 Knife Amnesty in UK, Some stuff they turned in |
  |
 Jun 18 2006, 05:02 PM
Post
#51
|
|
|
Running Target  Group: Members Posts: 1,213 Joined: 10-March 02 From: Back from the abyss. Member No.: 2,316  |
A lot of times the lack of completeness in the definition of a word in a dictionary is the price of the dictionary. Most people dont buy one in the first place and if they do, they spend very little on it thus limiting the amount of room dedicated to each word. I mean when its time to buy school supplies for the hell spawns would you spend $10 on a Dictionary and the other $100 on supplies or buy a really good Dictionary and blow the whole school supply budget on the one thing?
And words change meaning all the time, which really pisses me off also. People continue to use words incorrectly and eventually the word changes meanings. Dictionaries from what I have seen have always described words base on common usage and will always define words on common usage. Languages change, its natural. Only few dictionaries give old meanings to words, thats why we have Etymology. Even pronouncation and spelling change over time which is then changed in the dicitionary or added as alternate spellings, which again pisses me off. In school alot was incorrect, its a lot, but now alot is accepted, thats the only example that comes to mind at present. EDIT: To answer hobgoblin. Dictionaries are who say what the definition of a word is, until enough people use it incorrectlly then the Dictionary changes its meaning to fit the common usage, then itll say what the meaning of the word is again till again the word changes meaning again. |
 |
 
|
|
Jun 18 2006, 05:37 PM
Post
#52
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 355 Joined: 24-August 02 From: Magna, Ute Nation Member No.: 3,166 |
What a great way to get rid of a murder weapon.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 18 2006, 05:40 PM
Post
#53
|
|||
|
Horror Group: Members Posts: 5,322 Joined: 15-June 05 From: BumFuck, New Jersey Member No.: 7,445 |
Now there's someone thinking like a Shadowrunner. :) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 18 2006, 05:46 PM
Post
#54
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Hence why I distinguished between correctness in describing common use and being technically correct. Also, the same thing goes for spelling and grammar: if enough people type "rediculous" instead of "ridiculous", does that mean the typoed version "becomes a real word" and should be listed in dictionaries? How many people have to repeat the typo and for how long before it's no longer a typo?
If they take the definitions directly from native speakers' usage of the words, then they aren't really the ones who say what the definitions are. ;) I'm not sure how long ago the shift started, but these days making sure dictionaries are descriptive instead of prescriptive (like Kagetenshi said) is a big deal. This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: Jun 18 2006, 05:52 PM |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jun 18 2006, 05:51 PM
Post
#55
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,213 Joined: 10-March 02 From: Back from the abyss. Member No.: 2,316 |
If they dont check its ballistics to see if it matches anything, then dust it for finger prints then link back to a known criminal that will roll over on you.
A lot of criminals are now renting out guns to low level thugs in the city. Big drug dealers and such will give the gun to petty crook for a large some of cash. When the petty crook is done he returns the gun. Suprisingly its working, well not so suprisingly, the drug dealers usually have more and bigger guns. The bulk of the weapons turned in at these things are old pieces of crap that arent worth anything to the criminal or a lawful citizen and they turn them in for free basketball tickets or $50 what ever is being given away. We use to have a lot fo things in my state, till a reporter discovered that the bulk of weapons were rusted out junk turned in by people that admitted they only wanted the tickets or their father had died so they turned in his guns because they didnt want them in the house with their kids. Which is not what the programs were aimed at. They were aimed at drug dealers adn crooks to get the illeagel guns off the streets and otu of dangerous hands. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 18 2006, 06:29 PM
Post
#56
|
|||
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
My issue isn't with spelling, but with growing imprecision in meaning. I don't mind if the spellings of 'continuously' and 'continually' change over time, but when the majority of people no longer understand the difference between the two then the precision of the language has just decreased. There are a hundred more examples of this problem. If language isn't taught to a certain level to a majority of its speakers, then language degrades. And our language forms the basis of our thought and our skill in critical thinking. If the language skills of a population fall, then I would make the case that the population has just become less intelligent. I have no real problem with someone who says "LMAO J0 pwnd!!!!" (although the multiple explanation marks are unnecessary). If someone says "Trolls are more stronger" I cringe a little. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 18 2006, 06:32 PM
Post
#57
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
So this just changed from a knife discussion, to guns, to dictionarys? Wow, only on dumpshock.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 18 2006, 06:45 PM
Post
#58
|
|||||||||||||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
You have, but let my provide a more pragmatic point of view. It is true that a person who mugs you probably doesn't want to kill you. If this is the case then your loses will only be finiancial. However, if this isn't the case then your loss will be complete. Even a 10% chance is death is far to great to risk because the stakes are so high. It is better to err on the side of caution. The chances of someone being in an automobile crash are terribly low but most people wear seatbelts.
