British soldier hacked to death after being run over with car

[Sinfix_15]

First of all, having a gun will not necessarily prevent you from being killed in the street. Second, this incident doesn't prove that gun control isn't a good policy either here or in the UK. If you really want to make this incident about guns, how about using it to illustrate that you don't need a gun to murder someone. At least that is a factual statement proven by this case and not some hypothetical scenario implying looser gun laws would have prevented this attack.

Nothing guarantees that you will not be "killed in the street", but having a gun puts my life in my own hands. Sitting behind a desk, behind a door, in a building surrounded by armed security, politicians think they have the right to strip you of your ability to defend yourself and tell you to rely on the police for your protection. You're right.... a gun will not prevent you from being killed in the street, neither will a cop.... or a "gun free zone" sign.....

It's not about guns preventing crimes, it's about each individual person having the right to defend themselves.

[bu villain]

Nothing guarantees that you will not be "killed in the street", but having a gun puts my life in my own hands. Sitting behind a desk, behind a door, in a building surrounded by armed security, politicians think they have the right to strip you of your ability to defend yourself and tell you to rely on the police for your protection. You're right.... a gun will not prevent you from being killed in the street, neither will a cop.... or a "gun free zone" sign.....

It's not about guns preventing crimes, it's about each individual person having the right to defend themselves.

How can you say "a gun will not prevent you from being killed in the street" and "having a gun puts my life in my own hands". Those are contradictory. More often than not, a gun provides people with the illusion of security, not actual security. Guns can prevent violence but they can also cause it. I think people should be allowed to own guns, including assault rifles, but I believe statistics show it won't make them any safer.

[Sinfix_15]

How can you say "a gun will not prevent you from being killed in the street" and "having a gun puts my life in my own hands". Those are contradictory. More often than not, a gun provides people with the illusion of security, not actual security. Guns can prevent violence but they can also cause it. I think people should be allowed to own guns, including assault rifles, but I believe statistics show it won't make them any safer.

Putting a hammer in your hand is no guarantee that you can build a house with it. A gun is a tool i can use to defend myself. Possessing that tool doesnt guarantee my success with it. However i chose to defend myself puts my life in my own hands. If i chose to use karate, my personal charm, a financial bribe... a stick... ect ect.... having the choice to fight back puts "my life in my own hands". It doesnt guarantee that i will be victorious.

If you chose to believe "statistics" that say a gun wont make you any safer.... that's your choice to be an idiot, you are free to make that choice.

[David88vert]

If you chose to believe "statistics" that say a gun wont make you any safer.... that's your choice to be an idiot, you are free to make that choice.

I disagree with you that choosing not to have a gun is equitable with being an idiot.

The need for the tool depends on the situation and location.
For example, where I live, the likelihood that I will need a firearm to defend myself against a terrorist or anyone else is an extremely small risk. I do not see a need to carry a firearm with me when I go grocery shopping, or to get gas, or anything else around my home. I choose to live in a fairly safe area, that has a fairly low crime rate; therefore, I do not see the need to carry a gun with me on a daily basis. If one feels the need to carry on a daily basis, they might want to assess their location and actions, and find a way to lower their risk level.

[Sinfix_15]

I disagree with you that choosing not to have a gun is equitable with being an idiot.

The need for the tool depends on the situation and location.
For example, where I live, the likelihood that I will need a firearm to defend myself against a terrorist or anyone else is an extremely small risk. I do not see a need to carry a firearm with me when I go grocery shopping, or to get gas, or anything else around my home. I choose to live in a fairly safe area, that has a fairly low crime rate; therefore, I do not see the need to carry a gun with me on a daily basis. If one feels the need to carry on a daily basis, they might want to assess their location and actions, and find a way to lower their risk level.

I agree.... slight misinterpretation of what i said..... "If you chose to believe the statistic" regarding your own safety.....

My evaluation of what is needed to defend myself is based on my observation of risk alone. I dont care what statistics say about my city if i feel unsafe.

[bu villain]

Putting a hammer in your hand is no guarantee that you can build a house with it. A gun is a tool i can use to defend myself. Possessing that tool doesnt guarantee my success with it. However i chose to defend myself puts my life in my own hands. If i chose to use karate, my personal charm, a financial bribe... a stick... ect ect.... having the choice to fight back puts "my life in my own hands". It doesnt guarantee that i will be victorious.

As you state, you can fight back without a gun which is why I was questioning your previous statement that having a gun allows you to "put your life in your own hands" as if not having a gun means your life is suddenly out of your own hands. Obviously a gun can be a powerful self defense tool, I just don't like it being paraded around as a magic wand that stops crime and prevents violence. It would also be great if you would acknowledge the negative possibilities of guns even if you believe the positives outweigh them.

If you chose to believe "statistics" that say a gun wont make you any safer.... that's your choice to be an idiot, you are free to make that choice.

Why does that make me an idiot? Perhaps I have not seen the same statistics as you. Perhaps you could link me to some so that I can reconsider my position. Keep in mind, my support of gun ownership is based on principle and not safety but if the statistics back up that principle then all the better.

I disagree - they are not contradictory.
Having a gun does not guarantee that one will not be killed by a gun or other means; however, it does mean that you have an opportunity to resist with a defensive weapon that should generally be on par with an aggressor's weapon. It can help you prevent being a defenseless victim in man circumstances and scenarios - but that is not the same as ALL circumstances and scenarios.

If Sinflix had made that distinction I wouldn't have said anything but his wording implied that without a gun, you are no longer in control of your life. It's often his hyperbole and one sided presentation that causes me problems, even when I agree to some extent with his basic idea.

