Shootings and gangs: black community leaders speak up

[CannonFodder]

But then we as a nation would become subservient to the first group of chavs who armed themselves with a bunch of £4 axes bought legally from B&Q.

Would you use your handgun to shoot a chav with an axe that broke into your house?

[mel_zoom]

"If we could press a magic button and make them all turn into dust, that would be great. But then we as a nation would become subservient to the first group of chavs who armed themselves with a bunch of £4 axes bought legally from B&Q."

Id rather take my chances with someone holding an axe than a gun. One thing you fail to address in your argument is that the easier a weapon makes it to kill someone the cheaper life gets.

If you tried to kill someone with your bare hands your instincts fights against you. You know what you are doing is wrong and because it takes time you can stop before you actually do kill them.

Put a blade in your hand and it becomes slightly easier (physically) to kill but you still have to be close enough to the person to do it and it would generally not be a quick death. Again youd struggle to do it.

Put a gun in your hand and you can fell a person at a distance, often instantly. It is both easier physically and emotionally because you have become more abstracted from the reality of what you are doing.

The more sophisticated and efficient weapons get the less immediately responsible the user is made to feel and consequently the cheaper life gets.

For the criminal a gun gives him a quick way to stop a victim from struggling. Its easier for him to terrorize the victim because both he and the victim knows that the consequences are likely to be lethal. If the victim offered any serious resistance it is also easier to kill him.

Without any access to guns criminals would doubtless use knives - as indeed many do - but not all criminals who feel sufficiently "hard" with a gun would feel quite as formiddable armed only with a knife.

[shillard]

mel_zoom wrote:
"Not one of my guns has taken a life or injured a human being!"

Why am I not surprised to hear you own more than one?

By buying them, are you not contributing to the profits of companies that thrive on making the process of killing people that much easier?

Put those rocks down, Mel - you're in a moral crystal palace.

Ever flown on an airline using Boeing or Airbus aircraft?  If so, you are "contributing to the profits of companies that thrive on making the process of killing people easier".

If you've ever used the products of Boeing, Airbus, IBM, Toshiba, TEAC, Honeywell, General Motors, Ford, Daimler-Chrysler, Bolle, Ray Ban, Microsoft, etc - you have, and I quote:


"Contributed to the profits of companies that thrive on making the process of killing people easier".

So I do hope that you'll refuse to be hauled aboard a Eurocopter rescue aircraft after the ambos cut you from your wrecked car, becuase to patronise a service using equipment from a core military supplier would compromise your otherwise impeccable moral record when it comes to arms suppliers.

Mel, you are quite simply a clueless hypocrite.

[shillard]

mel_zoom wrote:
Gun owners:

Here is a thought. Assume your gun was stolen in a robbery and then used to kill someone in a subsequent crime. Can you honestly say you played no part in making that weapon available to the killer (even in this opportunistic example)?

Where do the illegally owned firearms in the hands of criminals come from originally?

The assumption is unlikely to be translated into reality.  In a robbery, I'd be inclined to shoot, stab, clobber or otherwise deal with the robber.

In a burglary, you'd need world-class safecracking gear or a few kilos of High Explosive to access my arms.  Plenty of more worthy targets around for the few with the skill and the means.


Here's a question for you - a couple of iced-up thugs start smashing your door down with the clear intention of pack-raping and (probably) subsequently murdering you.

Do you....

a) Shoot them.

b) Call 999 and pray the cops come faster than Pizza Hut.

c) Get raped and die.


Hint: My wife answers "a".

What do you do, Mel?

[X-ray]

"...Would you use your handgun to shoot a chav with an axe that broke into your house?..."
----------------------------------------------------------
You mean if I actually had a handgun and was allowed to keep it at home here in the UK?

Well let's see now, a chav with an axe broke into my home. What would I do?