Living in this mindset is utterly foolish. Dismissing the possibility that it may happen is just as foolish. Either way you're just a blind man groping an elephant. The best approach, as with everything, is a holistic approach. All encounters are different and the dynamics of an encounter vary greatly depending on the location, the attacker, and the victim.
Everything favors the agressor. Everything does without exception. Even gigantic castles and fortified bunkers favor the agressor. This is because the agressor controls the situation. There is nothing wrong with taking control of a situation when you feel that your safety is threatened. Of course, there are plenty of good reasons to carry a knife other than self-denfense. The day-to-day utility of a folding knife far outweights their usefulness in combat. As for dictionaries I have only one thing to say. Dord: n. Physics & Chem. Density. |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Jun 19 2006, 12:04 AM
Post
#59
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
Of course, I fail to see how the UK doing things like banning dagger-style kitchen knives addresses this. Creating a sharp object is one of the basic things are stone age ancestors were able to do. IF someone really wants to stab a bouncer does the UK government think that they'll magically be unable to produce, if not procure, a makeshift stabbing implement if knives are illegal? Besides, if a chav couldn't stab someone couldn't he just carry some nylon cord in his pocket and garrote people instead? Will the UK ban ropes, rocks, and old metal pipes next? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 19 2006, 12:26 AM
Post
#60
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,213 Joined: 10-March 02 From: Back from the abyss. Member No.: 2,316 |
Shhhh, logic will confuse them.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 19 2006, 12:33 AM
Post
#61
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Ah yes, the old "the dictionary diagrees with me so it must be wrong" maneuver. Always amusing when it crops up. It's also why I've taken to using multiple dictionaries as examples for certain people. Oxford (1955) also agrees that predators are not just hunting animals. You have to pay for the online version of the Oxford dictionary, which I ain't about to do, but my wife's 1955 printing (3rd edition, originally printed in 1933) links the word back to 1589. The origin is given as latin's praeda, definied here: http://catholic.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lo...=praeda&ending= as being related to plunder and loot, as well as animals. I think it's safe to assume that in this particular case it isn't the 4 dictionaries that are wrong, but you. That isn't to say that dictionaries are never wrong, but others, including yourself, have covered that ground well enough already. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jun 19 2006, 01:20 AM
Post
#62
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
hmm, i wonder if this thread will ever reach the length of some gun control threads i have seen spawn (and maybe helped spawn).
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 19 2006, 01:25 AM
Post
#63
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
If only to mock irrational UK weapons laws.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 19 2006, 07:05 AM
Post
#64
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
That sort of message would be one way to make sure this gets that long.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 19 2006, 09:17 AM
Post
#65
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 98 |
Natch... nobody in their right mind (and hopefully, that includes me) wants to get into a fight of any kind. At the same time, the gun on my hip does nothing that prevents me from doing everything I can to avoid that fight beginning.
Totally. I'm not going to try and claim to be driven by an emotionless survival instinct backed by an intellectual framework... I'm scared of getting killed because I like being alive... I believe this is the only life I've got.
