Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

How Gun Control Made England The Most Violent


Socio

Recommended Posts

Fascinating.

Was there a point? That link didn't seem to have anything to do with what I posted. It appears to about the relationship bewteen gun ownership and crime rate. I'm probably being a little slow. What am I missing?

Not really, more like I misposted, no fault of yours. Quoting Harvard is like quoting the Bible; you find and cherry pick pretty much any answer you want. They turn out reems of that stuff every year. You need a shovel to rise above it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can't question the information in the source, question the source itself.

A stunningly common tactic.

Next you'll be directing us to YouTube.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Through all of this Mr Boyd still can't accept the basic reality that free availability of guns makes him more at risk of been a homicide statistic. When it comes down to it that is why his argument will always fall on deaf ears within these islands.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quoting Harvard is like quoting the Bible; you find and cherry pick pretty much any answer you want.

Is it an equally unreliable source of truth? :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Celebrity...

**blinks**

**looks around**

...you keep attributing your words to me, so please, cite my post where I'm suppose have said this,

Again? Allright:

Except that history has taught us, time and again, that when people choose to live like placid sheep, in the care of good shepherds, they die en masse like sheep, when a wolf slips into the fold. How many massacres would have been cut short, and how many lives would have been saved, if one sheep had pulled a gun out and shot the wolf?
and if you can't, I'm sure your fandom will understand your silence.

Are you...feeling a bit...defensive?

Please now word for word, not you're opinion or interpretation of what I said:

Aren't there any comparisons out there between situations in which a gunman armed with excessive weapons and ammo, indicating he intended a massacre, has opened fire in a public area at random targets? How many victims of gun massacres have there been where the gunman either shot himself or was shot by a law enforcement officer, compared to victims shot by non-enforcement officers? Post 37

Well, there you go. Also, don't forget the part directly before:

"This would be pretty strong support for the public availability of firearms, should it happen to be true. Hasn't anyone looked into it?"

And directly after:

"Seems to me like an excellent question that deserves an answer, not just an assumption."

But hey, while were quoting posts from all the way back to...yesterday, here's another choice few:

Did you just make all that up?
No, your tortured logic and convoluted rationalizations--all off the top of your head--just makes my point.
What needs to be studied?
Not unlike wanting a study on why rain makes the ground wet.

You certainly don't seem to have any trouble vacillating between mocking a lack of source or opinion, and outright derision at any suggestion that your opinion (as you finally admitted to not having a source...after that conclusion had already been reached and posted by myself) be held to the same standard of validity. As I said before, you really are treating it like a point of faith, almost religious in natur--

Here's you some grains of salt to go with all that unleavened bread.

...

Oh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

British people ( not UK people ) have been always bandits, pirtates. The poorest men in the docks, and their Queem. All are pirates.

This is the reason why french, spanish, german, italian people hates them.

The unique place in the world where i have been stolen is london tube.

I lost an expensive videorecorder in las vegas, and i recovered it in the lost & found service.

Anyway It is a european topic. I have friends in london and it is one of the best cities of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was looking for some figures for my home state (Oregon) to make a point about gun violence and upon doing so I noticed a rather glaring oversight (for lack of a better word) that most anti-gun proponents seem to have. I found that in 2010 Oregon place fairly high in the 'gun deaths' category, somewhere around 30th out of the 50 states which was surprising to me. However upon a little further research I found that over 80% of those deaths in Oregon were specifically attributed to suicide, which left less than 20% attributed to the manslaughter/accident/murder category. It seems that the numbers being thrown around by anti-gun proponents don't always accurately portray the 'gun crazy murder capital' propaganda that seems to have had it's label heaped on America. I'm not saying that guns aren't a problem here and I'm in full favor of stricter gun control practices being implemented (even being a gun owner myself) but let's call a spade a spade and realize that propaganda exists on both sides of the fence and sensationalism is just clouding the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was looking for some figures for my home state (Oregon) to make a point about gun violence and upon doing so I noticed a rather glaring oversight (for lack of a better word) that most anti-gun proponents seem to have. I found that in 2010 Oregon place fairly high in the 'gun deaths' category, somewhere around 30th out of the 50 states which was surprising to me. However upon a little further research I found that over 80% of those deaths in Oregon were specifically attributed to suicide, which left less than 20% attributed to the manslaughter/accident/murder category. It seems that the numbers being thrown around by anti-gun proponents don't always accurately portray the 'gun crazy murder capital' propaganda that seems to have had it's label heaped on America. I'm not saying that guns aren't a problem here and I'm in full favor of stricter gun control practices being implemented (even being a gun owner myself) but let's call a spade a spade and realize that propaganda exists on both sides of the fence and sensationalism is just clouding the issue.

