55
   

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

 
 
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2019 06:12 am
That is called the D&M Pyramid after the two researchers (DePetrie and Molinar) who first noticed it in Viking probe images in 1976.
0 Replies
 
neptuneblue
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2019 06:20 am
@gungasnake,
Pyramids On Mars

The Pyramids on Mars are hills or mountains on the surface of Mars that, from a low resolution image, have near-perfect symmetry resembling that of the Egyptian pyramids. These formations are found in the Martian region known as Cydonia, an albedo feature that gained celebrity-like attention in the 1970s.

Some of the images captured of the Martian surface by the Viking Missions in the 70’s showed a formation that closely resembled a humanoid face. E.T. aficionados immediately interpreted this as a structure built by intelligent lifeforms like ours. More photographs of the region (Cydonia) revealed pyramid-like structures.

One of them, the D&M pyramid had a near-perfect symmetry. Since the pyramids were located near the “Face on Mars”, speculations regarding its alien origins gained more followers. According to advocates of the theory, the Face on Mars may have been constructed by inhabitants of the nearby city a.k.a. the Pyramids on Mars.

They even pointed out the peculiar smoothness of the wide region beside the Pyramids on Mars, which may have been a vast body of water such as an ocean. The proximity of the ‘city’ to a large body of water is typical of most inhabitants who would naturally want to be near a huge source of natural resources and a medium for travel.

This fascinating theory or story later on subsided when much higher resolution photos from later expeditions, one in April 5, 1998 and another in April 8, 2001, revealed the Face on Mars as nothing more than a mesa, an elevated piece of land with a flat top and steep sides. Mesas can be found in the southwestern region of the US.

You can also find them in South Africa, Arabia, India, Australia, and of course, Spain. The term ‘mesa’ is actually derived from the Spanish word that means ‘table’. Mesas look pretty much like giant tables rising above a surrounding plain.

The sharper images showed that the top of the mesa did not resemble a face at all. As for the Pyramids on Mars, such geological formations can be found here on Earth. They’re usually formed through the action of ice in glaciation or frost weathering.

Some good examples of such formations here on Earth are Switzerland’s Matterhorn, USA’s Mount Thielsen, Scotland’s Buachaille Etive Mòr, and Canada’s Mount Assiniboine.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2019 06:27 am
@neptuneblue,
Don't waste your time arguing with a fanatic, facts have no place in the mind of a zealot.

There's a sinister side to it, we can all chuckle at nonsense about pyramids on Mars, creationist claptrap and other weird conspiracy bollocks but he alsoi spreads neo Nazi lies. Chief of which being that the Srebrenica Massacre never happened which is no different from Holocaust denial. That's where he shows his true colours and they're not very nice.

Quote:
The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide (Bosnian: Masakr u Srebrenici; Genocid u Srebrenici), was the July 1995 massacre of more than 8,000 Bosniaks, mainly men and boys, in and around the town of Srebrenica during the Bosnian War.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre
neptuneblue
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2019 06:37 am
@izzythepush,
Shock jocks are loud mouths, used to reiterating their bull anywhere, all the time. Not that they're right, of course, but certainly have a right to their opinion. Reality isn't their forte.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2019 07:15 am
@neptuneblue,
One poster, (Contrex/Centrox) thought it was a spoof account designed to make Republicans look like idiots because he didn't think anyone could really be that stupid. Unfortunately they can, and they are.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2019 08:39 am
@neptuneblue,
Quote:
This fascinating theory or story later on subsided when much higher resolution photos from later expeditions, one in April 5, 1998 and another in April 8, 2001, revealed the Face on Mars as nothing more than a mesa, an elevated piece of land with a flat top and steep sides. Mesas can be found in the southwestern region of the US.