This is very true. It's also the reason why I'm a firm believer that people who carry weapons should get pretty thorough training in their situational use... not just target practice, but the legal framework you're allowed to use the weapon within, command techniques to attempt to get the aggressor to flee or back down, the steps you go through to prevent escalating the fight, and judging when you've reached the point where starting to shoot is not only justified legally, but in the eyes of a "reasonable man" (someone viewing the situation from outside, with no emotional investment) was the only remaining option for that situation.
You draw a weapon when the situation has reached a point where you feel the need to communicate to your attacker that if he doesn't back down, you're going to kill him. Whether or not that's when you're initially threatened is entirely subjective, and unique to each situation. Obviously, some people will handle this better than others... and training is a big factor in how well people judge these situations. Again, anyone carrying a weapon has a social responsibility to be trained in it's use: practical, legal, and ethical.
I don't want jumpy people with no training carrying hammers either. You're right... they're probably going to escalate a situation, and honestly... there's no way that one of these "situations" goes well once it gets to the point where people are killing each other. The best possible outcome is that you don't get hurt. It's worth noting, however, that most people accept armed citizens in their midst without thinking about it too much: our police and military forces. The two things that separate a Citizen from a Citizen-Officer or Citizen-Soldier in this situation are the training to carry and use a weapon appropriately, and the societal go-ahead to carry and use a weapon appropriately. The kind of training a police officer gets for these situations is pretty much identical to the training a citizen has available to them (where I live, at least)... a dedicated citizen can actually get better training than your average police officer recieves, if he's willing to put the time and money into it. Personally, I feel that's an appropriate and responsible use of my resources. The societal go-ahead is available in the form of a Concealed Pistol License (for Washington state... most states have a CCW, or Concealed Carry Weapon permit, but the general gist is the same). If I'm trained as well as the average police officer, and have the legal option to carry, I don't see a reason I shouldn't carry, and in fact, I feel a bit of an obligation to do so. I may find myself in a situation where I'm an armed, trained citizen at the site of a violent crime in progress, when there are no police to be found... while everyone wishes they could stop those kinds of things from happening, I'm arguably better trained and equipped than your average non-carry citizen to be able to actually help. Again, my emphasis here is on training and forethought... if you're going to arm yourself with a lethal weapon, you're taking on what I consider to be a pretty serious social responsibility. I don't want Bubba the Yahoo walking around with his .44 stuffed in his belt that he blasts away at milk jugs in the backyard with... unless Bubba the Yahoo's a responsible enough citizen to have gotten the kind of training that lets you handle armed encounters properly and responsibly. We don't need powertripping idiots with guns wandering the streets, in or out of uniform.
If that situation had turned physical and was intended to be lethal, you might have ended up dead. If you'd pulled a knife, or at least had one on you, at the least you would have had the option of trying to put up an effective resistance. I'm glad you emerged unharmed, but what worked for you doesn't work for everyone in every situation. Unarmed people are frequently killed after putting up absolutely no resistance and making every effort to comply with their attacker. I personally refuse to leave myself without the option of an effective response. The British "Bobbies," (a term that has become synonymous in the US with "gunless police officers") are disappearing or already gone, as a response to the kinds of crimes and criminals that they're encountering. If Bobbies, who would logically be trained in conflict resolution and negotiation, have decided they need to be armed to deal with the criminals that they encounter, I feel it's reasonable to decide that I (a private citizen, living in a nation with a much higher violent crime rate) should be armed as well.
