Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control

You don't role the dice, you roll the dice!I thought you were big on the correct word usage. What happened?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Yet in Message 90... Preacher,preacher...Does your hypocrisy know no bounds?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

I'm re-quoting your syllogism Message 90 word for word: see, what you've done there: you quoted a logical definition of the word 'hypothesis' and then stated that conjecture or condition imply something within reality. In other words, you just made it up!Then you quote another out-of-context definitions of another couple of words, as if to add more weight to your ramblings, and then out of the blue you claim that "Asking if someone would go back in time and kill Hitler is not a hypothetical". In short,you just made it upNow if you had some integrity you'd try to look up and quote the definition of 'hypothetical question', like I did. Instead, you preferred to apply some retroactive continuity under the guise of examining the etymology of the phrase. To add insult to injury you then step on your shoe-box and start preaching self-righteously about how we shouldn't change the definition of words!So don't act all shocked when I call you up on your hypocrisy. Excuse me? In my reply to you in Message 98 I quoted the very definitions you supplied. Go and look it up right now! You're not blind as well as disingenuous are you? You're adding duplicity to your hypocrisy by pretending that me ignoring your links was the problem.The problem was that your links didn't explain why you decided that the phrase 'hypothetical question' wasn't applicable to my question.The decent thing at this stage would be to admit your mistake and move on. Lying low would also be a dignified approach.
Instead you have the stupidity of heaping further ridicule on yourself by pretending that you did the right thing by supplying some links. Plleeeeasse.... Go on then...I'm waiting!

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

LOL great stuff, who is he?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

You did push me to it! Assuming that the presence of guns causes the extra violence in the US is just a wild assumption, nothing more. You're ignoring other contributing factors. For instance, gang proliferation is much higher in the US than the UK. Gangs are hardly affected by gun controls and are responsible, proportionately, for the largest number of crimes. This is just one of many factors which may explain why more crimes are committed in the US with guns. Sorry, but that's just moralising nonsense. Shooting an intruder in your house is simply the best way to minimise risk of harm to you, your family or property in a situation you didn't initiate or are otherwise responsible for. It's all about your right to live in your house without fear, threat or risk of harm. I strongly disagree. Guns may exacerbate violence when it occurs but the value of armed deterrent is well established on an international level, as well as a domestic one. Most crime is opportunistic and the probability of resistance, especially armed, will deter most burglars or muggers. Predators overwhelmingly target the weakest members of the herd, not the strongest ones. Unless you can show that the burglars knew that guns were stored at the houses, that they suspected the owners to be present and armed and despite that they still broke in, then sorry but that means nothing other than you have lots of burglaries in your neghbourhood. You're presenting just one side of the coin. How many intruders are confronted and routed by armed householders? How many robberies/burglaries/gome invasions are averted because of armed householders? Until you can compare these figures all you're putting forward is wishful thinking.Besides,even if it turned out that more innocent people are hurt by guns that would still bear no impact on the right of people to own guns, any more than the number of innocent people killed in car accidents has an impact on the right of people to own and drive a car. With great power comes great responsibility, as they say. What evidence? All you've done is bombard me with some numbers and loads of conjencture and appeal to emotion (the maimed kids...ahhhhh....).

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Even more ironically, if students had been allowed to carry weapons in VA it's almost certain that the number of victims wouldn't have been that high.But that's it, some people here value human life as long as its perseverance serves their high ideals. When innocent victims die as a direct result of the practice of those high ideals, they'll quickly point the finger to something else like films or videogames.And if you dare to question the value of their morality you'll be labelled a trigger-happy cowboy faster than you can say "a gun's just a tool you self-righteous prick."

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Thing is, the environment is already flooded with weapons. Gun control laws just ensure that only the 'bad' guys can use them.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

I'm stating that the criminalisation of gun ownership ensures that law-abiding citizens have no access to guns while it has minimal effect on criminals who still do. I suggest you do.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Yet, they don't. Despite strict gun controls, gun crime in Britain has been rising steadily over the years. The clue's in the word 'laws'. By definition, criminals don't obey laws. The majority of gun crime in the UK and Europe is committed with illegal (never licensed) firearms. I'm not talking about the ability of the State to defend itself, I'm more concerned about the (lack of) ability of citizens to defend themselves. I suggest you read some of the previous posts on this thread.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

The point isn't that the number of incidents is small, the point is that incidents are rising despite strict gun controls.Gun control laws were tightened to reduce gun crime (the Hungerford & Dunblane shootings were trigger events). But they haven't, they've failed.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

It's not so much a wild assumption as an extension of the common-sensical principle of not starting fights with people who can hurt you. Incorrect. SHOW ME how and where. If we follow my assumptions to their logical conclusion, then more guns would mean less burglaries. Guess what? They do! It appears you haven't read the whole thread, like I advised you. Why should *I* need to change *YOUR* false perception? Do you also want me to go and buy you reading glasses? When the presented facts do not support the stated assertion, then I'm within my rights to label it a 'wild assumption'. I'm not quoting a study, I'm presenting one of the factors that may affect the causality of the extra gun violence in the US.

quote:

---

Where do weapons come into the equation?
Again it's very difficult to say. A Home Office study published in 2004 looked at arrested adults who declared gang membership. It found an increase in the numbers claiming to carry any weapon, but little change in the number claiming to have carried a gun. Experts think the increase is down to more knives being in circulation.