That is totally wrong. Tom Van Flandern was a director of the US Naval Observatory. He noted that the face megalith at Cydonia showed looks MORE artificial with higher resolution images; that is the exact opposite of what is meant by "pareidolia". The 01 images left no doubt about the thing being artificial..

https://s.hswstatic.com/gif/face-on-mars-2.jpg
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2019 04:27 pm
@gungasnake,
That is about as convincing as the bagel with the face of Mother Teresa.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2019 05:37 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
gungasnake wrote:
FBI: More people killed with hammers and clubs than with firearm:
But not at one time.
And not from a distance.
And not by simply pulling a trigger.
So what? Are people somehow "more dead" if they are killed with a gun instead of by some other means?
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2019 06:09 pm
@oralloy,
If you don't value your ability / chance to avoid being killed, why do you value owning a gun for self defense?
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2019 06:36 pm
@vikorr,
Given that gun availability does not have much impact on homicide rates, I do not agree that I would have a greater chance of avoiding harm if there were no guns available for civilian ownership.

But even in a hypothetical scenario where the presence of guns did reduce my ability to avoid harm, I would rather live a short life as a free man than a long life as a serf or a slave.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2019 08:05 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Given that gun availability does not have much impact on homicide rates, I do not agree that I would have a greater chance of avoiding harm if there were no guns available for civilian ownership.
Alright, this is your opinion. Others opinion differs drastically to your, on very good grounds:

- it's easier to outrun knife wielder than a gun wielder
- a knife wielder has to get close, a gun wielder doesn't

These two alone mean your chances are higher against a knife wielder than a gun wielder

- a barricade that is close to hand is more effective against a knife wielder than a gun wielder
- windows work better against knife wielders than gun wielders

So think convenience stores, petrol stations etc

If you don't have a gun on you, then your chances of picking up an improvised weapon as defence, and surviving, are much better against a knife wielder than a gun wielder.

Now, I would call all of the above, as a whole, common sense. Nor can I see any sensible argument that would infer otherwise. Your chances of survival are better against a knife wielder than a gun wielder.

Even homeless trolley man in Melbourne appears to agree (just search trolley man melbourne, it will show up), as I doubt he would have done what he did had the fellow a gun.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2019 08:13 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
But even in a hypothetical scenario where the presence of guns did reduce my ability to avoid harm, I would rather live a short life as a free man than a long life as a serf or a slave.
Well, again, you are entitled to your opinion. Such life views may hold great meaning and truth to some, and be completely and utterly irrelevant and nonsensical to others - it doesn't make either right or wrong.

I note that in Australia, people are generally unhappy (though they seek highs all the time), unsatisfied, and quite well off (though they don't think of it as such). My heritage is 3rd world, and where my parents come from, the people are dirt poor, but happy. The reason exists in differing views of whats important in life. Is one group right and the other wrong? I wouldn't say so, though the evidence suggests it affects your (generic population) happiness, self esteem, etc....yet being a river village, I doubt they've ever considered, or even argued over the question 'is it my right to carry a weapon'.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2019 08:37 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
Alright, this is your opinion. Others opinion differs drastically to your, on very good grounds:

- it's easier to outrun knife wielder than a gun wielder
- a knife wielder has to get close, a gun wielder doesn't

These two alone mean your chances are higher against a knife wielder than a gun wielder
This is an issue of fact, not an issue of opinion.

It is a fact that gun availability does not have much impact on homicide rates.

I speculate that the reason why this is a fact is because most killings are close range affairs where distance is not a factor.

vikorr wrote:
- a barricade that is close to hand is more effective against a knife wielder than a gun wielder
- windows work better against knife wielders than gun wielders

So think convenience stores, petrol stations etc
Windows can be made of bullet proof glass.

vikorr wrote:
If you don't have a gun on you, then your chances of picking up an improvised weapon as defence, and surviving, are much better against a knife wielder than a gun wielder.
I am not so sure that this is true. However, if it is true, the problem can be solved by carrying a gun.

vikorr wrote:
Now, I would call all of the above, as a whole, common sense. Nor can I see any sensible argument that would infer otherwise. Your chances of survival are better against a knife wielder than a gun wielder.
The facts are clear. Gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.

