I do not side with Muggers. I have not one time said "Muggers should be able to steal, stealing is good. Just hand your stuff over to them and just stand there." Me not wanting to see them dead means I have to be on their side condoning their behavior? Is finding a non-leathal solution so evil? Oh and puns are the lowest form of comedy.
If concealed weapons actually work than I'd be all for it. And since you are not a Keld I can tell you "prove it." and not get stabbed in the face.
You broke his kneecap and walked away? I would have broken the guy's nose, tore out his hair, and stolen anything on his person including his clothes. Then I would have taken something hard and sharp and made sure he wouldn't be able to urinate for a year.
OK, let's take the word 'gun' out of the equation, since it is such a (please GOD, forgive me) [/i]loaded word.
I know you tried your best to avoid that.
Would you guys be ok if the original poster pulled out a crowbar and tattooed this punk's head, killing him? Or would you still side with the mugger?
Brutal, and excessive. And there should be some crime to that effect he ought to be tried for.
What about beating him into a coma for 6 months, but he lives?
Hmm... don't know. Taking away six months from somebody is harsh...
Call this point the weakness of my current system. If I were forced to decide right now. . . acceptable if the defender felt life-threatened, unacceptable otherwise.
Do you still have so much sympathy for this poor unfortunate guy who can't get a leg up, [I]and got put in a hospital for his savage acts?
Que?
What about merely punching him in the nose and he runs off like a little girl bawling. Do you then decide to take him in and attempt to rehabilitate him? or do you give the verbal dressing-down he so rightly deserves?
No one deserves a verbal dressing-down. I see only so many reasons to use such devices, and they are very exceptional cases indeed.
Trash-talking only fuels the anger that will resurface later*. If you say nothing, he has only his own thoughts to stir - and there's only one conclusion to draw if you are 'pwned' this badly.
*To explain deeper, I mean, confronting someone with insults has the same effect as confronting someone in debate - you get the same initial resistance, that irrational human urge to defend yourself, ignoring what is actually being said. (It has been said on these forums that not all hope for rational debate is lost though; I believe it was said, after the arguing, when people sign off and rejoin the comfort of their abodes, is when the logic sinks in. In other words, people may change, but only when you're not looking). Giving someone the verbal dressing down, if it doesn't drive them to have at you again, will just be the first thing they have to think of when they fix up their nose (and stop "bawling"). It just delays them learning their lesson - you're making it harder for them to give up the grudge.
One should dispel grudges wherever possible.
... hmm, I want to ask a question of my own. Let's say you knock out your assailant. He will come to, bruised and beaten, in a few minutes. You can rip out all of his hair in the meantime. Do you do it? Is it even a moral question, or just a matter of decency?
Argedracorious, puns are far from the lowest form of comedy. I believe the Animaniacs had that one pegged down as miming. Except when the joke is putting the mime through whimsical torment.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
From all of these situations I have read, it really shows the stupidity of some people. Instead of some ingenious way to makes money (like a job) they feel the need to crush other just to step up themselves because they don't think.
One of my friends got beat by druggies because his brother knew a druggy. What kind of **** is that?
I just pity the attackers in those situations. Either because they were not in their right mind, or because they are so hopelessy diluted by nonsense and drugs that they can't differentiat between reality and fiction.
Hidden weapons cause way to much trouble for me. The person could be mugging me, I pull a knife, they pull a knife, and suddenly both of your world's fall apart. If you pull a weapon on a mugger, then you just screwed yourself over. Anything could happen, none of it good.
Everyone knows that good luck and good game are such insincere terms that any man who does not connect his right hook with the offender's jaw on the very utterance of such a phrase is no man I would consider as such.
We live in a country were ~50% of the populace believe public schooling is a socialist conspiracy and that being called Einstein is an insult. We could try and fix it, but unfortunately the other 50% don't believe in euthanasia.
About punching people in the nose: It works. I was once in a situation where a guy got in front of me and said that he wouldn't let me leave without a fight. Keep in mind, he had a good 2 and a half feet on me. As soon as those words left his mouth, I punched him in the nose. He fell backwards, and I walked away without a scratch. So the nose is a very good stun target.
