|
 |
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Oh.. And they are always willing to a) assert that their are "a lot" of
> cases where is improved the odds of people not dying, while b) their
> only evidence is situations that involved guns, and where there was no
> way to resolve the situation without more of them.
Not really. If you look at, for example, the FBI unified crime stats, you
see that having a gun is somewhat safer than doing whatever the attacker
says, which is in turn somewhat safer than anything else.
It's not like there isn't any scientific evidence.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
On 2/14/2010 6:55 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Oh.. And they are always willing to a) assert that their are "a lot"
>> of cases where is improved the odds of people not dying, while b)
>> their only evidence is situations that involved guns, and where there
>> was no way to resolve the situation without more of them.
>
> Not really. If you look at, for example, the FBI unified crime stats,
> you see that having a gun is somewhat safer than doing whatever the
> attacker says, which is in turn somewhat safer than anything else.
>
> It's not like there isn't any scientific evidence.
>
It still doesn't mean that the odds of catastrophic situations isn't
increased, and any improvement is countered by any situation where the
person making the threat has more numbers, or a bigger gun. And, again,
you have to be **willing** to use it, for it to matter at all.
The point was, the statistics apply to any state in which the possible
victim has something that could be used in defense, and the attacker
doesn't have something worse. All guns do is escalate the "worse" part,
without solving the original problem. More of them, bigger ones, etc.,
just keep expanding the category of "worse", and every situation that
can arise from it. There are legitimate uses for guns, legitimate
situations where they can be useful, etc. Arming every fracking idiot on
the street, starting with paranoids, people that think liberals want to
steal them, and every other sort that is **likely** to actually use one,
and not as a last resort, is a damn stupid way to fix a problem that
only exists *when* any idiot that wants to can stuff one in a pocket and
take it out in public, whether with training, carry permits, or without
*either*. The people that need defense from people with guns are *not*
going to be the first ones buying the damn things, so.. logically, the
solution of making it easier for people to get, use, and carry, them,
isn't fixing much, of anything.
I imagine something of the same argument was made when someone worked
out how to make a spear, and they found a guy with one in his gut. "If
everyone has spears, this wouldn't have happened." Right....
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> you have to be **willing** to use it, for it to matter at all.
This has also been shown not to be true. :-)
> All guns do is escalate the "worse" part,
Not really. They level the playing field. Muggers don't attack people that
look like the Terminator. They attack little old ladies. Unless the little
old ladies probably have a gun.
> I imagine something of the same argument was made when someone worked
> out how to make a spear, and they found a guy with one in his gut. "If
> everyone has spears, this wouldn't have happened." Right....
Yes. And then they invented firearms. Shortly after, the feudal period ended.
The whole point of a gun is that it doesn't take a whole lot of physical
training. The power to use the weapon comes from concealable sources.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 18:50:59 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> The problem often is that some people are prone to start and end there,
> like gun advocates, for example.
And I never said I was one of them, nor do I think I've presented
evidence that that's how I operate. What would give you that idea about
me?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
rr