I would tell him: "I say, sir, that is a simply marvellous axe. You wield it with such skill and with such vigour that I instantly warm to your derring-do and I feel a surge of bravado and machismo overtaking me, to the point that I feel compelled to challenge you fairly and squarely just as in the chivalrous duels of old.
However, I must say at this point that it is hardly a fair match: notwithstanding the fact that you have a substantial melee weapon and could probably fell me with one swift blow to the upper cervical region, I have here in my hand a firearm that can readily and more efficiently dispatch you by virtue of the fact that it can expel lead projectiles at more than 1000 feet per second. I therefore propose that you come into my kitchen and avail yourself of a cup of tea and a freshly-made scone while I pawn this firearm with all haste and purchase for myself an axe of equal character to yours, so that we may more equally discuss the future ownership of my possessions and the quality of my physical constitution."

[shillard]

Would you use your handgun to shoot a chav with an axe that broke into your house?

Yup - unless I didn't have a handgun handy, in which case I'd kill him with one of my axes - or a knife, or a rolled-up newspaper, or my bare hands, or whatever was handy.

[X-ray]

"...One thing you fail to address in your argument is that the easier a weapon makes it to kill someone the cheaper life gets..."
----------------------------------------------------------
Maybe for you it does, but not for me.
Perhaps you were the type of citizen they were thinking of when they banned handguns here in the UK.

[shillard]

mel_zoom wrote:

Id rather take my chances with someone holding an axe than a gun. One thing you fail to address in your argument is that the easier a weapon makes it to kill someone the cheaper life gets.

If you tried to kill someone with your bare hands your instincts fights against you. You know what you are doing is wrong and because it takes time you can stop before you actually do kill them.

Put a blade in your hand and it becomes slightly easier (physically) to kill but you still have to be close enough to the person to do it and it would generally not be a quick death. Again youd struggle to do it.

Put a gun in your hand and you can fell a person at a distance, often instantly. It is both easier physically and emotionally because you have become more abstracted from the reality of what you are doing.

The more sophisticated and efficient weapons get the less immediately responsible the user is made to feel and consequently the cheaper life gets.

For the criminal a gun gives him a quick way to stop a victim from struggling. Its easier for him to terrorize the victim because both he and the victim knows that the consequences are likely to be lethal. If the victim offered any serious resistance it is also easier to kill him.

Without any access to guns criminals would doubtless use knives - as indeed many do - but not all criminals who feel sufficiently "hard" with a gun would feel quite as formiddable armed only with a knife.

Typically mindless stuff - no wonder the West is in free-fall.

Have fun explaining how in Australia, where 20 million people legally own over a million guns (and there are probably at least that many illegal ones laying about) firearms are used in less than 20% of murders.

The leading instrument of homicide is the knife, closely followed by blunt instruments and bare hands.  Firearms rate well down at number 5 on the choice methods of death.

The tool used is irrelevant - it's the intent of the human utilising it that matters.

Nobody designing a motor vehicle intended it to become the leading killer of the 20th Century.  Nobody designing cigarettes intended that the users of the product would be riddled with cancer and inflict a cost of untold trillions on health services.

Nobody designing a 767 intended it to be flown into a high-rise office building with the specific intent of killing thousands of people.

Inanimate objects are morally neutral - to think otherwise is to embrace some primitive animistic notion that belongs to apes and monkey-men.  

[shillard]

"I love my MX5"


Oh dear:

"Mazda began as the Toyo Cork Kogyo Co., Ltd, founded in Japan in 1920. Toyo Kogyo moved from manufacturing machine tools to vehicles, with the introduction of the Mazda-Go in 1931, although they produced weapons for the Japanese military throughout the Second World War."

[mel_zoom]

X-ray:

""...One thing you fail to address in your argument is that the easier a weapon makes it to kill someone the cheaper life gets..."
----------------------------------------------------------
Maybe for you it does, but not for me.
Perhaps you were the type of citizen they were thinking of when they banned handguns here in the UK."

A very poor "argument" consistent with not even bothering to read the remainder of the post. Other than to attack me for disagreeing with your POV, how can you possibly conclude from my points I would ever have the slightest wish to own a gun?