I have a hard time believing that he was 2.5 feet taller than you. Even if you are extremely short, 4.5, he'd have to be at least 7'. Exaggeration fore the loss.
We live in a country were ~50% of the populace believe public schooling is a socialist conspiracy and that being called Einstein is an insult. We could try and fix it, but unfortunately the other 50% don't believe in euthanasia.
You broke his kneecap and walked away? I would have broken the guy's nose, tore out his hair, and stolen anything on his person including his clothes. Then I would have taken something hard and sharp and made sure he wouldn't be able to urinate for a year.
No, then would it be an assault. I aimed for the kneecap because a single attack which incapacitates can be seen as self defence, and because a broken kneecap really hurts like hell.
Women, the elderly, anyone under 5'3", children, anyone facing a mugger with a knife or two or three competent assailants. What do they do? Or does it not matter what happens to them, because you at least can kung fu an incompetent drunkard? Why is your bleeding heart so full of compassion for violent scum, but none for their innocent victims?
That's a bit of a strange remark... Why wouldn't (at least the women and under 5'3) they be able to learn such things?
When did I say I didn't care about their victims? I just don't think that using deadly force is or should be allowed when you don't think he's planning to. Besides, killing a person causes quite a bit more trauma then being robbed, or in the worse case scenario, robbed and beaten up.
Is my heart full of compassion for the robbers? Hell no. But, like I said before, you can't just run around and kill everyone who does something illegal.
Just imagine, you're driving over towards a friend, which lives a 50 miles away. You're a bit late, so you speed up when you suddenly see the police lights flashing. You move over and step out of the car. The police does the same, draw their guns and shoot you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
Well I suppose giving a gun to every elderly person. child and person under 5'3" would be mildly amusing, perhaps there is a better way. Its coicidental however everytime someone on here sucessfully repels a mugger, said mugger is incompetant or drunk. But everyone else is facing Super-Mugger! Who can only be stopped by a gun.
Everyone packin' heat will only work in the shortrun then the muggers will travel in bigger groups with guns too. And I love a good shoot-out as much as the next person, I have this nagging feeling it'll bad for the neighborhood.
But yet again, back in reality, violent crime decreases in neighborhoods where there is a proliferation of arms.
The problem is that you're operating as if game theory were relevant and not an idiotic branch of "science". The relevant bit here is not the Prisoner's Dilemma, but the Traveler's Dilemma. Remember that the goal is not for the mugger to **** over other people. That is not his primary motivation. His primary motivation is to make a profit. When there's a good chance of dying, the profit line is pretty hard to justify at maybe a couple hundred bucks per life-risking effort.
If you want to deter crime, you have to make crime unprofitable. That's the heart and the soul of the issue. Normally we do this via law and order, but if that breaks down...
That's a bit of a strange remark... Why wouldn't (at least the women and under 5'3) they be able to learn such things?
Oh, they can. They're just not going to be very effective. I'm sorry, but back in reality, training only takes you so far. Actual strength and speed come into account.
And to use your side's own rhetorical device, the mugger could easily know the same stupid "self-defense" moves and use them to kick your ass.
When did I say I didn't care about their victims? I just don't think that using deadly force is or should be allowed when you don't think he's planning to. Besides, killing a person causes quite a bit more trauma then being robbed, or in the worse case scenario, robbed and beaten up.
The worst trauma is growing up as a child and living in a world where everyday muggings and rape and murder are condoned and allowed by the citizens because no one has the testicular fortitude to fix the situation.
Is my heart full of compassion for the robbers? Hell no. But, like I said before, you can't just run around and kill everyone who does something illegal.
Just imagine, you're driving over towards a friend, which lives a 50 miles away. You're a bit late, so you speed up when you suddenly see the police lights flashing. You move over and step out of the car. The police does the same, draw their guns and shoot you.
The obvious and transparent differences being that you weren't victimizing anyone and that the cops have actual viable and preferrable alternatives. In the scenario in which law enforcement is utterly worthless, and if in Argedracorius' county they are letting two time murders out after two years, the system really is worthless, we have far less alternatives.
