Geology Lecture

Pages

AuthorTopic: Geology Lecture
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #25
Sorry. What I said was ambiguous. By the former in my above post I meant hunting, not the specious self-defense claims. Hunting for dinner deserves protection. (I have given up cellophane meat, thanks.)

You're setting up a false situation, though, Salmon. A 30 minute response time from the police in the event of a call doesn't mean that having a gun in any way improves matters. You're assuming that owning a gun means you will catch and stop anyone breaking and entering without ever shooting innocents, and that this won't result in you getting shot by someone burglarizing with a gun who wouldn't have a gun if they weren't readily available.

—Alorael, who might buy the use of guns as a deterrent if everyone had one. Most people don't, though, so by and large it's not going to work that way. Also, I think areas with high gun ownership and areas with high rates of crime tend to overlap. Causally related? Not really; they both stem from the same urban problems. But if you can fix both with less guns, why not?
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #26
Missed your edit, Thuryl, so had no comment on it. Alo was speaking of the Constitution here:
quote:
I am seriously suggesting that we repeal the Second Amendment, or at least look seriously at what it means.
And I was responding that it is perfectly reasonable to own one or more guns. To restrict ownership is wrong. Should I have more of a right to hunt than someone that lives in a city? While I get frustrated with the city folk littering on my property, and ignoring signs, that has little to do with gun ownership.

Alo - I don't know where you got your info about crime correlating with gun ownership. You might do better correlating crime with exposure to crime (real or media portrayed.) I could believe that. Quite a bit of news these days seems to be hyping the hysteria of violence. That, combined with the graphic violence ever-present in leisure media, may inure people to violence and crime.

As far as the contention that guns aren't a deterrent, I cry bull. The fact of the matter is that 95% of the homes in rural Oregon will have one or more guns. Criminals are less likely to break into an occupied home if they know they are likely to face armed defense. I present a harder target than something else, so they go somewhere else. That is how deterrence works. During the times my home is unoccupied, my weapons are stored off-site so as to prevent them from falling into the hands of criminals. I don't know what folks in the city or suburbs do to safeguard their weapons. It seems though that when Costco carries a gunsafe in their stores, it must be one of the options that is regularly exercised.
It's always sad when someone snaps and goes on a shooting rampage. It's equally as sad when they do anything that is lethal. The commonality is that people snap and that people die, not that guns are the bad thing. It's a point of view thing really. I'm not sure what the answer would be to keeping guns out of the hands of non-criminals who have no history of violence and somehow snap and decide suddenly that killing is a viable solution. I really don't. But like I said earlier, it would have been just as harmful to torch 5 gallons of unleaded. But then they could just ban 5 gallon gas cans, right?

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Argon - "I'm at a loss for words..."
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Warrior
Member # 5483
Profile #27
I think the issue isn't so much whether we have gun restrictions and how strong they are as what restrictions we use. Good restrictions: background checks, waiting periods, usage training, and psychological testing. Bad restrictions: gun-free zones, placement restrictions (such as not allowed in car), etc. Anybody else realize that virtually every mass shooting has happened in a "gun-free zone"? Just try conducting a mass shooting at a gun show. Imagine how many fewer deaths would've occurred if teachers were allowed to carry firearms in school. If it's illegal for anyone to have a gun in a given area then it is very easy for someone to just come into that area and shoot everyone with little or no resistance.

[ Saturday, February 16, 2008 15:30: Message edited by: The_Other_Guy ]

--------------------
Ignorance Is bliss -Cypher (Matrix)
Don't think you can; know you can -Morpheus (Matrix)

sanity is overrated :)
Posts: 130 | Registered: Monday, February 7 2005 08:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #28
It's much harder to walk into a classroom and use five gallons of gasoline to kill a bunch of people at random though.