If a weapon is drawn on you, you run if it seems at all feasible. You do not stick around and hope that someone who is already pointing a weapon at you means you no ill will... you run and you find cover, and you try to get away. That is one of the most effective ways to reduce the likelyhood of you being seriously hurt. This is not the Wild West, and I am not a quickdraw shooter. If you're armed, you draw the weapon at some point in that process. Maybe you find cover but don't have an exit. Maybe you don't even get a chance to run... they draw their weapon, and attack, leaving you no real option except to try and kill them first. Maybe you have someone with you who can't run (my personal example in this case is my girlfriend of many years... she's got permanent damage in her ankles, which prevents her from running any faster than I can jog). But if you're in a situation where you've got a weapon pointed at you, it's up to you to decide if and when you should draw your own. The fact that your attacker has displayed an apparent willingness to hurt you (since he's pulled out a weapon) should be a huge indicator that you need to be ready to defend yourself. Do you know about Stan "Tookie" Williams? Founder of the Crips, went to jail for murder, ended up writing childrens books to keep people out of gangs and became a Nobel Peace Prize nominee, recently executed in California? The murders they locked him up for were the execution of a 26-year-old 7-Eleven clerk he'd forced to lie on the floor, and three family members working in a motel office he'd broken into... before he went on to take a couple hundred dollars out of their cash registers. You must understand, I mean no disrespect for the dead when I say this, but had they been armed and attempted to resist, the worst possible outcome would have been what happened anyway... the death of the victims.
It's true that I managed to get through that situation without a scratch, and my actions included not pulling a gun on the driver. However, I didn't have a choice in the matter... I didn't have a gun. My survival of that situation was entirely dependent on the lack of desire of the driver of that car to end my life, and while I had the options of attempting to run, fight with the knife in my pocket, or talk this guy out of hurting me, I didn't think any of those options were particularly good. The fact that his advance was stopped by his mother telling him to get back into the car was not a factor in my control.
Knives and guns give advantage to the person using them, be it to intimidate the other person into complying with their demands, or in attempting to hurt them. Had the driver of that car pulled a gun on me, my first action would have been to move the few yards it would have taken to get one of the cars parked along the side of the road between me and him. At that point, if I'd had my gun on me, I would have drawn it. If someone is approaching me with a weapon, "possible intent" has absolutely nothing to do with my response. What he's doing is communicating to me "I am going to hurt you, and I have the tool to do so right here." Had the driver gotten out of his car and his advance not stopped at his mother's behest, my options in this hypothetical become extremely limited, as he would have been all of about 5 yards away. I could stay still and hope that the guy wasn't going to try and hurt me (despite his obviously aggressive approach), I could run and hope he's not faster than me or armed with a firearm (factors I don't have any knowledge of), I could try and reason with him (despite his obviously unreasonable mood), or I could draw a weapon, tell him to STOP RIGHT THERE, DO IT NOW, OR I'M GOING TO SHOOT YOU, and establish without any pretense or possibility of confusion that he's just crossed the line where his behavior makes me fear for my personal safety, and I'm going to respond with any more aggression on his part by shooting him. What he does after that is up to him. There was no socially acceptable reason for the driver of that car to be approaching me that aggressively. There was no reason for me to think that he did not mean me harm. There was no basis for me to assume that I was being approached in that fashion by someone who was not planning on hurting me. It is not my responsibility to try and deduce if the person in front of me has "possible intent" to shoot me or is simply posturing when the message they are communicating to me is that I am about to be harmed. The driver and I would have been two people communicating on an extremely basic level. His message to me would have been "I am attacking you," and it is not my responsibility to guess if he's lying. My message would have been just as simple: "Stop attacking me or die." It's irrelevant if he's actually attacking me. It's irrelevant if he's armed or not. He needs to either make it clear that he's no longer attacking me, or die. That is one of the most direct, clear means of communication I can imagine. I've left nothing out of the message I'm sending to the driver, and I owe him nothing else. He's placed me in a situation where the best option I feel I've got is to point a gun at a stranger and threaten to kill him. The fact that I'm giving him options at that point in time is incredibly polite of me, and it's because I have no desire to take his life, simply a desire to preserve my own. I've communicated in very few words that his actions are unacceptable to me, and that it's not that I want to kill him, but he needs to do certain very specific things so that I don't kill him. And that's a hell of a lot more consideration than he was offering me when he got out of the car and came at me.
