Budney

Hello, I read the thread on cleaning benchmarks, but nobody commented on my situation. I believe I found a benchmark which is set into the curb of a road--but I can't tell, because it's badly obscured by layers of road paint! You can see it if you look up KX1552. I'd like to remove the paint and expose the (suspected) benchmark while posing minimal risk to the mark itself. Any suggestions? Thanks! Len.

quote:Originally posted by vash the stampede:and i have clarified a MILLION times when i say kill i am not referring to only people, that is your word dont try to put it in my mouth. man machine or beast, it makes no difference. The force of the statement "guns are designed to kill" rests entirely in the implication that it's PEOPLE being killed. About half the time, folks include the word "people" in the statement. To see this, try going around saying, "guns are designed to kill rats". Izzat so? Ho, hum. See? But please don't feel misrepresented; I don't care WHAT you're talking about killing. The primary purpose of guns is not killing ANYTHING, whether animal, vegetable or bateria. The primary purpose when using a firearm defensively is to threaten. A threat is meaningless if it can't be carried out, but one's primary goal is not to carry out the threat--one does NOT threaten in hopes he gets a chance to carry out the threat. quote:...go and peddle you nonsensicle numbers elswhere... Is a "nonsensicle" a new kind of popsicle? :-P Anyway, I offered one statistical fact, which is true. You offered a long paragraph of rampant statistical speculation. Who's peddling numbers? quote:...it begs one last question, if the purpose is not to kill why does everyone think a nonlethal replica is such a bad idea?? Who said it's a bad idea? I don't remember expressing an opinion one way or the other. But your question is easily answered: defensive use of a firearm almost never involves kiling, but it always involves a credible threat. Nonlethal replicas of guns do not project a credible threat unless the attacker believes it is real. So some people DO use replicas for self defense, and they often DO work. However, they work only because enough people use real weapons. If criminals know that everyone carries a fake and nobody carries a real weapon, then the replica would be completely useless for defense. (By the way, if you think carefully about this, you will realize that it further proves that the primary purpose of a defensive weapon is not killing. A replica CAN be used successfully for the same defensive purpose. The real purpose is to project a threat which the attacker believes.) --Len.

quote:Originally posted by vash the stampede: quote:1) Is it true that the only (or even primary) use of a gun user is to *kill* people? In 98% of defensive gun uses not one shot is fired, so I'd say the answer is clearly enough "No." a factoid, looks like a fact, smells like a fact, aint a fact... It is indeed a fact, and a well-documented one. Over 98% of instances where a firearm is used to avert a crime, it was not fired. But I notice that you do not try and claim that my statement is untrue; instead you seem to be arguing about the interpretation of that fact: quote:...for us to use this to say that guns are not designed to kill we would have to say that a1 98 percent of guns used in defence did not have firing pins... See, you're talking about an *interpretation* here. And your interpretation is quite clearly wrong. The persons who averted a crime using their firearm would certainly consider that the firearm "did its job" (this should I think be fairly obvious to you). A crime was averted. The gun-owner is pleased and relieved. Yet nobody died. For your interpretation to make sense, 98% of people who avert a crime using their gun would have to be thinking, "Aw, nuts! I wanted to blow somebody away! After all, THAT'S what my gun is FOR!" A little bit of thought will make all of this clear to you. I hope you do give it some thought. quote:...you are not taking into account military or police use of guns... Actually, their situation is not that different. All policemen carry guns--but most policemen never fire their gun. The fact that it CAN be fired is sufficient to achieve the objective, which is compliance. Sometimes they need not draw it. Sometimes they unclip they holster--which sends a sufficient signal. Sometimes they even draw, but need not fire. For your view to make sense, it would have to be the case that a policeman shoots somebody every time he draws his weapon. Or, if he doesn't, that he thinks to himself, "Dang! The stupid perp put his hands up! I wanted to SHOOT him, 'cus THAT'S what my gun is FOR!" The simple fact is that having the *ability* to shoot somebody functions primarily as a deterrent to the *necessity* of doing so. This is even true of the military, by the way: the military spends most of its time standing ready, not fighting on a battlefield. (In fact if you wanted a deeper philosophical discussion of defensive issues, I could direct you to Clausewitz, who clearly articulates the principle that causing death is not the primary purpose of any defensive action, including military. He says, "the disarming of the enemy can be regarded as the primary objective in warfare.") So I repeat my urging that you think about this issue a little more carefully: to suggest that the primary purpose of guns is actually killing people is simply untrue, and at best wildly misleading. --Len.