Beyond crazy people in the US working themselves up to becoming suicide bombers (which really requires sheer despair and probably some sort of zealotry, which the people who snap seem to lack for now), guns remain the single most effective way to carry out such carnage with so little effort. The power of a gun, the impersonality of just pointing and shooting, is unparalleled.

Without a gun, people bent on carry out acts of violence have to consider measures that are much riskier to them, and much more personal. Attacking someone with a knife puts you in their personal space. It makes one pause for thought.

I'm not sure what the solution is. I don't think that the current paradigm is acceptable though. Too many crazies have been able to easily ruin the lives of others.

[ Sunday, February 17, 2008 06:48: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Agent
Member # 4574
Profile #29
I'd like to add a final, closing note for my contributions. Gun control is important to me. My mother obtained her Master's at VT. My sister and brother-in-law both attended NIU, and the latter still does in fact. Still, I know our Constitution, and thus I will be fine with just regulating it as I've stated. This kind of stuff simply cannot be allowed to continue.

--------------------
"I'm happy I'm the mentally disturbed person I am." -Nioca
"Yes, Iffy is a demon." -Iffy
Posts: 1186 | Registered: Friday, June 18 2004 07:00
For Carnage, Apply Within
Member # 95
Profile #30
quote:
Originally written by Excalibur:

[QBI'm not a constitutional lawyer, but the Supreme Court could deliver a modern verdict on the exact meaning on the second amendment. (Well, I think they have, but nonetheless)[/QB]
Ask, and ye shall receive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._v._Miller

In summary: the Superme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment was meant to apply specifically to militias, and is not intended to guarantee a right to own a firearm for sport or individual self defense. The government therefore has the right to regulate or ban any weapon with no substantive militia use. What is and is not a potential militia weapon is an unsettled matter of interpretation, although short-barreled shotguns are specified as bannable.

Lower court rulings on the subject are divided.

[ Saturday, February 16, 2008 19:38: Message edited by: Sarachim ]

--------------------
The BoA Arena: Two collections of ones and zeroes enter. One collection of ones and zeroes leaves.
Posts: 567 | Registered: Friday, October 5 2001 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #31
Huh. I read that a little differently then. It looks like the Federal govt has no rights to limit firearm possession, but that it might be allowed for individual states to enact restrictions.

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Argon - "I'm at a loss for words..."
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Warrior
Member # 5483
Profile #32
quote:
the Superme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment was meant to apply specifically to militias
Let's look at the actual text:
quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, not the militia. The 2nd Amendment guarantees that the militia and the government can't take your gun from you.

--------------------
Ignorance Is bliss -Cypher (Matrix)
Don't think you can; know you can -Morpheus (Matrix)

sanity is overrated :)
Posts: 130 | Registered: Monday, February 7 2005 08:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #33
This is all currently under review in the Supreme Court in a case concerning the DC hand gun ban.

Regarding Salmon's point, while it may originally have been the case that the second amendment doesn't effect the states' right to regulate, the 14th may have changed that.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Apprentice
Member # 14160
Profile #34
Hm, I'm not sure about stricter controls.

I was going to say that it's quite hard to get hold of guns in Britain (even the cops don't carry guns), and as a result people don't get shot.

On the other hand, people in London get stabbed by the dozen. The media are calling for tougher knife control....

Call for tough knife laws in Britain

What does that teach us?

Anyone planning to kill someone who can't get hold of a gun will find a knife. If they can't find a knife, they'll find something else.

--------------------
Why, oh why, do I keep forgetting my login....?
Posts: 2 | Registered: Friday, February 15 2008 08:00
Agent
Member # 4574
Profile #35
quote:
Originally written by Katja:

Hm, I'm not sure about stricter controls.

I was going to say that it's quite hard to get hold of guns in Britain (even the cops don't carry guns), and as a result people don't get shot.

On the other hand, people in London get stabbed by the dozen. The media are calling for tougher knife control....

Call for tough knife laws in Britain

What does that teach us?

Anyone planning to kill someone who can't get hold of a gun will find a knife. If they can't find a knife, they'll find something else.