I'm not trying to play a definition game here, so please don't feel like this is an attempt to undercut you with a dictionary. I think we both understand what you meant by this sentence, it's just that my reply requires more specific terminology. I view the aggressor as being the person who instigated a combative encounter. Even if the hypothetical boiled down to me holding an unarmed, surrendering man at gunpoint, to me the driver remains the aggressor. There's no moral judgement here, simply a chain of simplified causality. When the good guys break down the door of a known killer, they'd be the aggressors if it led to a combative encounter, since the encounter would have been avoided had they not broken down the door. The defender is the person who was placed into a combative encounter by another. While the defender can act aggressively (an example being killing the aggressor), this does not change his status as the defender, since he did not initiate the encounter. By carrying a weapon, I entertain the possibility that I may use it in an aggressive manner to threaten or kill somebody (which I believe was your intent in referring to "being the aggressor"). However, I have no intention of being the aggressor in a situation. I don't want to initiate a combative encounter. I simply want a way out. There are some combative encounters where the participants don't have any way out except the death of the other participant. My first concern in a combative encounter would be the survival of myself and those I act to protect. The survival of the other guy is desireable, and it's an outcome that I would strive towards, but it doesn't supercede the priority of my own survival. I feel comfortable that my level of training, my social responsibility, and my legal status are such that I contribute to society by being an armed citizen. I'm fulfilling a duty to myself, my loved ones, and my society by being an armed citizen. I know that you feel differently about yourself, and about the people you refer to in your anectodes about the greater harm caused by being armed, and I respect that. I believe, however, that in a society where we accept an armed, trained, responsible police officer as being a protector of the people and a societal good, we should also accept an armed, trained, responsible citizen as being a protector of the people and a societal good, as there is not a lot of difference between the two.
I understand completely. Your point of view is based on your experiences (as is mine), seems as if you've put a great deal of thought into it, and you present it in a direct, honest fashion. I don't feel any disrespect towards my point of view, you simply have a difference of opinion. Very little comes from discussing heated issues in an uncivil manner, and I'd be interested in hearing any response you might have to what I've outlined. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jun 19 2006, 11:27 AM
Post
#66
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
You are in violation of the Internet Hostility Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton on February 9th, 1996. According to the IHA, you are required to have no respect whatsoever for opposing points of view encountered on the Internet. ~J |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 19 2006, 02:27 PM
Post
#67
|
|||
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,548 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
When chipped flint hand-axes are made criminal, only criminals will have chipped flint hand-axes. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 19 2006, 02:30 PM
Post
#68
|
|||
|
Horror Group: Members Posts: 5,322 Joined: 15-June 05 From: BumFuck, New Jersey Member No.: 7,445 |
Dude, you win a medal. You eloquently conveyed everything I mean to say but lack the patience or eloquence to string together. You've done it in a reasonable fasion. I don't intend to be Bubba Yahoo. Jumpy guys with hammers or guns are a risk to themselves and everyone around them. But if Redneck Motherfucker decides to barricade a street intersection and approach me in a threatening manner, I am going to tell him in no uncertain terms "Get back in your vehicle and leave or I will kill you!" Or, perhaps, "Get on the ground and hands behind your head!" And I feel that actions always speak louder than words, don't you? I mean, look at my options from where I was. Option 1: Accelerate. Try and manouver my vehicle past his big pickup which I had no hope of moving, and risk becoming jammed on it or a pole or between both. Option 2: Accelerate. Try to run him over. Option 3: Squeal in reverse and risk crashing into a parked car. Option 4: Draw a firearm and tell him to back off Options 1 and 2 didn't appeal to me, and Option 4 was unavailable to me. I was left with Option 3, and it wound up costing me about $1,000 in repairing the other person's car. Good thing they knew my uncle, or it would have gone to insurance, and blech.... |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 19 2006, 02:32 PM
Post
#69
|
|||||
|
Horror Group: Members Posts: 5,322 Joined: 15-June 05 From: BumFuck, New Jersey Member No.: 7,445 |
Nah. More likely they'll just sharpen a piece of rebar or bedframe. And when rebar and bedframe are made criminal, only criminals will sleep well in concrete buildings. You make a good point, Nezumi. Criminals do not care that it is illeagal to have a firearm, or a knife. They're already committing crimes. What's one more on the heap that adds significantly to their ability to carry out the crimes they already planned to commit? It's nothing to them! |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jun 19 2006, 04:23 PM
Post
#70
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
of society need that every person in it is armed and tried to use it, i call that a failure...
