Va. Tech Shooting

[Kulindahr]

Well that argument won't go far.

Commercial aircraft is not designed for the purpose of killing. Guns are.

X are designed to deliver a payload to a destination.

What that payload does at its destination is dependent on the intent of the one arranging delivery. It can be defensive, or offensive.

 

[Kulindahr]

What about knives? They are often considered weapons, but do have a purpose of cutting things like vegetables.

You can outlaw any so-called weapon, but if someone has the intentions of doing you harm, or even killing you, they can do so with whatever is at their disposal. Has anyone eve watched the show Body Of Evidence on Court TV? It features Criminal Profiler Dayle Hinman of Florida. There have several cases in which she has been involved where the murderer did not have a gun but used something at the scene as the weapon. Owning a gun would help level the playing field for whatever the would-be killer tries to use as a weapon.

And THAT is what guns are meant for: they are the end, once and for all, of "might makes right", because with a gun in her hands, even a grandmother in a wheelchair has a decent chance against an NFL-linebacker size assailant.

 

[Kulindahr]

We should all go around with handguns in holsters on our hips all the time in case someone grabs a candlestick or a hammer against us?

Yes -- either that, or bend over and say, "Thank you sir! May I have another?!"

 

[Andreus]

one point of clarification

i have been trading barbs with kulindahr for months now

i have been reading ICO's posts for even longer

i agree with kul about ten percent of the time and i agree with ICO maybe fifty percent

one thing neither of them really is, is a racist

kulindahr has issues with different ideas at times, but that reflects that he is more conservative than the demcocrats, not racist

once again.... im probably the most sensitive person at JUB to the racism issue

these guys are not that type of person

disagree with their ideas all you like... god knows i do

but believing in a strict interpretation of the constitution does not a racist make

thats something entirely different

 

[divcurl0]

If someone is illegally on my property, and has already used violence to gain entry, then by definition he is a threat to my life and that of anyone else present. By consensus as broad as Cicero, Machiavelli, and the traditional rights of British
subjects, this person, by definition, is to be assumed to be willing to and intent on doing me, at the least, sufficient bodily harm to prevent me from interfering with his unlawful plunder of my property. He is thus to be dealt with in the same
fashion as an invading soldier caught in the act of invasion of a country: if he will not surrender, he is to be killed.

You can appeal to systems which had racism, sexism, and other unjust isms at their core, but its not a clever idea. A burglar wants your possessions, not your life. You have every right to use reasonable force to protect your possessions but friggin' killing the person is simply not a proportionate response.

If you really believe your statement about needing a gun for defense, then I presume you favor the abolition of firearms completely? None for police, none for the military? In fact, no weapons at all?

not that it follows from your logic, but as it happens, yeah. Its a cost-benifit thing. The use of weapons generally causes more damage (economic and social) than it prevents; most conflicts have an extremely negative sum gain (if not economically, then in terms of moral values that are dispensed with). This is for the simple reason that violence begets violence. On a domestic scale, police, when given free reign, invariably abuse their powers (read about the Milgram and the Stanford Prison Experiments) and again the same argument applies.

Cowardice is when you agree to become a victim -- that's what the people who have invented this business of "the people" meaning "the government" in this one instance have in mind, that we should all be victims. Standing up for yourself is not cowardice.

No, cowardice is when you feel the need to hide behind a gun.

I have made the challenge before, and it has not been faced: would you so eagerly impose on free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom from unwarranted search and seizure, and others, the same restrictions as are sought to be imposed on this most basic of rights?

the qualification: "on this most basic of rights" renders your challenge moot.

The "lack of enforcement" I spoke of has nothing to do with any "gun lobby";

But it has everything to do with the "Gun Lobby" (it IS a lobby) who basically ensure that the legal system does not punish murderers who who 'merely defend themselves'. They are the most powerful lobby in the United States. A huge chunk of Mr Bush's campaign funds came from the Gun Lobby. Qas this an act of altruism? Its really not hard to join the dots: The exective is NOT independent of the judiciary and the lobby exerts control over the legal system through the executive... I don't follow US politics that closely, but you just need to look at recent events to see this (what with Mr Gonsales firing those attorneys and all).

it is systemic. Parents, schools, and the legal system fail over and again to enforce rules, to enforce consequences. Thus we end up with a society where many people have no respect for either private property or private lives. As a result of this invasion from within, this influx of barbarians into our midst, the right enshrined in the Second Amendment becomes once again needed.

I don't know about parents and schools not enforcing rules, I'll take your word for it, but the elephant in the room is surely the pervasive "gun culture", in which guns are glorifed. As far as I'm aware we dont have this in the UK or Europe for that matter, so it stands to reason that a culture in which guns are atleast normalised, will naturally evolve to culture in which guns are glorified (with the help of the me-me-me-narcissism you have in consumerist America). It is this which causes loners to act out the pentup desires that they have no outlet for. So its nothing whatsoever to do with "evil".

Just let me wind up here. You have explained the concept of individualism, in which the individual has the right and responsiblity to look after him/herself. I'm not convinced it can account for the inconsitency that the "constitution protects the right of the individual but says nothing about the rights of the victims".

Let me also say that the idea of invidualism itself (atleast the one you propose), has pretty twisted consequences. Let me give an analogy: Take the honour based 'Shariah Law' applied in some Muslim countries (quite shockingly in this day and age); victims of rape are punished for dishonouring their families, and the rapists gets away scot free. Morally, I'd say this system is better than a legal system in which the person who gets shot dead for 'trespassing' is the guilty and the murderer is innocent.

Ofcourse "guns don't kill people, people kill people", but guns make it a whole lot easier!

 

[69Strat]

Therefore, your follow-up loaded question is fallacious and ridiculous. Learn to argue.

The only logical fallacy here is your own red herring to divert attention away from responding to the question that I asked.

It was obvious why they wouldn't be armed.

We already know that they wouldn't be armed, which shows that your right to bear arms argument was a white right. As such, it was flawed and has no application in today's multicultural society.

In short, you want to rely on a right to bear arms, yet you are unable to refute the fact that it was premised on racism and was exclusive to whites. I suggest you stick with your word plays, as it is obvious you have no argument.

 

[69Strat]

Oh, so your doing the logical fallacy thing so that you can, as you admit in my comment box, call me a racist.

I find your derogotory remark below offensive, since it's at the expense of a group that was for the most part, deprived of rights.

Nice to know the "woe, poor natives" argument never dies... it just continues to be stale.

What I find stale, is your way of thinking.

 

[Kulindahr]

You can appeal to systems which had racism, sexism, and other unjust isms at their core, but its not a clever idea. A burglar wants your possessions, not your life. You have every right to use reasonable force to protect your possessions but friggin' killing the person is simply not a proportionate response.

So you believe that if someone invades your country, there should be no resistance unless the invader actually starts killing people?

not that it follows from your logic, but as it happens, yeah. Its a cost-benifit thing. The use of weapons generally causes more damage (economic and social) than it prevents; most conflicts have an extremely negative sum gain (if not economically, then in terms of moral values that are dispensed with). This is for the simple reason that violence begets violence. On a domestic scale, police, when given free reign, invariably abuse their powers (read about the Milgram and the Stanford Prison Experiments) and again the same argument applies.

Since firearms in the U.S. are used preventively substantially more than they are criminally, the cost-benefit is in favor of defensive use of firearms. But if you want to play economics and claim that the cost exceeds the benefit, then your position argues for taking firearms away from the police as well.
Your acknowledgment of the fact that "police, when given free reign, invariably abuse their powers", however, points back in the direction that citizens must be armed -- as one of the Founding Fathers in the U.S. put it, "The great goal is that every man be armed". Nothing can resist armed force but armed force, unless the one resisted does not really believe in widespread application of armed force (even Ghandi recognized that, calling the disarming of the people the greatest sin of the British Raj).

No, cowardice is when you feel the need to hide behind a gun.

So you're in favor of no one being able to stop the murders like the one at V. Tech?

the qualification: "on this most basic of rights" renders your challenge moot.

Hardly. That the right is most basis means it is deserving of even greater protection than others. Any restriction you'd accept on it you should be even more willing to accept on other rights!

But it has everything to do with the "Gun Lobby" (it IS a lobby) who basically ensure that the legal system does not punish murderers who who 'merely defend themselves'. They are the most powerful lobby in the United States. A huge chunk of Mr Bush's campaign funds came from the Gun Lobby. Qas this an act of altruism? Its really not hard to join the dots: The exective is NOT independent of the judiciary and the lobby exerts control over the legal system through the executive... I don't follow US politics that closely, but you just need to look at recent events to see this (what with Mr Gonsales firing those attorneys and all).

If you're defending yourself, it isn't murder -- that's found in everything from the Code of Hammurabi to the Bible to Roman law to ancient Chinese law to... well, I suspect it's universal.
Do you see that your position results in saying that a person should just lay back and accept being raped? What you're saying results in a rape victim being guilty of assault if she/he puts up a defense -- besides the fact that it amounts to a radical system of wealth redistribution, because no one should bother a person who breaks into the house to walk off with possessions.

I don't know about parents and schools not enforcing rules, I'll take your word for it, but the elephant in the room is surely the pervasive "gun culture", in which guns are glorifed. As far as I'm aware we dont have this in the UK or Europe for that matter, so it stands to reason that a culture in which guns are atleast normalised, will naturally evolve to culture in which guns are glorified (with the help of the me-me-me-narcissism you have in consumerist America). It is this which causes loners to act out the pentup desires that they have no outlet for. So its nothing whatsoever to do with "evil".

I've never been anywhere where guns are "glorified" -- not at NRA gatherings, or Gun Owners of America, or gun shows, or shooting ranges. Guns are enjoyed -- but that's no different than golf clubs, foils (fencing), hang gliders, surf boards, DVD players.... This "glorification" business is a fantasy of people who have never bothered to try to see things as they are.
In fact, I'd say that if there's anything in American culture that is "glorified", it would be music groups and sports.

You can make excuses all you want, but there is such a thing as evil. What the gunman did at V. Tech was evil, just as rape is evil, arson is evil, etc. If you don't recognize that there's such a thing as evil, you have a serious blind spot.

Just let me wind up here. You have explained the concept of individualism, in which the individual has the right and responsiblity to look after him/herself. I'm not convinced it can account for the inconsitency that the "constitution protects the right of the individual but says nothing about the rights of the victims".

Huh? Victims are individuals!
Besides which, the stance you've been taking is that victims have no rights -- you say I should let my house be robbed, that I shouldn't shoot back at the guy trying to kill me.... Without the concept of individual sovereignty, all there are is victims -- and predators. And as I've said before, in such a situation, the only "defense" against the predator is to huddle like sheep and hope you get on the inside of the huddle so you're not the one preyed on.

Let me also say that the idea of invidualism itself (atleast the one you propose), has pretty twisted consequences. Let me give an analogy: Take the honour based 'Shariah Law' applied in some Muslim countries (quite shockingly in this day and age); victims of rape are punished for dishonouring their families, and the rapists gets away scot free. Morally, I'd say this system is better than a legal system in which the person who gets shot dead for 'trespassing' is the guilty and the murderer is innocent.

I can't figure out how you think one criminal should be allowed to violate someone else but another can't. Both the rapist and the trespasser have surrendered their participation in the true social contract, and thereby set themselves outside its protection.

I see the consistency where you would prefer a culture where the victim is punished and the criminal goes free; it matches your belief that we should let criminals do as they please. You need only take one small step to reach the position where we would award criminals medals.

 

[Kulindahr]

The only logical fallacy here is your own red herring to divert attention away from responding to the question that I asked.

We already know that they wouldn't be armed, which shows that your right to bear arms argument was a white right. As such, it was flawed and has no application in today's multicultural society.

In short, you want to rely on a right to bear arms, yet you are unable to refute the fact that it was premised on racism and was exclusive to whites. I suggest you stick with your word plays, as it is obvious you have no argument.

1. ICO7's analysis is correct; you are essentially arguing that because there were rapids in the hills, we have to keep floating in whitewater rafts and can't kick it on a pleasure boat.

2. Your argument also rests on a falsehood. Check the history: African freedmen in the Colonies, and some Native Americans, were subjects of the Crown and thus entitled to keep and bear arms, and did so. They were part of the militia, which was defined as "the whole people", and in practice was all adult able-bodied men.

For someone who claims to have been an officer in the military, your knowledge is shallow and often plain wrong.

 

[Andreus]

in YOUR OPINION, ICO is correct

lets keep things real

no one is judge OR jury here

we all just have opinions

i just wish that the safety of our citizens mattered more to people

 

[Kulindahr]

in YOUR OPINION, ICO is correct

lets keep things real

no one is judge OR jury here

we all just have opinions

i just wish that the safety of our citizens mattered more to people

1. Fallacies are fallacies, and ICO7 correctly recognized one -- that's not "opinion" and more than y = mx + b being the standard equation for a line.

2. I have a great deal of concern for the safety of all citizens, which is why I support all those state Constitutions which say that the citizens have the right to keep and bear arms for their own defense -- a phrase not included in the U.S. Constitution because it was considered obvious.


BTW -- thanks for the note on racism. I just wish the flingers of such unfounded accusations would actually do their homework; race was not an impediment to being a subject of the Crown, and thus not to gun ownership in the Colonies not in the U.S. at the time of the framing of the Constitution. Sure, the original British statement of the right restricted its exercise to Protestants, but that exclusion had fallen into neglect by the time the colonies were thriving.

 

[Kulindahr]

I mention the show because I find it fascinating. But to address your "so what" point? This should be common sense about protecting yourself; and no you don't need a board game or TV show to figure that out.

Well said!

As for guns.... firearms are designed and manufactured, bought and owned for a variety of purposes.



To steal a phrase....

 

[69Strat]

1. ICO7's analysis is correct.

There is no analysis, only an argument that NAs and slaves had no rights, which I agreed with from the outset.

2. Your argument also rests on a falsehood.

My argument is premised on certain groups having no right to keep and bear arms, while whites exercised such rights, which I note you have failed to refute.

In addition, the only falsehood I am aware of is you ludicrous assertion that citizens should have have the right to own military weapons. Not surprising.

Check the history: African freedmen in the Colonies, and some Native Americans, were subjects of the Crown and thus entitled to keep and bear arms, and did so.

The history is pretty clear that the vast majority of slaves had no such right to arms, nor did the NAs, despite your futile attempt at distorting the facts.

They were part of the militia, which was defined as "the whole people", and in practice was all adult able-bodied men.

The vast majority of slaves and NAs were not part of the militia, and "the whole people" was nothing more than a misrepresentation intended to preserve the rights and privileges of white landowners.

For someone who claims to have been an officer in the military, your knowledge is shallow and often plain wrong.

[removed personal attack]

 

[opinterph]

Originally Posted by opinterph

Like it or not, US law protects the rights of individuals.

Only to the extent that such rights don't infringe on society and the greater good of the community.

And that is the part of your argument which [I perceive] represents the most legitimate opportunity to challenge Americans’ more-or-less unfettered access to lethal weapons. It is a theme that Andreus and others have put-forward in the past. I also think that “mental illness” is much more pervasive in our society than we generally acknowledge. This quite naturally leads toward the concept that lethal weapons should somehow be restricted to persons who demonstrate an “eligibility” of some sort. It may also help to explain why the NRA is reportedly interested in helping to draft new “gun-control” legislation.

I just wish that the safety of our citizens mattered more to people.

… I have a great deal of concern for the safety of all citizens, which is why I support all those state Constitutions which say that the citizens have the right to keep and bear arms for their own defense -- a phrase not included in the U.S. Constitution because it was considered obvious.

​

Originally Posted by opinterph
Yeah – just like it was the “legal availability” of commercial aircraft that caused the deaths on 9/11. (“They sure as hell didn't originate from illegal sources.”)

Well that argument won't go far.

Commercial aircraft is not designed for the purpose of killing. Guns are.

I fully understand and appreciate your remark. My statement was intended to draw attention to the false assumption relating to cause and effect.

… race was not an impediment to being a subject of the Crown, and thus not to gun ownership in the Colonies [[STRIKE]not[/STRIKE]] in the U.S. at the time of the framing of the Constitution.

I find your [derogatory] remark below offensive, since it's at the expense of a group that was for the most part, deprived of rights.

Nice to know the "woe, poor natives" argument never dies... it just continues to be stale.

It is an interesting fact that slaves were held by a number of Native American tribes – not freed until after the Civil War [in 1866]. (BTW, for whatever it's worth, I am genetically 1/8th Native American [Indian].)

It is also true that African “indentured servants” had become landowners at the time of the writing of the US Constitution.

Are you working for a carrier like Brinks that will be transporting money and valuables? Or will you be working in a static security slot as an armed guard?

Is it your view that an armed guard working for Brinks is prohibitted from using deadly force to protect the money and valuable under his custody and control?

I am currently working as the “armed guard” of my personal residence. IOW, “Not For Hire.” My interest in completing the course stemmed primarily from my personal curiosity about the process itself; however, I regard the instruction I received to be among the most-useful of all my educational pursuits. My instructors were both retired Secret Service agents who had previously been engaged in the transportation and protection of a valuable asset – the President of the United States. A huge part of the training involved the exact same instructional materials as FBI and law enforcement officers receive. It doesn’t matter what kinda cargo you are “protecting,” the rules are the same. It is never [Secret Service protocols are somewhat different] proper to initiate lethal force to subdue an adversary unless the subject-entity represents a reasonably obvious threat to your own life or the life of others. An armored guard working for Brinks is most-certainly not allowed to spray bullets unless he/she is under direct mortal threat. In such a circumstance, the workers are not so much “using deadly force” in order to protect the assets under their supervision as they are exerting measures to ensure their own survival, incidental to their role as custodians of the cargo.

 

[69Strat]

2. I have a great deal of concern for the safety of all citizens, which is why I support all those state Constitutions which say that the citizens have the right to keep and bear arms for their own defense

Somebody claiming he had concern for the "safety of all citizens" would not be advocating the carrying of .357 magnum pistols onboard a commercial aircraft and talk about firing such a pistol at altitude. Not only are there Air Marshall's trained in CQB specific to aircraft, but they use tactical weapons and ammunition better suited for the task. The last thing society needs is an armed citizen on an aircraft taking the law into his own hands, which is what you suggested on another firearms thread.

Based on your reckless and foolhardy ideas, you should be prohibitted from owning any type of firearm and have no business anywhere near aircraft.

 

[opinterph]

… what you suggested on another firearms thread.

… you should be prohibitted from ...

Umm, “prohibitted” only needs 1 “t”.

AND~ it is polite to include a link to “another firearms thread.” ​

 

[69Strat]

I also think that “mental illness” is much more pervasive in our society than we generally acknowledge. This quite naturally leads toward the concept that lethal weapons should somehow be restricted to persons who demonstrate an “eligibility” of some sort. It may also help to explain why the NRA is reportedly interested in helping to draft new “gun-control” legislation.

Agreed, there needs to be an "eligibility" process tied in to all firearm purchases. People diagnosed with a psychological disorder, or who are taking medication, alcoholics, drug addicts, or those with a history of physical abuse, shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm. I don't see it as unreasonable.

An armored guard working for Brinks is most-certainly not allowed to spray bullets unless he/she is under direct mortal threat. In such a circumstance, the workers are not so much “using deadly force” in order to protect the assets under their supervision as they are exerting measures to ensure their own survival, incidental to their role as custodians of the cargo.

The Brinks guard in your example would be using deadly force to protect the assets, since it is their "primary" mission and not just "incidental" to their role as custodians of the cargo. Their job is to protect the assets, which would automatically presume that they would have to exert measures to ensure their survival, if faced with such a mortal threat.

In short, the right to use deadly force is not just limited to the protection of life, but also extends to property, as in the case of an armed Brinks guard tasked with protecting money and valuables.

 

[radical matt]

Hm...since this IS a thread on the Va. Tech shooting...man, thoughts and prayers. It's really a sad thing. I mean, people die all the time, and in large numbers in parts of the world, but...somehow, at a school and all that...just so sad...



As for the gun control thing...my opinion on that is probably well enough known by now, except that I'm not a well known member around here... ^_^


BUT, I had an interesting thought the other day; something that speaks to the change of time and technology. I'm sure the anti-gun people won't understand it, so you guys may as well skim to the bottom of the paragraph. For those of you that are either pro-Second Amendment or neutral on the issue (and if you think this is a good argument, feel free to pass it around or discuss it with your friends), here goes:

Think about the gap of power between attacker and defender(s)/innocent(s) in the following scenarios.

Oh, and I'll warn you, this IS a little morbit, but I'm not advocating hurting people (PLEASE mods, don't delete this without at least reading it all the way through.) I'm also not trying to be detatched, emotionally, from suffering and harm...but as a scientist, this seems to be the best way to qualitatively measure the power gap invloved in the following scenarios. PLEASE bare with it until the end, and I'm gonna be as non-graphic in my description as I can and this is NOT meant to make light or anything of the Va. Tech tragedy. All that said...