It's very hard to take someone seriously who doesn't have a long term solution, but only appeals to imaginary truisms. I repeat it again, to anyone trying to argue that the life of a mugger is at all times inviolate; what's your solution? Where is it? How are you going to fix this situation? How can you turn around a Hellhole of a neighborhood where there is no fear of the law or respect for another's property and person without the use of force?
In all things, one must consider the end. What end, then? A community of appeasement and terror, or a few months or years of difficult, dangerous work cleaning up a community so that honest people can go to work and build up their property and wealth, and young children can educate themselves and better themselves in an environment that allows it?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're basically saying; "Hey guys, let's just shoot every mugger to make our society a better place to live in!"
Wouldn't that make you much like any dictator, which wanted to get rid of a certain group?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're basically saying; "Hey guys, let's just shoot every mugger to make our society a better place to live in!"
You're wrong.
I advocate carrying a gun so you can defend yourself. I do not advocate using violence as a first response or at first convenience, only when it is the last practical and moral response possible.
Argedracorius raised the claim that where he lives, the criminal justice system is defunct and murderers are effectively not punished. In this nightmare scenario, we have much fewer options. When we can't rely upon law and order from our government, we're left with two options; take the law into our own hands, or be victims. The former is the only sane, rational, and moral decision, both for ourselves and for our families and friends.
Moreover, I think you're going to have a hard sell equating "Getting rid of the Jews" with "Getting rid of murderers, rapists and predators".
I'm astonished at the number of logical fallacies I can find in this thread.
I haven't read all of this thread (I will now), but shouldn't you provide examples to make your statement worthwhile? I don't mean to knock you or anything, but w/ a statement like this, it should be backed-up by examples and counter-points.
(about the English language) It's kinda like a raft that was cobbled together from parts of three different boats and since then has been kept barely afloat with crude repairs every time a leak appeared.
I'm astonished at the number of logical fallacies I can find in this thread.
Please elaborate I would love to know what I have missed. In your opinion where did we go wrong? Other than the fact that this should have been moved to debate.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Scott Adams... Nothing defines humans better than their willingness to do irrational things in the pursuit of phenomenally unlikely payoffs. This is the principle behind lotteries, dating, and religion
I am still waiting for proof that this idea of yours worked. Someone said that places where concealed weapons can be carried have lower crime rates. Since it isn't accompanies by higher death rates, the only conclusion is that people stop mugging from fear of dying. Which means there aren't any shoot-outs that I forsee.
Well, we could start with your "solution" not actually doing anything to solve the problem (an environment where people are often mugged or worse).
So because I do not believe that having more guns on the street is going to improve things and I am in favor of less than lethal force on muggers that are not carrying guns I am just plain useless?
Scott Adams... Nothing defines humans better than their willingness to do irrational things in the pursuit of phenomenally unlikely payoffs. This is the principle behind lotteries, dating, and religion
If you have to carry a weapon that badly, at least have something non-lethal, like pepper spray, stun guns and other stuff like that. It will keep muggers away as well as real weapons do.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
Coincidently this thread died when those who think they can solve the problem by shooting at it were asked for proof that it would work. Someone even said that places that allow handguns to be carried concealed have lower crime rates, yet so far I've seen nothing.
So far this month my father has been to about 8 funerals of people my age who have been shot. And now the solution being proposed is more guns on the street. Next time you see a fire, put it out by pouring gasoline on it.
We live in a country were ~50% of the populace believe public schooling is a socialist conspiracy and that being called Einstein is an insult. We could try and fix it, but unfortunately the other 50% don't believe in euthanasia.
Yet again, I wonder why stunguns and such wouldn't do any good. They're able of taking out any living human for enough time for you to either get away or get close enough to disarm him, followed by a kick in the groin/hit on the nose.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
Yet again, I wonder why stunguns and such wouldn't do any good. They're able of taking out any living human for enough time for you to either get away or get close enough to disarm him, followed by a kick in the groin/hit on the nose.
