Interesting. Canada just recently passed bill C.250, which would make it a federal crime punishable by up to 5 years in prison to denounce the morality of homosexuality.
That's right - not 'go forth and kill gays!'. Simply a public statement of 'I think homosexuality is immoral'. This is now a straight up throught crime. I'm sorry Mr. Free Canadian, but you guys are circling the bowl in terms of core rights. Your government can literally put you in jail for expressing a non-inflammatory opionion. That is true loss of freedom.
I'm not sure whether to take this as a joke or not.
What about sharp sticks? They're sure great offensive weapons - cavemen thought so! Surely a mugger will be more likely to have one of these as a tool of his trade if all else fails. Should we therefore ban sticks, sharp and otherwise?
I was implying that in England, where actual hanguns are illegal, it is highly likely that replicas are as well - especially if one attempts to use it threateningly. Not sure if that's the case, but if I had to make a guess I'd bet on it.
Ehhhhh, technically no. Godwin's law says that one party is accusing another party of being a Nazi either directly or indirectly. I was simply using the Nazi/Holocaust example as an extreme counter-example to my foe. Not in any way implying he himself is a Nazi, or Nazi-like.
Ok. 5'0", 95 pound woman vs. 6'2" 210 pound man. Knees, eyepoke, pepper spray gonna work? Or in this case is it just a matter of::shrug::, can't save everyone?
Who said anything about the bomb? Not I.
'It's obvious to me that no one can convince you that a gun is bad'. That's an interesting statement. A gun is an inanimate object. Seems to me, the correct statement here might be 'no one can convince you a gun sometimes has a legitimate purpose'. Calling it 'good' or 'bad' is simply innacurate. The Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto sure found a legit use for one. Perhaps you have images of some crazed, frothing at the mouth NRA gun nut just looking for an excuse to plug someone? Admittedly, that's the image you're innundated with. Frankly, it's wrong.
As for 'it's only purpose is to kill!' argument. The implication here is that simply being in the presence of a gun will cause me or someome else to become some crazy mindless killer. This indicates that you'd be afraid of me if you knew I could be carrying a gun. Why would that be? Because I have the capacity to kill you in an instant? Why, then, are you not afraid of say, one of your co-workers coming into work one day and smashing your skull in with an aluminum bat? Or picking up the bagel knife and driving into your back? Pretty easy to do on an unexpecting person. If you have reason to believe people are simply incapable of restraining themselves when they get angry - you should be afraid at every moment in your life.
If, on the other hand, you believe people are basically good, you should feel secure around armed citizenry, just like you'd feel safe running to a police officer or a National Guardsmen in an emergency.
Nay, I would go so far as to say you're simply hoplophobic. Irrational fear of an inanimate object, causing you to accept irrational 'truths' such as : it would be better for you and your child to die than to pull the trigger on the knife-wielding psychopath who has invaded your home.
Again : Are you asserting that the woman raped and strangled with her own pantyhose is somehow superior or more desirable than the on with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet?
We can make hand-wringy assertions about the sanctity of life all day. But at some point, that guy has decided to actively put my life at risk. If your contention that it is somehow wrong for me to stop that eventuality from occuring, even at the possible expense of the assailants life then I guess we just live on a different planet, and we'll have to be happy with that.
This may be trite : but that kind of argument could have been used to allow the Nazis to exterminate a whole lot more than 6 million Jews, or to assert that the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was immoral, or other such drivel.
That's exactly right. In our (Western) civilization, we theoretically make no distinction between those at the top and those at the bottom.
When government officials and 'powerful' people like Oprah, Rosie O'Donnell, and other wealthy people can afford to have submachinegun-armed security, but it is illegal for me to take a baseball bat to someone coming at me with a knife - there's a problem. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as we like to say in the US, begins with life. If it is illegal to defend my life with all I can bring to bear, then yes, I am for all intents and purposes a tax-paying serf.
The real kicker in that case : one of the burglars sued the homeowner for 'loss of earnings'. I recall a case years ago in the US where a burglar entered someone's home, ended up breaking his leg in the process completely on his own, and successfully sued the homeowner.
Er, yes. That's my point. Self defense is so devalued in the UK that it is illegal to pepper spray someone. It's unbelievably ludicrous that someone (a disabled man in this case, mind you) cannot even carry something to give them even a miniscule amount of protection.
Having the option is what seperates the free man from the serf.
As kooky/dogmatic as that sounds, that's really yhe gist of it. How can one be free if you have to worry about 'The Man' coming down on you for merely defending yourself?