Scenario 1:
There are ten of us in a room, and there is ONE sword there (katana, longsword, claymore, take your pic.) Suppose I take that sword and decide I'm going to try killing you guys. I haven't been trained with swords, but I have about a year's worth of martial arts training, and while not all thatmuscular, I have good muscle tone, moderate strength, and pretty fast speed, agility, and reflexes. Since we're all friends and nice guys, no one's expecting it (kinda like the Va. Tech thing...), so I kill one person with a stab through the chest from the back. One person is now dead. I move to attack a second person. The remain ing 8 of you (including the one I'm moving to attack) either realize now that I'm trying to kill you OR you will after I injure/kill my second victim. Two people are dead/injured now, and there are seven of you to attempt to subdue me. At LEAST two more of you will be injured/killed in the attempt, even if you all rush at once, I'm gonna cut one of you and likely at least nic a second one. The remaining five manage to wrestly the sword from me and bring an end to the tragedy, and possibly some more of you are hurt in the attempt (a sharp sword doesn't need to slash or stab to cause damage, just a casual pull or light force lunge can cut.)

Death toll: 1-4
Injured: 2-8, not including those already dead
Status of Shooter/Swordsman: injured/subdued

Scenario 2:
There are ten of us in a room. ALL ten of us have a gun (each of us has one.) Also, presumably we all have at least 10 bullets, either in the loaded clip/chamber or a combination of the clip/chamber and backup ammo clips we have on our person/pockets/satchel/ect.

Once again, I'll be the bad guy... -_-; So, first thing I shoot one of you. You are either injured or dead. I turn to attack a second. I shoot the second. Again, injured or dead. (I may fire in two to three shot bursts or single shots, either way, at the least those shot are wounded.) The first shot grabs everyone's attention, but I'll get a second person before the other 7 of you can react. It can happen that fast and it also takes MOST Humans a minute to process what's happening, realize those WERE gunshots, not construction equipment or something else, and that this IS a crisis situation.

I turn my aim on a third person. All 7 of you reach for your weapons. I will still get to SHOOT AT at least two of you before the other 5 are able to unload on me. Now I'm injured/dead. Either way, I, as a threat, have been neutralized.

Death toll: 2-4
Injured: 2-8, not including those already dead
Status of Shooter: injured/dead

(I'd like to discuss it here, but as per my near-degreed scientific training, discussion comes AFTER results are completed. I just want to point out that this is similer, though still worse, than the sword case.)


Scenario 3:
Once again, there are ten of us in this hypothetical room. This time, there is only ONE gun. I, as the villian of this tragic tale, am the one in posession of it (just as I was with the sword.) Well, either that or it was "public" (like the sword, which was on display or something...) and I just took it when I decided to go on my rampage.

Just as last time, I have shot and killed/injured two of you before anyone can react. Before you can even GET to me, another TWO to SIX of you are dead/injured. Now that you've got me, you're going to try to subdue me, and I'm going to keep fireing dumfire at you (or maybe, if I'm really skilled and can keep my cool, keep firing aimed shots. AND, with my light martial arts training and quick motions, keep from you guys subdueing me easily. And there's between one and five of you still alive/uninjured at the point you get to me...) So at least one and as many as four of you will be injured in the struggle.

AND, if I'm fast enough and skilled enough to keep out of your collective reach, I will simply continue picking you off, one by one, until you're all dead. And that's if I'm not strong enough to simply fight you hand to hand, step back, and shoot. That would work too.

Death toll: 4-9
Injured: 0-5, not including those already dead
Status of Shooter: Possibly subdued, if skilled/strong, alive and unscathed, ready to LEAVE the room and cause MORE death.




Now then, for the "results" section of this thought experiment. Let's start by looking at the outcomes:

Death toll: 1-4
Injured: 2-8, not including those already dead
Status of Shooter/Swordsman: injured/subdued

Death toll: 2-4
Injured: 2-8, not including those already dead
Status of Shooter: injured/dead

Death toll: 4-9*
Injured: 0-5, not including those already dead
Status of Shooter: Possibly subdued, if skilled/strong, alive and unscathed

*If I survive, I'm ready to LEAVE the room and cause MORE death. If I manage to injure all of you, I will likely finish you all off, killing you, before moving on and killing others in the larger world outside of our little room.