quote:Originally posted by Rockdoctors:You make many assumptions. No I don't. quote:Apparently I am an "Anti" or a "Protestor". Are you? Okay, if you say so. I certainly never called you anything, let alone "anti" or "protestor". quote:I...around Coyotes and they are heard and seen CONSTANTLY. Every evening. There has never been an attack or encounter. You mean "I have never heard of", not "there has never been". Coyotes have in fact attacked and killed children, though you are correct that attacks on humans are rare. quote:Also if there is interbreeding with other dogs why do you assume this breeds aggression? Why do you assume I'm "assuming" anything? Go learn about coy-dogs; it's simply a fact that they are more aggressive than Coyotes. They are wild animals who are less fearful of humans than coyotes are. quote:WHO IS BEING HYSTERICAL HERE? Gee, I dunno; who's doing all the shouting? --Len.

quote:Originally posted by Budney:(Coyotes) hunt in packs looking for defenseless animals, but have been known to attack almost anything--including humans. In upstate New York we also have coy-dogs--the result of a coyote breeding with a domestic dog. They lack the coyote's fear of humans. And rabies is sufficiently common in that area that rabid coyotes or coy-dogs are a very real concern. --Len.

quote:Originally posted by Rockdoctors:Len, not making much sense to me...Because you hear Cayotes howling you wish you had a gun??? Being an outdoorsman and all don't you know that Cayotes will not harm let alone come near humans?????? That's generally true--but far from guaranteed. They hunt in packs looking for defenseless animals, but have been known to attack almost anything--including humans. They have attacked and even killed children. Waving my arms and shouting would probably suffice to scare them off, since they look for easy prey. But I'd really rather not rely on that as my sole means of defense. quote:Its situations like this that scare me. Eh? You're scared I might wantonly shoot a coyote? quote:If you heard me walking through the bush at night near you would you pull out your firearm????? Dunno: do you usually walk though the bush at night without a flashlight, howling like a pack of coyotes? Anyway, your hysteria is unmerited. I don't carry a sidearm at all--and when armed with a shotgun or bow, I check my targets thoroughly. I've passed up gorgeous deer because I was verifying the shooting lane too long. I was even startled and terrified, half-asleep in the wee hours, by what I thought at first was a bear--and though I drew my bow I held my fire to verify the target. (It was an enormous dog, I think a Rottweiler, as I realized when I spotted his pal--a spaniel--trailing along behind.) Fact is, I'm more afraid of the antis acting irrationally than the armed people. I recently read an amusing article: an anti-gun protester was arguing with a counter-demonstrator, and attacked and severely pummelled his antagonist. The police broke them up, and the victim of the assault said, "Officer, I wish to inform you that I am carrying a licensed firearm." The "peace-loving" protester was guilty of assault and battery. His victim endured a vicious beating, even though he was armed with a deadly weapon the whole time. --Len.

quote:I think this may be a source for a lot of the conflict on this issue and the gun issue in general. You seem to assume that everyone who is carrying a firearm on them has contemplated killing someone...I think any reasonable person...is actually thinking I might need this to DEFEND MYSELF... Right. In fact, most people probably isn't even thinking that, usually. At some point in the past a person decides to carry a weapon to defend himself. Having made that decision, he probably doesn't revisit that issue: he simply thinks, "Gotta put on my pants...then the shoes...belt...watch...gun...okay; we're good to go." quote:Some here have even stated that they carry, not because they really intend to use it against a person but, to defend from an animal. I've considered that. Until a few years ago I lived in upstate New York, where packs of coyotes still roam at night. I've been out at dusk, a mile into the woods, with an ATV that won't start, and heard coyotes start to howl...and wished I was packing. quote:...somebody mentioned pellet guns earlier. While usually not, they, and bbs, can be fatal as well. You Never, Ever, treat any gun other than a potentially leatal weapon. Agreed! For safety, you should treat the gun like a loaded, lethal weapon. But if you're choosing a gun for defensive use, don't choose a pellet gun. Actually using it defensively requires incredible skill plus a lot of luck, since a hit will only anger your attacker unless it penetrates the brain. (Pros don't rely on head shots--they CERTAINLY don't plan on hitting their opponent in the eye-socket.) In fact I think your caution above should be repeated clearly and often. I've seen anti-gun people handling a firearm, and it's a wonder they don't kill somebody. I think *antis* should send their kids to a gun safety course, because you never know when it will save somebody's life. (I think that's a life principle. I'll send my boy to a high-speed, low-friction driving course because it could save his life--even though I'll ground him for a year if I ever catch him driving fast on ice.) --Len.

