What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

very, very good news...............

  • #141
jest like speed doesn't kill it is that sudden earth shattering stop and being thrown thru the windsheild , flipping ove 52 times without a seat belt on that kills people in autos, pick-ups 18 wheelers ,motorcycles ect


It doesn't bother me so much that drivers who speed get injured or killed because I believe that people can do what they want with themselves. However, they often injure or kill innocent people. If, as you say, speed doesn't kill, do you advocate for doing away with speed limits?

By the way, do you disagree with (A) or (B)?
 
  • #142
Tropics - I have to say that I love symbolic logic, especially in conversation, but your example here is way to simple. Human emotion and the human priority system can rarely be broken down into a simple IF A AND B THEN ~C statement. If I were to weigh in on gun control, you could also add (C) Do you individuals need to support the life of themselves and their family.

Since (A) and (C) aren't mutually exclusive, they can coexist, and to various degrees.

xvart.
 
  • #143
Beyond what xvart said, an individual's answers to (A) & (B) don't matter. Someone who unequivocally answers no to both probably has some sociopathic tendencies, but the rest of us, at some point, will answer yes to each. Who wouldn't say individuals should try to avoid disasters, especially when those disasters may involve innocent people being injured or killed? But people vary in the risk we're willing to take or to impose on others. We also vary in our willingness to acknowledge responsibility for the consequences of our actions.

As for (B), again, people are going to draw the line in different places. One person's confusion might be another person's normal. Someone driving with a blood alcohol of 0.079% is legal, but is driving impaired, as is someone talking on a cell phone, hands free or not. So is someone eating lunch behind the wheel, scolding the kids, getting into the music, looking at the scenery and so on. I missed most of this debate and don't know why you focused on Digoxin, but plenty of people are driving under the influence of all kinds of medication that impairs their ability to drive. The real question is what society, usually through government action, should do about these things. And not just about (A) and (B), but also thousands of other issues. Reasonable people can disagree, not that I think every opinion is reasonable.

(B) is a subject of huge interest to me because of my interest in landuse. The US' car dependency leads to a huge and increasing number of people driving while impaired by medication, age and other "legal" things. So (B) is really asking about a symptom of an underlying problem. We've created, with the backing of government policy and spending, a nation where people have little alternative but to keep driving as long as they possibly can. For most people, the loss of driving priviledges is the loss of independence and is pretty traumatic. So they keep driving no matter what their physical or mental state.

To try to bring this back on topic, at least as I understand the topic, I believe the government needs to take actions for the good of society, even if some individuals have hissy fits over it. As I mentioned before, I think the gun control debate is a waste of effort that should go to solving more pressing matters. Once we've solved the more important problems, let's take on gun control. I don't think Rattler would like my solutions, but I don't think we'll ever reach that point. There are plenty of bigger problems.
 
  • #144
I have to say that I love symbolic logic, especially in conversation, but your example here is way to simple. Human emotion and the human priority system can rarely be broken down into a simple IF A AND B THEN ~C statement. If I were to weigh in on gun control, you could also add (C) Do you individuals need to support the life of themselves and their family.

Since (A) and (C) aren't mutually exclusive, they can coexist, and to various degrees.


It may look like an example in logic, but it's merely a statement I made earlier that I thought would be uncontroversial. To my surprise, rattler objected to it, and then a couple of others followed. I'm just trying to get an idea of how gun advocates think. Do you disagree with (A) or (B)?

By the way, if you mean by (C) that individuals should support their families, it conflicts with (A) that disasters should be avoided. Disasters weaken families, so those disasters that are avoidable should be avoided.
 
  • #145
alright Tropics you want me to apply logic to this in a cost versus risk type situation for my family?

facts....even gun control advocates agree guns are used to diffuse about 1.5 million bad situations a year....well over 90% of which a gun is never fired.......accidental deaths of children by firearms every year number under 2,000....statistically my kids are at a greater risk of me not having a gun if something bad happens than one sitting in the closet and no confrontation ever happening......

statistically i am much better off having a gun present to be able to diffuse a bad situation than the minute risk of a kid accidentally being shot in my house..........statistically having a gun present is more safe than not having one..........
 
  • #146
I don't think many gun control advocates agree with that 1.5 million figure. I'm skeptical of it, along with all the other numbers people toss out, whether the source of the number wants the number to seem high or low. Reliable data aren't available and the high numbers, in particular, are based on a dubious kind of self-reporting.

Looking at it a different way, dividing that 1.5 million into the US population means ~1/200 of us use a gun to prevent a bad situation each year. With a 72-year life expectancy, that would imply 30% of the population will, at some point in their life, use a gun to defuse a bad situation. I don't believe it, not at all. If you refine the statistics by just focusing on those who actually have a gun handy, the proportion would be even more dramatic. I know and have known plenty of people with guns and can't recall anyone ever mentioning doing such a thing. I know someone who drove off two muggers with a big mag-lite flashlight, but no one who's done it with a gun.