I speculate that the reason for this is because the differences between knives and guns relate to factors that seldom make a difference in real world killings.

vikorr wrote:
Even homeless trolley man in Melbourne appears to agree (just search trolley man melbourne, it will show up), as I doubt he would have done what he did had the fellow a gun.
Actual homicide statistics, though, do not agree.
neptuneblue
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2019 08:52 pm
12 perfect responses to irrational pro-gun arguments
With the gun control debate hitting a fever pitch, a handy how-to guide for dealing with gun rights extremists

RICHARD (RJ) ESKOW
NOVEMBER 20, 2015 2:00PM (UTC)

AlterNet In a recent discussion about gun control on Thom Hartmann's program, my opponent suggested that gun control advocates like me really have a cultural aversion to guns. That's a standard ploy for the gun set: when reason isn’t on your side, deploy emotional and personal arguments instead.

"Anti-gun"? I could've brought up my own recreational gun use, or even brought out the firing range pass I carry in my wallet. But I'll admit that I've lost a little of my taste for it as our national killing spree continues unabated. What's more, that would've been disrespectful to the millions of Americans who do have an understandable aversion to guns. Personal habits should have no part in a rational policy discussion.

Now that President Obama has made his initial gun control proposals, the crazy's being ratcheted up to a new level. Rational Americans in all walks of life will be confronted with these kinds of arguments. We're going to need a playbook. Here are 12 responses you can use when you're confronted with some of the standard illogical, irrational and emotionally overheated statements that gun extremists use.

1. I'm not anti-gun, I'm pro-kindergartner.

After Newtown, what person in his right mind thinks it's irrational to propose some common-sense measures to prevent similar tragedies in the future?

2. Saying "If we have gun control only outlaws will have guns" is like saying "If you outlaw drunk driving, only outlaws will drive drunk."

Rush Limbaugh's recent variation on the old "only outlaws will have guns" line went like this: "If you have gun control laws, the law-abiding will be the only people that don’t have guns."

This anti-gun control cliche makes absolutely no sense. We lose our driver's license if we're arrested for drunk driving, or if we commit too many other moving violations. But law-abiding people are free to drive. Gun control laws aren't any different.

3. If dead children are a "distraction," what subjects are important enough to be worthy of your attention?

As Media Matters reports, an increasing number of gun-extremist righties have suggested that attempts to prevent more deaths, including the deaths of young people at Newtown, Aurora, Columbine and elsewhere, are really just a "distraction" from more important matters.

Try convincing the parents of dead kids that their personal tragedies aren't important. And if dead kindergartners don’t deserve your attention, what does?

4. So you've got "Second Amendment" rights? Where's the rest of your militia?

The text of the Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Where are the other soldiers? Who’s in charge? And which state are you protecting?

5. Oh, and congratulations on keeping the Lanza kid so "well-regulated."

Along with Crazy New York Hermit Dude, the Columbine killers, the Tucson shooter, and all the other members of your "militia."

6. If I can't drive without decent vision, I shouldn't be able to purchase weapons of mass killing after beating my grandmother to death with a hammer.

Maybe I’m off base here, but that just seems like common sense to me.

7. "Freedom to own a gun"? I have the freedom to own a car. But I don't have the freedom to buy an M1A1 Abrams tank, or the many kinds of rounds -- armor-piercing, incendiary, point detonation, delay, airburst, and shotgun-like antipersonnel tungsten balls -- manufactured for its 120mm smoothbore cannon.

And I'm okay with that.

If our laws had permitted that, I'm pretty sure we would’ve wised up the third or fourth time somebody drove one up to a school, parked in the school bus lane, and started lobbing cannon rounds into the gym, music room, cafeteria, and classrooms -- while fending off law enforcement with a rain of fire from its three auxiliary machine guns.

8. The only other country besides the United States that considers unrestricted gun ownership a fundamental human right is Yemen …

... and Yemen's having second thoughts.

From the UN's Small Arms Survey: "Only two—the United States and Yemen—is ownership of firearms a citizen's basic right. Figures published in the Small Arms Survey 2007 show that the USA and Yemen also have the highest rates of firearms per civilian, with an estimated 90 guns per 100 people in the US, and 55 in Yemen."

