I'd get in my house (my keys are in my hand, afterall) and carry on with my day, most likely by calling someone to remove whatever is blocking the road. I'm not a damn psychopath that kills people for simply threatening me. The fact that you seem to think the best options in this case are to shoot him or drive over him tells me that you may want to seek professional mental health counselling. thegergLol i knew u were gonna say that which is why i edited to say u locked urself out. And you personally attacking me and refusing to answer my question verifies that I made my point.
II_Seraphim_II's forum posts
[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]You know the way you broke it down did help. Thanks, while I do still feel its a bit unfair, I certainly now do realize the rationale behind the law and I can see where its coming from. Good post. Shit, I had just made another thousand word post responding to you. Oh well. I am going to bring up one more point though. I know a single mother very well; she's a very good friend of mine and has been for years. I knew her in high school, and she was one of the most energetic girls in the school. She's 24 now, five years after having her child, and much of her energy has been drained (at 24 years old!). She rarely gets her due child support. All the money she could potentially make is cut by daycare (until this month, her girl is finally in school) and by the after school hours in which she must care for her kid and can't work. It sure isn't easy on her. If men were able to just walk away after offering to pay for an abortion... well, this situation ain't pretty. You can trust me on that one. Yeah u guys made some good points. Im looking at my stance from a different perspective now :PIts a simple concept that keeps flying over your head, so let's break it down.
1) When a man has sex with a woman its implied consent to raise and help any child that may result from the sex. This is why he is forced to pay child support by law.
2) Abortion is legal in this country as the bodily rights of the woman supersede that of the growing fetus/embryo. This is why she can terminate the pregnancy if she chooses to, ITS HER BODY NOT THE GUYS.
Its fairly simple, the man has no say because its not his body, and he must pay child support because he consented to sex in the first place. If the man wants a say then he can come up with a way to take the fetus out of a woman and implant it in himself. The fact that the fetus may have half his DNA is irrelevant.
GamerForca
[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"]
[QUOTE="thegerg"] So it's not the gun OR the car that you're worried about, but rather its owner? We should be equally afraid of anyone that owns a device that can be deadly regardless of how deadly those devices are and how often they actually kill people?thegerg
Dude, now you're just trying to weasel your way out of this. A car parked on the corner is not dangerous, just like a gun on the floor with no one touching it is not dangerous. Obviously both these items require a user in order for them to be dangerous. That is known and not even an issue. The whole point now, is to see in regards to usage and ownership, which of the following leads to more injuries/fatalities. Obviously the person wielding the device is a factor, you knew that going into this conversation, unless you assumed guns and cars act out all on their own. Now if we can get a correlation from all the owners of said devices, and their usage pattern, and the number of resulting deaths/injuries, then we can determine which is more dangerous.
And yes, if you see a man walking around town with a machete you should probably give him a wide breadth. Machetes and knifes can be dangerous and if you were to walk through a mall wielding a meet cleaver or my bad...."holstering" a meat cleaver, im sure people would be a little uncomfortable around you because yes, in the wrong situation it can be dangerous.
Now you can claim "anything can be dangerous!" and that is a very valid point, but the idea is try to quantify the degree of dangerousness and the probability of dangerousness. Think of it this way. If I walk into town with a baseball bat, which can be used as a weapon, and you walk into town with a gun. I have my bat in a bag, you have your gun in a holster. If we were to both take out our potential weapons out of our "holsters" which do you think would cause more alarm? Which has the potential to cause more harm WITH LESS EFFORT. Sure if im some super ninja i could probably beat 10 guys to death with a bat, but with a gun I point and shoot. Sure there is some aiming required but in a crowded area, that skill level diminishes.
The whole point of a gun is its potential lethality. Why are you carrying a gun in public? I would assume for protection unless you plan on killing someone. So lets say its for protection. What about the gun makes it useful for protection? Its potential lethality. Thats the only reason that piece of metal plays a role in your protection, its ability to wound or kill deters people from messing with you.
Now take a car, whats the main purpose of a car? Transportation. Can it kill people? yes! Accidents happen and some crazy people use it as a weapon, but its main purpose for existing is not as a weapon, it is as a form of transportation.
So if one object was made for the purpose of wounding and killing and the other was made for transportation, which do you think is probably more efficient at killing?
"which do you think is probably more efficient at killing?" That depends on how it is being used (or misused). Judging by how many more people are killed by cars every year through amost no effort, one can easily argue cars. Well cars are in use a lot more than guns and therefore the potential for accidents is higher, thats my point. If you try to score as many baskets as u can from the free throw line for 1 hr, and then try the same from the 3pt line but for 10 days, I guarantee you that u will make more shots from the 3pt line. Is it because the 3 point shot is easier? NO. Its because u spend more time doing it and therefore even if the probability of u making the shot is decreased, the sheer volume of attempts will end up giving u a higher total baskets made.[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"][QUOTE="thegerg"] So it's not the gun OR the car that you're worried about, but rather its owner? We should be equally afraid of anyone that owns a device that can be deadly regardless of how deadly those devices are and how often they actually kill people?thegerg
Dude, now you're just trying to weasel your way out of this. A car parked on the corner is not dangerous, just like a gun on the floor with no one touching it is not dangerous. Obviously both these items require a user in order for them to be dangerous. That is known and not even an issue. The whole point now, is to see in regards to usage and ownership, which of the following leads to more injuries/fatalities. Obviously the person wielding the device is a factor, you knew that going into this conversation, unless you assumed guns and cars act out all on their own. Now if we can get a correlation from all the owners of said devices, and their usage pattern, and the number of resulting deaths/injuries, then we can determine which is more dangerous.
And yes, if you see a man walking around town with a machete you should probably give him a wide breadth. Machetes and knifes can be dangerous and if you were to walk through a mall wielding a meet cleaver or my bad...."holstering" a meat cleaver, im sure people would be a little uncomfortable around you because yes, in the wrong situation it can be dangerous.
Now you can claim "anything can be dangerous!" and that is a very valid point, but the idea is try to quantify the degree of dangerousness and the probability of dangerousness. Think of it this way. If I walk into town with a baseball bat, which can be used as a weapon, and you walk into town with a gun. I have my bat in a bag, you have your gun in a holster. If we were to both take out our potential weapons out of our "holsters" which do you think would cause more alarm? Which has the potential to cause more harm WITH LESS EFFORT. Sure if im some super ninja i could probably beat 10 guys to death with a bat, but with a gun I point and shoot. Sure there is some aiming required but in a crowded area, that skill level diminishes.
The whole point of a gun is its potential lethality. Why are you carrying a gun in public? I would assume for protection unless you plan on killing someone. So lets say its for protection. What about the gun makes it useful for protection? Its potential lethality. Thats the only reason that piece of metal plays a role in your protection, its ability to wound or kill deters people from messing with you.
Now take a car, whats the main purpose of a car? Transportation. Can it kill people? yes! Accidents happen and some crazy people use it as a weapon, but its main purpose for existing is not as a weapon, it is as a form of transportation.
So if one object was made for the purpose of wounding and killing and the other was made for transportation, which do you think is probably more efficient at killing?
"which do you think is probably more efficient at killing?" That depends on how it is being used (or misused). Alright tell me this. You are outside your house and u locked ur self out, and a guy is threatening u from across the street. The street is blocked so u cant escape, but you have ur car keys and your car is right in front of u. And on the driver seat there is a gun. What would u do? Get in, start the car and try to drive over the guy, or pick up ur gun and shoot him?[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"][QUOTE="thegerg"] It is a fact that in the US there are more guns than cars, and more deaths caused by cars than guns. There is nothing skewed about that.thegergPlease read my post...how many PEOPLE own guns, not how many guns are in the US. I can buy 500 guns if I wanted, but I can only use 2 at a time. So yes, your stats are skewed. Each person that owns a gun = 1 risk factor. Each person that owns a car = 1 risk factor. It doesnt matter if I own 20 cars, I can only drive 1 at a time, and thus I can only kill people with that one car at a time. So it's not the gun OR the car that you're worried about, but rather its owner? We should be equally afraid of anyone that owns a device that can be deadly regardless of how deadly those devices are and how often they actually kill people?
Dude, now you're just trying to weasel your way out of this. A car parked on the corner is not dangerous, just like a gun on the floor with no one touching it is not dangerous. Obviously both these items require a user in order for them to be dangerous. That is known and not even an issue. The whole point now, is to see in regards to usage and ownership, which of the following leads to more injuries/fatalities. Obviously the person wielding the device is a factor, you knew that going into this conversation, unless you assumed guns and cars act out all on their own. Now if we can get a correlation from all the owners of said devices, and their usage pattern, and the number of resulting deaths/injuries, then we can determine which is more dangerous.
And yes, if you see a man walking around town with a machete you should probably give him a wide breadth. Machetes and knifes can be dangerous and if you were to walk through a mall wielding a meet cleaver or my bad...."holstering" a meat cleaver, im sure people would be a little uncomfortable around you because yes, in the wrong situation it can be dangerous.
Now you can claim "anything can be dangerous!" and that is a very valid point, but the idea is try to quantify the degree of dangerousness and the probability of dangerousness. Think of it this way. If I walk into town with a baseball bat, which can be used as a weapon, and you walk into town with a gun. I have my bat in a bag, you have your gun in a holster. If we were to both take out our potential weapons out of our "holsters" which do you think would cause more alarm? Which has the potential to cause more harm WITH LESS EFFORT. Sure if im some super ninja i could probably beat 10 guys to death with a bat, but with a gun I point and shoot. Sure there is some aiming required but in a crowded area, that skill level diminishes.
The whole point of a gun is its potential lethality. Why are you carrying a gun in public? I would assume for protection unless you plan on killing someone. So lets say its for protection. What about the gun makes it useful for protection? Its potential lethality. Thats the only reason that piece of metal plays a role in your protection, its ability to wound or kill deters people from messing with you.
Now take a car, whats the main purpose of a car? Transportation. Can it kill people? yes! Accidents happen and some crazy people use it as a weapon, but its main purpose for existing is not as a weapon, it is as a form of transportation.
So if one object was made for the purpose of wounding and killing and the other was made for transportation, which do you think is probably more efficient at killing?
[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"]You are pulling skewed facts. You only say cars cause more deaths that's because more people on average use cars than guns, and more people own cars than guns. If you want to make a point like that, then you need to find the data on the number of people who own guns, and the number of people killed by guns. compared to the number of people who own cars and the number of people killed by cars. And then calculate the percentages for both.[QUOTE="thegerg"] So it's just interesting that you are more afraid of something that you KNOW presents less of a threat to you than something that does.thegerg
We are dealing with 2 completely different sample sizes. Using your logic I can make the argument that everyone should be able to have a vial of Smallpox at home. I mean how many people die from smallpox nowadays? 0. That's infinitely less than the number of people that die from guns. Making that claim would be completely valid using your logic, but that doesnt take into account that small pox is an extremely deadly pathogen that could wipe out an entire population, he only reason it doesnt is because it is erradicated from the world and only exsits in labs and thus has a very small chance to infect anyone.
It is a fact that in the US there are more guns than cars, and more deaths caused by cars than guns. There is nothing skewed about that. Please read my post...how many PEOPLE own guns, not how many guns are in the US. I can buy 500 guns if I wanted, but I can only use 2 at a time. So yes, your stats are skewed. Each person that owns a gun = 1 risk factor. Each person that owns a car = 1 risk factor. It doesnt matter if I own 20 cars, I can only drive 1 at a time, and thus I can only kill people with that one car at a time.[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"]So what? I know people afraid of all sorts of animals which account for less than 1% of deaths. Number of deaths and fear dont necessarily have to directly correlate.[QUOTE="thegerg"] I think what he's actually getting at is that you're scared to be around guns because they represent a danger to your life but not things that are demonstrably more dangerous.
thegerg
On another note, Ive been threatened with a gun before, never been hit by a car before.
So it's just interesting that you are more afraid of something that you KNOW presents less of a threat to you than something that does. You are pulling skewed facts. You only say cars cause more deaths that's because more people on average use cars than guns, and more people own cars than guns. If you want to make a point like that, then you need to find the data on the number of people who own guns, and the number of people killed by guns. compared to the number of people who own cars and the number of people killed by cars. And then calculate the percentages for both.We are dealing with 2 completely different sample sizes. Using your logic I can make the argument that everyone should be able to have a vial of Smallpox at home. I mean how many people die from smallpox nowadays? 0. That's infinitely less than the number of people that die from guns. Making that claim would be completely valid using your logic, but that doesnt take into account that small pox is an extremely deadly pathogen that could wipe out an entire population, he only reason it doesnt is because it is erradicated from the world and only exsits in labs and thus has a very small chance to infect anyone.
So what? I know people afraid of all sorts of animals which account for less than 1% of deaths. Number of deaths and fear dont necessarily have to directly correlate.[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"]
[QUOTE="thegerg"] I think what he's actually getting at is that you're scared to be around guns because they represent a danger to your life but not things that are demonstrably more dangerous.
lostrib
On another note, Ive been threatened with a gun before, never been hit by a car before.
in both cases, it's irrational
Right...because fear is supposed to be rational... lolLook you are ok being around people wielding guns, thats your business. I would rather not be around people with guns. Its a personal choice. I dont see the issue, unless u believe everyone should be just like u. I think what he's actually getting at is that you're scared to be around guns because they represent a danger to your life but not things that are demonstrably more dangerous. So what? I know people afraid of all sorts of animals which account for less than 1% of deaths. Number of deaths and fear dont necessarily have to directly correlate.[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"][QUOTE="lostrib"]
It's silly that you think just because of the presence of a holstered gun that you are scared for your life. Or if it's concealed, the gun is still present, you just don't know
thegerg
On another note, Ive been threatened with a gun before, never been hit by a car before.
Log in to comment