|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Fucking Guns
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
There are far more accidental deaths caused by cars than there are by firearms. There are far more accidental injuries and deaths from car accidents among people who own cars than among people who don't. Children who live in car-owning households are more likely to be killed by a car than those who don't. And so on.
I will take your word for it that that is true. But people don't buy cars to be safe. People buy cars as transportation, to get them to places. People without cars don't get to go to as many places as conveniently (certain city dwellers excepted).
By contrast, many people do buy guns for safety. They explicitly choose to own a gun for home defense, or self-protection. Statistically, they are doing the wrong thing.
(The equivalent statement for cars would be if the car made it harder for you to get around. That's why I didn't own a car in London - it would have made my life harder, not easier.)
quote:
Assuming your definition of safety is based around a decreased risk of death or physical injury (as it seems to be), how do you go about convincing people who have evidence to the contrary that they should view themselves as part of a statistical whole rather than as individuals? What argument does anyone arguing against gun ownership have that any individual should sacrifice their own well-being (to the point of risking their death) for the good of the group (in which people are statistically less likely to die)? And how would you convince those who do not define their safety according to their chances of physical injury or death that they should do so?
I don't think you understand what I said.
On average, people who own guns are less safe - they are more likely to be shot. This is a well-measured statistical truth.
It may well be true that there are individuals within the group of gun owners who are safer because they own a gun. The data does not exclude this possibility. If you are such a person, you giving up your gun does not improve your safety, nor does it improve the average safety of all people.
But it is impossible for this statement to be true of all gun-owners. For it to be true of you, you would have to be unusual.
The trap is that people tend to think that they are better than they really are (cf. the number of drivers who claim to be above average), and it is natural for a gun-owner to think that he or she is more disciplined with the gun than they really are.
The point is not that people who are safer with guns should sacrifice both the gun and their safety for the common good - the point is that most people who think that they are safer with a gun are wrong. This does not preclude the possibility that some of them are right.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well then Alan was barking up the wrong tree. It should be homeowner's insurance that jacks up your rates for having a gun. Because if someone is injured on your property, it's your homeowner's insurance that will be liable for damages.
I'll accept that, I don't really know where different liabilities fall within different insurance categories in the US. My argument doesn't substantially change if it was homeowners insurance rather than health insurance.
[in the UK business liability insurance covers injury in business premises, there is no equivalent for homeowners - household building and contents insurance only covers damage or theft to property]
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I had a guy who repeatedly came to my front door to masturbate. I called the cops any number of times. ... I was advised by every damn cop and military person I know to buy a gun, because while I would be legally screwed if I ever had to use it (which seemed likely), being legally screwed is better than being dead.
First, I'm going to say that IMO the cops were failing to do their job in not responding to repeated calls about repeated criminal activity.
BUT, the advice you received seems vastly over the top. I'm not going to minimize the real impact of such crimes, which would probably be considered a form of seual assault, that you probably wouldn't feel free to leave your home while he was there etc. But, unless you're using the word "masturbate" in a way very different from how we use it in the UK, he was not posing a threat to your life as far as it's possible to judge from what you said (of course, if he was there with a gun clearly visible, if he was repeatedly trying to force the door open etc then that may be different). Equipping yourself to use lethal force in response to such situations looks incredibly disproportionate. Quite literally over-kill.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I don't think you understand what I said.
On average, people who own guns are less safe - they are more likely to be shot. This is a well-measured statistical truth.
And I don't think you understand what I said. You are using the likelihood of a person being shot as the only measure of whether a person is more or less "safe." Quoting all of the statistics in the world is not going to persuade anyone who is not measuring their "safety" only according to their likelihood of being shot.
quote:
By contrast, many people do buy guns for safety. They explicitly choose to own a gun for home defense, or self-protection. Statistically, they are doing the wrong thing.
See, this is confusing to me. While I know most gun owners own guns for more than one reason, and most cite protection (though not necessarily self protection) as one of their major reasons, I don't understand why you're equating safety and protection. So, for example, many cops and military personnel would describe their jobs as involving some element of protection (of the public, US citizens, American ideals, whatever) but would not necessarily describe their jobs as involving safety or being safe.
quote:
It may well be true that there are individuals within the group of gun owners who are safer because they own a gun. The data does not exclude this possibility. If you are such a person, you giving up your gun does not improve your safety, nor does it improve the average safety of all people.