Even this represents an argument against guns. Suicide is far more successful with guns so I think you will find that American suicide rates will be significantly higher.

However the main point of this thread was that the introduction of gun controls has lead to higher rates of crime. The stats shows that violent crime has been on a steady downward path for most of the last century and that even accounting for your possible statistical anomaly regarding suicide the rates of homicide are significanytly higher where guns are freely available.

The original article has failed in a dramatic way to show that laxer gun control laws would bring any benefits to the UK and doesn't support the notion that there are no benefits to stricter gun control laws.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even this represents an argument against guns. Suicide is far more successful with guns so I think you will find that American suicide rates will be significantly higher.

However the main point of this thread was that the introduction of gun controls has lead to higher rates of crime. The stats shows that violent crime has been on a steady downward path for most of the last century and that even accounting for your possible statistical anomaly regarding suicide the rates of homicide are significanytly higher where guns are freely available.

The original article has failed in a dramatic way to show that laxer gun control laws would bring any benefits to the UK and doesn't support the notion that there are no benefits to stricter gun control laws.

Br Cornelius

I agree about suicide rates probably being higher however suicide has nothing to do with any danger of being shot by criminals and in my opinion is a separate issue altogether. If gun violence (one person shooing another) is the basis of an anti-gun argument (or even pro-gun) then I would only ask to see the proper numbers, the numbers that exclude suicide deaths in which a gun was used. That was my only point. Suicides are obviously more easily facilitated with a gun however when the argument seems to hinge around the shooting of or being shot by criminals then using the suicide numbers completely undermines either argument for or against gun regulation. If one wants to argue against 'loose' gun regulations on account of gun suicide rates then by all means, have at it. Although even a total ban on guns would only see a slight decrease in suicide rates in my opinion as there are many ways to end ones life, of which guns are just the easiest.

Edited by Slave2Fate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 2009, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 67% of all homicides in the U.S. were conducted using a firearm.[5] According to the FBI, in 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns.[6] 61% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. are suicides.[3] In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicides, and 11,078 firearm-related homicides in the U.S.[7] In 2010, 358 murders were reported involving a rifle while 6,009 were reported involving a handgun; another 1,939 were reported with an unspecified type of firearm.[8] High-profile assassinations such as those of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and the Beltway sniper attacks involved the use of rifles, usually with telescopic sights, from concealed locations.

..........

Homicides

325px-Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg.png

Homicides by weapon type, 1976-2004.[19]

325px-Homoffendersbyage.svg.png

Homicide offenders by age, 1976-2004[20]

325px-DChomicides.jpg

Gun and overall homicides in Washington, D.C. are concentrated in crime hot spots located in neighborhoods (including Shaw, Sursum Corda, Trinidad, Anacostia, and Congress Heights) with socio-economic disadvantage, while homicide is rare in other neighborhoods.

While killing people in the 19th century was considered to be violent crime, killing sometimes took the form of riots and other forms of disorder in cities.[21] Gun violence sometimes played a role in these riots (see Haymarket riot). Homicide rates in cities such as Philadelphia were significantly lower in the 19th century than in modern times.[22] In the U.S. in 2011, 67 percent of homicide victims were killed by a firearm: 66 percent of single-victim homicides and 79 percent of multiple-victim homicides.[23]

