Vigilante

[Blind groper]

Seth

You do not seem to appreciate that statistics are a normal tool for everyday decisions, whether we are aware we are using them or not.

If I decide to go to town, as I did a few days ago, to buy groceries and get a haircut, I am making a risk assessment based on statistics. My guess is that there is a risk of perhaps 1 in 100,000 that I will get killed in a car accident on that drive. The benefits are trivial, but the risk is even more trivial so I make the journey.

If, however, I encounter a burglar in my home, and I have access to a gun, do I shoot him dead or not? Again, I use exactly the same process to make my choice. The risk of said burglar harming me is slight (you mentioned 1 in 10 million at one point) and the harm from actually killing the burglar is extreme. One human life lost, and myself put through incredible stress with the legal games that follow. In my country, I would end up in prison, if there was no clear threat to my own life. So, with the risk trivial, and the cost massive, I will choose not to kill the burglar.

Anyone who cannot use estimated probabilities to make cost versus risk decisions is a genuine moron. So please do not tell me that statistics and probability are not relevant, because I am not that moron.

[Hermit]

What you just said reduces to no more nor less than this: Statistics that support gun ownership are valid usage of statistics. Those that are used to oppose it, are not.

Keerect! Statistics used to justify violations of human rights are not valid.

That's a positively Stalinesque reply. To wit: If you don't agree with my ideology, STFU.

[SnowLeopard]

What you just said reduces to no more nor less than this: Statistics that support gun ownership are valid usage of statistics. Those that are used to oppose it, are not.

Keerect! Statistics used to justify violations of human rights are not valid.

Owning a gun isn't a human right. Therefore not being allowed to own a gun isn't a violation of a human right. yaaaay for reality!

[SnowLeopard]

Or to put it another way, Seth's unsupported opinion, snatched out of thin air, defeats all the careful data gathering and analysis of the genuine experts.

No, human rights trump asshats who are afraid of guns.

Owning a gun isn't a human right so it sucks to be your argument

I'm not afraid of guns, I'd be afraid of the freaks that want to own them.

Kinda like politicians, anyone that wants to be a politician shouldn't be allowed to become one? Anyone that wants to own a gun shouldn't be allowed to own one.

[SnowLeopard]

What you just said reduces to no more nor less than this: Statistics that support gun ownership are valid usage of statistics. Those that are used to oppose it, are not.

Keerect! Statistics used to justify violations of human rights are not valid.

That's a positively Stalinesque reply. To wit: If you don't agree with my ideology, STFU.

That's because Seth is a communist. And thinks that anyone who doesn't agree with his view points should be kulled in a mass genocide of 99% of the planet. There is no freedom in Seths ideology. Tow the line or you're exterminated. Perfect little fascist.

[Seth]

Seth

You do not seem to appreciate that statistics are a normal tool for everyday decisions, whether we are aware we are using them or not.

You do not seem to appreciate that any individual's personal safety is not a subject for statistical analysis. Each individual has an absolute and unalienable right to use all reasonable and appropriate physical force to defend themselves against a criminal attack. No government has any authority to say to the individual "because defending yourself might result in some abstract injury in the future to someone else your right to defend yourself effectively is nullified."

If I decide to go to town, as I did a few days ago, to buy groceries and get a haircut, I am making a risk assessment based on statistics. My guess is that there is a risk of perhaps 1 in 100,000 that I will get killed in a car accident on that drive. The benefits are trivial, but the risk is even more trivial so I make the journey.

The key here is that YOU got to make that risk analysis, and YOU got to decide how to deal with the inherent risks. What if the government said "You are not allowed to go to town this week because our statistical analysis says that your operation of your car creates an unacceptable degree of risk to others?"

If, however, I encounter a burglar in my home, and I have access to a gun, do I shoot him dead or not? Again, I use exactly the same process to make my choice. The risk of said burglar harming me is slight (you mentioned 1 in 10 million at one point) and the harm from actually killing the burglar is extreme.

