posted
And don't try to argue that the threat of a gun is enough. While it may be, there's always the possibility that you'll have to take a human life. So, yes, right here you're arguing that it is very permissible to shoot a mugger.
Once you've pulled out a gun, if he continues to advance, he is no longer a mugger, but an actual threat to one's person. I'd have no problem shooting him at that point, assuming he'd had an adequate chance to know that I was armed. And even then, I'd be likely to just shoot him in the butt or something.
Since you've obviously lost this debate to me, you must resort to mud slinging.
Let's see: you've misinterpreted everything I've said, ignored my explainations, ignored my answers to your questions, and ignored all attempts at reason. This isn't even a debate. It's a verbal slaughter. Yours.
----------
Example of a question you asked that I've already answered:
Best as I can tell, someone looks at you funny, and you want to blow them away. Please -- where have you clarified your beliefs?
My answer:
Go back and look at previous threads. You've made this statement multiple times, and multiple times have I pointed out that it has no relation to my beliefs.
------------------ "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, co-operate, act alone, solve equations, analyse a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, [and] die gallantly. Specialisation is for insects." - Woodrow Wilson Smith
quote:Once you've pulled out a gun, if he continues to advance, he is no longer a mugger, but an actual threat to one's person. I'd have no problem shooting him at that point, assuming he'd had an adequate chance to know that I was armed. And even then, I'd be likely to just shoot him in the butt or something.
He's a threat, so you're going to shoot him ... in the ass? That makes no sense, unless he's facing AWAY from you, in which case I don't see how he could be a threat to you. Also, how could he be a threat unless he had a gun as well (in which case, he'd probably shoot you as you went for your own gun, rendering the matter moot). Yes, I'd say if you were holding a gun, he'd recongize you were armed. Unless, of course, he wasn't facing you and you shot him in the butt. But if he's not facing you, I still don't see how he could be a threat.
But, please, explain what you meant by "something else." Could it be you posess the skill with a firearm to do what police agencies cannot? That is, shoot out someone's knee or arm to disable them? That's always the PD response when they shoot and kill someone: "We had to aim for the body mass, it's too stressful in those situations to aim for anything else."
But, apparently, you're like Errol Flynn, only with a gun. Wow.
quote:Let's see: you've misinterpreted everything I've said, ignored my explainations, ignored my answers to your questions, and ignored all attempts at reason. This isn't even a debate. It's a verbal slaughter. Yours.
Is this why you find the need to resort to insults?
quote:Go back and look at previous threads. You've made this statement multiple times, and multiple times have I pointed out that it has no relation to my beliefs.
That's not an answer. That's mis-direction. You've yet to post a quote by you that backs up your original statement. Misdirection is not a valid debating tactic. As far as I know, anyway, but then, you said insulting people wasn't valid either, but that didn't stop you.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001 **** And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 15, 2001).]
posted
I said "the butt, or something." Meaning that I would shoot him in the butt, or a similar area, which was also non-vital, but an easy target. Again, pay attention.
Is this why you find the need to resort to insults?
Oh, it's not a resort, or a need. It's a desire.
That's not an answer. That's mis-direction.
I'm not about to do your homework for you. You're challenging what I've said it previous threads. You go look it up. I have nothing to prove. You, on the other hand, have some chance to regain a shred of credibility if you prove me wrong. Be my guest.
------------------ "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, co-operate, act alone, solve equations, analyse a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, [and] die gallantly. Specialisation is for insects." - Woodrow Wilson Smith
quote:I said "the butt, or something." Meaning that I would shoot him in the butt, or a similar area, which was also non-vital, but an easy target. Again, pay attention.
Erm. I did, which is why I said:
But, please, explain what you meant by "something else." Could it be you posess the skill with a firearm to do what police agencies cannot? That is, shoot out someone's knee or arm to disable them? That's always the PD response when they shoot and kill someone: "We had to aim for the body mass, it's too stressful in those situations to aim for anything else."
Maybe you should be the one paying attention ... ?
quote:Oh, it's not a resort, or a need. It's a desire.
That makes it any more "valid" as a debating tactic? Tsk-tsk. It's an "el-hominem" or whatever.
I said:
But there's a big difference between doing that and shooting some guy in the back whose ripping your TV off, and I hope you understand the difference
You replied:
Why do I even bother typing all this stuff if you don't even read it? Go back and look at previous threads. You've made this statement multiple times, and multiple times have I pointed out that it has no relation to my beliefs. Do you even have a cerebellum in that melon of yours?
