[rroseperry]

To start with violent crime and property crime has gone down in all categories since the 1990s. If, as you suggest, gun laws are more restrictive, then better policing is doing the job that it should do.
 
And really if you think about it for more than a second, you'd probably rather live in a society under the rule of law than a vigilante one.

 

[John2e]

Quote:

Just more staged "terrorism" to bring in more laws, cops, and feds to make us submissive.

 Time to take your meds

 

[marvin]

Quote:

What is all this spewing about needing trained officials?  Like they are so above and beyond everyone and are the only ones that should be trusted to make decisions in this world?

 
In some cases, yes. Training has a huge impact on skill level and can make all the difference in the world in a situation like this.
 
Quote:

How can anyone even condemn that lady for what she did, or condemn anyone who isn't "trained" to try to take care of a situation.  They are willing to give their life to save others and that deserves respect.

 
Intent doesn't matter. Results do. If Clay did not have a strong aversion to killing women, there is a very strong possibility that Ginger's actions would have gotten herself and others in the room killed when she tried to intervene.
 
Quote:

What protective gear is there that is needed?  A vest is going to prevent you from getting shot in the chest.  Your head is still open to getting shot, which is more lethal and instant death compared to a chest shot, so protection doesn't matter when it's a situation that should end quickly.

 
Vest and preferably a ballistic shield and/or a long arm.
 
The vest and ballistic shield are there to keep them in the fight longer. They greatly reduce the percentage of the body where a hit would result in incapacitation. You may not think it's valuable, but hard earned police experience disagrees with you. SWAT teams are trained to hit their targets with speed, surprise, and overwhelming firepower, and still get mauled on occasion even with their protective equipment.
 
A long arm greatly increases accuracy, stopping power, and rate of fire. There's also no guarantee that the exchange of fire is going to end quickly and there are plenty of recorded instances where police have shot their gun dry without managing to incapacitate their adversary.
 
Quote:

How is shooting a fleeing burglar brain dead?

 
Because there is the possibility that you will be convicted by a jury of your peers and sent to jail for a few decades.
 
Quote:

/img/forum/go_quote.gif

To start with violent crime and property crime has gone down in all categories since the 1990s. If, as you suggest, gun laws are more restrictive, then better policing is doing the job that it should do.

The amusing thing is that gun laws and restrictions have gotten much less looser and private citizens have gained much more leeway to protect themselves with firearms over the last couple of decades.

 

[ls20]

 
Quote:

I will shoot them if they run away.

Enjoy your sentencing

 It's my property and I think I should have the right to protect it and punish those to break in. 

Fortunately, you dont

 
Dont get it twisted - fyi, im a firearms owner.

 

[Confispect]

I don't know about any of that but I say she's stupid. Period. I agree with the rest, stupid. Debating gets no one no where, when you have half saying she's stupid. And one saying she's brave...doesn't really matter your opinion is she brave. Good, now are opinion is she's stupid. I wonder...
 
Also I guarantee your local police officer would tell you to stay out of the way and call your local police. Whatever world you live in that thinks we need more people like this I don't wanna be in it. She could've have gotten somebody killed, lol a purse against a gun this is brave. 

 

[Confispect]

Quote:

Quote:

Just more staged "terrorism" to bring in more laws, cops, and feds to make us submissive.

 Time to take your meds

Ha!
 

 

[ramicio]

Hmm, law is all about proving intent...  She was brave.  What is wrong with you all?  Who cares if she is stupid or not?  She is stupid because her actions did nothing, to you all.  But what if she would have stopped the whole thing by what she did?  Then you all would be "oh what a hero she is."  Results don't matter, she was brave.  

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Hmm, law is all about proving intent...  She was brave.  What is wrong with you all?  Who cares if she is stupid or not?  She is stupid because her actions did nothing, to you all.  But what if she would have stopped the whole thing by what she did?  Then you all would be "oh what a hero she is."  Results don't matter, she was brave.  

 
If she had succeeded, she would be a hero and stupid. As it is, she was brave and stupid. Those terms are not exclusionary.

 

[John2e]

Quote:

Quote:

Hmm, law is all about proving intent...  She was brave.  What is wrong with you all?  Who cares if she is stupid or not?  She is stupid because her actions did nothing, to you all.  But what if she would have stopped the whole thing by what she did?  Then you all would be "oh what a hero she is."  Results don't matter, she was brave.  

 
If she had succeeded, she would be a hero and stupid. As it is, she was brave and stupid. Those terms are not exclusionary.

 Check and Mate

 

[Maverickmonk]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Hmm, law is all about proving intent...  She was brave.  What is wrong with you all?  Who cares if she is stupid or not?  She is stupid because her actions did nothing, to you all.  But what if she would have stopped the whole thing by what she did?  Then you all would be "oh what a hero she is."  Results don't matter, she was brave.  