There's a slogan for you: "More extreme than Yemen."

9. Why is it that the people who think our "freedom to own guns" is absolute and inflexible are always the first ones to attack our other freedoms -- of speech, of assembly, of worship (a religion other than their own), of privacy -- in the name of national security?

We have the data which shows that our supposed "gun freedom" is causing thousands of needless deaths each year. Most "gun rights" advocates don't care -- and are more than eager to sacrifice other fundamental freedoms even when the evidence suggests it's unnecessary and even wasteful.

Unconstitutional surveillance? Check. Unconstitutional suppression of Wikileaks and other information outlets? Check. Unconstitutional suppression of demonstrators’ rights? Check. Constitutional and rational gun control?

Never.

10. You say guns make us safer, but we already have more guns per capita than any other nation on Earth.

We also have the highest gun homicide rate of any developed nation. Our rate is 32 times that of Great Britain's, for example.

Are we safe enough yet?

11. "Recreational gun use"?

Which sports, exactly, require an assault weapon that fires 850 rounds per minute?

And is there any mass-killing capacity that would be too much for your recreational activity? 5,000 rounds per minute? 10,000 rounds per minute? Or is the recreational value of high-speed gunfire infinite and unbounded?

12. Statistics show that states with more guns also have more homicides. Have you considered starting your own state?

That would allow you, for the first time, to use the Second Amendment for its true and stated purpose: to protect the security of a state.

All the other gun extremists could join you there. Wouldn't that be great?

Most of us are getting tired of reading the obituaries of public servants, moviegoers, shoppers, schoolchildren, and other innocent bystanders in our local papers. Now we can be safe, you can be happy -- and Wall Street investors can keep profiting from guns and the misery they cause.

The state of “Guntopia” isn’t a perfect idea. We would worry about your children’s safety -- but then, we already do.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2019 09:30 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
Given that gun availability does not have much impact on homicide rates, I do not agree that I would have a greater chance of avoiding harm if there were no guns available for civilian ownership.
vikorr wrote:
Alright, this is your opinion. Others opinion differs drastically to your, on very good grounds:
oralloy wrote:
This is an issue of fact, not an issue of opinion.

It is a fact that gun availability does not have much impact on homicide rates.
Your supporting argument is irrelevant to whether or not you have a better chance of surviving against a knife wielder or gun wielder. Which brings your view back to just being your opinion.
Quote:
Windows can be made of bullet proof glass.
But almost always aren't. And even your saying so is an acknowledgement of the danger of a gun over a knife.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2019 10:25 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
Your supporting argument is irrelevant to whether or not you have a better chance of surviving against a knife wielder or gun wielder.
I disagree. I think the fact that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates indicates that my survival chances would be roughly the same.

vikorr wrote:
But almost always aren't.
Bulletproof protection for gas stations and convenience stores is actually pretty common in urban areas I think.

vikorr wrote:
And even your saying so is an acknowledgement of the danger of a gun over a knife.
I don't see how. Someone behind bulletproof glass is pretty safe from either.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2019 10:32 pm
@neptuneblue,
Richard (RJ) Eskow wrote:
1. I'm not anti-gun, I'm pro-kindergartner.
After Newtown, what person in his right mind thinks it's irrational to propose some common-sense measures to prevent similar tragedies in the future?
These proposals are not designed to prevent similar tragedies in the future.

Some people say that leftists try to violate civil liberties for no reason because they are irrational. I do not.

I say that leftists actually enjoy violating people's civil liberties.

Richard (RJ) Eskow wrote:
2. Saying "If we have gun control only outlaws will have guns" is like saying "If you outlaw drunk driving, only outlaws will drive drunk."
Rush Limbaugh's recent variation on the old "only outlaws will have guns" line went like this: "If you have gun control laws, the law-abiding will be the only people that don’t have guns."
This anti-gun control cliche makes absolutely no sense. We lose our driver's license if we're arrested for drunk driving, or if we commit too many other moving violations. But law-abiding people are free to drive. Gun control laws aren't any different.
Prohibition and the drug war both show pretty clearly that criminals are not going to be disarmed by any of these laws.