Simple question. Do you recognize the difference between someone ripping off some property; and someone pointing a gun at you? It's a "yes" or "no" answer. Not that difficult!
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001 **** And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 15, 2001).]
posted
I don't answer questions twice. It's a pet peeve of mine. If you don't remember the answer I've already given, it's your own darned fault. You want an answer? Well, you've gotten it. If you don't want to do some work of your own, it's not my problem. Why should I have to type up my beliefs umpteen times, while you're too lazy to even look through a recent thread?
------------------ "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, co-operate, act alone, solve equations, analyse a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, [and] die gallantly. Specialisation is for insects." - Woodrow Wilson Smith
Saiyanman Benjita
...in 2012. This time, why not the worst?
Member # 122
posted
You do of course realize that if you shoot them in a non-vital area, you will almost certainly land yourself in more trouble than if you killed them.
This is assuming the lack of guilt factor, as you already have a gun, and are prepared to use it.
On a different note, is it just me, or does JeffK and Omega seem to get in this argument every week?
------------------ You've got to be kidding! I'm wet, I'm naked, your sister is wearing my clothes And this is all part of some evil plot to rule the world as a soggy chimp in my BIRTHDAY SUIT???!!! Saiyanman Benjita's Dragonball Page
[This message has been edited by Saiyanman Benjita (edited March 15, 2001).]
quote:I don't answer questions twice. It's a pet peeve of mine. If you don't remember the answer I've already given, it's your own darned fault. You want an answer? Well, you've gotten it. If you don't want to do some work of your own, it's not my problem. Why should I have to type up my beliefs umpteen times, while you're too lazy to even look through a recent thread?
Okay -- so in other words, you don't recognize the difference between an unlawful shooting and a self-defense shooting? Very good. I have been unable to find any posts where you recognize the difference.
Since this is the only post you responded too, I take it I win on the other points? Gracias -- as always, it has been fun debating with you: although I must admit, I am always dissapointed when you resort to your ad-hominems. On the other hand, it is nice to see that you can now correctly spell "Britain."
I bid you adieu.
quote:On a different note, is it just me, or does JeffK and Omega seem to get in this argument every week?
This is the first gun debate in quite some time, actually. It does get tiring watching Omega beat the dead horse, tho. Maybe I should stop goading him on one of these days.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001 **** And homeschooling also turns you into a socially well-adjusted person, capable of talking to people without them wanting to ram a f***ing chair down your throat! - PsyLiam, 3/11/01
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 15, 2001).]
posted
Time for me to shift some poor boy's paradigms...
What I can't believe is that there's actually somebody so daft as to believe that ostriches ACTUALLY hide their heads in the sand. Too many WB cartoons.
"Hide your head in the sand," I can say with my English degree to back me up, is a WELL-KNOWN phrase whose SOLE etymology (origin and meaning) is FROM the ostrich legend, and means "to pretend a real problem does not exist." It has NO relation to 'cower in fear,' especially as the ostrich is actually a bird which strikes back viciously when cornered.
You might also want to brush up on your definition of the word "evil."
1: morally reprehensible (also part of definition #4 of 'crime' ie. "a morally reprehensible act", in Webster's 2: arising from bad character or conduct 3: causing discomfort or revulsion 4: causing harm 5: something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity.
"evildoer" - one who commits evil acts.
Now, since criminals do and are ALL of the above definitions, it naturally follows that it is CORRECT to describe them using the adjective 'evil', because they commit evil acts. They may not be Hitler or Stalin or Mao, but they're evil nonetheless. Your 'poor criminal' DOES NOT EXIST.
And notice that so far you've confined your objections to thieves. But there are other crimes, even more likely to require methods of self-defense, including assault, rape (oh, pity the poor rapist? You'll get nowhere with that one), stalking, home invasion with intent to do bodily harm, etc.
It's amazing how many opponents' arguments one can chop up simply by consulting reference materials, isn't it?
------------------ The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching
quote:What I can't believe is that there's actually somebody so daft as to believe that ostriches ACTUALLY hide their heads in the sand. Too many WB cartoons.
Indeed, yet it is a most popular belief. And in the past, both Pliny and Oppian believed that the ostrich hid its head in danger -- thus, the WB reference. Regardless, the inference still stands. Omega inferred that those who hide their heads in the sand do so like the ostrich -- and as popular culture and old myths show: they do so because they're afraid.
quote:Now, since criminals do and are ALL of the above definitions, it naturally follows that it is CORRECT to describe them using the adjective 'evil', because they commit evil acts. They may not be Hitler or Stalin or Mao, but they're evil nonetheless. Your 'poor criminal' DOES NOT EXIST.