Extreme to whom? First, this strawman argument ignores the fact that it's not legal to kill a burglar simply for being in your house, as I have told you and demonstrated to you many times by citing the exact law that provides the parameters for when deadly force is authorized against an intruder.

Second, if YOU judge that the risk of harm is minimal, then of course YOU have a perfect right to make tea and crumpets for the burglar as he ransacks your home. What neither you nor the government are permitted to do is to tell ME how I must respond to a burglar based on your ignorant statistical "analysis." I have the right to respond with reasonable and appropriate physical force as defined by the law based on what's happening TO ME at the instant I make that decision, not based on what you or some other asshat thinks I should do based on some asinine statistical analysis of the risk of harm to me or mine. So long as the possibility of harm to me or mine exists, to any degree whatsoever, I have an absolute right to self defense. The degree of force that I may use depends entirely upon the nature of the threat and the law is quite specific about when deadly force is authorized, but the fact remains that since YOU are not in the room at the moment that the decision is made, YOU have absolutely no authority, moral or otherwise, to interfere in MY self defense decision making. If I get it wrong, then the courts can take me to trial, but nobody is going to render me helpless to engage lethal force against an intruder or attacker if it becomes necessary and legally permissible to use it.

One human life lost, and myself put through incredible stress with the legal games that follow.

Yup. There's a saying around here: "Every bullet you fire comes with a lawyer attached to it." There's another that says "Shooting someone, even if you are perfectly justified in doing so, will cost you a minimum of $50,000 in legal fees."

Those facts, along with the substantial risk of ending up in prison for wrongfully employing deadly force are compelling deterrents to the promiscuous use of deadly force. And when you add up all the various deterrents to the use of deadly force, including the moral issues you discuss below, you will find that "statistically," when civilians are faced with shoot/don't shoot situations in which the facts would fully justify the use of deadly force, they are ELEVEN TIMES LESS LIKELY to actually use deadly force than trained police officers are when facing identical threats.

What this boils down to is that civilians are by and large extremely reluctant to use lethal force even when they are justified in doing so, which is as it should be. But when lethal force is authorized and necessary, it remains a valid and moral self-defense option. This is why your paranoid rantings about civilians shooting each other en masse if they have guns is so much ignorant twaddle. It happens so rarely that it makes national news when it does happen.

In my country, I would end up in prison, if there was no clear threat to my own life. So, with the risk trivial, and the cost massive, I will choose not to kill the burglar.

Good for you. What you seem be utterly incapable of understanding is that that is exactly what the law here in the US already requires. You have this ignorant impression that anybody with a gun can shoot anybody else they think might be a threat to them. That is not the case and it would be nice if you could figure out how to get that through your thick skull.

Anyone who cannot use estimated probabilities to make cost versus risk decisions is a genuine moron. So please do not tell me that statistics and probability are not relevant, because I am not that moron.

You certainly appear to be. It's irrelevant what the statistical risks are to you regarding physical harm that would trigger your right to employ deadly physical force if the intruder presents a legitimate threat of death or serious bodily harm to you or another! Quit being such a dunce about this. The ONLY time you can use deadly force is if there is an actual threat meeting the standards of the law controlling the use of deadly force present at the instant that you elect to use deadly force.

Your statistical chances of being harmed by a burglar may be one in ten trillion, but when that one in ten trillion event happens, THAT is what triggers your right to use force in self defense.

The point is that YOU will be unable to employ effective self defense against that one burglar who wants to rape your daughter and murder your family if you are unprepared, unarmed and untrained in the art of employing whatever tools of self defense you choose as appropriate for you to employ. Those are choices YOU get to make for YOURSELF, but not for anyone else.

And there is no fucking way on earth that I am ever going to allow YOU (or anyone else) to decide how I may prepare and arm myself against that eventuality. If I choose to endure the pain in the ass (kidney actually) of carrying a handgun every single day for 25 or more years without ever having to shoot anyone on the chance that I might have to shoot someone because they give me legal justification and need to do so that's my choice. My carrying of said handgun does not harm you or anyone else, and in the 25+ years I've been doing so it has not factually harmed anyone or even created a risk to them because I'm highly experienced and well trained.

