Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Dangerousman » Tue May 01, 2012 12:06 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:Are you saying that the prosecutor was lying?


The 911 call speaks for itself. And did the prosecutor say Zimmerman was released with his gun?

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 21619
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Henry Vilas » Tue May 01, 2012 12:15 pm

Dangerousman wrote:
Henry Vilas wrote:Are you saying that the prosecutor was lying?

The 911 call speaks for itself.

And the prosecutor speaks for the state. If he was lying, then he risks legal consequences.

Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9647
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Tue May 01, 2012 12:20 pm

Dangerousman wrote:Wagstaff, I don't remember asking what do the stupid people think.
I can't take anything you say seriously if you continually fail to understand the discussion and miss the point. At a certain point I refuse to talk to a wall. It's not that complex, but evidently over your head. I can dumb it down only so far for you before I give up. Do I have to bring out a doll so you can point at the spot? Would a box of crayons and paper help you? What does it take?


Wow.
I think I just broke D-Man's brain.

Really unclear what this rant is in response to. The part of my response where I said you're too smart to be quibbling over my username? The part where I explained how "identical" men are irrelevant to discussions about the real-world consequences of guns? Or the part where I handily refuted your assertion that guns are not more deadly than knives? Who are the "stupid people", exactly? The scientists I linked to? The non-identical gun-wielders? Me specifically?

I mean, if I'm "missing the point", that's your fault, not mine. After all, I didn't really make any points of my own, I merely refuted one of yours. So if your original comment was irrelevant to the discussion you want to have, why'd you make it in the first place?

fisticuffs
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7981
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Slightly outside of Madison
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby fisticuffs » Tue May 01, 2012 12:29 pm

Good work Forons. Another productive conversation about guns with Dangerousman. Hope we all learned something.

jman111
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3614
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby jman111 » Tue May 01, 2012 12:55 pm

fisticuffs wrote:Good work Forons. Another productive conversation about guns with Dangerousman. Hope we all learned something.

These conversations don't necessarily have to be this way.
However, the evidence is mounting.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Dangerousman » Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm

fisticuffs wrote:Good work Forons.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rNXP2ndT9M

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Dangerousman » Tue May 01, 2012 2:45 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:Wagstaff, I don't remember asking what do the stupid people think.
I can't take anything you say seriously if you continually fail to understand the discussion and miss the point. At a certain point I refuse to talk to a wall. It's not that complex, but evidently over your head. I can dumb it down only so far for you before I give up. Do I have to bring out a doll so you can point at the spot? Would a box of crayons and paper help you? What does it take?


Wow.
I think I just broke D-Man's brain.

Really unclear what this rant is in response to. The part of my response where I said you're too smart to be quibbling over my username? The part where I explained how "identical" men are irrelevant to discussions about the real-world consequences of guns? Or the part where I handily refuted your assertion that guns are not more deadly than knives? Who are the "stupid people", exactly? The scientists I linked to? The non-identical gun-wielders? Me specifically?

I mean, if I'm "missing the point", that's your fault, not mine. After all, I didn't really make any points of my own, I merely refuted one of yours. So if your original comment was irrelevant to the discussion you want to have, why'd you make it in the first place?


I didn't "quibble" over your name, I laughed at the irony.

You refuted nothing. You're trying to measure how deadly something is by the number of people killed by it. If you invented a Star Trek phaser gun, by your logic if it hasn't yet killed anyone it's a less deadly weapon than a screwdriver. And you'd be saying swords are more deadly than nukes because more people have died due to swords. Nonsense.

I was comparing the inherent capability for death and injury between knives and guns. I said which is more deadly depends on the circumstances. I gave examples of when one is more deadly than the other and vice versa. My statement is supported by logic, reason, empirical evidence and the opinion of experts. You're only supported by your failure to comprehend and self-congratulatory opinion of yourself. You missed the point. If you're still missing it then you'll continue to be the 6th grader in a graduate level seminar.

jman111
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3614
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby jman111 » Tue May 01, 2012 3:01 pm

Dangerousman wrote:I was comparing the inherent capability for death and injury between knives and guns. I said which is more deadly depends on the circumstances. I gave examples of when one is more deadly than the other and vice versa. My statement is supported by logic, reason, empirical evidence and the opinion of experts. You're only supported by your failure to comprehend and self-congratulatory opinion of yourself. You missed the point. If you're still missing it then you'll continue to be the 6th grader in a graduate level seminar.

Okay. It appears we can agree that different objects have different degrees of "deadliness" under different circumstances. In the examples discussed, one object is not necessarily more deadly than another.

Dangerousman wrote:Finally, stand your ground and other self-defense laws have nothing to do with guns really. Those laws apply to self-defense by any means, armed or unarmed. If one uses their hands, feet, a length of pipe or a shotgun it matters not-- the law by which they are judged applies equally to each instance. I know someone here will want to respond "but guns are more deadly." Well, not necessarily. Dead is dead regardless of the method used.


So, why include the last sentence?

jjoyce
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12168
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 4:48 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby jjoyce » Tue May 01, 2012 3:46 pm

One of the greats!