Richard (RJ) Eskow wrote:
3. If dead children are a "distraction," what subjects are important enough to be worthy of your attention?
As Media Matters reports, an increasing number of gun-extremist righties have suggested that attempts to prevent more deaths, including the deaths of young people at Newtown, Aurora, Columbine and elsewhere, are really just a "distraction" from more important matters.
Try convincing the parents of dead kids that their personal tragedies aren't important. And if dead kindergartners don’t deserve your attention, what does?
I've never even heard of this distraction argument before.

Meh. Someone else can address this one if they want to.

Richard (RJ) Eskow wrote:
4. So you've got "Second Amendment" rights? Where's the rest of your militia?
The text of the Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Where are the other soldiers? Who’s in charge? And which state are you protecting?
5. Oh, and congratulations on keeping the Lanza kid so "well-regulated."
Along with Crazy New York Hermit Dude, the Columbine killers, the Tucson shooter, and all the other members of your "militia."
There is no militia because the government does not organize them anymore.

If anyone wants to have the government start organizing militias again, I'm game.

Note that militiamen have the right to own M-16s (and not semi-auto-only versions). They also have the right to own grenades and grenade launchers. And they have the right to own anti-tank bazookas. And they have the right to keep these personally-owned weapons in their own homes.

I wouldn't mind signing up for a militia so I could have a bazooka. Go ahead and have the government start organizing militias again. Nothing punches through opposing body armor quite like an AT4.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT4

Seriously. Let's bring back the militia so I can go buy a bazooka. I want this! Very Happy

However, do note that people who do not choose to join a militia will still have the right to have guns that are suitable for self defense.

Richard (RJ) Eskow wrote:
6. If I can't drive without decent vision, I shouldn't be able to purchase weapons of mass killing after beating my grandmother to death with a hammer.
Maybe I’m off base here, but that just seems like common sense to me.
Last I knew, murderers were already prohibited from having guns. I do not know of anyone who objects to this policy.

Richard (RJ) Eskow wrote:
7. "Freedom to own a gun"? I have the freedom to own a car. But I don't have the freedom to buy an M1A1 Abrams tank, or the many kinds of rounds -- armor-piercing, incendiary, point detonation, delay, airburst, and shotgun-like antipersonnel tungsten balls -- manufactured for its 120mm smoothbore cannon.
And I'm okay with that.
If our laws had permitted that, I'm pretty sure we would’ve wised up the third or fourth time somebody drove one up to a school, parked in the school bus lane, and started lobbing cannon rounds into the gym, music room, cafeteria, and classrooms -- while fending off law enforcement with a rain of fire from its three auxiliary machine guns.
There is a difference between a justifiable restriction on a dangerous weapon, and a restriction that's only justification is "I think it's fun to violate people's civil liberties".

Richard (RJ) Eskow wrote:
8. The only other country besides the United States that considers unrestricted gun ownership a fundamental human right is Yemen …
... and Yemen's having second thoughts.
From the UN's Small Arms Survey: "Only two—the United States and Yemen—is ownership of firearms a citizen's basic right. Figures published in the Small Arms Survey 2007 show that the USA and Yemen also have the highest rates of firearms per civilian, with an estimated 90 guns per 100 people in the US, and 55 in Yemen."
There's a slogan for you: "More extreme than Yemen."
The US does not have unrestricted gun ownership. Restrictions are fine if they can be justified with a good reason.

Richard (RJ) Eskow wrote:
9. Why is it that the people who think our "freedom to own guns" is absolute and inflexible are always the first ones to attack our other freedoms -- of speech, of assembly, of worship (a religion other than their own), of privacy -- in the name of national security?
We aren't. We value those rights as well.

Richard (RJ) Eskow wrote:
We have the data which shows that our supposed "gun freedom" is causing thousands of needless deaths each year.
No we don't. Statistics are very clear that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.

