Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
burntheman
Trad climber
slt
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2013 - 01:03pm PT
|
peep hole much?
|
|
burntheman
Trad climber
slt
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2013 - 01:24pm PT
|
...and i suppose we all see it through a different lens. i said the intruder made a convincing case for gun ownership, not the woman. and certainly your lack of situational awareness doesn't make a good case, either.
but, fortunately, the 2nd amendant doesn't budge at the right to defend your home and family because of an example that didn't work out for somebody else.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2013 - 01:51pm PT
|
Locker,
I don't use ATMs, but if I did I would be very wary before doing so, as well as afterward.
Do you always open the door without finding who is behind it?
Your suggestion that a gun wouldn't have benefitted you is predicated on a string of errors.
The best warrior is the one who out-thinks his opponent enough to avoid battle.
|
|
Banks
Trad climber
Santa Monica, CA
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2013 - 02:54pm PT
|
One of my buddys came out of kragen auto in the middle of the day to find two idgets going through his truck. He told them to stop- they told him they would hurt him. He drew his glock 40 and said " I dont think so".
And what if the two guys pulled guns on your buddy as he was drawing his glock? He has now escalated a situation greatly increasing the chance of someone getting hurt and/or killed.
If I walk up on two guys going through my stuff and they threaten me with violence, I get a safe distance away and call the cops. The loss of some of my property is not worth risk of bodily harm.
And herein lies one of the great divides in the "gun debate". Gun nuts think the answer to every situation is the introduction of firearms into the mix. The rest of us will find a solution without escalation.
|
|
Banks
Trad climber
Santa Monica, CA
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2013 - 04:30pm PT
|
Yes Ron, he had "da drop" on 'em. Lucky for your buddy that they were un-armed or decided not to engage. But I said what if they decided to draw on your buddy as he was drawing on them. Then what? What if they had a third guy in a getaway car(who your buddy doesn't even know about) who decides to join the fun? Then what?
These situations usually are not as simple as you try to make them out to be and drawing weapons tends to make things real messy real fast.
And the macho "not going to be a victim of any sort" thinking is what gets people into these situations in the first place.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2013 - 04:37pm PT
|
Banks, what is your address in Santa Monica?
Predators would like to know where the easiest prey is.
|
|
Banks
Trad climber
Santa Monica, CA
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2013 - 05:01pm PT
|
For all those criminals out there reading The Taco looking for a score, my address is .......
|
|
SteveW
Trad climber
The state of confusion
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2013 - 05:42pm PT
|
" How many times can a man turn his head and pretend that he just doesn't see. . ." Dylan
|
|
Harvey Manfrenjensen
Big Wall climber
Bob
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2013 - 07:35pm PT
|
Americans are the most violent people on the planet ......
Don't get out much, huh?
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2013 - 07:42pm PT
|
Yeah, Werner is a riot in a box.
Turns out the kid was pissed he got booted fromthe debating team!
Went out and bought a pump 12, but didn't understand that debates can be won by merely pumping one of those monsters without firing a shot.
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2013 - 08:44pm PT
|
Banks youve a nice sheeple attitude.
Yes, everyone walk in fear, being as well armed as possible while ready to draw at a moments notice to any one that might look suspicious. Can't let them get the drop.
Might is right, right?
Life is great.
|
|
Harvey Manfrenjensen
Big Wall climber
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2013 - 08:54pm PT
|
Interesting logic. You should probably take the tire iron and jack out of your car so you don't have to live in fear of getting a flat.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2013 - 08:56pm PT
|
I just got rid of all the fire extinguishers for the same reason.
I was afraid they would be more likely to cause my own house to burn down, instead of someone else's.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2013 - 09:28pm PT
|
And climbing ropes make it more likely you'll fall.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2013 - 02:48am PT
|
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2013 - 04:33am PT
|
Uh huh... and in the following seventeen years, three of the four mass murders in Australia were indeed not from firearms... they were mass murders by arson:
2000 -- Arson attack by Robert Paul Long that killed 15 people
2009 -- Arson attack by Brendan Sokaluk that killed 10 people
2011 -- Arson attack by Roger Kingsley Dean that killed 11 people
Prior to 1997 (the year of sweeping gun control), not a single mass murder by arson occurred in Australia.
Australia already had a very low incidence of mass violence prior to sweeping gun control, and, with less than 23 million people on a huge island-continent, Australia as a NATION has far fewer people than the almost 40 million in California alone. And their demographic is far more, shall we say, "peaceable" than the demographic of most of California.