But it is impossible for this statement to be true of all gun-owners. For it to be true of you, you would have to be unusual.
The trap is that people tend to think that they are better than they really are (cf. the number of drivers who claim to be above average), and it is natural for a gun-owner to think that he or she is more disciplined with the gun than they really are.
The point is not that people who are safer with guns should sacrifice both the gun and their safety for the common good - the point is that most people who think that they are safer with a gun are wrong. This does not preclude the possibility that some of them are right.
I don't disagree with most of this, except with what seems to be a shifting definition of "safe." But perhaps it isn't shifting - perhaps you are referring to the likelihood of being shot throughout. Statistically speaking, I understand that most people who think they are safer (as in less likely to be shot) with guns are wrong (because in reality they are more likely to be shot than people without guns - although the reality is also that the vast majority of gun deaths are suicides, which rather throws off a lot of the arguments that seem so obvious to the anti-gun crowd).
But this argument is never going to be persuasive to people who are measuring safety in other ways (or who do not place an extremely high value on "safety" as opposed to protection or something else).
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, unless you're using the word "masturbate" in a way very different from how we use it in the UK, he was not posing a threat to your life as far as it's possible to judge from what you said (of course, if he was there with a gun clearly visible, if he was repeatedly trying to force the door open etc then that may be different). Equipping yourself to use lethal force in response to such situations looks incredibly disproportionate. Quite literally over-kill.
No, he was not posing a threat to my life. I agree that shooting him would have in fact been disproportionate, as it would not have qualified as self defense (at least not in the moral sense). But do you understand that a gun does not have to be fired in order to provide protection? And what would people in the anti-gun crowd (or who want to repeal the second amendment) recommend a person do in that situation? Because I've never heard of someone in that exact same situation, but I've heard numerous stories of people in similar situations. And for the most part it seems like the recommendation is to give up and die.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I don't disagree with most of this, except with what seems to be a shifting definition of "safe." But perhaps it isn't shifting - perhaps you are referring to the likelihood of being shot throughout.
When the argument is about having a gun to "be safer" then that sets the boundaries for the question "safe from what?". Owning a gun for protection only makes sense in relation to occasions when the use of lethal force could be justified - so, we're necessarily talking about being safer (or not) where a gun could potentially be used as protection from credible threats of death or significant injury. You wouldn't need a gun to protect you from a car accident. You wouldn't need a gun to protect against fraud, having someone snatch your phone on the street or simple burglary.
So, yes, it's primarily protection from being shot. With protection from being stabbed also relevant.
quote:
although the reality is also that the vast majority of gun deaths are suicides, which rather throws off a lot of the arguments that seem so obvious to the anti-gun crowd
Why the fuck does that throw off the arguments? Suicides are as tragic as any other death, same for attempted suicides. It is entirely reasonable for people to be concerned that access to guns makes suicide much easier, and being easier removes some of the time in which intervention may save a life.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
And what would people in the anti-gun crowd (or who want to repeal the second amendment) recommend a person do in that situation? Because I've never heard of someone in that exact same situation, but I've heard numerous stories of people in similar situations. And for the most part it seems like the recommendation is to give up and die.
First, of course, the police and courts should be doing something. Issuing some form of anti-social behaviour charge, it's likely that provision of help for mental health issues would be needed. That may require community lobbying of politicians to get them to act to provide the police and courts the resources, and the instructions to act on these sort of issues, as well as to ensure that there are mental health services available (for everyone who needs them, not just those who wank in public).
It may also be necessary to gain further evidence, since the police may not be able to respond immediately to every such complaint. Get some photos, maybe install a CCTV system overlooking the door. Again, that may be a community action - a Neighbourhood Watch type of response.
Obviously we have similar sorts of people, doing similar things, in the UK. And, we deal with it without anyone even considering the use of weapons.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
There are far more accidental deaths caused by cars than there are by firearms. There are far more accidental injuries and deaths from car accidents among people who own cars than among people who don't. Children who live in car-owning households are more likely to be killed by a car than those who don't. And so on.
You do realise that there's such a thing as mandatory car insurance, don't you?
Well done. You've literally just made Alan's argument for him.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Suicides are as tragic as any other death
Really? Wow...
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Suicides are as tragic as any other death
Really? Wow...
And today's "Taken entirely out of context in an attempt to whip up faux-outrage" award goes too...