Sorry -- there's a big difference between Hitler and the guy running out your backdoor with your TV under the arm.
If I hit the gas to get through a yellow light before it turns red, am I evil? By your defenition: yes. If I resort to ad-hominems, am I evil? Well, by that definition, yes. Oh, wait, right, Omega did the ad-hominem this time. See? Proves my point: Omega's evil. Speaking of which, maybe your entire post discomforted me: gee, guess you're evil too. See the problem?
quote:And notice that so far you've confined your objections to thieves. But there are other crimes, even more likely to require methods of self-defense, including assault, rape (oh, pity the poor rapist? You'll get nowhere with that one), stalking, home invasion with intent to do bodily harm, etc.
And ...? Are you contendening that thieves are evil?
When did I say pity the poor rapist? Please stop putting words into my mouth, dear chap. All I ever argued was that it is not fair to put everyone into the category "evil", because while some certainly are, not all are. I only ask that you realize that not everything is black and white, and not every crime requires a gun to solve. And if you don't understand that, you've no business owning a gun.
quote:It's amazing how many opponents' arguments one can chop up simply by consulting reference materials, isn't it?
Yet apparently you missed that Pliny and Oppian believed the ostriches hid their heads out of fear
And for all your talk of giving everybody a gun, you ignore the statistics from Texas showing that after Bush passed the concealed carry permit, 3,051 Texans (lawfully allowed to own and carry guns) were arrested for crimes including manslaughter and attempted murder (in the first year!. Felony and misdemeanous charges and concealed permit holders increased 54% from the first to second year of the program.* Wow. Look at that -- give law abiding citizens guns ('cuz otherwise how else could they have gotten them?) and they become criminals! Wow. Fascinating. I never would've guessed. Still, leave it to you to argue about an ostrich and the definition of evil.
posted
On a different note, is it just me, or does JeffK and Omega seem to get in this argument every week?
Exactly my point, SB. We've been through this before, and I have no intention of answering the exact same question for the sixth time.
On the other hand, it is nice to see that you can now correctly spell "Britain."
And I find it equally gratifying to see that you can spell hominem.
Omega inferred that those who hide their heads in the sand do so like the ostrich -- and as popular culture and old myths show: they do so because they're afraid.
I used a term. That term has a meaning in common language. Your analysis of the entomology of the idiom is irrelevant. If the common meaning differs from your analysis, YOUR CONCLUSION DOES NOT APPLY. You are WRONG. Can you not admit this even for something so minor?
Please stop putting words into my mouth, dear chap.
Oh, that's priceless...
Since this is the only post you responded too, I take it I win on the other points?
You made no points. You asked questions that either had already been answered, or had no relation to my posts, and they were rightly ignored.
Speaking of which, maybe your entire post discomforted me: gee, guess you're evil too.
And even now, you don't see the hole in your reasoning. You make major logical jumps in a single sentence. See if you can figure out what about your post simply doesn't follow from one point to the next.
------------------ "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, co-operate, act alone, solve equations, analyse a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, [and] die gallantly. Specialisation is for insects." - Woodrow Wilson Smith
[This message has been edited by Omega (edited March 15, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Omega (edited March 15, 2001).]
posted
So can you show a definite LINK between the crime rate going up and the concealed carry permits, or do you just ASSUME one because that's the data you're LOOKING FOR? Or are there economic reasons or drug reasons (the two main 'causes,' outside of a lack of self-restraint, of crime)?
Your statistics tell us very little in the way of actually USEFUL information. ">3,051 Texans (lawfully allowed to own and carry guns) were arrested for crimes including manslaughter and attempted murder (in the first year!. "
Out of how many who didn't? What percentage of the gun-carrying population IS this? .25%? And how many of those crimes they were arrested for had NOTHING to do with the use of guns? How many were arrests for things like drunkenness, littering, too many unpaid tickes, etc? Your article makes the UNFOUNDED ASSUMPTION that guns were involved, but FAILS to back that up with real data.
>"Felony and misdemeanous charges and concealed permit holders increased 54% from the first to second year of the progam"
Same problem here. 54% from what to what? An increase from 4 to 6 is a 50% increase. So?? and notice it says "and" rather than "BY." AND tries to CREATE a link, but only BY would BE a legitimate link.
As for our ostrich pals... What Pliny and Opie believed is hardly of relevance here, unless you base the entirety of your scientific knowledge on them as well... in which case you're dafter than you look. Many great and revered historic figures believed in a great number on nonsensical things, including magic, gods, faeries and unicorns. If you get your ornithological knowledge from Pliny, it's time to get yerself a broader education.
