If americans are worried about rise in gun rampages,do you think this is more horrifying if this catches on?

Question

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6586879.stm

Answer 1

lol.....thats funny

Answer 2

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 gang banger, 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 [armed] 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 weight lifter. 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.

Answer 3

LMAO at that article!!!!



Edit:
Oldmarine, I agree with you mostly but, I disagree with guns being used as personal protection. With a gun, your only option if you plan to use it is to kill someone. The self-defense laws are written so that if you draw on a person and you don't kill them, it can be considered intentional maiming. I know the law is dumb but, what are you going to do, you know? Guns are scary things to have in public as well. What if you miss and shoot a kid?

If you want protection from muggers, study self-defense (as a marine I'm sure you have). Then the weapon is you and not something you have to load, unlock the safety on, aim, and shoot. If someone pulled a gun on me, it had better be loaded and ready to shoot because if it's not, I'm going to take it from them and shove it up their rear end.

I gave you a thumbs up though.

Answer 4

This idiot was only harming himself, this cannot be compare to cowards killing an armed victims in Gun Free Zones!!!
Having said that I'm in full agreement with OldMarine08!!
Thank you Sir, For your words and your service, the more of us that are armed, the less they can victimize our society!!

Answer 5

Who's worried? I carry a gun so I can help take out some idiot who thinks they are a god and can judge whether someone else deserves to die. Unlike the UK, we Americans can help take out the trash.

Answer 6

"oldmarine" nailed it.People say that we in the south are "polite".That's BS,1/2 of us are armed,or have easy access to a firearm.Problem is that you never know which person is armed;so it's best to be civil around others.
"God created man,Colonel Colt made them equal"

Answer 7

I would be too embarrased of my tiny penis to cut it off in public. I would have to have a pair of tweasers to hold it, and a surgical knife to cut it off. Then it would take a magnifying glass to find it. Perhaps I drank too much Mountain Dew as a kid.

Answer 8

That's called natural selection, and at least he only removed himself from the gene pool.

Answer 9

Here is the funny part you probably miss ... in french ... zizi means ... pee pee as in your private part LMAO...Now that makes it a whole of a lot funnier.

Answer 10

Not really, since he apparently harmed only himself.

Answer 11

Please clarify what the BBC article has to do with guns. And to Oldmarine, please clarify why your reasoning does not seem to make Bagdad the model of a civilized community.