[drum roll]
romanlion!
Please step forward to receive the traditional prize of a hundred-weight of cow manure.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Re Saysay what?
Cars versus gun deaths. The total death statistic is misleading. The significant issue is the high number of gun deaths in America compared to other developed countries.
The self defence argument is an interesting one. I don't see news stories about your daily mass shootings being stopped by people shooting the shooters. Perhaps we're being fed stock news with the heroic stopping of mass shooting maniacs bumped aside?
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Quoting all of the statistics in the world is not going to persuade anyone who is not measuring their "safety" only according to their likelihood of being shot.
"Shot" was a shorthand - the statistics are also true when you consider all kinds of assault and battery. But if what you mean is that you feel safer with a gun than without one, then we're not using the word in the same way.
"Safer" is an objective statement about probabilities. It means that you are less likely to be injured / injuries are likely to be less severe. Your feelings are your own - I can't tell you whether particular actions make you feel safer or more confident. But we can tell you whether those feelings are grounded in fact.
quote:
See, this is confusing to me. While I know most gun owners own guns for more than one reason, and most cite protection (though not necessarily self protection) as one of their major reasons, I don't understand why you're equating safety and protection.
Because they're the same. If you have a gun to protect yourself and your loved ones, the idea is that you (and they) are safer for you having it than if you didn't have it. Otherwise it's not doing a very good job of protection, is it?
Cops carry guns for their own protection, and for the protection of others. The idea is that this makes people safer than if they didn't have guns (both the cops themselves and the public they are protecting.) There is certainly some debate about how true this is, but the idea is that the armed cop is safer (both for him and the general public) than an unarmed cop trying to do the same job.
Similarly, the soldier carrying a rifle, helicopter, or main battle tank, causes more safety (for his side) than a soldier who was trying to go to battle with a placard.
quote:
I don't disagree with most of this, except with what seems to be a shifting definition of "safe." But perhaps it isn't shifting - perhaps you are referring to the likelihood of being shot throughout.
Shot, or otherwise the victim of some kind of assault, yes.
quote:
But this argument is never going to be persuasive to people who are measuring safety in other ways (or who do not place an extremely high value on "safety" as opposed to protection or something else).
I think that's a false dichotomy. Does it matter if you're killed by an intruder, or by the neighbor's small child? It sounds like you'd be happy to have let's say a 0.2% chance of accidentally getting shot rather than having a 0.1% chance of being a victim of a serious crime. And in that case, you're right - looking at the chance of a bad outcome isn't going to persuade you, because you're differentiating between injuries and deaths based on intent.
You're right that you don't have to fire a gun for it to work as protection - there is a deterrent effect. But you have to be prepared to fire. If you display a weapon and your assailant does not back down, you have to use the weapon.
[ 31. October 2017, 14:11: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I don't see news stories about your daily mass shootings being stopped by people shooting the shooters.
Which the gun nuts will say just proves we need more good guys with guns to protect us from the bad guys with guns.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
This good guys/bad guys thing is simply wrong. It isn't reasonable to divide the world into two groups of people like that.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
This good guys/bad guys thing is simply wrong. It isn't reasonable to divide the world into two groups of people like that.
Who ever accused the gun nuts of being reasonable?
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
This good guys/bad guys thing is simply wrong. It isn't reasonable to divide the world into two groups of people like that.
Apart from being unreasonable, how are bystanders supposed to tell which are who?
A couple of years ago, I was on a hike (OK, actually just a walk; hiking days prob'ly behind me), and clambered up a stony slope to find myself faced with a couple of male strangers who had rifles and ammo slung across their backs and chests, "Constitutional" open carry-style.
There was a small group of other hikers (walkers) just ahead of them.
Here's what flashed through my head, in no particular order:
I almost fell clambering over that last rockfall. Are those rifles loaded? How safe could it be to climb over rocky terrain with a loaded rifle? (Granted they were decades younger than I am & looked fit.)
Are these guys part of that group ahead? "Protecting" them?
Are these guys planning to attack or rob that group ahead? Or me?
What are their intentions, exactly? Dare I hope they're just making a stupid fucking point about their stupid fucking right to cart stupid fucking guns around in plain sight, or should I be planning a quick zig-zag escape or should I promptly conceal myself behind a nearby bullet-stopping tree?
Because that's the basic problem: intentions are not necessarily visible. By the time bad intentions become apparent or visible, it's far too late to do anything about them.
On a wooded trail not known for violent uprisings in the generally quite peaceful White Mountains of New Hampshire, how do we tell "good guys" from "bad guys?"
As I am not aware that this pair ultimately attacked anyone or used their weaponry to threaten walkers or relieve them of cash, watches, and jewelry that day, am I supposed to assume they are "good guys?" If I assume this on this occasion, is it safe to assume the same on the next, or with a different pair?
All I know is that I did not feel particularly safe in their presence, and when the trail divided and I saw them take the easy way up, I opted for the somewhat longer, rockier one.
--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free
Posts: 374 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
OK, I'm a strong proponent of sensible gun laws - including the banning of sales of assault weapons and draconian restrictions on handguns. But what you've described, without being very descriptive of location or weapon type, is the one use of guns that makes reasonable sense: hunting.
It seems like a high probability that they were intending to go hunting or find a quiet spot for target practice. Carrying a rifle is just that, carrying a rifle - it's not a "style" when you're hiking through wilderness.
My stomping grounds back home in Canuckistan included a non-trivial population of Grizzly bears, and hiking without somebody in the group having a rifle can be sketchy. Let's not be unreasonable ourselves when discussing guns, so that we don't prevent the possibility of discussion at all.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
OK, I'm a strong proponent of sensible gun laws - including the banning of sales of assault weapons and draconian restrictions on handguns. But what you've described, without being very descriptive of location or weapon type, is the one use of guns that makes reasonable sense: hunting.
It seems like a high probability that they were intending to go hunting or find a quiet spot for target practice. Carrying a rifle is just that, carrying a rifle - it's not a "style" when you're hiking through wilderness.
My stomping grounds back home in Canuckistan included a non-trivial population of Grizzly bears, and hiking without somebody in the group having a rifle can be sketchy. Let's not be unreasonable ourselves when discussing guns, so that we don't prevent the possibility of discussion at all.
Nope. First, not hunting season when this occurred – early-mid-April IIRC -- not for fowl, deer, moose, bear or anything else; it was early spring (fishing season starts April 1, but I'm not aware (could be wrong) that NH Fish & Game allow the use of rifles in fishing fresh waters in any case; lead poisons loons, an endangered waterfowl).
I don't know what these guys were carrying, but they were bulkier than the weapon I used to bag a deer; the ammo slung around their chests looked like what you'd use in an automatic or semi-automatic weapon.
Second, marked trails intended for general-admission hiking in the White Mountain National Forest do not generally intersect with hunting areas. For obvious (I trust) reasons. We're a tiny rural state; "wilderness" areas below the Notches are generally too small to be out of earshot of major highways (at least for those with good hearing). Trails get crowded, idjits fail to wear blaze orange during hunting season, they're unlikely to wear it out-of-season, etc. etc.
Yes, rifles are needed for hunting. I've used them for this (long ago, once. Bagged a doe, one shot, became a vegetarian. Meat went to the state prison for the inmates.) Farmers need firearms (I've used them for varmints; prefer other means now.); hunters need firearms; folks living in the crowded down-&-out crime-ridden sections of our two largest cities (by out-of-state standards, small) might feel the need for a self-defense pistol at home (not that I agree, but then I don't live there).
Bears in "wilderness" are rare here. Why? When they emerge from their dens that time of year (early spring), they head for the suburbs and small towns where folks put their trash out and (against all advice) hang bird feeders, etc.
There's no need for a rifle out-of-season on a well-marked trail with heavy human traffic unless you're hunting humans, or making a stupid fucking point.
--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free
Posts: 374 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
I don't know what these guys were carrying, but they were bulkier than the weapon I used to bag a deer; the ammo slung around their chests looked like what you'd use in an automatic or semi-automatic weapon.
If the ammo was indeed slung on their chests, then it almost certainly was not for automatic or semi-automatic weapons - being as those weapons use clips of ammunition. However, belts of ammunition is the preferred method for carrying when using a bolt-action rifle - so that one can grab another round to load into the breech. Or, more likely, shotguns¹.
quote:
There's no need for a rifle out-of-season on a well-marked trail with heavy human traffic unless you're hunting humans, or making a stupid fucking point.
Or, perhaps target shooting? Because sometimes people are not assholes, even people with guns.