However, the biggest threat of a gun in a house is suicide. Having known people who attempted suicide (unsuccessfully) and moved on with their lives, I'm glad they didn't have a gun in the house. A relative of mine, however, did have that combination of suicidal thoughts and a gun. He was successful. Given the course of his family's life afterwards, that suicide had more than one victim. People aren't comfortable talking about suicide, but that's where guns do their worst.
 
  • #147
NRA says its close to 2 million in the late 90's....Clinton administration who was highly anti gun says its likely 1.5 million........personally i know an individual in Colorado Springs thats been at the wrong place at the wrong time at convinience stores that has had to pull his gun 3 times but has never fired a shot but did stop a bad situation from becoming worse....not a guy that goes looking for trouble, he just stopped by to use the ATM and kept himself from getting mugged a few blocks from his house in a supposedly good neighborhood.....

as far as suicide....once again your arguing feelings....yeah suicide sucks, watched my brother go through hell when one of his close buddies commited suicide and my brother was the one to find the body......it freaking sucks.....but weither or not guns are present has lil to do with it when someone makes that desision.......most ppl have no problem succeeding without the use of a gun.....plenty of ppl use a gun and fail..........
 
  • #148
I know someone who, with the aid of a gun in all situations thwarted a potential assault/****, a tractor theft, and a carjacking. One of his friends has thwarted another tractor theft. Just one person had to use a gun in a self defense situation 3 times. Not believing or wanting to believe statistics doesn't make them any less true. I think the excuse that statistics aren't ever accurate is a lame cop out, in any case. Either they were reputably compiled, or not.


I go to a lot of those sites that just post up stupid videos almost every day. Sometimes there are suicide videos - never do they involve guns. In fact, they all involve being purposely hit by a motor vehicle, or jumping off a building. Quick, let's make both illegal!
 
  • #149
PK, I mean this in the most constructive way, but you react too much to things that were never said because you make too many assumptions about what people think. Given your academic success, I know you can do better. I never made the excuse that statistics aren't ever accurate. It wouldn't make any sense for me to say it since I'm in a mid-career turn to biostatistics/epidemiology. It's the reliability of those particular data I question, not the reliability of statistics.

You said that the date were either reputably compiled or they weren't, but it isn't so simple. Data for things like gunshot fatalities, cancer, and so on are pretty reliable because the conditions have pretty clear definitions, are determined by experts and are reported to a central location. Some states do it better and some do it worse but, all in all, the data are pretty good. "Prevented a crime with a gun" data, on the other hand, don't have a clear definition, are self-determined by non-experts and don't have centralized records.

If some teens are being obnoxious and a store owner pulls a gun and runs them out of the store, was a crime prevented? If they had pulled knives and demanded money, a robbery was prevented by anyone's definition. If they hadn't but he thought they were about to, he'll believe he prevented a robbery. I disagree and I think a lot of police departments would too. Since it's human nature to inflate one's accomplishments, self-reporting of such data is especially unreliable.

It can go the other way too. Maybe the people most likely to use a gun to prevent a crime are poor or minorities or immigrants, all groups of people routinely under-represented in surveys. Especially if they used an unregistered gun or have a criminal record, since they'd rather not talk about it to a stranger asking questions about it. That's why I mentioned that I don't trust the low numbers either.

As for the suicide issue, I never said to make guns illegal because they can be used for suicide. I simply said suicide is where guns take their greatest toll. That's why it's so annoying when many of my fellow left-of-center types get all worked up over the latest school shooting or the occasional six-year old shooting his little brother. They're tragedies and I think kids that age should never have access to guns without adult supervision, but only a few hundred kids (<15) die by gunfire in the US each year. There are many other childhood issues that, statistically speaking, are much bigger problems and I'd rather we tackle them first. I think the best solution to suicide by guns is to improve access to mental health care, by the way, but access to a gun certainly raises the stakes.
 
  • #150
Bruce,

I wasn't really meaning that directly towards you. It was a point you brought up, however, it seems that every time there is a discussion on TF (or anywhere really lol) where statistics are provided, someone always disagrees with them. Maybe the person providing them displays them out of context at times, which I'm sure happens, but it seems to be that every time statistics come out, someone says they're not accurate, exaggerated, etc. I guess I should've clarified, because I wasn't aiming that comment towards you - sorry! The point was, someone always has some kind of excuse why their opponent's statistics are crap, and I find it hard to believe that all statistics are always inherently flawed for one reason or another.

If they hadn't but he thought they were about to, he'll believe he prevented a robbery.
Eh, I'm not so sure that situation would inflate the statistics noticeably. I mean, people realize that guns are serious business, and most are very, very cautious about just whipping them out. Store owners will usually ask someone to leave once or twice, then call the cops, or just call the cops off the bat. I was a troublemaker when I was younger, but usually an ask to leave worked, and if it didn't, a threat to call the police always got me out of ther ein a jiffy lol. Most store owners aren't just going to go, "ok this kid is being loud, I'm going to stick a gun in his face". If you are asked to leave once and don't, from that point on you are committing a crime (loitering and/or possibly trespassing)
 
  • #151
Tropics said in post yesterday"If, as you say, speed doesn't kill, do you advocate for doing away with speed limits?" don't want to abolish speed limits, jest want those darn trees, siderails, OOPs my RN is showing thru, guardrails,rocks other cars, 18 wheelers etc to quit jumpin out in front of people who are speeding.LOL

Have had at leaast one cousin killed and another paralyzed at a young age from car accidents. i fn i thot longer I could probably come up with more, that was jest from a family of six children.
LMO
 
  • #152
Bruce, im all for getting those that need help more help but there is only so much yah can do, with some ppl no amount of intervention is going to help......sure help can prevent alot of them but alot of times unless you keep that person under a microscope its hard to do...would have to say a decent portion of the time some of the immediate family has no clue a person is contemplating it.....

mainly im taking issue with Tropics idea that if you minimize enough risk you and your kids will see 102....life is so full of risk that the risk of me having a firearm in the house leading to my or my families death is so small as not to be statistically relevent....im much more likely to be killed by a drunk driver or being in a hurry and not looking both ways before i cross the street or just plain falling dead from a heart attack....i firmly believe that im far more likely to use one of my firearms in the protection of my family than one resulting in the death of a family member through an accident......
 
  • #153
Nicely said .rat, MT
LMO
 
  • #154
All forum members have had ample opportunity to disagree with either (A) or (B):

(A) individuals should try to avoid disasters, especially when those disasters may involve innocent people being injured or killed.

(B) those who are experiencing confusion, acute psychosis, or delirium as a result of taking Digoxin (or even if they are not taking it) should not drive cars.

Only three forum members have disagreed with (A) or (B) or both. Admittedly, this is not a scientific survey. However, the results indicate that a very small minority disagrees with (A) or (B). The responses of the three people indicate that they have a high tolerance for risk for themselves and others. It is no surprise that they are among the most vocal gun advocates on this forum.
 
  • #155
i really dont get where your going with this Tropics....my life has less risk factors than most...i dont jump out of planes or tie rubberbands to my legs and jump of bridges for fun...while i enjoy rodeo i done participate in it, ive got pics on Thursdayof someone coming off the rodeo arena bloodier than hell cause he was part of a team of which there was 8 in the arena all trying to wrestle an un broke horse so they could saddle it and ride it across a finish line, un saddle it and run the saddle back top the judge in under 3 minutes for a couple hundred bucks apiece and a belt buckle, for his efforts he took a hoof to the head in a grazing blow...my understanding is the individual was hauled out on a stretcher during the Saturday performance cause he got hurt worse...the difference between me in you is i realize what risks i am taking and those that are actually involved in real life....i live in a part of the world where owning multible firearms and carrying them in the vehicle is considered normal....yet shootings are rare and the most likely causes of death by a huge margin are auto accidents and sickness...

Source:
http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-gun-is-civilization.html

why the gun is civilization.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
 
  • #156
I also have no idea where you're going. Equating the fact that I think "people try to avoid risk" is a fallacious statement with me having "a high tolerance for risk for myself and others" is horrible logic. That is about as logically sound as "you like cake, so you must be funny".
 
  • #157
phissionkorps, All I know about you is what you say on the forum. Earlier you said:

** I have to disagree that people try to avoid danger though. **

So I counted you as one who disagrees with the statement that individuals should try to avoid disasters, and you didn't object to that. Then I concluded that you have a high tolerance for risk.

Now you say that you live a low risk life and that people try to avoid risk. There seems to be a contradiction. I wonder if you want to correct your earlier statement in which you disagreed that people try to avoid danger.
 
  • #158
How can anyone say most people try to avoid danger when there's so much overeating, reckless driving, smoking, etc? Maybe the discussion runs aground because people have a warped sense of risk. Why should an overweight American worry about terrorists and why should a smoker worry about guns in the neighborhood? People accepting high risks will try to avoid some low risks.
 
  • #159
Why would I want to alter my first statement? The statement, "people try to avoid danger" is false, and my first statement says just that. I don't personally go try and put myself in dangerous situations, but pretty much everything is dangerous. I guess I have a "high tolerance for risk" if you want to define that as the fact that I'm ok with people hang gliding, parasailing, bungee jumping, etc. If they want to do that, I'm perfectly fine with that, but I don't do it myself (except parasailing on occasion).
 
  • #160
If you want risk, gain a lot of weight and don't get medical attention for hypertension and diabetes. It won't impress the chicks the same way as hang gliding, but it's probably riskier.
 
Back
Top