So long as no one gives me legal cause to employ my handgun it's no more significant than carrying a briefcase every day, or having a fire extinguisher in my car.

But should I be required to deploy it, I'm trained and prepared to do so with minimum risk to other innocents and maximum risk to my attacker, which is as it must be.

Now, when you figure out that merely carrying a gun is not the same thing as actually shooting it and that both are heavily regulated and come with severe penalties if you fuck up, get back to me.

Until then, take your ignorant bloviating and shove it up your ass.

[Seth]

What you just said reduces to no more nor less than this: Statistics that support gun ownership are valid usage of statistics. Those that are used to oppose it, are not.

Keerect! Statistics used to justify violations of human rights are not valid.

That's a positively Stalinesque reply. To wit: If you don't agree with my ideology, STFU.

No, it's a Libertarian reply. They are called "human rights" for a reason.

[Seth]

What you just said reduces to no more nor less than this: Statistics that support gun ownership are valid usage of statistics. Those that are used to oppose it, are not.

Keerect! Statistics used to justify violations of human rights are not valid.

Owning a gun isn't a human right.

Yes it is. If you think it's not, come try to take my guns away.

Therefore not being allowed to own a gun isn't a violation of a human right. yaaaay for reality!

That you believe this just show how cowed and servile you have been trained to be, sheeple.

[Seth]

Or to put it another way, Seth's unsupported opinion, snatched out of thin air, defeats all the careful data gathering and analysis of the genuine experts.

No, human rights trump asshats who are afraid of guns.

Owning a gun isn't a human right so it sucks to be your argument

Yes it is. And since I have guns and you do not, I have the capacity to enforce and defend that human right, whereas you do not. You lose, loser.

I'm not afraid of guns, I'd be afraid of the freaks that want to own them.

In other words you're a craven coward. But then I knew that already.

Kinda like politicians, anyone that wants to be a politician shouldn't be allowed to become one? Anyone that wants to own a gun shouldn't be allowed to own one.

Except, of course for the police and military, who are there to protect you...

(snicker...)

[SnowLeopard]

Yes it is. If you think it's not, come try to take my guns away.

Nope, it's not.

I don't just think it's not. I know it's not.

As has been explained to you before. You have a set list of privileges granted to you pertaining to the location on the globe you just happened to squirt out of a vagina. A privilege given and a privilege that can be taken away.

[SnowLeopard]

Yes it is. And since I have guns and you do not, I have the capacity to enforce and defend that human right, whereas you do not. You lose, loser.

No, It's not a human right.

Prove to me that it is.

Except you can't enforce or defend that human right. Because it's not a human right, and because you'd end up in jail, fucknut.

I have the capacity to enforce coming up behind you and planting an axe in to the back of your skull. You lose, motherfucker.

Just because you own a gun doesn't mean it's a human right, just because you own a car doesn't mean it's a human right, just because you have shit for brains doesn't mean that it's a required attribute.

In other words you're a craven coward. But then I knew that already.

"Careful, that straw might itch"

I think you'll find we've already established quite resolutely that you're the spineless, gutless, coward. A wimp without the testicular fortitude to stand up for his convictions unless he can point a gun at someone. Proving himself to be no better than all other tyrants and tin pot dictators throughout history. Because he knows his ideology is so abhorrent to civilized society the only way he can hope to enforce his deluded, psychopathic, narcissistic views on the rest of the world is down the barrel of a gun. pah.

In other words, or to be precise in my actual and exact words, I'd be justifiably wary about living in a country where freaks and psychopaths like yourself own guns, as any rational person would. For the above reason.

Except, of course for the police and military, who are there to protect you...

(snicker...)