¹ You know, the kind that vice presidents use to hunt humans.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
I actually don't think waving a gun at someone masturbating on your porch is a legitimate use of a weapon. Is that really the go-to solution in America?
I think such behavior is along a continuum that leads eventually to the commission of serious sexual assaults. Our cops generally like to catch those guys earlier in the cycle of offending. There's less paperwork. Why would the cops have blown saysay off? My gut reaction is under-funding, but really what would I know? In any event, if I'm right about this behavior being indicative of a propensity to more and worse criminality, surely it is the police response which is at issue.
It strikes me that in the absence of a gun and police intervention, there are many ways in which a repeat performance by this fellow could be handled. However, most of my suggestions involve the guy not having a gun himself. While that is the very very likely situation in my area, where I'm pretty sure the cops would not blow you off, I think saysay lives in America.
Bad luck saysay. I'm sorry that you have to go through such an awful situation and that the police are not helping you.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Indeed, that sounds like a situation better handled by pepper spray.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
No, any solution which involves saysay opening the door while the guy is still on the porch is a bad idea. Solution is for the cops to show up and arrest him, and that is what I would expect the British police to do if I complained to them about something like that happening to me.
Sorry you are not getting support from your police force, saysay. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Clearly we are missing the hilarious karmic value of capsaicin applied directly to the genitals of the perpetrator.
Sure, said hilarity could be from a police pepper spray. And if we want to get all snotty about what would be best, I'm guessing that having sufficient medical and psychological services or a society that invests more effort into mutual wellness might have prevented the stoop-stroking entirely.
The points being:
1) "It buuuuurrrns!" is amusing in context.
2) Still not a reasonable need for anyone to have a firearm.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
RooK: quote:
1) "It buuuuurrrns!" is amusing in context.
Only if you are larger and stronger than the other person and can be reasonably certain that he will not take the can off you and beat you to death with it. Humour is a very personal thing, as Emperor Cartagia said when ordering the execution of his court fool.
Agree with your point two, though.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
If you have a letterbox, it'd be about crotch level, right? No need to open the door at all...
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If you have a letterbox, it'd be about crotch level, right? No need to open the door at all...
American homes typically don't have those. Mail is delivered either to a box at the end of the driveway, or to a centrally-located collection of letterboxes for apartment complexes and the like.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If you have a letterbox, it'd be about crotch level, right? No need to open the door at all...
American homes typically don't have those. Mail is delivered either to a box at the end of the driveway, or to a centrally-located collection of letterboxes for apartment complexes and the like.
Depends where you live. At my last house I had a mail slot in my door. I now have a mailbox mounted on an outside wall. Every place I've lived is different -- mailbox at the end of the driveway, cluster of mailboxes up the street, collect mail at post office...
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If you have a letterbox, it'd be about crotch level, right? No need to open the door at all...
American homes typically don't have those. Mail is delivered either to a box at the end of the driveway, or to a centrally-located collection of letterboxes for apartment complexes and the like.
In suburbia/exurbia and rural areas, yes. In cities (esp. older cities) mail slots are pretty common, as are house-mounted mailboxes.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Without scrolling back, I’m here wondering how fucking guns and crotch level mail boxes have come to intersect in the Great Venn diagram of all things.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
According to this tweet, 27 dead is 4% of the small town's population.
The church has its own YouTube channel with previous services broadcast. The ordinariness of it makes this pretty grim to me. I could see myself in one of those pews.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
In God's hands.
What is going down in Texas?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41880511
We're God's hands. Including the hands that held the machine gun.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
The pastor was out of town; his 14-year-old daughter is among the dead.
On October 8 his sermon included these words
quote:
We need to stop and remember that all things were created by Him and for Him before we start condemning and hurting others for our own convictions. There are some things we should speak out against, yet many of the things we condemn others for are really our own pet peeves, not God’s. Pray before you speak this season [I presume he's referring to Halloween] and let’s remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away.
I'll stand with that
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
No. Fuck that. And fuck the "it's all god's plan" intentional idiocy.
Gun laws are our responsibility. Our collective failure to enact sensible restrictions on specialized human-hunting implements needs to be vociferously spoken out against.
We need to admit our faults and weaknesses, and among them is a general vulnerability to lashing out thoughtlessly - even cruelly. Human nature and simple reasoning dictate that we need to be at least as mindful about easy-death-applicators as we are about vehicles or traveling on aircraft.