Dangerousman wrote:You're trying to measure how deadly something is by the number of people killed by it. If you invented a Star Trek phaser gun, by your logic if it hasn't yet killed anyone it's a less deadly weapon than a screwdriver. And you'd be saying swords are more deadly than nukes because more people have died due to swords. Nonsense.

Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9647
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Tue May 01, 2012 3:56 pm

Dangerousman wrote:If you invented a Star Trek phaser gun, by your logic if it hasn't yet killed anyone it's a less deadly weapon than a screwdriver. And you'd be saying swords are more deadly than nukes because more people have died due to swords. Nonsense.
Of course, that's not my argument at all.

My argument is that under similar circumstances, a gun wound is more likely to result in death than all the other objects doctors see wounds from when treating victims of assault. You're arguing hypotheticals (weapons which haven't been invented) and irrelevant historical examples (swords), but the links I provided are very clearly comparing similar events which actually happen in the modern world and result in injury or death.

If people who wind up in ERs and morgues are not indicators of which of all the objects in the world is most likely to kill you, I can't imagine what you'd think is.

jjoyce
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12168
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 4:48 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby jjoyce » Tue May 01, 2012 4:04 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:My argument is that under similar circumstances, a gun wound is more likely to result in death than all the other objects doctors see wounds from when treating victims of assault.


What about a Chinese star? What about a bullet shot with a wrist rocket? What about a flaming bullet shot with a wrist rocket? What about a flaming Chinese start shot with a wrist rocket?

DCB
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3253
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby DCB » Tue May 01, 2012 4:50 pm

jjoyce wrote:
Prof. Wagstaff wrote:My argument is that under similar circumstances, a gun wound is more likely to result in death than all the other objects doctors see wounds from when treating victims of assault.


What about a Chinese star? What about a bullet shot with a wrist rocket? What about a flaming bullet shot with a wrist rocket? What about a flaming Chinese start shot with a wrist rocket?

What about a flaming electrified Chinese star coated in poison shot with a wrist rocket?

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12946
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby snoqueen » Tue May 01, 2012 6:14 pm

This topic has managed to take away any shred of respect I was willing to offer the gun nut-concealed carry crowd.

First we get a whole series of news stories where people got killed with a gun. In most or nearly all of them, it was easy to come up with another solution to the perceived problem that did not involve killing somebody. If the purpose was to illustrate how great it is to use a gun to solve a whole range of problems, it was counterproductive. I'm quite sure no converts were made. (Please speak up if you went out and bought a gun after reading these stories, and share your line of reasoning.)

Then Dman, whose contributions I've previously defended on this forum, starts getting hostile -- of all the people who shouldn't need to get defensive seeing that he's probably armed while sitting at his laptop in his own livingroom. Being short tempered and carrying a gun at the same time at the very least sets a bad example and I'm beginning to agree with the contributor who says his gun-owning friends are getting uneasy with the kind of people who are starting to arm up. (I second this, on personal observation in my everyday life. I'm seeing some real twits out there, like the flaky over-drinking sons of some very dismayed friends.)

Then the discussion wanders off into a world where someone is trying to prove guns are less dangerous than other weapons or cars -- or something. I don't know where you're going with that but it might help to ask someone on the front lines, like an EMT on ambulance duty, someone who works in the emergency room, or a cop. The mortality numbers speak for themselves. And if a gun is less dangerous, why do all these people want one?

These silly arguments only underscore the way we've gone from a state where guns were used in hunting and sports by experienced people (who have taken safety courses, generally, or even taught them) to where they're a fad item carried by posers who couldn't be trusted with a burnt out match, pretending they're nothing but coolness and fun.

And count me in on being sick of the euphemisms being tossed around. Shooting a person is shooting a person. Killing a person is killing a person. This is more Republican-style BS and by now everybody knows it when they hear it. "Castle doctrine" doesn't stir a warm feeling in my heart any more than "job creators" or "no child left behind" so let's call things by their real names instead of hiding behind clever words.

Donald
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2516
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2002 4:53 pm
Location: Madison
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Donald » Tue May 01, 2012 10:29 pm

Yeah, ditto Snoqueen.

I don't have a problem with guns, concealed carry, etc. I grew up with guns in the closet, and hunting was a big part of the culture where I grew up. I lived in states with very relaxed gun laws, and, for the most part, my fellow liberals' worries about this are vastly overstated.

The problem I have is there are growing number of people owning guns now who are just teetering on the edge of rationality. And we've seen some of that on this thread. Many of these gun nuts never learned to have a respect for the dangerous side of guns. They conceal carry them or have them around the house like they are bottled water. Some have a warped personality that attracts them to the dangerous side of gun culture. Some others are paranoid about crime or blacks or the gov'ment, scared shitless little worms who think they have an equalizer. Once they have a gun, they lose whatever is left of their rationality.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Dangerousman » Tue May 01, 2012 11:21 pm

Alright, I get it. You've collectively decided to take the "let's all act dense" approach. Only one thing, I'm not sure you're acting.


Return to “Headlines”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests