Non-IT News Thread
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
but sadly we need these crazies to help ensure the other side doesn't just take everything from the rest of us.
Freedom will never result from living in fear.
Fear profits man nothing. I'm not afraid having backup that is named Smith & Wesson or Glock helps me stay that way.
-
@dafyre said:
I will agree with both of you. We don't need extremists from either side of US Politics... but sadly, there only seems to be one side these days: The government trying to slowly ebb away people's rights (that is another topic).
I don't agree at all. I'd say it's far the other way, I see very little loss of rights and have far more concern from the militant extremists.
-
@dafyre said:
I'm not afraid having backup that is named Smith & Wesson or Glock helps me stay that way.
If you aren't afraid, why do you need the gun? If you feel you need a weapon to remain unafraid, doesn't that suggest you are afraid? Which is exactly my point.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Break it into its own concentration thread?
No, please! It's too early to concentrate! Let's wait until at least after lunch! Lol.
-
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Break it into its own concentration thread?
No, please! It's too early to concentrate! Let's wait until at least after lunch! Lol.
It was after dinner when that was posted
-
@scottalanmiller said:
No, but they could. And there is no reason for them to be doing that. When someone takes their phone with them that is not because they feel it is a new limb but because they actively use it. You don't "take your phone" to Walmart, you "use your phone" at Walmart. You check your shopping list, you get directions, you get a call or an email, you see the time.
Well, actually, if I don't take my phone to Walmart, I can't use it while I am there, can I? (Yes, absurd, I know)... and if they did start shooting at the frozen turkeys, the police would promptly show up and haul their butts off to jail.
I think that we have to make comparisons like this, that obviously are so out of context and unreasonable, shows how crazy it is to carry a gun while shopping!! If people feel that carrying a lethal weapon is "a part of them", these are exactly the people I'm concerned with allowing out in public. Why would a gun ever become like that to someone? It's nothing like a phone or a body part.
How is it out of context? For the person who has a conceled carry permit, why should they not carry their weapon with them? And speaking as somebody who was raised around guns, yes a gun can just become a part of you. However, if I am done shopping, and I have a concealed (or not) weapon on me, I can protect myself in the parking lot of Walmart when I am putting my groceries in the car.
I think my next statement sums up the average pro-gunner's mind set: My right to defend myself trumps your fear of my properly carried weapon.
-
@Dashrender said:
@dafyre said:
If he is posing for a picture with a loaded gun, then he's an idiot.
This is where you lose me - what? so you should only pose for a picture while holding a non loaded weapon? uhhhhh I don't get it.
Why do you need a loaded gun to take a picture? Admittedly, maybe idiot was too strong of a word, but it makes my point. Alas, we can only see so much in a picture, and infer many things that are not there.
-
@dafyre said:
Why do you need a loaded gun to take a picture? Admittedly, maybe idiot was too strong of a word, but it makes my point. Alas, we can only see so much in a picture, and infer many things that are not there.
Same reasons you need one to go to Walmart
-
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
No, but they could. And there is no reason for them to be doing that. When someone takes their phone with them that is not because they feel it is a new limb but because they actively use it. You don't "take your phone" to Walmart, you "use your phone" at Walmart. You check your shopping list, you get directions, you get a call or an email, you see the time.
Well, actually, if I don't take my phone to Walmart, I can't use it while I am there, can I? (Yes, absurd, I know)... and if they did start shooting at the frozen turkeys, the police would promptly show up and haul their butts off to jail.
The point is.... when I take my phone with me I intend to use it, that's why I took it. And using it is a good thing, for everyone. It's meant to be used.
Carrying a gun in the same context is bad. If you bring a gun into public with the intent to use it, that's where I have a problem. And why would someone bring a gun that they did not intend to use? I don't bring a phone just to have the extra weight with me.
That someone misusing a gun might get arrested doesn't really matter. Someone taking out a phone and hitting people with it would be arrested too.
The difference is, there are many great, legitimate, intended uses of a phone that are safe and good in the public space. Guns have no equivalent. My having a phone doesn't put other people at risk, doesn't scare other people, doesn't incite fear. Anyone having a gun, does.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
And I think those people are the ones we should be worried about. It's not their job to carry a weapon to protect me, I didn't ask them to and they should not be vigilantes.
So if a robber is holding a store hostage and pointing his gun at you, you don't want me to disarm him (by shooting him or otherwise) ?
I do not accept that anyone "should" pick up a weapon and go out in public with the premeditated intent of using said weapon for any purpose, good or evil. Period. End of story.
I agree with that premise. But if somebody tries to rob me, and I have a gun, I'm going to use it. That's not premeditated, that is self-defense.
That's literally vigilantism. And it is a very bad thing. We don't need protection by these people, and they make it impossible for people to know who is and who isn't intended to do them harm. They do more harm than good. They don't carry weapons to protect us no matter what they say, they do it for their own reasons (fear, pride, hate... whatever.)