Back to my point, are you seriously suggesting that criminals armed with firearms exercise more restraint than those that have to physically engage with their victim? A five foot weakling with a knife and any sense of self preservation would think twice about attempting to attack someone considerably larger and more powerful given there is considerable risk to himself.

The same person armed with a loaded gun complete with the ego boost its force multiplication brings would feel more confident.

shillard:

Im sorry but your entire argument is seriously flawed. Armament manufacturers directly profit out of armed conflict and produce items specifically designed to assist in waging of armed conflict.

The same is not true for the majority of the other organisations you mention even if people are accidentally killed as a by product of their activities.

Regarding my mx5, the comandeering of civilian manufacturing infrastructure during war is not something which you can blame on the company itself. Blame war and for that blame overly aggressive, unreasoning attitudes quick to escalate disagreements to violence. It sounds like you ought to be able to identify with that sentiment.

You can make a case for tobacco production - now the effects are known nobody can really say tobacco companies are helping anybody but themselves. However as you say, they did not design the cigarette as something intentionally lethal. The same is not true for arms manufacturers - the majority of their profits come from the design and sale of devices that are intentionally lethal.

[mel_zoom]

"Do you....

a) Shoot them."

That is not an option. I don't own a firearm and have absolutely no wish to do so. Even if I did, shooting someone, even in self defence, in the UK is likely to get me imprisoned.

[shillard]

mel_zoom wrote:

shillard:

Im sorry but your entire argument is seriously flawed. Armament manufacturers directly profit out of armed conflict and produce items specifically designed to assist in waging of armed conflict.

The same is not true for the majority of the other organisations you mention even if people are accidentally killed as a by product of their activities.

Bzzzzzzzzzt.  WRONG.

Let's look at the products of come of the companies I listed:

http://www.boeing.com/ids/a_to_z.html

http://www.eads.com/1024/en/Homepage1024.html

http://www.allpar.com/history/military/index.html

http://www.gogglesgiant.com/bolmilandtac.html


Good to see that you think fighter jets, tanks, guided bombs, laser targetting equipment and parts for nuclear submarines don't fall into the "specifically designed to assist in the waging of armed conflict" category.


Best quit while you're ahead, Mel.


Here's a funny little site for those trying to stake out the moral high ground.  I wonder how many actually practise what they preach....?

http://peace-action.inbyron.com/lists.html

[X-ray]

Mel I think you have serious misconceptions about the use of guns in crime, and guns vs knives vs axes etc from a tactical point of view. There isn't much I can do to help you see the reality of the situation because you obviously have no experience in this regard.
You've made up your mind that guns are evil, but you can't back it up with a reasoned debate.
Oh well, who says we all have to agree, eh?

Now where did I put my evil gun(tm) ?

[mel_zoom]

X-Ray:

"Mel I think you have serious misconceptions about the use of guns in crime, and guns vs knives vs axes etc from a tactical point of view. There isn't much I can do to help you see the reality of the situation because you obviously have no experience in this regard."

Wrong. I was attacked at knifepoint about 4 years ago. I resisted and I got away relativey unharmed You are doubtless thinking that he never intended to use it other than to intimidate me but you would be wrong again. He lunged with it several times aiming for my upper body.

I have no doubt that if he had a gun I would be dead - even if I managed to get away as before he could have shot me down as I fled.

[mel_zoom]

"Good to see that you think fighter jets, tanks, guided bombs, laser targetting equipment and parts for nuclear submarines don't fall into the "specifically designed to assist in the waging of armed conflict" category."

I was talking about your tobacco company example but never mind. If it makes you feel comfortably superior to take my reply completely out of context and use it to insult me see how much I care.

[iamaboringperson]

Wrong. I was attacked at knifepoint about 4 years ago. I resisted and I got away relativey unharmed You are doubtless thinking that he never intended to use it other than to intimidate me but you would be wrong again. He lunged with it several times aiming for my upper body.

Oh, I'm pretty sure I'd rather wrestle a handgun, or especially a rife, out from a persons hands than a knife. I wouldn't get cut that way.



---
Edit:
Hey you like MX5? How about Toyota Celica? Because my sister owns one.