[Sinfix_15]

As you state, you can fight back without a gun which is why I was questioning your previous statement that having a gun allows you to "put your life in your own hands" as if not having a gun means your life is suddenly out of your own hands. Obviously a gun can be a powerful self defense tool, I just don't like it being paraded around as a magic wand that stops crime and prevents violence. It would also be great if you would acknowledge the negative possibilities of guns even if you believe the positives outweigh them.



Why does that make me an idiot? Perhaps I have not seen the same statistics as you. Perhaps you could link me to some so that I can reconsider my position. Keep in mind, my support of gun ownership is based on principle and not safety but if the statistics back up that principle then all the better.



If Sinflix had made that distinction I wouldn't have said anything but his wording implied that without a gun, you are no longer in control of your life. It's often his hyperbole and one sided presentation that causes me problems, even when I agree to some extent with his basic idea.

I'll use this example. Lets say you work at a GM auto plant that employs 2000 people. The injury rate is pretty low, lets say only 2 people get injured a year. Would GM stop doing safety training or project the idea that you're safe at work because only 2 people got injured? Statistically, you would have less than a 1% chance of being injured, right?

My approach to that is that even if something bad only happens to 1 person in the entire world, that 1 person could be me and i want to prevent it. No statistic is "the bible" for my decision making process. I consider statistics, but also recognize their flaw.

[bu villain]

I'll use this example. Lets say you work at a GM auto plant that employs 2000 people. The injury rate is pretty low, lets say only 2 people get injured a year. Would GM stop doing safety training or project the idea that you're safe at work because only 2 people got injured? Statistically, you would have less than a 1% chance of being injured, right?

My approach to that is that even if something bad only happens to 1 person in the entire world, that 1 person could be me and i want to prevent it. No statistic is "the bible" for my decision making process. I consider statistics, but also recognize their flaw.

Yes but your GM example is only true because it's hard to believe safety training could lead to more injuries. Guns on the other hand do not have such an asymmetrical safety profile. They can make you safer in some situations and less safe in others. I agree statistics must be put in an individuals context to be used effectively. This is the point David was making regarding living in a relatively dangerous area versus a relatively safe area. Public policy however should be more influenced by statistics than by individual circumstances because it is unfeasible to create laws that handle all the intricacies of individual circumstances. It is still an imperfect approach but it is far better than basing policy on anecdotes.

[bu villain]

I agree.... slight misinterpretation of what i said..... "If you chose to believe the statistic" regarding your own safety.....

My evaluation of what is needed to defend myself is based on my observation of risk alone. I dont care what statistics say about my city if i feel unsafe.

So you are saying having a gun makes you feel safer psychologically.

I think i answered this question before i realized you asked it. If not, i will reiterate.

You answered most of it but I do want to mention that a random Muslim person on the street is thousands of times more likely to be a threat on the level with the bottom picture than the top one. So the only question I would still like to hear your answer about is... is your level of fear/awareness of Muslims, proportional to the likelihood that they cause harm to you?

Sorry I lied, a follow up set of questions. How do you even know if someone is Muslim? If you saw the black guy who murdered the soldier in London, would you have known he was Muslim? How about the Boston bombers? Do you think someone wearing traditional Muslim clothing is more likely to cause you harm than someone who is not?

[Sinfix_15]

So you are saying having a gun makes you feel safer psychologically.



You answered most of it but I do want to mention that a random Muslim person on the street is thousands of times more likely to be a threat on the level with the bottom picture than the top one. So the only question I would still like to hear your answer about is... is your level of fear/awareness of Muslims, proportional to the likelihood that they cause harm to you?

Sorry I lied, a follow up set of questions. How do you even know if someone is Muslim? If you saw the black guy who murdered the soldier in London, would you have known he was Muslim? How about the Boston bombers? Do you think someone wearing traditional Muslim clothing is more likely to cause you harm than someone who is not?

My methods are not scientific nor foolproof. The context of the encounter would have a lot to do with it. "how do i even know if someone is a muslim" i dont... appearance wise i would associate it with looking "middle eastern". If i walk into a store and see someone with a turban on, my reaction isnt "OMG HES GOT A BOMB". I might give someone who fits that description a 2nd glance.... if they looked wide eyed, lost, nervous or out of place... that would be something that got my attention. Hard to say with the boston bombers, people's mannerisms are easier to gauge in person. I would like to think had i of been one of the people standing near them, i would have noticed them dropping their packs.

Muslim does not have an identifiable trait that i am aware of. I pay more attention to anyone who "sticks out", if upon paying more attention to any given person, they act unusual or look sketchy, my reaction to them escalates from that point. That doesnt mean i intervene with anyone, i may simply alter my path. If i'm standing at a bus stop and two middle eastern men who appear nervous and/or agitated are waiting for the bus, i would pay more attention to them. If theyre carrying backpacks or unidentifiable objects, i may decide not to get on that bus. I'm not going to tackle them and search their backpack, but i have the freedom to make my own choices and be as "paranoid" as i chose to be. My actions do not interfere with anyone else's life. If my opinion of someone offends them, really dont give a fuck.

[David88vert]

How can you say "a gun will not prevent you from being killed in the street" and "having a gun puts my life in my own hands". Those are contradictory.

I disagree - they are not contradictory.
Having a gun does not guarantee that one will not be killed by a gun or other means; however, it does mean that you have an opportunity to resist with a defensive weapon that should generally be on par with an aggressor's weapon. It can help you prevent being a defenseless victim in man circumstances and scenarios - but that is not the same as ALL circumstances and scenarios.

More often than not, a gun provides people with the illusion of security, not actual security. Guns can prevent violence but they can also cause it. I think people should be allowed to own guns, including assault rifles, but I believe statistics show it won't make them any safer.

I agree with this part. Guns are merely a tool - the individual must have the capability and judgment to know when to use the correct tool - and when to leave it alone.