By and large, I agree with you on vigilantism, but offering a helping hand, blade or bullet to a fellow citizen in harm's way does not make you a vigilante.
I can't accept any argument that suggests they are doing it for the good of others. That just makes no sense.
The person I am talking about has a concealed carry permit and is in the wrong place at the wrong time and takes action to prevent harm to someone else. If it was within my power to keep you from getting shot, I would do it.
And when you say vigilantism, I am assuming the person who shot the robber / thief, etc, just vanishes into the night like Batman. I'm not talking about those kind of folks. I am talking about the guy with the carry permit who shoots the robber to keep you from getting hurt, and then stays there, waiting for the police to arrive.
-
@dafyre said:
How is it out of context? For the person who has a conceled carry permit, why should they not carry their weapon with them?
Because it puts everyone at risk. It lowers the safety of people in public.
-
@dafyre said:
And speaking as somebody who was raised around guns, yes a gun can just become a part of you.
I'm not okay with people who feel this way having guns. That weapons can become a mental crutch I'm not disputing. That people who feel that way should be in public with those said guns I'm very concerned about.
-
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
And I think those people are the ones we should be worried about. It's not their job to carry a weapon to protect me, I didn't ask them to and they should not be vigilantes.
So if a robber is holding a store hostage and pointing his gun at you, you don't want me to disarm him (by shooting him or otherwise) ?
You are taking it out of context. I don't want anyone casually in the store with a gun. You are making the context that you are already there, the risks are already taken and now should the gun be used after the things I think are bad have already happened and can't be changed.
If you are asking if I want you to be in the store with the gun, absolutely not.
-
@dafyre said:
I agree with that premise. But if somebody tries to rob me, and I have a gun, I'm going to use it. That's not premeditated, that is self-defense.
Not premeditated to shot that person in particular, but carrying a gun with the intent to shoot someone robbing you is definitely premeditated. You thought about it ahead of time just in this thread, for example.
-
@dafyre said:
By and large, I agree with you on vigilantism, but offering a helping hand, blade or bullet to a fellow citizen in harm's way does not make you a vigilante.
It does if you left the house with a gun for that intent. That's exactly what it is.
-
@dafyre said:
The person I am talking about has a concealed carry permit and is in the wrong place at the wrong time and takes action to prevent harm to someone else. If it was within my power to keep you from getting shot, I would do it.
That's fine. But it's getting into the situation in the first place that is the problem. Not using the gun well once it is too late.
-
@dafyre said:
And when you say vigilantism, I am assuming the person who shot the robber / thief, etc, just vanishes into the night like Batman. I'm not talking about those kind of folks. I am talking about the guy with the carry permit who shoots the robber to keep you from getting hurt, and then stays there, waiting for the police to arrive.
Vigilantism doesn't suggest that they are super heroes or disappear. That's not at all what it is. A vigilante is a civilian or organization that undertakes law enforcement (or actions in the pursuit of self-perceived justice) that is without legal authority.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
How is it out of context? For the person who has a conceled carry permit, why should they not carry their weapon with them?
Because it puts everyone at risk. It lowers the safety of people in public.
But then we're back to protecting myself from the robber who wants to steal my car. He may just want to steal my car, but the moment he pulls out a weapon is the moment that I assume he intends me harm and will defend myself judiciously (weapon or not).
Oh, and to answer your other question... I'm not afraid. The Smith & Wesson or Glock comment was supposed to be snarky, lol.
Look at what happened to Target. They requested people to not bring guns into their stores (they have this right, that's fine, I understand)... and now we have (http://www.katc.com/story/29048798/lafayette-police-investigating-armed-robbery-in-target-parking-lot).
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Not premeditated to shot that person in particular, but carrying a gun with the intent to shoot someone robbing you is definitely premeditated. You thought about it ahead of time just in this thread, for example.
So I stand there and let them rob me?
-
@dafyre said:
But then we're back to protecting myself from the robber who wants to steal my car. He may just want to steal my car, but the moment he pulls out a weapon is the moment that I assume he intends me harm and will defend myself judiciously (weapon or not).
You are using anecdotes to dispute stats. It doesn't work. The stats say allowing guns puts everyone at risk. Plain and simple. If you feel that stats are wrong, dispute the stats. Pointing out anecdotes that don't even quite dispute the facts doesn't change the bottom line. The availability of guns, the use of them, having them in public puts people at risk.
You see "robber with a gun." I see "person who carries a gun using it to rob me." I see the legal gun carrying permit holding guy and the robber the same - both are carrying a weapon to make them feel safe while making others feel threatened. One has decided to use it to rob me, the other may or may not do the same when the opportunity presents itself. Both are gun carrying and I can't tell which is which because "normal" people are allowed to go out armed like criminals.