During the 1980s and early 1990s, homicide rates surged in cities across the United States (see graphs at right).[24] Handgun homicides accounted for nearly all of the overall increase in the homicide rate, from 1985 to 1993, while homicide rates involving other weapons declined during that time frame.[25] The rising trend in homicide rates during the 1980s and early 1990s was most pronounced among lower income and especially unemployed males. Youths and Hispanic and African American males in the U.S. were the most represented, with the injury and death rates tripling for black males aged 13 through 17 and doubling for black males aged 18 through 24.[15][20] The rise in crack cocaine use in cities across the U.S. is often cited as a factor for increased gun violence among youths during this time period.[26][27][28]

Higher gun-related death rates can be found in developing countries and countries with political instability.[25][29][30] However, some developed countries with strict gun laws have almost eliminated gun violence.[31][32][33][34]

Prevalence of homicide and violent crime is greatest in low income urban areas of the U.S. In metropolitan areas, the homicide rate in 2005 was 6.1 per 100,000 compared with 3.5 in non-metropolitan counties.[35] In U.S. cities with populations greater than 250,000, the mean homicide rate was 12.1 per 100,000.[36] According to FBI statistics, the highest per capita rates of gun-related homicides in 2005 were in D.C. (35.4/100,000), Puerto Rico (19.6/100,000), Louisiana (9.9/100,000), and Maryland (9.9/100,000).[37]

Homicide rates among 18- to 24-year-olds declined since 1993, but remain higher than they were prior to the 1980s.[20] In 2005, the 17 through 24 age group remains significantly overrepresented in violent crime statistics, particularly homicides involving firearms.[38] In 2005, 17- through 19-year-olds were 4.3% of the overall population of the U.S.[39] This same age group accounted for 11.2% of those killed by firearm homicides.[40] This age group also accounted for 10.6% of all homicide offenses.[41] The 20- through 24-year-old age group accounted for 7.1% of the population,[39] while accounting for 22.5% of those killed by firearm homicides.[40] The 20 through 24 age group also accounted for 17.7% of all homicide offenses.[41] Those under age 17 are not overrepresented in homicide statistics. In 2005, 13- through 16-year-olds accounted for 6% of the overall population of the U.S., but only accounted for 3.6% of firearm homicide victims,[40] and 2.7% of overall homicide offenses.[41]

People with a criminal record were also more likely to die as homicide victims.[15] Between 1990 and 1994, 75% of all homicide victims age 21 and younger in the city of Boston had a prior criminal record.[42] In Philadelphia, the percentage of those killed in gun homicides that had prior criminal records increased from 73% in 1985 to 93% in 1996.[15][43] In Richmond, Virginia, the risk of gunshot injury is 22 times higher for those males involved with crime.[44]

In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the U.S. were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with unspecified firearms.[45] The likelihood that a death will result is significantly increased when either the victim or the attacker has a firearm.[46] For example, the mortality rate for gunshot wounds to the heart is 84%, compared to 30% for people who sustain stab wounds to the heart.[47]

The incidence of homicides committed with a firearm in the U.S. is greater than other developed countries. In the U.S. in 2009 United Nations statistics record 3.0 intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United Kingdom, with where handguns are prohibited was 0.07 per 100,000, about 40 times lower, and for Germany 0.2.[48] Gun homicides in Switzerland however are similarly low, at 0.52 in 2010[49] even though they rank third in the world for highest number of guns per citizen.[49]

Deadly mass shootings have resulted in considerable coverage by the media. These shootings have represented 1% of all deaths by gun between 1980 and 2008.[50]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Homicides

This article clearly differentiates between homicides and suicides and the figures show that the difference between the UK and the US is 43x greater, which makes my previous figure of 30x an underestimation.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

**blinks**

**looks around**

Again? Allright:

Are you...feeling a bit...defensive?

Well, there you go. Also, don't forget the part directly before:

"This would be pretty strong support for the public availability of firearms, should it happen to be true. Hasn't anyone looked into it?"

And directly after:

"Seems to me like an excellent question that deserves an answer, not just an assumption."

But hey, while were quoting posts from all the way back to...yesterday, here's another choice few:

You certainly don't seem to have any trouble vacillating between mocking a lack of source or opinion, and outright derision at any suggestion that your opinion (as you finally admitted to not having a source...after that conclusion had already been reached and posted by myself) be held to the same standard of validity. As I said before, you really are treating it like a point of faith, almost religious in natur--

...

