British soldier hacked to death after being run over with car

[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.

[Sinfix_15]

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.

This is where you and i are different. You feel, basically... that the government should "do the best it can" with some laws... and i feel that the government should simply step away from some laws. My right to self defense and survival is not open to legislation.

[bu villain]

"how do i even know if someone is a muslim" i dont... appearance wise i would associate it with looking "middle eastern"

And hopefully you see that as the more you generalize, the less relation your generalization has to reality. There are a billion muslims in the world, they come in many colors, and from many different countries. Only a tiny fraction of them pose any sort of a threat to you. And yet you will be more suspicious of people who look middle eastern simply because that is an association you make in your mind. These sort of associations may be natural to the human mind, but that doesn't make them valid.

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.

And that's fine as long as you understand it is paranoia and not particularly rational. Unfortunately many people's irrational fear of all muslims/middle easterners does have an impact on others lives.

This is where you and i are different. You feel, basically... that the government should "do the best it can" with some laws... and i feel that the government should simply step away from some laws. My right to self defense and survival is not up for legislation.

This is the kind of hyperbole I was talking about before. Saying you can't buy an assault rifle or an extended clip is not legislating away your right to self defense. You still have sticks, karate, hand guns, and all those other things to mentioned before. Again, I actually agree with you that we shouldn't legislate clip size or whether a rifle has a handle or not but it's just for different reasons than you.

[Sinfix_15]

And hopefully you see that as the more you generalize, the less relation your generalization has to reality. There are a billion muslims in the world, they come in many colors, and from many different countries. Only a tiny fraction of them pose any sort of a threat to you. And yet you will be more suspicious of people who look middle eastern simply because that is an association you make in your mind. These sort of associations may be natural to the human mind, but that doesn't make them valid.

And some of those muslims have decided to kill 1000s of americans. They do it proudly, openly and with little regard for human life. You acknowledge that i cant distinguish between the good and the bad, yet you tell me to assume theyre all good and then proclaim it's logical.

And that's fine as long as you understand it is paranoia and not particularly rational. Unfortunately many people's irrational fear of all muslims/middle easterners does have an impact on others lives.

I cant control the world, i can only control myself. Hurting a stranger's feelings just isnt high on my priority list, apologies. Paranoia is not the right word. I do not fear them, nor am i delusional about the presence of danger. Being aware of risk does not mean that i exaggerate it.

This is the kind of hyperbole I was talking about before. Saying you can't buy an assault rifle or an extended clip is not legislating away your right to self defense. You still have sticks, karate, hand guns, and all those other things to mentioned before. Again, I actually agree with you that we shouldn't legislate clip size or whether a rifle has a handle or not but it's just for different reasons than you.

It's my choice. Saying i cant have my choice of self defense is legislating my right to self defense away.

[bu villain]

And some of those muslims have decided to kill 1000s of americans. They do it proudly, openly and with little regard for human life. You acknowledge that i cant distinguish between the good and the bad, yet you tell me to assume theyre all good and then proclaim it's logical.

You shouldn't assume anything because not only can you not distinguish the good from the bad but you admitted you can't distinguish muslim from non-muslim so it's illogical that you say it is a factor you consider at all. It's like a blind person saying they are suspicious of blonde people. Not one of the terrorists who carried out an attack in the US was wearing muslim clothing when they committed their crime and some of them were not middle eastern looking so it is illogical to use that as evidence of a threat. I don't see a logical reason to assume middle eastern looking people are any more of a threat than any other kind of person and as far as I can tell.

I cant control the world, i can only control myself. Hurting a stranger's feelings just isnt high on my priority list, apologies. Paranoia is not the right word. I do not fear them, nor am i delusional about the presence of danger. Being aware of risk does not mean that i exaggerate it.

I don't care if you hurt their feelings either. You're right that being aware of the risk doesn't mean you exaggerate it. But assessing risk based on characteristics that are not significantly correlated with their danger to you is.

It's my choice. Saying i cant have my choice of self defense is legislating my right to self defense away.

No, it is limiting one method of self defense but that is quite different than not being able to defend yourself. If someone punches you in the face, you can't say, "Well I don't have my gun so therefore I can't defend myself". Do your first amendment rights no longer exist because you can't commit libel?