It's easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife. Very personal. Takes mental preperation and all that. A lot of "casual" killers would be disillusioned if they had to stab someone to death, leading to a fall in murders. If only slightly, though still worth it. Sure, an inverse relation between shootings and stabbings forms, but there are would-be-killers who don't go to stabbings.

--------------------
"I'm happy I'm the mentally disturbed person I am." -Nioca
"Yes, Iffy is a demon." -Iffy
Posts: 1186 | Registered: Friday, June 18 2004 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #36
quote:
Originally written by Goldenking:

It's easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife. Very personal. Takes mental preperation and all that. A lot of "casual" killers would be disillusioned if they had to stab someone to death, leading to a fall in murders. If only slightly, though still worth it. Sure, an inverse relation between shootings and stabbings forms, but there are would-be-killers who don't go to stabbings.
Unless you have personal experience with killing someone, either with a knife or a gun, shut up.

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Argon - "I'm at a loss for words..."
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Shaper
Member # 7420
Profile Homepage #37
His words seemed logical enough. What's the matter, don't have any personal experience with logic?

--------------------
You lose.
Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #38
quote:
Originally written by Jumpin' Salmon:

Unless you have personal experience with killing someone, either with a knife or a gun, shut up.
And how many people have you stabbed or shot to death, Salmon?
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Agent
Member # 27
Profile #39
quote:
It's easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife. Very personal. Takes mental preperation and all that. A lot of "casual" killers would be disillusioned if they had to stab someone to death, leading to a fall in murders. If only slightly, though still worth it. Sure, an inverse relation between shootings and stabbings forms, but there are would-be-killers who don't go to stabbings.
If you don't have the nerve to bleed something to death with a knife, chances are you aren't going to feel any better about doing it with a gun. Also, I think taking a life would take more "mental preparation" than choosing the method.

--------------------
Enraged Slith's Blades of Avernum Website

Kill Them Dead - Rate it now at CSR!
Posts: 1233 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #40
5th.

But my point is that he has no clue what it is like to kill. You may read things, but they aren't written by killers. If you want to think that it is easier to shoot than stab, then you are helping support that stereotype.

Once you get past the hurdle of deciding to kill, it doesn't really matter what method, because in your mind that thing is already dead. You are just left with method and that is personal choice. Ask a special forces guy, and you might hear that they prefer the knife, even though they snipe too. Why? More excitement. More adrenaline.

I just don't believe many people can actually understand why killers do it. So instead they rationalize up warm fuzzies to justify gun restrictions. I don't buy it for a second. :rolleyes:

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Argon - "I'm at a loss for words..."
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #41
It isn't a question of motivation so much as sheer logistics - it's much, much easier to kill a lot of people faster with guns than it is with knives. Let's look at two scenarios: (a) wacko walks into classroom/school with a shotgun and several pistols; (b) wacko walks into a classroom/school with a bunch of knives. With no other information, which scenario is likely to result in more casualties?
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Shaper
Member # 7472
Profile Homepage #42
With just that information? Neither. Guns have the advantage of range, while knives have the element of surprise. The thing that determines casualties is the motivation of the killer and the reaction of the potential victims.

The only way guns get a substantial boost over other methods of death is their automatic variants, which are already banned in many states.

--------------------
Hz'ii'zt a'iiencf coxnen a'bn'z'p pahuen yzpa'zuhb be'tt'phukh'kn az'ii'ova mxn't bhcizvi'fl?

Nioca's Citadel - A resource for BoA graphics and scripts, as well as my scenarios.
Posts: 2686 | Registered: Friday, September 8 2006 07:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #43
We're not talking about an ex-green beret here, though - we're talking about a wacko skinny white boy, like most of these other crazies, going into a school and attacking people.