Oh.

And once again you equivocate with another smoke screen of sardonic commentary to avoid admitting to your to original strawman post you attributed to me, time and again. I find your dishonesty blatant and pathetic. You're not a worthy adversary in any debate, and only half the wit you think you are. Edited by John Wesley Boyd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it an equally unreliable source of truth? :whistle:

Look into my eye. :tu:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And once again you equivocate with another smoke screen of sardonic commentary to avoid admitting to your to original strawman post you attributed to me, time and again. I find your dishonesty blatant and pathetic. You're not a worthy adversary in any debate, and only half the wit you think you are.

I was thinking exactly the same thing about you after witness your discourse with aquataus (and others). Go figure.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking exactly the same thing about you after witness your discourse with aquataus (and others). Go figure.

Br Cornelius

Looked in a mirror lately? You're much too smart to be trapped by such an innocent ploy any more than I. It's all just a game, wordplay, nothing to get one's knickers in a twist over, but some do take it on-the-chin. *lol* Edited by Hammerclaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

British people ( not UK people ) have been always bandits, pirtates. The poorest men in the docks, and their Queem. All are pirates.

This is the reason why french, spanish, german, italian people hates them.

The unique place in the world where i have been stolen is london tube. I lost an expensive videorecorder in las vegas, and i recovered it in the lost & found service. Anyway It is a european topic. I have friends in london and it is one of the best cities of the world.

British people fall under 'UK people'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And once again you equivocate with another smoke screen of sardonic commentary to avoid admitting to your to original strawman post you attributed to me, time and again.

I specifically responded to your request! It's...right there!

I quoted your exact post. Don't give me that "Time and Again" crap. You asked for it precisely once and I posted it immediately. Here, I'll do it a third time:

Except that history has taught us, time and again, that when people choose to live like placid sheep, in the care of good shepherds, they die en masse like sheep, when a wolf slips into the fold. How many massacres would have been cut short, and how many lives would have been saved, if one sheep had pulled a gun out and shot the wolf?

There it is, bright as day and twice as loud, so don't even try and pretend you don't see it this time.

Man, talk about denial. You don't even have the brass to acknowledge you were responded to; you just pretend you don't see anything.

I find your dishonesty blatant and pathetic.

Try saying the following out loud, sincerely:

"I asked aquatus to quote me more than once, and he never quoted me ever."

Too difficult? Try this one:

"Here is a quote from aquatus where he specifically and blatantly lies: post specific lie or dishonesty"

Granted, the last one actually involves supporting a claim you made, so I feel fairly safe about you not actually having anything to say.

You're not a worthy adversary in any debate, and only half the wit you think you are.

What does that say about you? Or have you convinced yourself that you have come out of this little melt-down of yours smelling like a daisy?

If you are going to make a claim, either have the intellect to support it or the class to withdraw it without throwing a tantrum. This kind of grade-school ranting and sour grapes makes everyone look bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I specifically responded to your request! It's...right there!

I quoted your exact post. Don't give me that "Time and Again" crap. You asked for it precisely once and I posted it immediately. Here, I'll do it a third time:

There it is, bright as day and twice as loud, so don't even try and pretend you don't see it this time.

Man, talk about denial. You don't even have the brass to acknowledge you were responded to; you just pretend you don't see anything.

Try saying the following out loud, sincerely:

"I asked aquatus to quote me more than once, and he never quoted me ever."

Too difficult? Try this one:

"Here is a quote from aquatus where he specifically and blatantly lies: post specific lie or dishonesty"

Granted, the last one actually involves supporting a claim you made, so I feel fairly safe about you not actually having anything to say.

What does that say about you? Or have you convinced yourself that you have come out of this little melt-down of yours smelling like a daisy?

If you are going to make a claim, either have the intellect to support it or the class to withdraw it without throwing a tantrum. This kind of grade-school ranting and sour grapes makes everyone look bad.

Ranting! I've been laughing at you for days! Melt down? You're high on yourself. Yes that's my statement, and my opinion and my rhetorical question at the end. So please explain what this garbled , incoherent mess you posted has to do with it:Aren't there any comparisons out there between situations in which a gunman armed with excessive weapons and ammo, indicating he intended a massacre, has opened fire in a public area at random targets? How many victims of gun massacres have there been where the gunman either shot himself or was shot by a law enforcement officer, compared to victims shot by non-enforcement officers? Post 37 What does this nonsense mean?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are advocating for concealed carry (armed sheep stopping the wolves). That's fairly straight forward. So Aquatus asked you pointblank "how many massacres have been stopped by an armed member of public as opposed to armed police?".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are advocating for concealed carry (armed sheep stopping the wolves). That's fairly straight forward. So Aquatus asked you pointblank "how many massacres have been stopped by an armed member of public as opposed to armed police?".

Thanks for the translation. The answer is none that I know of. That's the point. The public has been denied the right to go armed or persuaded not to. This creates gun-free zones that become killzones for armed perpetrators. It's easy to take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens but not from people who have no regard for the rule of law or human life, for whatever reason. My point was that it is better to be armed in the face of armed aggression than not. Gun free zones are not gun free for a madman, and the police will rarely be there precisely when you need them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we both know it's a pretty reputable organisation.

The Bible or Harvard?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ranting! I've been laughing at you for days!

Really sounded like ranting. Definitely didn't sound like laughter.

Melt down? You're high on yourself.

Well, sure, that's another one of those constants about me.

Yes that's my statement, and my opinion and my rhetorical question at the end.

Yes, we know. Much like your statement about not having anything to back it up, admitting after it has already been shown to be so beyond any shadow of a doubt doesn't get you any credit.

Seriously, a simple "Well, no, I haven't actually looked into it. Seems kind of self-evident though, doesn't it?" Would have prevented literally every part of this, and the point would have remained as strong as ever. Literally, the only thing that you accomplished by pretending it was anything other than hypothetical is to emphasize how empty it was, when it was a perfectly valid talking point. You destroyed a supporting point that others were agreeing with you about.

So please explain what this garbled , incoherent mess you posted has to do with it:Aren't there any comparisons out there between situations in which a gunman armed with excessive weapons and ammo, indicating he intended a massacre, has opened fire in a public area at random targets? How many victims of gun massacres have there been where the gunman either shot himself or was shot by a law enforcement officer, compared to victims shot by non-enforcement officers? Post 37 What does this nonsense mean?

Oh, you want clarification? Not a problem. I was under the impression you knew exactly what was being talked about, considering how vehement you have been about it for the last few pages.

Okay, lets use an analogy. Let's say we have a herd of sheep, normally watched over by a shepherd. The sheep represent the average public. The shepherd, being the professional assigned to protect the sheep, represents law enforcement. Now, the shepherd is trained and armed. The sheep, however, are not necessarily so. The problem is that arming the sheep has resulted in some of the sheep killing other sheep, whether by accident or in the heat of the moment. Being that the entire purpose of this exercise is to avoid dead sheep as much as possible, the strategy of arming the sheep is under debate.

Now, there are wolves skulking nearby. Most aren't an issue; they are willing to stick to the occasional snatch and grab that is part of life. The shepherd occasionally catches them, occasionally doesn't. This is a normal state of affairs.

Now, every once in a while you get a wolf that presents more danger. This guy doesn't just skulk around the fringes; he actively sneaks deeply into the fold, so that he is completely surrounded by sheep in every direction. This one represents our mass murderer, armed and fitted for as many casualties with no specific target.

So, in our analogy, this not-normal wolf is in the middle of sheep in a normal environment, and explodes into a murderous mutton-based orgy of destruction. At this point, we have two possible scenarios. In one, the shepherd runs over and kills the wolf with his .243 caliber shepherd's crook (or, the wolf decides to kill himself). In the other, one of the sheep pulls out a gun and shoots the wolf.

Both scenarios have a bad guy indiscriminately killing random victims. Both scenarios end with the killer dead. The question put before us is: Which method resulted in the fewest number of victims?