Don't you need to be really close to them to use a stungun? If so, then they won't work as well, because when you're that close, they'll knife you.
We live in a country were ~50% of the populace believe public schooling is a socialist conspiracy and that being called Einstein is an insult. We could try and fix it, but unfortunately the other 50% don't believe in euthanasia.
There are enough stunguns which use darts to apply their 'shocking' effects onto the target. By the way, ever tried to stab someone with high-voltage current running through you?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
If concealed weapons actually work than I'd be all for it. And since you are not a Keld I can tell you "prove it." and not get stabbed in the face.
Control is the ultimate expression of power.
I know you tried your best to avoid that.
Brutal, and excessive. And there should be some crime to that effect he ought to be tried for.
Hmm... don't know. Taking away six months from somebody is harsh...
Call this point the weakness of my current system. If I were forced to decide right now. . . acceptable if the defender felt life-threatened, unacceptable otherwise.
Que?
No one deserves a verbal dressing-down. I see only so many reasons to use such devices, and they are very exceptional cases indeed.
Trash-talking only fuels the anger that will resurface later*. If you say nothing, he has only his own thoughts to stir - and there's only one conclusion to draw if you are 'pwned' this badly.
*To explain deeper, I mean, confronting someone with insults has the same effect as confronting someone in debate - you get the same initial resistance, that irrational human urge to defend yourself, ignoring what is actually being said. (It has been said on these forums that not all hope for rational debate is lost though; I believe it was said, after the arguing, when people sign off and rejoin the comfort of their abodes, is when the logic sinks in. In other words, people may change, but only when you're not looking). Giving someone the verbal dressing down, if it doesn't drive them to have at you again, will just be the first thing they have to think of when they fix up their nose (and stop "bawling"). It just delays them learning their lesson - you're making it harder for them to give up the grudge.
One should dispel grudges wherever possible.
... hmm, I want to ask a question of my own. Let's say you knock out your assailant. He will come to, bruised and beaten, in a few minutes. You can rip out all of his hair in the meantime. Do you do it? Is it even a moral question, or just a matter of decency?
Argedracorious, puns are far from the lowest form of comedy. I believe the Animaniacs had that one pegged down as miming. Except when the joke is putting the mime through whimsical torment.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
One of my friends got beat by druggies because his brother knew a druggy. What kind of **** is that?
I just pity the attackers in those situations. Either because they were not in their right mind, or because they are so hopelessy diluted by nonsense and drugs that they can't differentiat between reality and fiction.
Hidden weapons cause way to much trouble for me. The person could be mugging me, I pull a knife, they pull a knife, and suddenly both of your world's fall apart. If you pull a weapon on a mugger, then you just screwed yourself over. Anything could happen, none of it good.
- To my youngest sister when she was 6.
Other than, you know...NOT BEEEEING MUGGED! I see that as plenty reason to carry a weapon if acquiring a gun were within my resources.
My other banners not in use
Goodbye Cruel World, It's Over, Walk On By
Follow
Decks
Extended:
:symu::symg: Madness
Elves
:symw::symu::symg: Tooth and Nail Control
:symu::symg: 8 Post
Legacy:
Redredginator
:symw::symu::symb::symg: Fluctuator
Scollypoff Emperor
My other banners not in use
Goodbye Cruel World, It's Over, Walk On By
Follow
Decks
Extended:
:symu::symg: Madness
Elves
:symw::symu::symg: Tooth and Nail Control
:symu::symg: 8 Post
Legacy:
Redredginator
:symw::symu::symb::symg: Fluctuator
Scollypoff Emperor
No, then would it be an assault. I aimed for the kneecap because a single attack which incapacitates can be seen as self defence, and because a broken kneecap really hurts like hell.
That's a bit of a strange remark... Why wouldn't (at least the women and under 5'3) they be able to learn such things?
When did I say I didn't care about their victims? I just don't think that using deadly force is or should be allowed when you don't think he's planning to. Besides, killing a person causes quite a bit more trauma then being robbed, or in the worse case scenario, robbed and beaten up.
Is my heart full of compassion for the robbers? Hell no. But, like I said before, you can't just run around and kill everyone who does something illegal.