quote:Originally posted by vash the stampede: quote:From Len:So you get the point, I hope. To say "guns are designed to kill," is (1) a lie, and (2) if it weren't a lie, it would still be intentionally misleading. he who lies is a liar, and 2, is come on now, intentionally misleading is a lie, who is this guy, bill clinton?? A man who repeats a lie may be a liar, but he may also simply be fooled by somebody else's lie. Since you're hardly the first person to repeat the false statement that "guns are designed to kill", it seems to me that you probably fall into the latter category. But if you think carefully, you will find that the statement is false--or, to the extent it is true, meaningless. To get yourself rolling, consider two questions: (1) Is it true that the only (or even primary) use of a gun user is to *kill* people? In 98% of defensive gun uses not one shot is fired, so I'd say the answer is clearly enough "No." (2) Is it true that the only (or even primary) use of a gun is to *murder* people? Obviously not. People do not build guns hoping that they will be used in the commission of a murder. quote:...why not just admit that guns are lethal weapons... Of course they are. Lethal means "capable of inflicting death". It does not mean "solely or primarily intended for the use of inflicting death." You are taking the fact that guns can be used to kill, and trying to conclude that gun owners are some sort of homicidal maniacs. quote:...and as such, people who are not able to handle such a responsibility should not be armed... Of course they shouldn't. But it sounds like you're changing the subject: when did somebody suggest that the insane or the mentally incompetent should be armed? I never noticed anyone saying that. quote:i am (whether with a gun or any other thing including my hands) prepared to kill IF THE SITUATION WARRANTS IT. Then you support the gun owners, since they feel the same way. --Len.

quote:Originally posted by seneca: quote:Originally posted by Budney:Imagine coming home and finding a rapist in process of attacking your wife. Would you stop him? If necessary, would you use lethal force? Len, of course I would...and if that unlikely, unfortunate situation arose - it would be fortunate if I had a gun, wouldn't it? Okay then. You concur with the original posters that self-defense is moral; you also concur with them that lethal force in self defense is moral. In that case you agree with their actual position. quote:But are you saying that in your country, if I don't carry a gun I am somehow letting my wife and family down? No, I'm not--in fact I have taken no position whatsoever on the use of deadly force. I have only described your position and that of the persons you've misrepresented. In fact you just did it again: you suggested that the two possible positions are (1) that anyone who doesn't carry a gun is negligent, or (2) that anyone who DOES carry a gun is a sicko. Those are NOT the only two viewpoints by a long shot. Many people would state that carrying and not carrying can both be rational decisions, and take various positions about which decision makes sense when. (Interestingly, you DO take position #2, that anyone who carries for self defense is a sicko. Your disputants do NOT take position #1: they respect your decision not to carry.) quote:In my neck of the woods I do not need to be prepared and equipped to kill. You're misrepresenting the other side again. They are prepared and equipped to scare off an attacker, and they are willing--if force to it--to use lethal force. Since you are also willing to use lethal force, the only difference is that you do not choose to prepare yourself to threaten an attacker. They may be willing to kill if forced, but you've admitted that you are as well. Finally, you are not being honest when you suggest that arming oneself is a baby step away from actually killing somebody. These people know that actually using lethal force is about as unlikely as getting struck by lightning, and that fact is an important part of their calculations. They are not walking around poised to blow people away left and right, as you falsely insinuate. quote:Killing is pretty serious business in my book... In theirs to. It wouldn't be honest to suggest otherwise. quote:...and when someone has an unreasonable, unnecessary, and irrational need to be prepared to kill... You're intentionally pretending that "prepared to kill" is almost the same thing as "killing". That's not honest: you are exactly as prepared to kill as they are, no more and no less. (Namely, when your life is in jeopardy.) quote:but its about time you hear the real reasons why so many people want to take your guns away. You're ranting, I'm afraid. I do not own defensive weapons--only an old 20 gauge for hunting. In fact I am a conscientious objector to military service, and am bound by my religion not to defend myself using force. (I would probably defend my wife or child, so I just pray I never face that situation.) All I've done is point out that your "moral" argument is nonsense. You've conceded that lethal force is justified in self-defense, and in fact you've stated that you yourself are willing to use lethal force to defend yourself or others. In so doing, you have conceded their entire position: they are neither more nor less willing to kill than you are. They are neither more nor less violent than you are. They do not fantasize about killing bad guys, and they don't walk down dark alleys packing heat and hoping for a chance to shoot somebody. You have tried to suggest that they are "sickos" while you are not, but not very rationally: you are taking the ridiculous position that preparedness is itself immoral. You can't rationally defend such a position, so you do it by suggesting that people need a shrink because they choose to be rationally prepared to frighten off thugs. --Len.