Many points could be made about this vast population-density disparity, but one obvious fact is that less densely-packed people don't kill each other by any means nearly as frequently as more densely-packed people.
Virtually banning guns certainly did not keep Australians from killing each other en mass. The mass murderers simply turned to fire as the preferred weapon of choice. Even so, of the four mass murder incidents in Australia since 1996, one incident was still a shooting (at a university) that killed two and wounding five others. So, sweeping gun control didn't even eliminate mass murder by gun. It reduced it. But....
Of note is that in the previous 17 years (comparable time period) forty-five people were killed en mass by firearms, although seven of them were killed during a single rumble between two rival biker-gangs, leaving 38 killed as victims of true "mass murders." Since 1996, 36 have been mass-murdered just by arson.
So, literally, not counting the watershed mass shooting in 1996, the number killed in mass murderers by arson is almost exactly equal to the number killed by firearms in a comparable time period. One whack job in 1996 killed enough people (35) in one incident that he turned the tide in Australia (and, in one incident, totally skewed statistical comparisons!), but since his rampage and the almost immediately-following gun control, a virtually equal number have been mass murdered by fire in a comparable time period. That one nut simply changed the weapon of choice in mass murders from guns to fire.
Now, mass murder by arson simply isn't as sexy to report as a mass shooting, partly because it does not provide any political traction. After all, nobody can call for a nationwide ban on fire just because a few whack jobs now and then intentionally target and take out a dozen or so people using it.
Again I'll say, the "argument appealing to whack jobs," as I'll call it, is very weak. At least in Australia, the whack jobs are killing almost as many people in a comparable time slice using fire as they previously killed using firearms (and they had not used fire prior to sweeping gun control). In fact, considered on a per-incident basis, the use of fire has proven to be a far more effective weapon! Even here in the US, the most notable mass murder by arson took out 87 people in a matter of about ten minutes!
If we managed the Australian effect here in the US via radical gun control, we'd just be getting news items of this or that whack job now and then fire-bombing a school.
Haters gonna hate. Killers gonna kill. And fire is actually a more effective weapon than guns any day, IF, that is, you feel like killing a lot of people in a single incident, which is the definition of mass murder we've been holding pretty constant on this thread.
And if you want to extend the definition to include as "mass murderers" those whack jobs that take out lots of people spread over long periods of time (actually better called "serial killers"), well, that doesn't help your gun control case at all; these "mass murderers" almost exclusively employ other weapons besides guns.
So, let's become like Australia and swap out our guns for fire bombs. The same number of kids roasting to death will surely have us feeling a lot better, because at least they didn't get shot. And that is what you can derive from your Australia example: prior to gun control, no mass murders done by fire; after gun control, virtually all mass murders done by fire.
Isn't statistical analysis fun? Pick your numbers, your time slice, what you'll include and leave out, and "prove" whatever you want! As Twain said: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."
EDIT: BTW, the "quote" in the picture is significantly misquoted.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2013 - 10:50am PT
|
Here is a thought.
Rather than ban guns, tax the sh#t out of them.
Income tax in America was instituted to allow Prohibition to be enacted. It was to be an alternative revenue source to make up for the loss of the enormous taxes generated by the booze biz in America. Prohibition failed but hey we still pay taxes. So lets tax guns and ammo to a point where we are generating loads of surplus revenue. Sure you can have all the guns and ammo you want and thanks for the new schools, hiways and infrastructure.
Not that is a win/win situation. Who knows in this gun nutter nation maybe we can raise enough tax monies to eliminate income tax entirely. Now the 1% can get on board.
Edited to add; Tax the weapons industry at the point of production like they used to do with booze. Let the manufacturers pass the costs to the consumer.
|
|
John Duffield
Mountain climber
New York
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2013 - 11:03am PT
|
I've heard, this new budget agreement has "user fees".
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2013 - 11:50am PT
|
Interesting logic. You should probably take the tire iron and jack out of your car so you don't have to live in fear of getting a flat.
You don't seem to be advocating carrying a gun in a safe place where you can go and get it when needed. With your logic you should carry the jack and tire iron strapped to your side.
Banks, what is your address in Santa Monica?
Predators would like to know where the easiest prey is.
Ron, where in Utah do you live so predators know to shoot you in the back instead of confronting you?
Edit,
Escalating the use of firearms comes with different tactics. Should we up it to the point where the best tactic is to shoot first, from either side?
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2013 - 12:41pm PT
|
And climbing ropes make it more likely you'll fall.
I'd agree. Many more falls roped up as opposed to unroped falls.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!