistics, you shouldn't bring this up. The wonderful thing about internet debates is that the opponent can check everything you say, and has enough time to do so at his leisure.

 

[aelreth]

I'll take your non-response to the punishment section as conceding.

An empty gun is as dangerous as an empty car. In other words, safe for the time being, but not to be used carelessly.

"How and when a loaded gun becomes dangerous?" Gee, I wonder. A loaded gun is in a position that, if treated carelessly, will kill people. Ignoring this makes reference to that illusory world you brought up earlier. A loaded gun is a dangerous weapon. That's the whole point of the gun. Giving someone the power to shoot and kill someone else.

If you can't link to statistics, you shouldn't bring this up. The wonderful thing about internet debates is that the opponent can check everything you say, and has enough time to do so at his leisure.

Yet you were never the person that brought up the point with punishment. The entire basis of your argument is moot.

So is shooting someone a careless action and therefore unsafe under every circumstance?

How does one make it so you can shoot safely?

Can there ever be a case where not shooting someone would be also unsafe?

 

[144_v1legacy]

I'll take your non-response to the punishment section as conceding.

An empty gun is as dangerous as an empty car. In other words, safe for the time being, but not to be used carelessly.

"How and when a loaded gun becomes dangerous?" Gee, I wonder. A loaded gun is in a position that, if treated carelessly, will kill people. Ignoring this makes reference to that illusory world you brought up earlier. A loaded gun is a dangerous weapon. That's the whole point of the gun. Giving someone the power to shoot and kill someone else.

If you can't link to statistics, you shouldn't bring this up. The wonderful thing about internet debates is that the opponent can check everything you say, and has enough time to do so at his leisure.

Yet you were never the person that brought up the point with punishment. The entire basis of your argument is moot.

So is shooting someone a careless action and therefore unsafe under every circumstance?

How does one make it so you can shoot safely?

Can there ever be a case where not shooting someone would be also unsafe?

Earlier, I implied that you might not be reading the entirety of those posts that you respond to. Once again, this is shown, because you speak in extremes, taking any point I make as an item you want to hear, and not what I actually said. Also, the point about punishment was something you brought up. I responded to it. For no reason does that make any argument moot. This is you backing away from part of an argument you've lost, showing you'd rather not have the argument anymore than defend a position, the opposite of which has too much strength against it.

Shooting carefully isn't careless. Shooting carelessly is careless. Careless handling of firearms is dangerous. The ownership of a gun by an insane individual is dangerous. There are too many examples in favor of this statement to deny it. I don't see why this is so difficult to get across. I'm trying to dumb it down as much as I can, but you seem to be reading something that isn't written.

So, before responding this time, go back and reread the posts before a few times, let my intentions (hopefully made clearer in the context of this post) sink in, and try to react like a mature individual instead of the radical stereotype I see you as approaching.

 

[aelreth]

I'll take your non-response to the punishment section as conceding.

An empty gun is as dangerous as an empty car. In other words, safe for the time being, but not to be used carelessly.

"How and when a loaded gun becomes dangerous?" Gee, I wonder. A loaded gun is in a position that, if treated carelessly, will kill people. Ignoring this makes reference to that illusory world you brought up earlier. A loaded gun is a dangerous weapon. That's the whole point of the gun. Giving someone the power to shoot and kill someone else.

If you can't link to statistics, you shouldn't bring this up. The wonderful thing about internet debates is that the opponent can check everything you say, and has enough time to do so at his leisure.

Yet you were never the person that brought up the point with punishment. The entire basis of your argument is moot.

So is shooting someone a careless action and therefore unsafe under every circumstance?

How does one make it so you can shoot safely?

Can there ever be a case where not shooting someone would be also unsafe?

Earlier, I implied that you might not be reading the entirety of those posts that you respond to. Once again, this is shown, because you speak in extremes, taking any point I make as an item you want to hear, and not what I actually said. Also, the point about punishment was something you brought up. I responded to it. For no reason does that make any argument moot. This is you backing away from part of an argument you've lost, showing you'd rather not have the argument anymore than defend a position, the opposite of which has too much strength against it.

Shooting carefully isn't careless. Shooting carelessly is careless. Careless handling of firearms is dangerous. The ownership of a gun by an insane individual is dangerous. There are too many examples in favor of this statement to deny it. I don't see why this is so difficult to get across. I'm trying to dumb it down as much as I can, but you seem to be reading something that isn't written.

So, before responding this time, go back and reread the posts before a few times, let my intentions (hopefully made clearer in the context of this post) sink in, and try to react like a mature individual instead of the radical stereotype I see you as approaching.

There was a time not very long ago when we taught firearms safety in American schools prior to sex-ed. They also had high school rifle teams. Teaching basic firearms safety would reduce the number of deaths from negligent discharges there are in the United States. Even the Dick Cheney had one, non-fatal though. These deaths result from complacency and ignorance, which is at the end of the day the cause of most accidents fatal or not.

How does shooting someone carelessly happen? You only point your muzzle at something you want to shoot. You are fully responsible and accountable for everything you do. People that are 'insane' and therefore 'not accountable' for what they do should have been identified long ago. During this identification process these people should be brought to a trial where they can have their right to bear arms suspended until such a time they can prove they can be held accountable for their actions. Even now if they are brought before a court and this occurs, they will be flagged as among those that can't be sold a firearm during a NCIS check IAW current law.

I have yet to see why I should be civil to you when you insist on taking the best tools of defense against attacks on my person and property away from me. Quite frankly you should go out to a range and learn to shoot, you might learn about firearms.