Gun control

Alright then...

If by "cry" you mean make noise and by "distress" you mean evolutionary response, then I agree. Some animals do these things. It doesn't make my heart leap from my chest nor my eyes water because I...don't care? If animal noises "move" you then by all means carry on giving the shits that the rest of us don't. Take up hunting and/or slaughtering animals for food, the noises they make quickly become that, noises. I don't know, maybe I'm the crazy one that doesn't equate the noises animals make to what we know as emotions/feelings. I'm in left field over here!

You mean humans in dolphin form.

BrutulTM_sl said:

I did not see a whale-related derail coming in this thread. Also, I think Orcas are technically dolphins.

Click to expand...

Orcas are dolphins. Dolphins are members of the Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales). Ergo dolphins are whales, technically speaking anyway.

Jais_sl said:

Alright then...

If by "cry" you mean make noise and by "distress" you mean evolutionary response, then I agree. Some animals do these things. It doesn't make my heart leap from my chest nor my eyes water because I...don't care? If animal noises "move" you then by all means carry on giving the shits that the rest of us don't. Take up hunting and/or slaughtering animals for food, the noises they make quickly become that, noises. I don't know, maybe I'm the crazy one that doesn't equate the noises animals make to what we know as emotions/feelings. I'm in left field over here!

Click to expand...

Yup, I sure am moved by animals in "distress". I love animals, and YES I found Blackfish moving and I even find those SPCA commercials disturbing enough to change the channel. Obviously you see them as unfeeling life forms that just make "noises" and only exist to be hunted and exploited. That's fine, but it's pretty damn ironic that you're actually trying to ridicule someone that was moved by the shrieks of a mother Orca being separated from her child..

Jais_sl said:

If by "cry" you mean make noise and by "distress" you mean evolutionary response, then I agree.

Click to expand...

The view that higher mammals other than humans simply have evolutionary responses and don't have emotions similar to humans is outdated. Plenty of studies have shown that dogs for example have rich emotional lives, same with dolphins and orcas. If you aren't "moved" by them, then bully for you I guess, but it isn't abnormal at all to feel sympathy or empathize with them. It certainly is an absurd thing to attack someone over though.

As for hunting animals. I used to hunt and when the deer cried out in pain when they got shot, I didn't think "who gives a fuck". I still felt a bit sad but hey, we have to get our food from somewhere. I in no way just saw it as "noise".

On the slaughter of animals and slaughterhouses in general. My understanding is the turnover in those places is incredible. Most people aren't wired to ignore that kind of stuff, even if it is necessary in a modern society. I certainly wouldn't mock someone who said they couldn't work in a slaughterhouse.

So you agree that a woman would have better chance at escaping a physically superior assailant if she was armed than she would unarmed. Glad we cleared that up for you.

I have a friend who is rabidly anti-gun and said that even in the face of an attacker, she wouldn't want one. So I laid out a scenario, suppose you were being followed at night by a rapist, even in this scenario you wouldn't want one? "No", she said, "because I would probably be really nervous and drop it, then he could pick it up and instead of raping me, he might kill me".


In some people's minds, guns are like slippery eels that are super hard to learn how to use and control, UNLESS they are in the hands of a criminal, in which case they always work.

lendarios_sl said:

Even with a gun her chances are almost zero. Do you honestly think a 90lbs woman on a struggle can properly use a gun against an assailant that physically overwhelms her? The only way guns are effective is when you have time to use them. And if you have the time to use them that is because you shot before the guy even came close to you, and i hope you are physic and can predict that he is going to rob/raep you.

Guns don't make anything equal, if he has a gun and you don't, does him having a gun, made "it the great equalizer", it doesn't. If you have a gun and he has a gun, you really are not equal, the person who draws first with intent to kill wins, and usually that is the person starting the fight, aka the robber. Third, i will concede that if u have a gun and he doesnt, and luck goes your way, you may have the upper hand.
So if you assailant have a gun, like people who advocate guns for everyone, you having a gun is pretty much irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Training. Training. Training.

It's available to everyone and in some states it is even provided to you free. There are people who take driver's education courses and in my opinion tend to be more responsible drivers. There are people who take handgun safety and advanced combat handgun courses who in my observation tend to be more proficient gun owners.

Do I think everyone should be required to go to classes/courses to own either? I don't know. That's not up to me to decide, but I can tell you that there is no excuse for anyone to end up in the situations that you described if they equip themselves with the proper training.

Not to mention you are just fabricating scenarios that favor your point. What are you basing these scenarios on? I can tell you that he who draws first does not always win the fight. Criminals (particularly those that employ handguns) are typically cowards who prey on the weak and have no expectation of resistance from their victims... This isn't me making shit up. This is essentially how the criminal mind functions; how evil people function. They pick people they perceive to be weak in places where they think they can expect the least amount of opposition. Most scenarios that I've studied/watched have displayed the assailant drawing their weapon first and then being frozen in shock/disbelief when their target(s) have produced a firearm in response to their threat.

Are there exceptions to this rule that exist? Yes of course, but they are just that: exceptions... not evidence of disproof.

Shooting at LAX apparently. No idea what's going on. I just found it amusing that the article on CBC says that there was a man with a "high powered" rifle. Why exactly is it that the media never just says "rifle"? It's always "high powered rifle." Are there a lot of "low powered" rifles around?

Eomer_sl said:

Why exactly is it that the media never just says "rifle"? It's always "high powered rifle."

Click to expand...

Shock value.

Are there a lot of "low powered" rifles around

Click to expand...

IDK, maybe a bb gun or a pellet gun?

they said rifle because it was a rifle



edit: I see you said high powered. I have no idea.

Oh shit. It's black! Time to ban assault rifles!!!!!!