quote:Originally posted by seneca: quote:Originally posted by Budney:Imagine coming home and finding a rapist in process of attacking your wife. Would you stop him? If necessary, would you use lethal force? Len, of course I would...and if that unlikely, unfortunate situation arose - it would be fortunate if I had a gun, wouldn't it? Okay then. You concur with the original posters that self-defense is moral; you also concur with them that lethal force in self defense is moral. In that case you agree with their actual position. quote:But are you saying that in your country, if I don't carry a gun I am somehow letting my wife and family down? No, I'm not--in fact I have taken no position whatsoever on the use of deadly force. I have only described your position and that of the persons you've misrepresented. In fact you just did it again: you suggested that the two possible positions are (1) that anyone who doesn't carry a gun is negligent, or (2) that anyone who DOES carry a gun is a sicko. Those are NOT the only two viewpoints by a long shot. Many people would state that carrying and not carrying can both be rational decisions, and take various positions about which decision makes sense when. (Interestingly, you DO take position #2, that anyone who carries for self defense is a sicko. Your disputants do NOT take position #1: they respect your decision not to carry.) quote:In my neck of the woods I do not need to be prepared and equipped to kill. You're misrepresenting the other side again. They are prepared and equipped to scare off an attacker, and they are willing--if force to it--to use lethal force. Since you are also willing to use lethal force, the only difference is that you do not choose to prepare yourself to threaten an attacker. They may be willing to kill if forced, but you've admitted that you are as well. Finally, you are not being honest when you suggest that arming oneself is a baby step away from actually killing somebody. These people know that actually using lethal force is about as unlikely as getting struck by lightning, and that fact is an important part of their calculations. They are not walking around poised to blow people away left and right, as you falsely insinuate. quote:Killing is pretty serious business in my book... In theirs to. It wouldn't be honest to suggest otherwise. quote:...and when someone has an unreasonable, unnecessary, and irrational need to be prepared to kill... You're intentionally pretending that "prepared to kill" is almost the same thing as "killing". That's not honest: you are exactly as prepared to kill as they are, no more and no less. (Namely, when your life is in jeopardy.) quote:but its about time you hear the real reasons why so many people want to take your guns away. You're ranting, I'm afraid. I do not own defensive weapons--only an old 20 gauge for hunting. In fact I am a conscientious objector to military service, and am bound by my religion not to defend myself using force. (I would probably defend my wife or child, so I just pray I never face that situation.) All I've done is point out that your "moral" argument is nonsense. You've conceded that lethal force is justified in self-defense, and in fact you've stated that you yourself are willing to use lethal force to defend yourself or others. In so doing, you have conceded their entire position: they are neither more nor less willing to kill than you are. They are neither more nor less violent than you are. They do not fantasize about killing bad guys, and they don't walk down dark alleys packing heat and hoping for a chance to shoot somebody. You have tried to suggest that they are "sickos" while you are not, but not very rationally: you are taking the ridiculous position that preparedness is itself immoral. You can't rationally defend such a position, so you do it by suggesting that people need a shrink because they choose to be rationally prepared to frighten off thugs. --Len.