------------------ The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching
posted
You might also try reading this, though I doubt it. Although it has no relevance to guns/crime, it has a great deal of relevance to guns/self-defense. IF you can summon up the mental fortitude to plow through it. http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/lethal.html
------------------ The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited March 15, 2001).]
posted
Oh, and one more thing. I'm not "contending" that thieves are evil... flat out TELLING you, is what I'm doing.
Tell me how they aren't. Use nonemotional terms. Do not resort to the 'poor criminal' myth. Then expand it to include the other criminals. Especially rapists. I'd like to see you try and justify that one, try and make me feel sorry for one of those, especially. What is your argument that criminals aren't evil? Because the only understanding of the definition of 'evil' that you've been exposed to is dictators and mass murderers? Well that AIN'T the only one.
------------------ The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching
posted
Now that was just weird. A double post with my post in between?
------------------ "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, co-operate, act alone, solve equations, analyse a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, [and] die gallantly. Specialisation is for insects." - Woodrow Wilson Smith
quote:Exactly my point, SB. We've been through this before, and I have no intention of answering the exact same question for the sixth time.
Yet you've no problem getting into the exact same debate six times, apparently.
quote:And I find it equally gratifying to see that you can spell hominem.
Yes, and I believe our roles have reversed in that you are now the one engaging in them, correct?
quote:I used a term. That term has a meaning in common language. Your analysis of the entomology of the idiom is irrelevant. If the common meaning differs from your analysis, YOUR CONCLUSION DOES NOT APPLY. You are WRONG. Can you not admit this even for something so minor?
Obviously, it has several different meanings in common language. First said as much by pointing out that it is supposedly a WB cartoon trademark. Can you not admit that this has several meanings? I do. Right now. Misunderstanding. However -- neither of us are wrong. Perhaps next time you should say what you mean instead of relying on metaphor? Might save us some time and energy posting responses on the habits of birds.
quote:Oh, that's priceless...
Absolutely.
quote:You made no points. You asked questions that either had already been answered, or had no relation to my posts, and they were rightly ignored.
I made points. You ignore whatever doesn't agree with you. Mainly by screaming really loud and throwing out ad-hominems and claiming that people are appealing to "authority." Truly fascinating.
quote:And even now, you don't see the hole in your reasoning. You make major logical jumps in a single sentence. See if you can figure out what about your post simply doesn't follow from one point to the next.
3: causing discomfort or revulsion
This is under the definition of evil. Clearly, if something or someone causes discomfort or revulsion it must be evil. Do you not agree? Well, frankly, I don't agree with that definition. Evil is evil, and the run-o'-the-mill criminal isn't evil.
quote:Out of how many who didn't? What percentage of the gun-carrying population IS this? .25%? And how many of those crimes they were arrested for had NOTHING to do with the use of guns? How many were arrests for things like drunkenness, littering, too many unpaid tickes, etc? Your article makes the UNFOUNDED ASSUMPTION that guns were involved, but FAILS to back that up with real data.
Well, yes, in the cases where they were arrested for manslaughter and attempted murder, I'm sure the guns were involved. Where do you get this .25% number, anyway? Aren't you the one who said people should have accurate figures and not make them up? And the simple fact that these people were law-abiding until they got their hands on a carry permit should tell you something.
quote:Same problem here. 54% from what to what? An increase from 4 to 6 is a 50% increase. So?? and notice it says "and" rather than "BY." AND tries to CREATE a link, but only BY would BE a legitimate link.
Ah, of course. The 54% was from the number earlier given, 3,051, from the first to the second year of the program. And I'm afraid I mistyped, it's felony and misdemeanor charges against concealed weapon permit holders ... my apologies for the typo.
quote:What Pliny and Opie believed is hardly of relevance here, unless you base the entirety of your scientific knowledge on them as well... in which case you're dafter than you look. Many great and revered historic figures believed in a great number on nonsensical things, including magic, gods, faeries and unicorns. If you get your ornithological knowledge from Pliny, it's time to get yerself a broader education.
I'm not basing scientific knowledge on them. I'm simply ascertaining that "hiding your head in the sand" means more than just ignoring a problem, which would no doubt be clear to you if you bothered to read my posts. You yourself said that the WB portrayed the ostrich as hiding its head in the sand to avoid danger, yet now you claim that the pop-culture reference is invalid? Please.
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 15, 2001).]
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic