Guns
What is Sean's problem with guns?
Someone he was supposed to protect was killed. I'm assuming he was wearing a gun at the time... and it didn't change anything. So I guess he knows what most people refuse to acknowledge: a gun will not stop you from being shot.
For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco
Ithilfaen Please explain to the secret service that guards the POTUS that their guns are useless and they can get rid of them
I'm sure we'll find out at some point. It doesn't make sense for an ex-Secret Service agent to be leery of guns unless something tragic happened in his past. Maybe he shot the wrong person?
shareRonald Reagan was shot while surrounded by numerous armed Secret Service agents. Their guns didn't help. Gerald Ford was shot at while surrounded by SS agents. John Kennedy was killed while surrounded by armed SS agents. Tell me how their guns do or did a thing to prevent these from happening?
shareThat's a completely false argument and fails to acknowledge the overwhelming majority of security breaches that are stopped by guns on a regular basis.
shareDon't confuse morons with logic.
It is just inconvenient for their pre-conceived political positions on the 2nd ammendment.
Of course, the best way to satisfy everyone is to let people decide for themselves, but that goes against the root argument of these people, which is their love of control of others.
No it was not a "completely false argument". It was a completely factual argument. Your counter that the OP is only arguing from a small sample size or arguing the exception rather than the rule may be correct. But, that does not mean OP's argument is false as it involved well known, proven facts.
Secondly, having a gun does not protect you from being shot. Having a gun allows you to fire back. And having a gun may be a deterrent to having people attempt to harm you. The former is inarguable. The latter argument is one that has never been conclusively proven. But, a gun will not stop bullets from hitting your body or somebody else's body. And if you are going to argue that one could fire first, hit the perpetrator and thus prevent one's self or another person from being shot, you should remember the physics involved in shooting a gun. It is a near certainty that if you see a shooter pull a gun, the shooter will get a round off before you can pull your gun out and shoot him. And conversely, if you were to shoot before the other person then of course, you are the unlawful shooter.
Except for you just completely ignored the fact any decent security includes multiple layers. You make a case for the guy standing next to the target, but fail to recognize the other 10 guys with guns at the checkpoint in the hallway have already stopped 99% of threats before it gets to the point it's too late for anything but return fire. (And considering the context was Presidents, we clearly aren't talking personal protection but organized security.)
The poster I responded to did not include a single piece of evidence in his argument, he took extremely isolated statistical outliers and drew erroneous conclusions from them. That is the definition of a false argument. While the outliers are "fact", to isolate them from the whole is not even a half truth, but quite literally more like a .00000001% truth. Some factual argument there.
And that isn't even getting into the obvious difference of at least one of the scenarios referenced being a sniper, which is an entirely different ballgame.
As for guns themselves... Guns are a piece of the bigger picture, nothing more and nothing less. To discount them as "not helping stop assassinations" is just plain foolish. No one ever once implied that simply having a gun makes you bulletproof, that is just strawmanning.
Let's look at it from another direction... Say you have unarmed security. Even should they detect a weapon(which any would be assassin WILL have), what are they going to do about it exactly? The assassin could just pull his gun, walk the extra few feet towards his target and fire without anyone able to do a thing about it. Having armed security means that in the case of early detection(the biggest part of the equation) that security can then draw their own weapons(often prior to the would be assassin drawing his own, as they are usually attempting to keep them hidden from sight until the last moment), thus neutralizing the threat. This isn't supposition or theory, this is something that ACTUALLY HAPPENS probably an average of once every few minutes in the world if not more.
Or hey, how about this... If guns don't provide some security, why do even the most vocal anti-gun activists in politics, the entertainment industry, and business all hire or employ armed security for themselves?
Edit: Oh, and if someone pulls a gun on you, then you pull a gun and fire... you are most certainly not the "unlawful shooter". Thaaaaaaaat's not how the law works...
You are assuming equal training on both parties.
---
"Be it ghost or goat, or ghost of goat, or both; this spook would speak with me!"
Which begs the question why so many genocides happened only after the citizens were disarmed.
Or why police officers are continued being outfitted with guns. Or how citizens managed to save themselves and their families by blowing away burglars.
But hey, don't let statistical facts and basic logic interfere with your ideology. Better to use a plot point from a fictional show as a "fact".
@OP
This past episode did not help in the clues department. Sean's charge was assassinated. The assassin was killed by him and his gun. The fallout would not cause him to lose trust in his gun. Maybe Edgar's pursuit will reveal the conspiracy AND tie in to the case that got Sean to put his gun away.
__________
When animals forage, is it for grocery, hardware or medicine?
Killing anyone, even an assassain would be traumatic. Killing the assassain after his protectee has already been killed no comfort, My guess is that both things contribute to his gun issue.
sharePeople ofter bring up the UK and its crime rates but the fact is the UK is the most unsafe country to live in.
This is a link to an on line newspaper published by the UK
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Eu rope-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.
Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.
............................................................
But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.
In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.
The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz2YEX5FqJx
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
England has not even a 5th of of the U.S. crime rate, a government run by the people for the people and guns are prohibited.
So sick of the U.K. vs U.S. crime rate comparisons. Apples and oranges. Mostly homogenous island nation compared to a radically diverse country covering most of the inhabitable part of a large continent that not only shares a massive land border with freakin' Mexico of all places but is a stone's throw away from a dozen countries with murder per capita rates that make war torn African nations look like theme parks. And even then if you look at more comparable areas, such as parts of the U.K. heavily populated with Muslim immigrants or anywhere the IRA was active even 20 years ago those rates in jolly old England sky rocket. (Likewise, comparable areas in the U.S. with similar population balances even with the presence of guns... why would you look at that, virtually identical per capita rates as England. And not even on an island!)
Context, context, context!
>Which begs the question why so many genocides
>happened only after the citizens were disarmed.
Military weapons far outpower the arms that the average person has at their house.
>Or why police officers are continued being outfitted with guns.
About 20 miles North of Boston one cop shot another cop for suspicion that the guy was sleeping with his wife.
>Or how citizens managed to save themselves
>and their families by blowing away burglars.
And FAR more people accidentally shot family members by mistake!
To fix IMDB's display https://secure.imdb.com/register-imdb/siteprefs last option (ref)
If you shoot the other guy first it sure as hell would.
shareDoctorfurby, where did you get your law degree? I thought as much... There is SO much BAD info in this thread, it's kinda scary. What's worse, there are some trying to impart SOME truth/knowledge and the troglodytes are trying to beat them down with erroneous, and/or disingenuous "information".
share