If it turns out that the method where the sheep killed the wolf results in significantly less victims, this means that there is pretty decent support for the claim that arming sheep. If, on the other hand, it turns out that, even though some of the sheep are armed, it is still the shepherd (or the wolf) that ends up solving the issue, then it shows that arming the sheep is not a good tactic. Not only did arming the sheep not result in saving any lives during a wolf massacre, it also resulted in the accidental and/or malicious deaths outside of the massacre. The result, in that case, would be a net loss, resulting in more dead sheep than the massacre by itself would have.

So, basically, the tactic of arming sheep not only has to result in less deaths due to massacres, it also has to result in saving enough lives to cover the other deaths that are caused due to guns on a daily basis, in order to be considered a valid reason to arm the sheep.

Edited by aquatus1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, since the point has been done to death, and it really isn't directly related enough to the actual OP to warrant further expansion here, I'm pretty much done. I might open a thread on it, however, because it is a good discussion point, and there is data on it, however, it is off-topic on this thread, so I won't pursue it here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really sounded like ranting. Definitely didn't sound like laughter.

Well, sure, that's another one of those constants about me.

Yes, we know. Much like your statement about not having anything to back it up, admitting after it has already been shown to be so beyond any shadow of a doubt doesn't get you any credit.

Seriously, a simple "Well, no, I haven't actually looked into it. Seems kind of self-evident though, doesn't it?" Would have prevented literally every part of this, and the point would have remained as strong as ever. Literally, the only thing that you accomplished by pretending it was anything other than hypothetical is to emphasize how empty it was, when it was a perfectly valid talking point. You destroyed a supporting point that others were agreeing with you about.

Oh, you want clarification? Not a problem. I was under the impression you knew exactly what was being talked about, considering how vehement you have been about it for the last few pages.

Okay, lets use an analogy. Let's say we have a herd of sheep, normally watched over by a shepherd. The sheep represent the average public. The shepherd, being the professional assigned to protect the sheep, represents law enforcement. Now, the shepherd is trained and armed. The sheep, however, are not necessarily so. The problem is that arming the sheep has resulted in some of the sheep killing other sheep, whether by accident or in the heat of the moment. Being that the entire purpose of this exercise is to avoid dead sheep as much as possible, the strategy of arming the sheep is under debate.

Now, there are wolves skulking nearby. Most aren't an issue; they are willing to stick to the occasional snatch and grab that is part of life. The shepherd occasionally catches them, occasionally doesn't. This is a normal state of affairs.

Now, every once in a while you get a wolf that presents more danger. This guy doesn't just skulk around the fringes; he actively sneaks deeply into the fold, so that he is completely surrounded by sheep in every direction. This one represents our mass murderer, armed and fitted for as many casualties with no specific target.

So, in our analogy, this not-normal wolf is in the middle of sheep in a normal environment, and explodes into a murderous mutton-based orgy of destruction. At this point, we have two possible scenarios. In one, the shepherd runs over and kills the wolf with his .243 caliber shepherd's crook (or, the wolf decides to kill himself). In the other, one of the sheep pulls out a gun and shoots the wolf.

Both scenarios have a bad guy indiscriminately killing random victims. Both scenarios end with the killer dead. The question put before us is: Which method resulted in the fewest number of victims?

If it turns out that the method where the sheep killed the wolf results in significantly less victims, this means that there is pretty decent support for the claim that arming sheep. If, on the other hand, it turns out that, even though some of the sheep are armed, it is still the shepherd (or the wolf) that ends up solving the issue, then it shows that arming the sheep is not a good tactic. Not only did arming the sheep not result in saving any lives during a wolf massacre, it also resulted in the accidental and/or malicious deaths outside of the massacre. The result, in that case, would be a net loss, resulting in more dead sheep than the massacre by itself would have.

So, basically, the tactic of arming sheep not only has to result in less deaths due to massacres, it also has to result in saving enough lives to cover the other deaths that are caused due to guns on a daily basis, in order to be considered a valid reason to arm the sheep.

I think we can agree to disagree on whatever you just said. I believe in proactive self defense while you have certain reservations? No point in afflicting the rest of readership with this fruitless disagreement. It serves no purpose and upsets civilians at their breakfast. So, I'll pat myself on the back and declare Mission Accomplished and go my melancholy way. Edited by Hammerclaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.