Just looking at the deaths, we see that the case of one person with a sword ranks about even with EVERYONE having a gun. Essentially, the gap in power is about the same. However, when we look at the case of ONE person with a gun, the MINIMUM deathcount is about the same as the upper end death count in the case of ONE sword or EVERYONE having guns.

Looking at the injury count, we see that the first two cases are about the same. At least two people will be hurt, but EVERYONE might be. As they say in martial arts with knife defense, if you're fighting someone with a knife, expect to get cut. You may be fast, your blocks may be perfect, you may be able to deflect the blow from the side and grab the wrist and pin it around their back, but you EXPECT to get cut...and it will probably happen. Much moreso with a sword as the blade is longer and usually sharper. However, we look at the third case and see that EVERYONE is likely going to end up injured. In fact, it's possible for me, the shooter, to have ALL of you shot before anyone can lay a hand on me, at which point I can finish the rest of you off at my leasure.

Finally, let's look at what happens to me, the villian of this story. In the first case, none of you have a way to kill me (unless one of you knows jujitsu...some of those breaks and chokes are pretty nasty, even in practice/sparing...), so at worst, you're going to lightly injure me, but in the end, you will be able to subdue me. There will be at least 5 of you still alive and kicking when you get to me, and if nothing else you could just all close in around to where we were touching cloth to cloth (skin to skin distance, basically) where I couldn't move my arms. You might be able to kill me with my own sword, but by the time you take the sword away from me, I become MUCH less of a threat (I still have my martial arts, but now YOU have a sword. And swords aren't as easy to kill with as guns, but you can still hurt people fairly easily without any training.)

In the second case, I get shot...by at least five people. In either injured or dead. 'Nuf said.

In the last case, it's like the first, but unlike when the second case is like the first, this isn't a good thing. Either you will injure me, or I will kill/injure you all. In the latter case, this scenario becomes EVEN WORSE, as I can now leave the room unimpeeded to kill MORE people in open halways or outside...places which, unlike our little room, people will not be able to easily rush me as you did.



Now, what's the point of all of this?

I agree with Thomas Paine(sp?). He lived in the time of the Founding Fathers and may have been one of them (I don't know how much of a role he played, but he wrote a lot of pamplets, the most famous of which is Common Sense, which were very useful, if not instrumental, in rallying the colonists to Revolution.) I wish I knew the proper quote, but I will paraphrase his words.

I wish that all guns in the world could be destroyed. But as long as one exists, I will take up my own (musket, he said) and thank God that I can.

I was thinking about this and my mind drifted to the samurai of fudal Japan. This is when the thought stuck me: Back then, they, in a way similar to the knights and aristocracy of Europe, were able to walk the streets with weapons the civilian/pesants were not allowed by law to carry, and like the knights, they seldom lived up to a true code of honor and chivalry.

So I started thinking about the "power gap" (if you're a science-y person, think things like Delta E [physics entheusists] or activation energy [for you biology/chemistry people]) between the pesants and the knights/samurai. Then I was thinking about the same thing, but with only one person having a gun (scenario 3). THEN my mind stopped on scenario 2, and I realized something; the power gap is about the same in the case of ONE person having a sword as it is for EVERYONE having a gun. However, the power gap when ONE person has a gun becomes INSANE.

Reading the words of Paine, I realized he had a point. If there are no guns in the world, everyone's on an even plane. If a fight breaks out, we all have roughtly the same chance of getting out uninjured/alive. We can increase this with martial arts training (something I tell people is, specially in this day and age, EVERYONE should learn some martial arts if they can...I truly believe that as a novice martial artist myself...) But, give one person a sword, and there's a power gap, an advantage. Give EVERYONE a gun, and the power gap is STILL there.

You might think, "What are you saying? EVERYONE has one now, we're all on even footing...right?" Wrong. Because evil people ALWAYS have the element of surprise. In tactics (and martial arts, having an aspect of that), the two most powerful forms of attack; the surprise attack (ambush/preemptive SURPRISE attack) being the first, and the counter attack being the second (if the person that made the initial attack is depleated/weakened/exhausted...and in these scenarios, all of this will happen in a matter of under a minute and likely with enough adreneline that weakness/exhaustion hasn't kicked in yet.) This already gives the attacker a major advantage in the surprise attack. The most deadly attack in the martial arts? One the opponent doesn't see coming.