What I think is probable in the knife scenario: people keep their wits about them enough to either run away, or dudes on hand overwhelm the guy. I think that there's a certain fear factor involved with guns that just isn't present when faced with someone wielding a knife, especially a skinny white dude. In any event, I think the likely number of casualties is much lower.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #44
And from a non-crazy standpoint, I think getting really angry and deciding to shoot someone is easy because killing with a gun is easy. Point at the center of mass, pull the trigger, and things are bound to go wrong for the target. A knife doesn't take any more skill to use, but it takes more skill to cause quick death instead of slow, messy death or just plain slow and messy.

—Alorael, who doesn't think rushing a man with a gun versus a knife is just a matter of psychology. Move threateningly towards a gun-toting crazy and he can shoot you. Move threateningly towards a knife-waving crazy and he can't do anything until you're close enough to do something back. Granted, fist against knife doesn't give you good odds, but you can assemble enough people to swamp Mr. Knife. Assembling when someone has a gun is a very bad idea.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #45
quote:
Originally written by Drew:

We're not talking about an ex-green beret here, though - we're talking about a wacko skinny white boy, like most of these other crazies, going into a school and attacking people.
No, we are talking about Goldenboy's assertion that knife murder is more difficult than gun murder. It is to that statement I was objecting. I agree wholeheartedly that mass murder is much easier with a weapon designed for rapid action. No matter what else, a knife is not designed to kill many people in the same action.
quote:
Originally asserted by Alorael:
Assembling when someone has a gun is a very bad idea.

Yet amazingly, that was our (USA) very technique in World War 1, World War 2, and Vietnam. Because, eventually they run out of bullets or the gun jams.

[ Wednesday, February 20, 2008 14:10: Message edited by: Jumpin' Salmon ]

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Argon - "I'm at a loss for words..."
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Shaper
Member # 7420
Profile Homepage #46
I don't think you need personal experience to see that stabbing is more difficult than shooting. There's one scene in the new Rambo movie where a Burmese village is wiped out by soldiers and a lot of children are slain very graphically. Some are shot, babies are thrown into fires, etc. But the most brutal part of that whole scene was when one soldier stabs a kid with a bayonet, slowly. Really, shooting someone just requires one to pull a trigger, stabbing requires you to push an object into their flesh by hand. If you screw up, you have to pull it out and try again, rather than just hold that trigger. Shooting is easier.

On rushing a gunman: I believe that, as crazy as it sounds, this is the recommended strategy for dealing with a terrorist or otherwise waco skinny white boy.

--------------------
You lose.
Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #47
quote:
Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:

I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
There, fyt.

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Argon - "I'm at a loss for words..."
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Shaper
Member # 7420
Profile Homepage #48
I'm sorry, was that supposed to be clever?

--------------------
You lose.
Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00
Shaper
Member # 7472
Profile Homepage #49
Not to distract from the To Ban or Not to Ban argument, but what if we're looking at this the wrong way? It's pretty much agreed that, no matter what kind of preventative measures are taken, someone will always find their way around them. One thing that has started bothering me is that everyone talks about how to prevent this from happening. But, when all preventative measures fail, what do we have in place to stop such an attack and minimize the damage done?

I admit that I have little experience on such matters and may be off-base or incorrect on this, but from what I can glean, there really isn't too much being done to counter such an emergency. Mind, not all that much can be done for such a situation, but I still think that a little more could be done to stop such attacks before they reach their full potential. Maybe armed security guards, and an emergency broadcast system that alerts the entire school and local officials at the flip of a switch?

Just my two cents on the matter.

[ Wednesday, February 20, 2008 17:31: Message edited by: Nioca ]

--------------------
Hz'ii'zt a'iiencf coxnen a'bn'z'p pahuen yzpa'zuhb be'tt'phukh'kn az'ii'ova mxn't bhcizvi'fl?

Nioca's Citadel - A resource for BoA graphics and scripts, as well as my scenarios.
Posts: 2686 | Registered: Friday, September 8 2006 07:00

Pages