Richard (RJ) Eskow wrote:
Most "gun rights" advocates don't care -- and are more than eager to sacrifice other fundamental freedoms even when the evidence suggests it's unnecessary and even wasteful.
Unconstitutional surveillance? Check.
Hardly unconstitutional.

Richard (RJ) Eskow wrote:
Unconstitutional suppression of Wikileaks and other information outlets? Check. Unconstitutional suppression of demonstrators’ rights? Check.
Who supports this? I don't.

Richard (RJ) Eskow wrote:
Constitutional and rational gun control?
Never.
There is nothing constitutional about leftists violating civil liberties for fun.

Richard (RJ) Eskow wrote:
10. You say guns make us safer, but we already have more guns per capita than any other nation on Earth.
We also have the highest gun homicide rate of any developed nation. Our rate is 32 times that of Great Britain's, for example.
Are we safe enough yet?
The fact that someone is killed with a gun instead of with a knife does not make them any more dead.

Richard (RJ) Eskow wrote:
11. "Recreational gun use"?
Which sports, exactly, require an assault weapon that fires 850 rounds per minute?
And is there any mass-killing capacity that would be too much for your recreational activity? 5,000 rounds per minute? 10,000 rounds per minute? Or is the recreational value of high-speed gunfire infinite and unbounded?
Semi-auto weapons do not fire 850 rounds per minute.

Further, it does not matter whether a type of weapon is required for a sport. What matters is the fact that there is no justification for banning it.

If there is no justification for banning a weapon, it is perfectly fine to use it recreationally.

Richard (RJ) Eskow wrote:
12. Statistics show that states with more guns also have more homicides. Have you considered starting your own state?
International statistics show that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2019 01:59 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
I disagree. I think the fact that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates indicates that my survival chances would be roughly the same
I have no doubt whatsoever that if you were given the choice between facing someone 10m away, intent on killing you with a knife (knife already drawn), and someone intent on killing you with a handgun (gun already drawn on you), and your only weapon was a hammer - that you would take your chances against the guy with the knife.

From 100m, a choice between someone intent on you with a semi-auto rifle/red dot sight, or a person armed with a knife... and you a hammer... only a fool chooses to face the guy with the rifle.

So it appears your opinion is stated for the sake of disagreeing only, not for the reality of which weapon you would prefer to face if you had no choice. The choice you would make, is the one that gave you the greater chance of surviving.

vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2019 02:17 am
@vikorr,
Perhaps the major desire of the very mast majority of people who want gun control, is based in acknowledgement of this fact - a very vast majority of people would choose to face a knife if they had to make a choice between facing a gun or a knife, because they think they have a better chance of survival against a knife than a gun.

And for the same reasons (why your chances of survival are less against a gun than a knife) are why it's easier to commit mass murder with a gun than a knife.

It's impossible not to acknowledge this without being wilfully bullheaded.

In very rare circumstances, people might choose otherwise (which weapon they'd prefer to face). But that is also part of the knowledge - it would only be in very rare circumstances.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2019 03:34 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
I have no doubt whatsoever that if you were given the choice between facing someone 10m away, intent on killing you with a knife (knife already drawn), and someone intent on killing you with a handgun (gun already drawn on you), and your only weapon was a hammer - that you would take your chances against the guy with the knife.
Both situations sound dire.

vikorr wrote:
From 100m, a choice between someone intent on you with a semi-auto rifle/red dot sight, or a person armed with a knife... and you a hammer... only a fool chooses to face the guy with the rifle.
Probably. But most murders are close range affairs where the distance capability of the murder weapon is irrelevant.

vikorr wrote:
So it appears your opinion is stated for the sake of disagreeing only, not for the reality of which weapon you would prefer to face if you had no choice.
If we are using a hypothetical where the distance is very great, I would obviously try to avoid the rifle.

But that is not the situation for most murders. Typically homicides take place at close range. Hypothetical scenarios about long-range killing do not relate much to real-world murders.

vikorr wrote:
The choice you would make, is the one that gave you the greater chance of surviving.
At close range it's probably not going to make much difference.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/21/2019 at 12:24:33