quote:My comments made on this thread have not been directed at guns. They are directed at the posters who made it abundantly clear that they were carrying weapons so that they would be prepared to kill "just in case" - those are the nutcases that I am worried about... Except that you're misrepresenting those people. They are NOT arming themselves "so I can kill somebody if I need to". They are arming themselves "for self defense". Self defense does not equal killing. It might involve the use of lethal force, but in fact that is vanishingly unlikely. Some people who use firearms for self defense are in fact unwilling to use lethal force. So you are calling them "nutcases" based on a gross misrepresentation of what they are doing. quote:Those are the people who disgust me. People unneccesarily going about their day to lives, mentally prepared to kill... You keep using emotionally loaded phrases (on purpose?) like "mentally prepared to kill". You aren't stating in a rational way what you actually believe. Are you saying that it is immoral to defend yourself? Or perhaps, are you saying that lethal force is always immoral even in self defense? Your professed "disgust" gives me the impression that you believe this: that you equate "killing" BY a murder with "killing" OF a murderer. If so, you should be able to rationally explain why it is moral for your wife to be raped or murdered rather than defend herself. I recognize there is an argument that you can make, so I would NOT call your view "whacko" or even "disgusting". But YOU don't seem to admit that the contrary argument can also be made--since you find anyone who takes that view "disgusting". quote:But when you are carrying it with a mindset that "I will use it to kill if I have to" then I think you are a whole lot of trouble. Try this thought experiment. Imagine coming home and finding a rapist in process of attacking your wife. Would you stop him? If necessary, would you use lethal force? If you answer "yes", then by your argument "you are a whole lot of trouble", because you have the mindset that you might possibly, conceivably someday use lethal force. But even if you answer, "no, I'd let my wife be raped", I can't possibly see how you would consider others "disgusting" or "whackos" for making a different decision. --Len.

quote:Perhaps you are not getting the premise of the failed logic at work here... Actually, logic is my business. That's why I have got a PhD in it. quote:...airplanes are designed to carry people...guns, are designed to kill... Yup--that's the standard flawed logic. First, the statement that "guns are designed to kill" is untrue: you are trying to say that their sole purpose is to kill humans. That's nonsense. Your mistake is twofold: First, a self-defensive use of guns almost never involves killing. In almost all cases, brandishing the weapon causes the attacker to flee. In many of the remaining cases, warning shots suffice. In the REMAINING cases, the attacker is often wounded--not killed. So if the sole purpose of the gun is "to kill", then guns are pretty terrible things--they fail to fulfill their "Sole purpose" over 98% of the time. Second, your use of the word "kill" is what's called equivocation. To say "guns are designed to kill" as if that told the whole story is nonsense even *if* taking life were their actual primary purpose. Why? Because you are using the word to include all taking of life: a pig; a victim; an attacker; an enemy in wartime; etc. So people hear "guns are designed to kill", and feel that guns must be very immoral--because they equate "kill" with "murder". But of course that's nonsense: guns are certainly NOT designed for the purpose of committing murder. If you said, "guns were designed for the purpose of taking the life of an enemy invader in times of war," then people might actually think a little and have an interesting discussion, because that use is at least arguably moral. And by the way, it would be the most accurate statement historically: the history of firearms invention is basically a military history. Then again, if you said, "guns were designed to kill animals for food," you'd again raise a thoughtful (and semi-relevant) issue. We could discuss the morality of hunting, and people on every side would confess that it is at least arguably moral. So you get the point, I hope. To say "guns are designed to kill," is (1) a lie, and (2) if it weren't a lie, it would still be intentionally misleading. --Len.

quote:...this person however has come to the conclusion that because seneca is a male pilot who doesnt believe in guns he is either a terrorist or a rapist. You don't seem to comprehend what the poster said, so here it is in a nutshell: Seneca reasoned that by equipping yourself with a gun and the ability to use it, you are "prepared to be a killer". The poster replied that the same flawed logic would make Seneca himself a terrorist and rapist: 1. Seneca flies an airplane. Therefore he is fully capable of flying it into a building. He is "prepared to be a terrorist". 2. Seneca (presumably) has a male organ. Therefore he is fully "prepared to be a rapist." You reply, "having an airplane doesn't make one a terrorist, and having a phallus doesn't make one a rapist." Exactly! And having a gun doesn't make one a killer, either. (Tossing in the phrase "prepared to be" is really a red-herring, designed to obsure the faulty logic at work here.) --Len.