So, even if we're ALL armed, the villian has the element of surprise and can peg 2-3 people before anyone notices and can even react! And another 1-3 after that easily. Guns are simply THAT bad. Not like swords or martial arts, neither honor or fairness at all...which is why I'm with Paine with my first preference being to rid the world of them, I just know that's impossible.

...but it gets worse. If only ONE person has a gun, the power gap is now great enough for them to potentially kill EVERYONE else. And even if we make owning weapons totally illegal in the US, repeal the Second Amendment, stop and think; our border with Mexico is WIDE OPEN! How easy would it be to smuggle guns across? Hell, it seems to work great for smuggling illegal drugs, whould it be that much more difficult to bring in illegal guns? Nope. And metal detectors? Please...

Even if we manage to completely close our borders with both Mexico AND Canada, neither of which is going to happen, we've got a LOT of coastline we'd have to also patrol to keep guns from getting in. Of course, if we could convince all nations of the world to destroy all their guns too...like that's going to happen.


Another conclusion: The interesting thing about guns, and this is somewhat anti-intuitive, the FEWER of them there are, the MORE dangerous they are...the power gap gets greater (change scenario 2 or 3 to where I have a gun and 5 of you have guns and 4 are unarmed...it's still bad, but not AS bad as 3.)

UNLESS you can get the number down to zero. And this means NO guns on cops, NO guns on soldiers, NO tanks, NO armed aircraft, NO armed ships/navy/special forces/intel, AND NO weapons of these sorts being employed by ANY nation ANYWHERE in the world. If this could happen, yay! It can't. No matter how much you believe in the goodness of Humanity, no matter how nieve or innocent you are (and I'm pretty high up that list myself...), you have to realize this simply isn't going to happen.


So, the danger with guns is not how easy it is to kill with them, but rather the power gap they generate. Even if everyone has one, it's just as bad as if only ONE person had a sword and everyone else was unarmed. But give this one person a gun (or let him get it by smuggling or the black market) and it gets bad. Very bad.



I know it was long, for those of you that read it all, good for you. Comments/criticisms are welcome. I mean, I'm sure there are holes, but it's a thought experiment, and I provide for both best cause (the lowest numbers) and worst case (the high end numbers) scenarios. At the very least, I hope some of you found it interesting, and if any of you think it's a useful or interesting way of thinking about it, by all means, let me know. And if any of you think it's a lousy way of quantitatively measuring it...well, I'd like to know that too (and if you have any better ways.) After all, as a scientist, I want to make a quantitative analysis of it, and this seems the best way.

For those of you that just think I'm sick...don't bother replying or PMing me that. If I'm not, then it's pointless to say so. If I am, then I wouldn't care, and it's also pointless to say so. ^_^ I'm the former, but if you think I'm the latter, well, got all the bases covered there. ^_^


Anyway, to be honest, it was just a thought that occured to be the other day during my routene walk to school/class (or on my way home, I forget which, but it doesn't matter... ^_^; ) while I was mulling over Paine's words in my head. I dunno, maybe it's not a useful way of looking at it at all. It's just the first time I've thought that, and I've never heard of any one else presenting that and making that comparison, so maybe I'm the first person that ever has. Either way, I found it interesting...and a little freightening (even if EVERYONE's armed, people still get hurt/die), and when I saw this, wanted to share it. Hope at least someone got something out of it, even if it's against my point (after all, I like getting people to think, even if they disagree with me in the end.)


Again, I don't mean to offend anyone or this to be offensive or anything...I just think it needs to be said. There's no way we can ultimately stop something like Va. Tech from happening again, but we can definately do something to make it less bad the next time. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to want to do exactly the wrong thing (from my reasoning/point of view), so in the end, who knows...the next one may end up being even worse...

 

[69Strat]

Your question was loaded so as to back up your ad hominem by calling me a racist.

My question was premised on your argument. There was nothing to back up.

 

[69Strat]

Conquest of an indigenous people and slavery was not just a US-only phenomenon that sprang up out of the blue when the Constitution was written.

In this argument, you are saying because other nations were involved in slavery that it makes it okay. At best, it's laughable.