quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Some issues are hot potatoes, and this is one of them. It seems those who preach acceptance, egalitarianism and tolerance have some sort of free floating bigotry, which is bestowed on people who disagree with them... Once in a certain state of mind, people will rip into anything with unneeded fervor, and thus controlled by emotion then lose all their self control.

And then there are those who couldn't possibly care less about the issue, and are merely using it as a pretext to fire insults at people who they don't like.

In person, the one(s) with the control can maintain low tones (damn Coneheads movie) and keep things to a mild roar, which helps to make sense, to get the point across. But how do you do that in text ?

By ignoring the high strung, emotional context of certain posts, and, especially, by ignoring people altogether when their posts seem to have no other purpose than to provoke and offend.

Well I would say the first thing would be to refrain from calling people cunts.

Or, to refrain from reacting to people who call other people cunts.

Analyse. What was said ?
Some "cunt"
Believes that killing machines are a good thing.
And has never been raped at gunpoint.

What does that mean ? Is the assertion that she like guns because she has never been raped at gunpoint ?

No, i believe the argument was that it's hypocritical of Aynne to claim that she carries a gun for "protection" when she's never been raped at gunpoint. That argument was then countered by DarkSteven, who pointed out that she arms herself in *anticipation* of a violent assault, in order to protect herself if it *should* happen, rather than because it already has.

The reason for an argument is to convince the opposition that your point of view is correct. Your winning is in their admitting. How do we accomplish that ?

i don't think You will. It's rare for anyone in the forums to concede defeat, even when they have clearly been out-argued. And, more often, neither side is right or wrong, and both bring up interesting and valid points.

Name calling obviously doesn't work, it only serves to alienate the opposition and close their mind.

Name calling also serves to provoke and offend, which is sometimes the point, rather than to persuade.

What the whole thing boils down to is simply whether people should have the means to effectively kill another...

Yes. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Guns just make it WAY easier for them to do it.

So we have two diametricaly opposing viewpoints in which people are entrenched.

Doubtless this is not the first time it's ever happened. Does anyone have data about the effectiveness of guns used in self defense? Is there anyone here with personal experience using a gun in this way? If so, i would like to hear about it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Some issues are hot potatoes, and this is one of them. It seems those who preach acceptance, egalitarianism and tolerance have some sort of free floating bigotry, which is bestowed on people who disagree with them... Once in a certain state of mind, people will rip into anything with unneeded fervor, and thus controlled by emotion then lose all their self control.

And then there are those who couldn't possibly care less about the issue, and are merely using it as a pretext to fire insults at people who they don't like.

In person, the one(s) with the control can maintain low tones (damn Coneheads movie) and keep things to a mild roar, which helps to make sense, to get the point across. But how do you do that in text ?

By ignoring the high strung, emotional context of certain posts, and, especially, by ignoring people altogether when their posts seem to have no other purpose than to provoke and offend.

Well I would say the first thing would be to refrain from calling people cunts.

Or, to refrain from reacting to people who call other people cunts.

Analyse. What was said ?
Some "cunt"
Believes that killing machines are a good thing.
And has never been raped at gunpoint.

What does that mean ? Is the assertion that she like guns because she has never been raped at gunpoint ?

No, i believe the argument was that it's hypocritical of Aynne to claim that she carries a gun for "protection" when she's never been raped at gunpoint. That argument was then countered by DarkSteven, who pointed out that she arms herself in *anticipation* of a violent assault, in order to protect herself if it *should* happen, rather than because it already has.

The reason for an argument is to convince the opposition that your point of view is correct. Your winning is in their admitting. How do we accomplish that ?

i don't think You will. It's rare for anyone in the forums to concede defeat, even when they have clearly been out-argued. And, more often, neither side is right or wrong, and both bring up interesting and valid points.

Name calling obviously doesn't work, it only serves to alienate the opposition and close their mind.