Probably the most succinct way I've ever seen it put was : "Freedom begins with saying 'no'. "
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. You're forgetting, that in 100% of the cases, someone who was in imminent physical danger caused by their assailant came out alive. It is the attacker who chose to put my life in danger. It is ludicrous to suggest that I 'restrain' myself for fear of harming this poor soul. My life is put in danger against my will.
We're not arguing 'hey that guy is looking at me funny....BLAM BLAM BLAM'. We're arguing about a situation where you feel your life is in acute danger.
That's kind of an odd conclusion. Criminals are dumb, yes. But a guy who wants to rob you for some cash, is extremely aware of the difference between robbery and 2nd degree murder. Simply put - robbers don't just gun you down to take a few hundred bucks off you. And if they were the type to do that - well, they'd certainly cut your throat or stab you in the back if a gun isn't available.
As you say, using a knife takes skill. However, using a gun effectively at close range takes a lot less. But that is precisely the reason it is more practical for self defense. When you take a lethal force class, what they tell you is, your objective is not to -kill- your attacker, it is to -stop- him. If he is threatening your life, the point is to make that stop. Your best chance of doing this is with a gun. Contingencies for a guy who also has a gun - absolutely - as I said in another thread, you'd be crazy to pull a gun in some wacky quickdraw attempt on someone already holding you at gunpoint.
But barring that situation (where everything is moot), a handgun is what will give you the strongest likelihood of a.) coming out of the situation alive and b.) less importantly, but still something to consider - with all your 'stuff'.
Heck yes. I live in Illinois, where the politicians regularly try to find ways to turn me into a felon. However, even if I lived in a CCW friendly state, I'm not sure if I'd ever carry. I'd get my license for sure, but carrying - I dunno. I'm a competent shooter, and I'd certainly take a pistol defense course. But even still - guns aren't PC - all it takes is the wrong caliber, or maybe even the wrong skin color on my assailant, and I could be up a creek.
Aside from the likelihood that replicas are probably illegal, it's a fine idea. However, if you need to use it, you're still in a bit of a spot.
It's like crazy coloration on insects or snakes who aren't really poisonous, but want to look like those that are. Good enough until that frog tries to bite you - if you're lying he ain't gonna spit you out:)
Again, I suspect you're being deliberately 'confused' as to what I'm saying. So I will clarify :
I'm saying that pulling the concealed weapon is when the deterrence begins. It is not when the weapon is fired and it is definitely not when you're simply concealing it.
Certainly, if someone already has a gun on you, pulling a gun is extremely dumb. The idea behind concealed carry is not a western quick-draw competition. That's a lovely image the gun control groups love to see invoked - but it doesn't jive with the realities of how most gun-defense situations unfold. Not even remotely. But we're not talking about those situations. We're talking about the situation where you feel things are about to go south and physical violence might take place. If you carry a weapon, you at least have the option of well, weighing your options and deciding what makes you safest.
That's an interesting twist on the realities of the situation.
Consider : your assertion is that the (unarmed) serf is less likely to come to harm than the (armed) cowboy.
How is it you're coming to this conclusion? Why do the police carry weapons? Why do we have militaries? Is it only a matter of training that differentiates between those who should be allowed and those should be disallowed to carry firearms? If yes - well then why not allow everyone to get the training and then carry? If no - maybe you ought to do a little more research on the definition of 'serf'.
The Magna Carta was a big step in the right direction of getting rid of the distinction between the priveleged and 'the rest of us'. Not trusting people to defend themselves is a bad step in the other direction. 'Guns' are only the tip of the iceberg of self defense issues in the UK - the situation is far worse than simply not being able own a pistol.
It takes extreme myopia for someone to make this kind of statement.
Is it really that hard to understand that the gun is a deterrent, not a 'thugicide'? The firing of a gun in self defense is literally that - self defense. When you pull a gun (hopefully after taking one or more courses in lethal force usage) you are sending a message to the criminal : this episode is over.
90% of all self defense situations involving firearms are happily resolved without the gun being fired. That's the intention : pure deterrance with the added insurance of being able to use it in an acute emergency. That's a win for everyone.
The image the gun control crowd loves is people simply pulling a gun at every possible instance and spraying. That's simply not consistent with reality - nor is the very silly 'it'll just get taken away from you' myth.
Ah, so your comment implies that, it's a-ok for women to carry a weapon to defend themselves if and only if they feel in danger of a rape.
The point is - muggings aren't always 'why here sir, here is your cash'. They often involve physical violence. It doesn't take much to have your head caved in, or your limbs broken.