We're killing ourselves because we're too fucking stupid to avoid it. Like a diabetic binging on twinkies. Let's wake the fuck up, all of us.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
Yep. At risk of serious opprobrium on a hell thread, I say "How long must we sing this song?"
On the issue of the masturbating doorstep guy, I think Jane R. is right to say that putting yourself in danger by opening the door is not the best way to go. I think it's 1) take a photo; 2) call the cops; 3) call a friend or relative close; 4) call a neighbor.
Using capsicum spray is funny, for sure. So is releasing your pet dog Cujo to slobber on the windows.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
The Onion recycles the same article every time: "‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens."
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
The despicable governor of Texas Greg Abbott has deplored the shooting and stated that if only the congregation had been heavily armed all would be well. I am not sure how many of the congregation would be looking at the door in the back during prayers. There's a significant fraction of us who talk to God while our eyes are closed. So clearly it's incumbent upon Texas preachers and pastors to tool up. A cassock-alb with a quick-draw armpit holster, anybody?
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
Fuck - just saw the Texas story. Fucking awful. Fucking guns.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
No. Fuck that. And fuck the "it's all god's plan" intentional idiocy.
I didn't say anything about the latter. As to the former, I didn't say nothing should be done. My observation was simply that this pastor's stance, before the fact, appeared to be anything but belligerent.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
I’m very sad for anyone affected this latest terrible gun tragedy, however indirect their association may be.
RooK, I found the following article very interesting:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-38365729
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wesley J
Silly Shipmate
# 6075
|
Posted
And of course 45 spouts that it's not the problem of guns, but the mental health problem the US have, 'like many other nations'...
Just heard that extract on BBC Radio 4 News, and had to turn it off. Words fail.
--------------------
Be it as it may: Wesley J will stay. --- Euthanasia, that sounds good. An alpine neutral neighbourhood. Then back to Britain, all dressed in wood. Things were gonna get worse. (John Cooper Clarke)
Posts: 7354 | From: The Isles of Silly | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The irony of Trump saying that while in Japan - which as Yorick pointed out has an almost non-existent rate of gun crime and one of the worst suicide rates in the world (so, arguably has a pretty appalling record of mental health).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
From the current BBC News report, an illuminating remark from Generalissimo Gropo the Great:
quote:
Meanwhile, President Donald Trump, on a tour of Asia, said guns were not to blame for the shooting.
"We have a lot of mental health problems in our country, but this isn't a guns situation," he said.
WTF?
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Oops, sorry - I see others have already picked up on Gropo's deep and sympathetic understanding of the situation.
Doubtless he will now cut short his Royal Progress, and return to Texas, to reassure the locals that the massacre was probably their own fault...
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
The man's a fucking twat. Before the bodies have cooled down he's saying how great it was that one of the locals was armed as otherwise "it could have been worse".
Look, you utter fuckwit, if the shooter hadn't been armed in the fucking first place it would have been a whole lot better
This is so fucking obvious that I wonder what weird psychology it requires to not see it. Other countries do not let people run around with automatic weaponry. Other countries do not have these regularly scheduled massacres. I know correlation does not equal causation, but you'd think looking at the correlation might be an idea, rather than just doing the simplistic "if I don't have a gun I can't shoot back" reasoning which seems as far as the NRA and the Orange Cockwomble are capable of going.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
Why, oh why are Americans so keen on shooting each other?
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Other countries do not let people run around with automatic weaponry. Other countries do not have these regularly scheduled massacres. I know correlation does not equal causation, but you'd think looking at the correlation might be an idea,
Well, quite.
I think some of the "thought" processes go something like:
1. We can't go round confiscating 300 million guns.
2. Therefore there will always be a lot of guns
3. Therefore criminals will have guns
4. So I want one
Driving a fleet of buses through this "logic" is left as an exercise for the reader.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
passer
Indigo
# 13329
|
Posted
Was watching the news last night as this was reported. My son asked if they knew yet who'd done it and if it was a terrorism-related incident. My response was that there'd been no comment so far on that, but that the perpetrator was probably a lone-wolf white male, as nobody was reporting that he was non-white, which they most certainly would have had that been the case. This was later confirmed by Trumpet when he mentioned mental health problems, which is, as we all know, code for a white male in shooting-reporting circles.
Posts: 1289 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