but im going to step away from this thread now. i have seen one to many of these... |
|
|
|
|
Jun 19 2006, 04:50 PM
Post
#71
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 98 |
I didn't say that society needed everyone to be armed... just that there's obviously a societal need for at least some individuals to be armed. We arm our police and don't think twice about it. A police officer is an armed citizen employed to serve and protect people. While there are obviously a number of ways in which I would and should defer to police officers, I see no reason why I should not be an armed citizen who can act to serve and protect people, if my training is similar to that of a police officer. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 19 2006, 04:57 PM
Post
#72
|
|
|
Horror Group: Members Posts: 5,322 Joined: 15-June 05 From: BumFuck, New Jersey Member No.: 7,445 |
Or the fact that I just love going to the range and popping a cap in that paper's ass. (If you didn't recognize this as sarcasm, get help.)
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 19 2006, 04:58 PM
Post
#73
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
At first pass I read "pauper's ass" and wondered why you'd be out shootin poor people at a range.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 19 2006, 05:04 PM
Post
#74
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,579 Joined: 30-May 06 From: SoCal Member No.: 8,626 |
Honestly, both Knasser and Shrike are right here. I'm going to add a little bit more to this and call it at that.
I recently got an apartment with my g/f. One of my only stipulations was that there WILL be a gun in the house. She fo course was adamant in refusal to this as she hates guns. And I won't attempt to mince words here, firearms serve only one purpose, to kill. A knife is a utility tool that can also kill, but guns serve only that one purpose. Unfortunately all I happen to own is a .22 target pistol that I loaded with some fragmentation rounds, I would much rather have a pump action shotgun, the idea being that I need only cock the gun. Think about it, you B&E a house, you hear the very audible and HIGHLY recognizable sound of a shotgun. Your options now are A. Risk getting shot or B. Turn around and leave. Seeing as a shotgun need only be aimed in the general area of a person if loaded with shot and not slugs, most people would choose B. If they don't, then chances the chances that they would have caused bodily harm to any inhabitants is already very high. Would I carry a firearm on me if I had the option to do so? It would depend on many factors. But CA doesn't allow most private citizens to get a CCW. If I were going someplace potentially dangerous to myself, I would carry one regardless of the laws (carrying is only a misdemeanor). There are many statistics to be considered however. Not simply the odds of getting shot unarmed vs odds of getting shot while armed. You want scary statistics? According to the LAPD 1 in 4 people on the freeways pack heat. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 19 2006, 05:05 PM
Post
#75
|
|||||||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,026 Joined: 23-November 05 From: Seattle (Really!) Member No.: 7,996 |
Weapons control laws actually make things easier for criminals, since their targets are usually law abiding citizens. The lack of ability of the victim to defend themselves emboldens criminals. The ratio of police to citizens is too low to realisticly be a deterrent to crime in most countries, and in most countries the response time of law enforcement is measured in tens of minutes or hours not combat turns. Speaking of which how does everyone else deal with the inevitable question of why can the cops respond to a situation in game in as little as 3-6 seconds when in real life it takes them far longer. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 10th January 2026 - 08:49 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.