 
If she had succeeded, she would be a hero and stupid. As it is, she was brave and stupid. Those terms are not exclusionary.

 Check and Mate

 
 
Not so according to Socrates, In the dialogue of Protagoras he makes a very logical claim that wisdom, courage, and several other traits are all interconnected.
 
More historically speaking, things that are "stupid and brave" according to this logic (difficult odds, chance of death, etc.): Apollo 13's attempted(and successful) reentery, D-Day, the American Revolution, the detonation of the first nuclear weapon at Los Alamos (They had no proof that it WOULDN'T ignite the entire atmosphere and end life as we know it on planet earth).
 
Looking at it the other way, if she had done nothing, and died, what would she be? Cowardly and smart? I'm not saying her attack was exactly well thought out, but she tried, and in my book trying to live is a whole lot more commemorable than hoping not to die.
 
 
I'm not trying to argue, I just like a good ole' debate, no ill intent whatsoever.

 

[marvin]

Quote:

More historically speaking, things that are "stupid and brave" according to this logic (difficult odds, chance of death, etc.):

 
It's not the bad odds and chance of death that makes a decision stupid. It's how sub-optimal the decision is compared to the alternatives.
 
Quote:

Looking at it the other way, if she had done nothing, and died, what would she be? Cowardly and smart?

 
Unlucky. Sometimes you can do everything right and still die.

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Hmm, law is all about proving intent...  She was brave.  What is wrong with you all?  Who cares if she is stupid or not?  She is stupid because her actions did nothing, to you all.  But what if she would have stopped the whole thing by what she did?  Then you all would be "oh what a hero she is."  Results don't matter, she was brave.  

 
If she had succeeded, she would be a hero and stupid. As it is, she was brave and stupid. Those terms are not exclusionary.

 Check and Mate

 
 
Not so according to Socrates, In the dialogue of Protagoras he makes a very logical claim that wisdom, courage, and several other traits are all interconnected.
 
More historically speaking, things that are "stupid and brave" according to this logic (difficult odds, chance of death, etc.): Apollo 13's attempted(and successful) reentery, D-Day, the American Revolution, the detonation of the first nuclear weapon at Los Alamos (They had no proof that it WOULDN'T ignite the entire atmosphere and end life as we know it on planet earth).
 
Looking at it the other way, if she had done nothing, and died, what would she be? Cowardly and smart? I'm not saying her attack was exactly well thought out, but she tried, and in my book trying to live is a whole lot more commemorable than hoping not to die.
 
 
I'm not trying to argue, I just like a good ole' debate, no ill intent whatsoever.

Apollo 13's attempted(and successful) reentery - And their alternative was?  There could be no rescue in space.  What were they going to do, wait to die?
 
D-Day - Really?  Difficult odds?  We're not talking about "I know - let's invade the continent tomorrow!" - they had been planning for years and training for months before the big day.  Numerical superiority was planned (24,000 airborne troops assaulting the night before and 160,000 landing during the day, compared to around 10,000 Germans) and extensive shelling and bombardment was done - not to mention the diversionary tactics before and during the invasion - e.g. bombing Calais to make the Germans think that's where the invasion would be, and paradummies over Normandy to divert enemy soldiers from the real forces.  Deaths of soldiers were a given - but this is war - people die!
 
the American Revolution - Yes, the odds were uncertain, and again - this is war - death is a given.  But nonetheless, there was a great level of organization and preparation going on here.  It wasn't like D-Day, no - but you also have to deal with the ruling English government being across a the formidable Atlantic...
 
the detonation of the first nuclear weapon at Los Alamos (They had no proof that it WOULDN'T ignite the entire atmosphere and end life as we know it on planet earth). - First things first, the test was at White Sands Proving Ground - some 100 miles away from Los Alamos in basically the middle of nowhere.  Second, this declassified document shows that such a result was determined impossible by scientists working on the project.  Read the abstract, at least.
 

I don't disagree that there have been all sorts of brave and stupid incidents in history (this woman is an example) - but you know, being brave isn't always a good idea.  It gets you killed, perhaps more often than not.

