Rolled Out On: 8/20/2007 10:17 PM

"See, violence is just that - violence. The tool used is irrelevant"

Right. Whether it's a fist fight or a nuclear war, all the same.

What a subtle and profound thinker you are.

Rolled Out On: 8/20/2007 10:52 PM

I really don't see what nuclear war has to do with crime, besides the violence. And, of course, there's a huge difference in the scale there, so... back to square one.

Rolled Out On: 8/21/2007 7:18 AM

Speaking of reading skills, Alex, where did I mention Nukes?

Rolled Out On: 8/21/2007 7:25 AM

You don't have to have mentioned it explicitly, Robby. You said tools are irrelevant in violence, it's the violence that counts. See, you talked about this really broad category "tools" that can be used for "violence." (I'll go slowly for you). So...that...means...I...can...invoke...examples...of ...that...category...that...you...may...not...have...explicitly...mentioned...in...order...to...show...how...stupid...your...point...is.

A nuke is just a tool, little Robby, didn't you know that? So why is our fascist government keeping me from owning some of my own? I bet it's part of that communist New World Order!

No difference between guns and knives. Oh, one is a LOT easier to kill a lot of people really quickly with, but that doesn't mean anything in the little Robby universe of non-logic.

Rolled Out On: 8/21/2007 7:29 AM

Why don't I believe you were ever in the military? Any non-retarded person (and certainly anyone with any experience in hand-to-hand combat) would instantly recognize that the choice between being attacked with a gun or attacked with a knife is a no-brainer.

Oops, did I say "no-brainer" in this company? Sorry, didn't mean to remind you of your condition.

Rolled Out On: 8/21/2007 7:40 AM

Don't hurt yourself reaching, Alexia-poo (oh! look! I don't need certifications and credentials to make up cute names too!).

As far as my military certifications, well, make up whatever story helps you sleep at night. For a guy who thinks so highly of education, you sure like to ignore facts. Would you like me to scan my Honorable Discharge, dog tags, the six billion forms I've kept throughout the years, my meritorious masts, take photos of my dress blues, scan all the photos of my time in service, etc?

Now, back to the point. A gun is more efficient at causing death than a knife. There is no argument there. But a knife is more efficient than a metal rod. And the metal rod is more efficient that your fists. The point is the efficiency of the weapon doesn't negate or increase the violence.

As far as a nuke, I'd argue they are less efficient in creating violence due to the sheer cost in ownership. It's partly why only governments seem to be able to obtain them. You don't just build them over a weekend and they happen to stay good for years on end. Unlike firearms which can be made rather crudely and yet are still durable goods.

So, while keeping nukes to a limited production is a feasible goal, firearms are a genie that you cannot put back in the bottle.

Rolled Out On: 8/21/2007 9:14 AM

actually, i vaguely remember hearing about a police force injury statistic showing that officers stabbed were more likely (per incident of stabbing) to die from their wounds than were officers who got shot (again, per incident).

i don't have a good reference to it, unfortunately, but it doesn't seem totally incredible on the face of it, to me. guns do have more "stopping power" than knives; a knife fight is likely to go on even after deadly wounds have been delivered, whereas gunfights have a likelihood of stopping after the first good hit.

i'd much prefer not to get any extra holes poked in me with anything, but if i have a choice between getting shot and getting stabbed, i'll take getting shot. on the move, with a jennings .22, wielded by a thug who can't aim, for preference; not getting stabbed in a wrestling match with the same thug wielding a steak knife. but maybe i'm just weird that way...

Rolled Out On: 8/21/2007 9:23 AM

Oh, one is a LOT easier to kill a lot of people really quickly with
Maybe not, if you're in a large group of people and they all cower helplessly as the knife-wielder starts hacking away. Which I would think could easily happen if none of the others had weapons or the mindset to use them. Of course you're going to scoff at that notion, but it's quite obvious you haven't been paying much attention to the attitude society has taken in regards to armed self-defense. Here's a clue -- "Give the miscreant what he wants and he won't hurt you."

Rolled Out On: 8/21/2007 9:25 AM

Oh, God, Alex speals endlessly about NRA talking heads and he goes and presents the traditional hoplophobe slippery-slope about nukes. Pathetic.

Rolled Out On: 8/21/2007 4:03 PM

The very same characteristics that make firearms more efficient at doing harm, make them just as efficient at stopping or deterring harm.

In fact, I would say more-so. In most instances, the assailant is going to choose his/her targets in order to have the strength/size/age/mobility advantage. Therefore, hand to hand weaponry...with which the advantage is firmly on the side of the stronger, younger, faster, more mobile...gives the distinct advantage to the assailant.

A firearm, on the other hand, has more utility for self defense because it enables the defender to maintain distance and virtually eliminates any physical advantage that the attacker may have.

That means that, although firearms can be potentially more deadly than other hand held weapons, they are exponentially better suited for self defense.

Maybe that's why cops carry them? Just a thought.

Perhaps that is also why, even using the most conservative estimates, the number of defensive gun uses outnumbers violent crimes committed with guns. Using more middle of the road estimates for DGU's they are three to four times more common than criminal gun use.

Nukes, on the other hand, have no utility at the individual level for either criminal aggression or self-defense (unless self-immolation is the goal). Their introduction into this argument, therefore, is specious and only demonstrates a lack of actual VALID points.

Rolled Out On: 8/21/2007 4:49 PM

i'd argue against privately-owned nukes by quoting George Orwell, actually. he wrote a famous essay (which i truly love) titled You and the Atom Bomb, where he basically argued that weapons individual people can own, learn and use effectively are fundamentally democratic, whereas arms that by their nature take large groups to purchase, operate, and fight with are fundamentally anti-democratic. by this measure, nukes do not further social equality or democracy, and therefore should be viewed with much skepticism.

of course, by this same measure the next great democratic weapon would be the RPG-7 and its derivatives. i'm not sure myself what to think about that.

Rolled Out On: 8/21/2007 6:09 PM

But, didn't the UK outlaw knives and bats??

Criminals will be criminals no matter how big the "gun free zone" sign is.

I'd rather be armed and ready than sit helplessly while anyone I know is attacked.