Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Aerie]

So is punching them in the face. So is talking them down. So is kicking them in the groin. So is running the fuck away, which is usually the smartest option. So on and so on.

I weigh about 110 pounds and I am not trained in martial arts. If I am not armed with a weapon superior to that of my attacker's, I am vulnerable to being robbed, injured or killed, or raped.

If someone is willing to invade my home, they are not going to be talked down, nor will I have the ability to run away.

Given the choice between being a victim and being a survivor, I will choose the latter. If this bothers you, then I feel sorry for you and I sincerely do hope that nobody chooses to capitalize on your voluntary weakness.

[mainiac]

I weigh about 110 pounds and I am not trained in martial arts. If I am not armed with a weapon superior to that of my attacker's, I am vulnerable to being robbed, injured or killed, or raped.

Go to a public safety lecture sometime.  They have about a million suggestions on ways to protect yourself.  Guns aren't on that list.

[Descan]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Look, there's lots of ways for people to defend themselves without resorting to lethal means.

Certainly: pointing a gun at someone trying to attack you is a fantastic non-lethal deterrent.

Twisting of words, and rhetorical bullshit.

To judge a collective based on its most radical members is a logical fallacy.

To assume an argument has a false conclusion because it contains a fallacy is a logical fallacy.

Twisting of words, and of what "fallacy of fallacies" actually is for.

In my opinion, this probably the most rational way to approach theism rather than "GOD DOESN'T EXIST AND EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES HE IS IS AN UNEDUCATED MORON" (see: majority of atheists) or "GOD EXISTS AND EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES HE ISN'T IS AN UNEDUCATED MORON" (see: majority of theists).

Though I didn't mention it in the original edit, this is also a dick move. Painting entire groups of people because of what a few do.

Now, if only we can get catholic priests banned from being in public in any capacity...

Hey guys, let's attack religion for no good reason!

While I am an atheist, I still practice a religion, and to see nonreligious people make sweeping attacks against religions is just as offensive, bigoted, and destructive as seeing a zealous theist attacking everyone that doesn't adhere to his own religious beliefs.

Please show some respect for the religious or nonreligious beliefs of others, as long as they are not used to attack others, and keep in mind that not all religious organizations are hateful.

This one is more the context: The discussion was about the predation of innocent youth by Catholic priests. How is this in any way relevant? It reminds me of when the National Review defended the Nazis after Obama said the holocaust was "senseless violence". I.E. Non-relevant to what was being discussed, and actually rather disturbing in-context.

That would the evidence you desire. I don't know you, so I don't know if you're being sincere or just trolling. But either way? This is not okay. If you're being sincere, this kind of stuff is not how you have an intelligent conversation. This stuff is what you use on the street-corner or in the political arena, not on a forum like Bay12.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. If I wasn't, I wouldn't have put all this together. And this is just stuff I've seen, I didn't go into your post history any further than what I've read from you.


I don't have a satisfactory concluding sentence, so have this picture of a turtle eating a strawberry.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Aerie]

This does not make the statement any less correct. If I am not armed with a weapon superior to that of my attacker's, I am vulnerable to being robbed, injured or killed, or raped.

[Bauglir]

Go to a public safety lecture sometime.  They have about a million suggestions on ways to protect yourself.  Guns aren't on that list.

This does not make the statement any less correct. If I am not armed with a weapon superior to that of my attacker's, I am vulnerable to being robbed, injured or killed, or raped.

You're right, your statement is correct. It's also kind of meaningless - if you are armed with a weapon superior to that of your attacker's, you are still vulnerable to being robbed, injured, killed, or raped.

EDIT: In similar news, if you are not carrying a ball of moldy onions in your pocket, you are vulnerable to being robbed, injured, killed, or raped.

[GlyphGryph]

If A then B doesn't actually mean much if B is always true.

Edit: Ninjaed. And I should really be ignoring this person anyways but arrrrgh

[Scelly9]

This does not make the statement any less correct. If I am not armed with a weapon superior to that of my attacker's, I am vulnerable to being robbed, injured or killed, or raped.

So, what would you do? Shoot them immediately?

[mainiac]

Go to a public safety lecture sometime.  They have about a million suggestions on ways to protect yourself.  Guns aren't on that list.

This does not make the statement any less correct. If I am not armed with a weapon superior to that of my attacker's, I am vulnerable to being robbed, injured or killed, or raped.

Which is irrelevant.  A gun won't protect you.  But it will make you likely to threaten an innocent person who looks at you funny and then talk about how brave you were later.

In danger?  Run.

[Aerie]

A gun won't protect you.

Can you cite any evidence that supports this claim?

[misko27]

Go to a public safety lecture sometime.  They have about a million suggestions on ways to protect yourself.  Guns aren't on that list.

This does not make the statement any less correct. If I am not armed with a weapon superior to that of my attacker's, I am vulnerable to being robbed, injured or killed, or raped.

You're vulnerable to being shot by a insane sniper dude on a building anytime you walk out, are you never going to leave your house? How about fire? The house could be burned down. And Bunkers aren't as FBI proof as they once seemed. Just go into space. Oh wait, meteors. You're vulnerable to aliens too. just shoot yourself now. Best die DIY right? ain't no vulnerablities in death.

I'm just going to say that New York has the strictest Gun laws in the nation, and currently the crime rate in the bronx is lower then the entire rate of many other cities. The Bronx. only 400 murders in the entire city last year, in a city of 8 million. But that doesn't necessarily mean anything.
 
It may just be the NY is awesome...
 
 
Also, this thread should die. Someone take a gun to it's head. Oh wait, you guys are already on that. Nevermind, carry on.

[Moghjubar]

If someone is willing to invade my home, they are not going to be talked down, nor will I have the ability to run away.

Obviously we need the right to arm our homes with booby traps then.  A few well placed traps can be incredibly efficient, and most common burglars are thugs and don't put points into disarm trap.

[Bauglir]

In danger?  Run.

Incidentally, it should be pointed out that if you have time to draw a gun, you have time to run (barring extraordinary circumstances - I apologize if you are a paraplegic, Aerie). In the time it will take your attacker to draw their weapon and train it on you, you can be far enough away that they will almost certainly not be able to hit you, assuming there are no convenient corners to duck behind. If they already have a weapon ready to use on you, you're already done, and trying to draw your own will result in your immediate injury or death (possibly followed immediately by robbery or rape).

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/behind-the-curtain-gop-fox-political-purge-87293.html?hp=t1
 
Beware, it's actual politcis on display, as per the definition. Seems like right media is takign down the most hard-core of their ranks.

This is a good thing. I'd like to see an approach toward sanity in rhetoric, even though I know we'll never reach it and never have.

[Aerie]

So, what would you do? Shoot them immediately?

If they present a threat to my life or health or the life or health of another human being, the first thing to do would be to command them to stop and state your intent to shoot if they do not comply.

If they do not comply, and they are still threatening your life or another's life, and there is no danger of collateral damage, then fire.

[Descan]

No one commented on my tiny strawberry-eating turtle! :<

[misko27]

No one commented on my tiny strawberry-eating turtle! :<

It's small, and inferior to my bluberry-throwing chimp.