When a mugger is staring down the barrel of a gun, statistically speaking - neither the crime happens, nor is the gun fired. The gun is the best deterrent there is - whether it's a rape or a violent mugging.
Once you start putting qualifiers on violent crimes, innocents start to die.
So, you're basically asserting that a woman raped and strangled with her own pantyhose is somehow preferable to one with a smoking gun and a rapist at her feet?
England has (very famously) prosecuted a disabled man for using pepper spray for fighting off a mugger. I hardly think a concealed carry permit is even a remote possibility, seeing as how practically all firearms have been 100% banned in the country.
The basic freedom of self defense is seriously eroded in the UK. I have to chuckle when people like to throw around "Oh, Europe is truly free compared to the US.". Sorry - if you can't even fight off a mugger with pepper spray, you're a serf. Nothing more.
Hysterically, you got marked as 'Flamebait'.....for essentially contradicting the viewpoint that 'liberals are the bastions of free speech'.
There's irony in there somewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. What a fantastic tyrant you'd make.
Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
- William Pitt
That's right - not 'go forth and kill gays!'. Simply a public statement of 'I think homosexuality is immoral'. This is now a straight up throught crime. I'm sorry Mr. Free Canadian, but you guys are circling the bowl in terms of core rights. Your government can literally put you in jail for expressing a non-inflammatory opionion. That is true loss of freedom.
What about sharp sticks? They're sure great offensive weapons - cavemen thought so! Surely a mugger will be more likely to have one of these as a tool of his trade if all else fails. Should we therefore ban sticks, sharp and otherwise?
I was implying that in England, where actual hanguns are illegal, it is highly likely that replicas are as well - especially if one attempts to use it threateningly. Not sure if that's the case, but if I had to make a guess I'd bet on it.
Well......dangit.
Who said anything about the bomb? Not I.
'It's obvious to me that no one can convince you that a gun is bad'. That's an interesting statement. A gun is an inanimate object. Seems to me, the correct statement here might be 'no one can convince you a gun sometimes has a legitimate purpose'. Calling it 'good' or 'bad' is simply innacurate. The Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto sure found a legit use for one. Perhaps you have images of some crazed, frothing at the mouth NRA gun nut just looking for an excuse to plug someone? Admittedly, that's the image you're innundated with. Frankly, it's wrong.
As for 'it's only purpose is to kill!' argument. The implication here is that simply being in the presence of a gun will cause me or someome else to become some crazy mindless killer. This indicates that you'd be afraid of me if you knew I could be carrying a gun. Why would that be? Because I have the capacity to kill you in an instant? Why, then, are you not afraid of say, one of your co-workers coming into work one day and smashing your skull in with an aluminum bat? Or picking up the bagel knife and driving into your back? Pretty easy to do on an unexpecting person. If you have reason to believe people are simply incapable of restraining themselves when they get angry - you should be afraid at every moment in your life.
If, on the other hand, you believe people are basically good, you should feel secure around armed citizenry, just like you'd feel safe running to a police officer or a National Guardsmen in an emergency.
Nay, I would go so far as to say you're simply hoplophobic. Irrational fear of an inanimate object, causing you to accept irrational 'truths' such as : it would be better for you and your child to die than to pull the trigger on the knife-wielding psychopath who has invaded your home.
We can make hand-wringy assertions about the sanctity of life all day. But at some point, that guy has decided to actively put my life at risk. If your contention that it is somehow wrong for me to stop that eventuality from occuring, even at the possible expense of the assailants life then I guess we just live on a different planet, and we'll have to be happy with that.
This may be trite : but that kind of argument could have been used to allow the Nazis to exterminate a whole lot more than 6 million Jews, or to assert that the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was immoral, or other such drivel.
When government officials and 'powerful' people like Oprah, Rosie O'Donnell, and other wealthy people can afford to have submachinegun-armed security, but it is illegal for me to take a baseball bat to someone coming at me with a knife - there's a problem. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as we like to say in the US, begins with life. If it is illegal to defend my life with all I can bring to bear, then yes, I am for all intents and purposes a tax-paying serf.
Yes indeed, the inmates are running the asylum.
Er, yes. That's my point. Self defense is so devalued in the UK that it is illegal to pepper spray someone. It's unbelievably ludicrous that someone (a disabled man in this case, mind you) cannot even carry something to give them even a miniscule amount of protection.
As kooky/dogmatic as that sounds, that's really yhe gist of it. How can one be free if you have to worry about 'The Man' coming down on you for merely defending yourself?
Probably the most succinct way I've ever seen it put was : "Freedom begins with saying 'no'. "
We're not arguing 'hey that guy is looking at me funny....BLAM BLAM BLAM'. We're arguing about a situation where you feel your life is in acute danger.