Name calling also serves to provoke and offend, which is sometimes the point, rather than to persuade.

What the whole thing boils down to is simply whether people should have the means to effectively kill another...

Yes. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Guns just make it WAY easier for them to do it.

So we have two diametricaly opposing viewpoints in which people are entrenched.

Doubtless this is not the first time it's ever happened. Does anyone have data about the effectiveness of guns used in self defense? Is there anyone here with personal experience using a gun in this way? If so, i would like to hear about it.

pam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Of course I do think mine is better Pam, but that's probably because it's mine. She's good, very good and I believe very right.

Well, maybe You made an equally good argument, but unfortunately i didn't read it because it was too long.

I don't think I'll ever get anyone to agree that we should let criminals have guns because it is so out of bounds that people can't see the logic, but at one point it was preposterous to assert that a Man would ever land on the moon.

It was also once preposterous to assert that the moon was made of green cheese. But then we went to the moon and discovered that... in fact, the moon is not made of green cheese. Some things *sound* preposterous because they are.

If criminals have guns, we know and assume it. When they do wrong, the judge, jury and executioner are all there on the spot... If you automatically assume that anyone who kicks your back door in at four AM is armed and act accordingly, good. Keep your 'non-robbing houses' ass safe. Your life is worth more than that of the thug. Don't let the lilly lally, pantsy wantsy idiots tell you how precious each and every life is, concern yourself with your own life. Don't lose it to a fucking thug. Shoot now and ask questions later.

Or, if You didn't have a gun, You could hit them with a baseball bat, or do the sensible thing and call the police from next door. Either way, i don't think many people would blame You, in that situation.

Zero recidivism, zero jury tampering, zero witness intimidation, zero getting off on technicalities, zero suing you for the watch he dropped in your house as he was robbing you.

Zero margin of error if You make a mistake...

Gimme a decade or two of that and the world will be a much happier place.

i wouldn't be happier in that world. i like laws, juries, evidence, due process, and all that jazz.

Remmember, there are certain things that humans simply do not do. Not that they can't. They WON'T ! Those are the people we want among us. Not those so stupid to think that they can just go anywhere and take whatever they want.

It would be just as well to let a jury decide that, instead of a bullet. Lest, someday, a bullet should decide that You're one of the "unwanted".

Besides, I wouldn't want to try to hold someone at bay for an extended time. I'm woke up from sleep, this guy probably slept all day. How tough is he ? How fast is he ? Bullshit, with a bullet in his head I can accurately estimate his speed and strength. Zero again.

Go ahead and shoot the guy that breaks in while You're sleeping. You have my blessing. But, then, that's never happened, right?

All I can say to anyone not familiar with these parts, if you come to rob me, I will drag your dead ass out to the curb. And what's more, I doubt the cops would even knock at my front door. And I am not kidding.

If they don't knock on the door, how do they know who was robbing who? i guess the cops out there have ESP.

I don't expect people to agree with my views as they are considered radical at this time. That crime needs swift and severe execution of punishment. And every word was chosen carefully, execution. If someone comes in your house in the middle of the night uninvited, that is simply foolish. How cold can it be out there ?

The only difference between an "execution" and "murder" is whether the person pulling the trigger is right to take a life. Who decides if You're right to do it? You? Yourself? That seems like a conflict of interest. Having said that, the next time someone breaks into Your house, you go right ahead.

...Sounds funny doesn't it, kill a guy and then help take care of his family. But if it was that situation, I mean every word of it. Sounds like an old western movie doesn't it ?

Is my morality wrong ?

i don't know. i wouldn't handle the situation the same way. But i think not many people would blame You for shooting an intruder in Your own home. However, i think most shootings occur during situations that are more ambiguous than that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
Is my morality wrong ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
Is my morality wrong ?

No, but your country is.  Live in one in which no-one's ever going to break into your house with a gun. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
Then ya gotta worry about them damn flying monkeys. Hmmmm a good wingshot could have fun there.