Of course until they turn against us and decide to attack their own country as is so imminent in all western nations

*snickers, scratches head through tin foil hat*

[Hermit]

What you just said reduces to no more nor less than this: Statistics that support gun ownership are valid usage of statistics. Those that are used to oppose it, are not.

Keerect! Statistics used to justify violations of human rights are not valid.

That's a positively Stalinesque reply. To wit: If you don't agree with my ideology, STFU.

No, it's a Libertarian reply. They are called "human rights" for a reason.

You can label your dictatorial opinion anything you like. It is a good match with one of your others, namely your wish for all communists to be dead. Given your definition of what constitutes a communist, that's a sizable portion of the human population.

[Seth]

No, It's not a human right.

Yes, it is.

Prove to me that it is.

Come try to take my firearms away and I'll be glad to prove it to you.

Except you can't enforce or defend that human right.

Sure I can. Come on over and see how it's done.

Because it's not a human right, and because you'd end up in jail, fucknut.

Because unjust and immoral authority is physically capable of perpetrating injustice and gross violation of human rights doesn't make it either legal or moral, nor does the wish to do so make the human right involved cease to exist.

I have the capacity to enforce coming up behind you and planting an axe in to the back of your skull. You lose, motherfucker.

Yes, you do, but only if you can. You might, but I doubt it, I have better situational awareness than to allow drooling fuckwit sheeple to get within 30 feet of me with any sort of weapon, much less an axe. Feel free to stop by anytime and test out my situational awareness and self defense capabilities.

Just because you own a gun doesn't mean it's a human right,

You've got it backwards. I have a human right to own a gun whether or not I actually own one. So, perhaps unfortunately, do you.

just because you own a car doesn't mean it's a human right, just because you have shit for brains doesn't mean that it's a required attribute.

You would be an expert in identifying shit for brains based on your intimate relationship with the shit that passes for your brains if it weren't for the shit that passes for your brains.

I think you'll find we've already established quite resolutely that you're the spineless, gutless, coward.

You keep saying so, from the safety of mommy's basement in Scotland. Meanwhile I perambulate freely in a free society that acknowledges and protects my basic human right to armed self defense. I win, you lose.

A wimp without the testicular fortitude to stand up for his convictions unless he can point a gun at someone.

Guns don't get pointed unless and until you richly deserve to have one pointed at you, which takes place less than half a second before the muzzle flash, which is the last thing you ever see.

Proving himself to be no better than all other tyrants and tin pot dictators throughout history. Because he knows his ideology is so abhorrent to civilized society the only way he can hope to enforce his deluded, psychopathic, narcissistic views on the rest of the world is down the barrel of a gun. pah.

And yet you sit in your underwear in mommy's basement depending for your life and safety on other people who are willing to take up arms in your defense. Now THAT'S the very definition of a coward.

In other words, or to be precise in my actual and exact words, I'd be justifiably wary about living in a country where freaks and psychopaths like yourself own guns, as any rational person would. For the above reason.

It's a good thing I guess that you don't get to live here, because you don't deserve to live here, and you don't even deserve to have someone else, like the police and military that wipe your shitty ass, put themselves at risk to pander to your cowardice.

Of course until they turn against us and decide to attack their own country as is so imminent in all western nations

*snickers, scratches head through tin foil hat*

Ask the Jews circa 1936 how ignoring the inherent corruption of government and surrendering their arms on request worked out for them...

[SnowLeopard]

Fix your post and I might reply to it you failure

[Seth]

Yes it is. If you think it's not, come try to take my guns away.

Nope, it's not.

I don't just think it's not. I know it's not.

As has been explained to you before. You have a set list of privileges granted to you pertaining to the location on the globe you just happened to squirt out of a vagina. A privilege given and a privilege that can be taken away.

Nope. Human rights are universal and inhere to the individual even in the absence of government. Even the fuckwits at the UN understand that.

Those who think that government grants something that it cannot by its very nature grant because it does not possess it to begin with are merely well-indoctrinated sheeple.