---

Unfounded speculation. An increase in circulation of registered guns bought by homeowners and which can only be obtained by gangs by taking the risk of burglary/robbery against an armed person in order to obtain a gun which can be tracked by police, bears no similarity to an increase in the circulation of knives where any gang member can legally and anonymously buy one from their local DIY store or outdoors & trekking shop.
In short, you're just making silly extrapolations. Who said anything about Rambo-style tactics? I'm advocating -if possible- attacking the intruder before they can get the lay of the land and establish an offensive plan. Didn't you read my response to Rahvin in Message 50? What are you on about? Didn't you read my response to Rahvin in Message 50? I stated: "Although I can't really reject your ambush defense I still think that it isn't the best course of action for three reasons:". I wouldn't call it the most sound but it's not bad under certain circumstances. I've already explained that in my response to Rahvin in Message 50. Didn't you read it? Oh no you didn't! And let me be perfectly clear about the following: Doooonn'tbesuch...a..paaatroniisiing...diiickheeaaad. Which part are you disputing?
That most crime is opportunistic?
That the value of armed deterrent is well established ?SHOW ME what, how and where or else go back to watching your Rambo/Matrix film trilogy. oh, wow, I suppose that puts me in my place. I mean, you have questioned my comprehension of data....how am I going to recover from this....my argument has been shot down in flames. Even if we ignore the fact that criminals prefer to use illegal and unregistered guns, for obvious reasons, the problem lies with the fact that the potential victims remain unarmed. Armed criminals have the advantage when the victims are unarmed. Arming both sides levels the playing field and gives the victims a chance they wouldn't otherwise have. No,no, no. It was RAZD's position (presumably you're his spokesperson) that gun-ownership causes more harm than good. He presented data to show the harm that guns cause but no data to show the benefit. I just called him up on it.I suggest you go back and read the rest of this thread before you embarass yourself further.Edited by Legend, : spelling

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

As opposed to the tactical advantage you have when only the other party has guns. Which is....what exactly? What point? My point is that we should be allowed to have guns in the home and use them in case of an intrusion. What's yours? I've already addressed these at Message 44, Message 45, Message 50 and Message 58.See what fun it is when you just throw around reference to previous posts without actually making a point? WHAT statistics? The irrelevant ones or the ones that have nothing to do with the point at hand? SHOW ME the statistics, make your point and then you might have an argument.All you have so far is your vague rants about how I've been shown wrong and such. Your saying so doesn't make it so. Apology accepted and thank you for trying.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

If that's the case then there's no argument here and we can all just go for a pint. Unfortunately, in Britain, law abiding citizens are not allowed to have guns. Criminals on the other hand, have no regard for the law and do have guns. So what? What's that got to do with anything? I didn't gloss over it, it's just that we've been talking about the right and ability of citizens to defend themselves. When you're woken up in the middle of the night by an intruder, the state's not going to be there to help you. How else do you expect gun controls to be implemented other than by passing legislation criminalising the possession and usage of guns? First, how are you going to limit guns without criminalising their possession/ownership?Second, I've already showed many times in this thread that in the UK where laws have been strengthened to the max, gun crime is steadily rising.Third, the evidence so far by looking at the Uk vs US (similar cultures and socio-political structures) points to the conclusion that more guns *do* lessen certain kinds of crime.

quote:

---

A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.

---

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

She's not referencing the source but I believe she's referring primarily to "Burglars on the Job: Street Life and Residential Break-ins, Wright & Decker, Boston:Northeastern University press, 1994" and also probably material like "Armed and Considered Dangerous (Paperback) by James D. Wright, Peter H. Rossi".Unfortunately I couldn't find any online prints of either, not for free anyway, but in both those sources (and undoubtedly in many others) seasoned burglars and robbers confess that their biggest deterrent is potential confrontation by an armed homeowner.In any case why would anyone need scientific studies to be persuaded of a self-evident truth, such as that intruders don't really like fighting against armed honeowners?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Yet gun crime in Britain is steadily rising. So this alleged reluctance of criminals to carry guns is all in your imagination.Besides, our police is now too busy targeting the law-abiding citizens to have time to search criminals!

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"