Actually it's not OK... You stated that animals protect themselves with no weapons or training as though they had some kind of choice in the matter. As if they made the conscious choice not to arm up. It was another ludicrous statement in a gigantic thread full of assinine asertions and hypothetical situations by you.
The fact that you would tacitly agree with my assertion that zebras would pack heat if they could is... well... I almost fell out of my seat when I saw your response.
Except the criminals, or are we back to Mamby-Pandy-Land?
Like just the criminals?
You cannot buy a gun in a supermarket in the U.S., so that is one wish you can cross off your list.
MotionMan
all I was implying with that is that we can defend ourselves without weapons or training
OK consider the supermarket off my list, can you still get them free with a bank account like in bowling for columbine?
Yes criminals are a small percentage of the population so that's a good start.
Of course, that assumes we live in a world where the criminals do not arm themselves or train in the martial arts or boxing, etc.
Pack your bags, we're going to Mamby-Pandy-Land!!!
MotionMan
Not in my state.
I have to hope that you are either kidding or simply are taking the opposite position to take the opposite position.
MotionMan
OK...?
I'm not. Let's say that criminals represent 15% of the population (i have no idea the real statistic) and that current gun owners in america are 48% (I read that somewhere) then 15% gun owners > 48%.
You are being delusional.
What you are proposing is, basically, a unilateral disarming of law-abiding citizen while acknowledging that criminals will still have guns.
That is crazy.
MotionMan
I'm sorry, you have inferred something that I didn't mean. I was asked how animals defend themselves, I said they do it without weapons or training, all I was implying with that is that we can defend ourselves without weapons or training, I was NOT talking about animals having weapons or having some kind of conscious choice not to have weapons. I made no such point, I implied no such point, you inferred something that wasn't there.
No... You were trying to make a point in relation to crimes on persons. It's been a constant theme of yours throughout the four or five threads you've droned on about using deadly force in self defense. Don't dodge it now.
You said, "And yet, they do it with no weapons or formal training" which goes right into your inane points that people can and should defend themselves but shouldn't use weapons to do so... This harks back to another thread where you said (paraphrasing) that a woman had a right to defend herself against a rapist but had no right to use a gun to do so since it cannot be assumed that the rape itself will end in her death. Therefore she has no right to use deadly force to end the attack. If she can't fight off the larger attacker, oh well...
Sometimes the lion gets the Zebra. Oh well...
And your shit comes full-circle...
I'm not accepting it, nor am I suggesting it, but If I were to suggest it; it would involve serious policing towards removing guns from criminals as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whoozyerdaddy
No... You were trying to make a point in relation to crimes on persons. It's been a constant theme of yours throughout the four or five threads you've droned on about using deadly force in self defense. Don't dodge it now.
You said, "And yet, they do it with no weapons or formal training" which goes right into your inane points that people can and should defend themselves but shouldn't use weapons to do so... This harks back to another thread where you said (paraphrasing) that a woman had a right to defend herself against a rapist but had no right to use a gun to do so since it cannot be assumed that the rape itself will end in her death. Therefore she has no right to use deadly force to end the attack. If she can't fight off the larger attacker, oh well...
Sometimes the lion gets the Zebra. Oh well...
And your shit comes full-circle...
I agree with everything you've said in this post, I have said those things, I do feel that way. What is your point?
Of course, that assumes we live in a world where the criminals do not arm themselves or train in the martial arts or boxing, etc.
Pack your bags, we're going to Mamby-Pandy-Land!!!
MotionMan
We can have the Mamby-Pandy-Land police to ask all the criminals really, really nicely to give up their guns?
Maybe the NRA can help you get the politicians behind your crusade to rid the world of guns?
Delusional.
Of course, ironically, the reason why guns are so available in the U.S., by law, is because of the way the colonist were treated by the British.
MotionMan
Congratulations. You are now in the kook Hall of Fame.
Well I'd estimate probably 1 out of any 10+ criminals have had any kind of real fight training.
Oh right... Was there something you wanted me to reply to in this post or were you just venting crap?
I was simply pointing out that your position is delusional.
You are welcome to try to prove otherwise.
MotionMan
I'd ask you to prove my position is delusional first.
I have been doing that for the last half an hour, at least.
Re-read my last ~20 posts.
MotionMan
btw neckbeard is wrong about the weapons thing anyways. they have recorded and documented "tribes" of chimps waging war against each other using sticks and stones as weapons. but i guess animals don't do that kind of thing, so they must have made it up.