 

[ramicio]

If you go to a funeral of someone who was "brave but stupid" and say how they were stupid for putting their life on the line you would be pure evil.  Apollo 13, yeah OK.  Let's just wait to die instead of maybe die trying to re-enter.  Die either way.  You don't know in a situation like this shooting if you are going to die or other people are, or not.  You can't predict the future.  This is why, to me, it's logical to just try because you don't know that if you don't try if you will die or not, or if you try you will die or not.  By the same logic the security guard was heroic and stupid because you say he didn't have the proper protective gear.  The first nuclear detonation?  They knew it wouldn't ignite the atmosphere because oxygen needs a fuel to burn together.  Pure energy that is released is not a chemical fuel, and even so, the fuel that is the reaction would run out long before it consumed all of the oxygen on earth.  If you've ever researched it seriously you would know it was more of an inside joke between all of the scientists and wasn't ever taken seriously.  Going through life calculating odds on everything belongs in a casino, not in the free and real world.  Anyone with a dangerous job could also be considered stupid despite training, just for putting themselves in harm's way.  It takes a certain person to step up when there is danger.  If you can't deal with it then cower under a table and let the brave people do what they believe is right, and don't get on their case if it fails.  Would you look at a girl and figure "oh there's no way, so I'm not even gonna try" instead of trying?  So what if being stupid gets ya killed.  If you are willing to risk it then it's your right to lose your own life.  There SHOULD be assisted suicides in the medical field for those with terminal and painful illnesses and they shouldn't put fencing on bridges to prevent people from jumping.  If someone wants to die then they are most likely a deadbeat drain on everyone else, and they are helping the world by removing themselves from it.

 

[appophylite]

 
Quote:

If you go to a funeral of someone who was "brave but stupid" and say how they were stupid for putting their life on the line you would be pure evil.  Apollo 13, yeah OK.  Let's just wait to die instead of maybe die trying to re-enter.  Die either way.  You don't know in a situation like this shooting if you are going to die or other people are, or not.  You can't predict the future.  This is why, to me, it's logical to just try because you don't know that if you don't try if you will die or not, or if you try you will die or not.  By the same logic the security guard was heroic and stupid because you say he didn't have the proper protective gear.  The first nuclear detonation?  They knew it wouldn't ignite the atmosphere because oxygen needs a fuel to burn together.  Pure energy that is released is not a chemical fuel, and even so, the fuel that is the reaction would run out long before it consumed all of the oxygen on earth.  If you've ever researched it seriously you would know it was more of an inside joke between all of the scientists and wasn't ever taken seriously.  Going through life calculating odds on everything belongs in a casino, not in the free and real world.  Anyone with a dangerous job could also be considered stupid despite training, just for putting themselves in harm's way.  It takes a certain person to step up when there is danger.  If you can't deal with it then cower under a table and let the brave people do what they believe is right, and don't get on their case if it fails.  Would you look at a girl and figure "oh there's no way, so I'm not even gonna try" instead of trying?  So what if being stupid gets ya killed.  If you are willing to risk it then it's your right to lose your own life.  There SHOULD be assisted suicides in the medical field for those with terminal and painful illnesses and they shouldn't put fencing on bridges to prevent people from jumping.  If someone wants to die then they are most likely a deadbeat drain on everyone else, and they are helping the world by removing themselves from it.

 
I think you're either missing a point that some of the other people in this thread are trying to make or purposely ignoring it. Here's an experiment for ya: have a girl you happen to know stand behind you and have her whack you from behind with her purse. Chances are that unless she packs a concrete cinderblock in her purse or is freakishly strong, her blow is gonna do little more than irritate you, or more likely, piss you off. This is what people are getting at: there is absolutely no chance that that woman had any expectation that hitting the guy with her purse was going to have any effect towards the benefit of the hostages. Like others have said, the fact that he didn't hit or attack her after she pulled that stunt is more likely him standing by his own conviction not to hurt women. Your arguments may have more merit, if say, she dug through her purse, realized she was carrying a small pocket knife and decided to use that to her advantage, but even that would have put everyone there at a severe disadvantage. In most cases, if he had gotten PO'ed enough by her antics, he could have killed everyone there, and that would have been doing no one any good.
 

 

[marvin]

Quote:

The first nuclear detonation?  They knew it wouldn't ignite the atmosphere because oxygen needs a fuel to burn together.  Pure energy that is released is not a chemical fuel, and even so, the fuel that is the reaction would run out long before it consumed all of the oxygen on earth.  If you've ever researched it seriously you would know it was more of an inside joke between all of the scientists and wasn't ever taken seriously.

Wrong on a couple of levels. First, the scientists were worried that temperatures caused by a fission bomb would be high enough to fuse nitrogen atoms and cause a self sustaining fusion reaction. Note that this is the sort of reaction that is behind fusion bombs, albeit with hydrogen isotopes instead of nitrogen. Second, it was enough of a concern that scientists on the Manhattan project researched the matter and concluded that the reaction wasn't sustainable due to radiated energy loss. Arthur Compton, a physics Nobel Laureate and another scientist on the Manhattan Project, also took it seriously enough that he flagged the possibility in a report to the US government.