Just imagine, you're driving over towards a friend, which lives a 50 miles away. You're a bit late, so you speed up when you suddenly see the police lights flashing. You move over and step out of the car. The police does the same, draw their guns and shoot you.
But yet again, back in reality, violent crime decreases in neighborhoods where there is a proliferation of arms.
The problem is that you're operating as if game theory were relevant and not an idiotic branch of "science". The relevant bit here is not the Prisoner's Dilemma, but the Traveler's Dilemma. Remember that the goal is not for the mugger to **** over other people. That is not his primary motivation. His primary motivation is to make a profit. When there's a good chance of dying, the profit line is pretty hard to justify at maybe a couple hundred bucks per life-risking effort.
If you want to deter crime, you have to make crime unprofitable. That's the heart and the soul of the issue. Normally we do this via law and order, but if that breaks down...
Oh, they can. They're just not going to be very effective. I'm sorry, but back in reality, training only takes you so far. Actual strength and speed come into account.
And to use your side's own rhetorical device, the mugger could easily know the same stupid "self-defense" moves and use them to kick your ass.
The worst trauma is growing up as a child and living in a world where everyday muggings and rape and murder are condoned and allowed by the citizens because no one has the testicular fortitude to fix the situation.
The obvious and transparent differences being that you weren't victimizing anyone and that the cops have actual viable and preferrable alternatives. In the scenario in which law enforcement is utterly worthless, and if in Argedracorius' county they are letting two time murders out after two years, the system really is worthless, we have far less alternatives.
It's very hard to take someone seriously who doesn't have a long term solution, but only appeals to imaginary truisms. I repeat it again, to anyone trying to argue that the life of a mugger is at all times inviolate; what's your solution? Where is it? How are you going to fix this situation? How can you turn around a Hellhole of a neighborhood where there is no fear of the law or respect for another's property and person without the use of force?
In all things, one must consider the end. What end, then? A community of appeasement and terror, or a few months or years of difficult, dangerous work cleaning up a community so that honest people can go to work and build up their property and wealth, and young children can educate themselves and better themselves in an environment that allows it?
Wouldn't that make you much like any dictator, which wanted to get rid of a certain group?
You're wrong.
I advocate carrying a gun so you can defend yourself. I do not advocate using violence as a first response or at first convenience, only when it is the last practical and moral response possible.
Argedracorius raised the claim that where he lives, the criminal justice system is defunct and murderers are effectively not punished. In this nightmare scenario, we have much fewer options. When we can't rely upon law and order from our government, we're left with two options; take the law into our own hands, or be victims. The former is the only sane, rational, and moral decision, both for ourselves and for our families and friends.
Moreover, I think you're going to have a hard sell equating "Getting rid of the Jews" with "Getting rid of murderers, rapists and predators".
PS:
I haven't read all of this thread (I will now), but shouldn't you provide examples to make your statement worthwhile? I don't mean to knock you or anything, but w/ a statement like this, it should be backed-up by examples and counter-points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I will go ahead and own up to a couple of these, which occurred to me while laying awake last night *yawn*.
Nice.
Fully-powered 600-Card "Dream Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/dreamcube
450-Card "Artificer's Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/artificer
Cubing in Indianapolis...send me a PM!!
Please elaborate I would love to know what I have missed. In your opinion where did we go wrong? Other than the fact that this should have been moved to debate.
Control is the ultimate expression of power.
So because I do not believe that having more guns on the street is going to improve things and I am in favor of less than lethal force on muggers that are not carrying guns I am just plain useless?
thanks
So far this month my father has been to about 8 funerals of people my age who have been shot. And now the solution being proposed is more guns on the street. Next time you see a fire, put it out by pouring gasoline on it.
Control is the ultimate expression of power.
My other banners not in use
Goodbye Cruel World, It's Over, Walk On By
Follow
Don't you need to be really close to them to use a stungun? If so, then they won't work as well, because when you're that close, they'll knife you.
My other banners not in use
Goodbye Cruel World, It's Over, Walk On By
Follow