As you say, using a knife takes skill. However, using a gun effectively at close range takes a lot less. But that is precisely the reason it is more practical for self defense. When you take a lethal force class, what they tell you is, your objective is not to -kill- your attacker, it is to -stop- him. If he is threatening your life, the point is to make that stop. Your best chance of doing this is with a gun. Contingencies for a guy who also has a gun - absolutely - as I said in another thread, you'd be crazy to pull a gun in some wacky quickdraw attempt on someone already holding you at gunpoint.
But barring that situation (where everything is moot), a handgun is what will give you the strongest likelihood of a.) coming out of the situation alive and b.) less importantly, but still something to consider - with all your 'stuff'.
Heck yes. I live in Illinois, where the politicians regularly try to find ways to turn me into a felon. However, even if I lived in a CCW friendly state, I'm not sure if I'd ever carry. I'd get my license for sure, but carrying - I dunno. I'm a competent shooter, and I'd certainly take a pistol defense course. But even still - guns aren't PC - all it takes is the wrong caliber, or maybe even the wrong skin color on my assailant, and I could be up a creek.
Still, the option would be nice.
It's like crazy coloration on insects or snakes who aren't really poisonous, but want to look like those that are. Good enough until that frog tries to bite you - if you're lying he ain't gonna spit you out :)
I'm saying that pulling the concealed weapon is when the deterrence begins. It is not when the weapon is fired and it is definitely not when you're simply concealing it.
Certainly, if someone already has a gun on you, pulling a gun is extremely dumb. The idea behind concealed carry is not a western quick-draw competition. That's a lovely image the gun control groups love to see invoked - but it doesn't jive with the realities of how most gun-defense situations unfold. Not even remotely. But we're not talking about those situations. We're talking about the situation where you feel things are about to go south and physical violence might take place. If you carry a weapon, you at least have the option of well, weighing your options and deciding what makes you safest.
Consider : your assertion is that the (unarmed) serf is less likely to come to harm than the (armed) cowboy.
How is it you're coming to this conclusion? Why do the police carry weapons? Why do we have militaries? Is it only a matter of training that differentiates between those who should be allowed and those should be disallowed to carry firearms? If yes - well then why not allow everyone to get the training and then carry? If no - maybe you ought to do a little more research on the definition of 'serf'.
The Magna Carta was a big step in the right direction of getting rid of the distinction between the priveleged and 'the rest of us'. Not trusting people to defend themselves is a bad step in the other direction. 'Guns' are only the tip of the iceberg of self defense issues in the UK - the situation is far worse than simply not being able own a pistol.
Clearly, the answer is a 1911. Non of that sissy boy plastic gun stuff ;p
Is it really that hard to understand that the gun is a deterrent, not a 'thugicide'? The firing of a gun in self defense is literally that - self defense. When you pull a gun (hopefully after taking one or more courses in lethal force usage) you are sending a message to the criminal : this episode is over.
90% of all self defense situations involving firearms are happily resolved without the gun being fired. That's the intention : pure deterrance with the added insurance of being able to use it in an acute emergency. That's a win for everyone.
The image the gun control crowd loves is people simply pulling a gun at every possible instance and spraying. That's simply not consistent with reality - nor is the very silly 'it'll just get taken away from you' myth.
The point is - muggings aren't always 'why here sir, here is your cash'. They often involve physical violence. It doesn't take much to have your head caved in, or your limbs broken.
When a mugger is staring down the barrel of a gun, statistically speaking - neither the crime happens, nor is the gun fired. The gun is the best deterrent there is - whether it's a rape or a violent mugging.
Once you start putting qualifiers on violent crimes, innocents start to die.
Are we so conceited that an opinion like this, shared by probably 90% of the world is dismissed offhand by our 'enlightened' geek sensibilities?
Or, perhaps it was just the word "gun" and not the content of the message that caused our moderators to act rashly.
Either way - for shame. Geeks value discussion; not dismissal of it offhand.
So, you're basically asserting that a woman raped and strangled with her own pantyhose is somehow preferable to one with a smoking gun and a rapist at her feet?
The basic freedom of self defense is seriously eroded in the UK. I have to chuckle when people like to throw around "Oh, Europe is truly free compared to the US.". Sorry - if you can't even fight off a mugger with pepper spray, you're a serf. Nothing more.
Hysterically, you got marked as 'Flamebait'.....for essentially contradicting the viewpoint that 'liberals are the bastions of free speech'. There's irony in there somewhere.