Good analogy

[Abbey Marie]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/c0.0.403.403/p403x403/734512_10151649404825432_882703382_n.png


Property of nationalgunrights.org

[SassyLady]

I LIKE IT!!!

:dance:

[Thunderknuckles]

Apt.

[gabosaurus]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-381c1sfFp7Y/T_O15GIdcSI/AAAAAAAAAIc/y0YdP71VwKg/s1600/apples-and-oranges1.jpg

[fj1200]

^Hmm, publicly provided services that risk life and death...

[Little-Acorn]

More like saying that, since we have lifeguards, we don't need to learn how to swim before going to the beach.

And just as sensible.

[Voted4Reagan]

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n257/craniotes/Demotivate/4137274551_1d12ab907d.jpg

[Noir]

Close...the obvious failure of the analogy being that having fire extinguishers do not generate a necessity unto themselves in relation to their use.

i.e. you need guns to protect you from guns. Not having fire extinguishers won't help you if no one else has them.

[CSM]

Close...the obvious failure of the analogy being that having fire extinguishers do not generate a necessity unto themselves in relation to their use.

i.e. you need guns to protect you from guns. Not having fire extinguishers won't help you if no one else has them.

Guns are not only needed to protect one from others (with evil intent) using guns. They can (and often do) hold an aggressor at bay until the police arrive (just as a fire extinguisher dampens a fire until the FD arrives). I can see how that doesn't support some anti-gun folks' stance though.

[Abbey Marie]

Close...the obvious failure of the analogy being that having fire extinguishers do not generate a necessity unto themselves in relation to their use.

i.e. you need guns to protect you from guns. Not having fire extinguishers won't help you if no one else has them.

And the minute those extinguishers were outlawed, people would start buying them ilegallly. Other folks will always have them, not to mention the government.

[Marcus Aurelius]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/c0.0.403.403/p403x403/734512_10151649404825432_882703382_n.png


Property of nationalgunrights.org

I hope every one of you that thanked her, also pos repped her.

[Voted4Reagan]

Close...the obvious failure of the analogy being that having fire extinguishers do not generate a necessity unto themselves in relation to their use.

i.e. you need guns to protect you from guns. Not having fire extinguishers won't help you if no one else has them.

When SECONDS COUNT....
The Police are only MINUTES AWAY...

[Noir]

And the minute those extinguishers were outlawed, people would start buying them ilegallly. Other folks will always have them, not to mention the government.

Not what i meant by the way of the analogies failing.

To put it another way - If no one, law abiders, criminals, government employees etc had a fire extinguisher, legally or illegally, their would still be need of them, because fires are independant of fire fighting equipment. The same can not be said for guns.




When SECONDS COUNT....
The Police are only MINUTES AWAY...

Here comes MY RETORT...
In equal measure and wit AS YOURS....

[Voted4Reagan]

Not what i meant by the way of the analogies failing.





Here comes MY RETORT...
In equal measure and wit AS YOURS....

so we should just allow ourselves to be victimized by criminals.?

We should just allow ourselves to be Robbed, Raped, assaulted and Murdered?

So youre saying you'd rather die at the hands of your attacker waiting for the police to arrive then to Pull a weapon and stay alive?

Is that what you're saying Noir?

[Noir]

so we should just allow ourselves to be victimized by criminals.?

We should just allow ourselves to be Robbed, Raped, assaulted and Murdered?

So youre saying you'd rather die at the hands of your attacker waiting for the police to arrive then to Pull a weapon and stay alive?

Is that what you're saying Noir?

Yes, that's exactly what i'm saying.

[aboutime]

Yes, that's exactly what i'm saying.


Noir. It would be terrible to lose you as a member here. But, sometimes. People like you just have to learn what REALITY means.

[Noir]

Noir. It would be terrible to lose you as a member here. But, sometimes. People like you just have to learn what REALITY means.

And some folk could do with learning about sarcasm when moronic posts are made (:

[Voted4Reagan]

Yes, that's exactly what i'm saying.

wow... you'd rather die then protect yourself or your family?

What a loser you are...seriously... where is your courage?

Someone attacks me, my family or my home I will fight until the attacker is dead defending them.

you're a coward and a Fool

[Drummond]

Yes, that's exactly what i'm saying.

Noir, you and I are from the same part of the world. You, like me, exist in a society that fundamentally frowns on gun ownership, and where the vast majority of citizens don't own one.

I daresay that we'd both be nervous about owning one and having one within reach. But, seriously, if you knew that violent criminals were in your neighbourhood, and you also knew that you could expect the police to be several minutes away at absolute best (and that's sometimes an optimistic assessment, isn't it !) .. really, wouldn't you feel safer with a level of protection available to you which you could just keep a few feet away from you ?

I know I would. Tell me you can disagree, and if so, WHY you do.

I suggest to you that American society has various advantages over ours, this being a particularly notable one. Americans have the right to bear arms not only sanctioned as a Constitutional right, but have it (in many instances) hardwired into their very thinking that this is a basic human right. But, WE DO NOT ... and really, Noir, don't you feel much the weaker for that ?

[Voted4Reagan]

Noir, you and I are from the same part of the world. You, like me, exist in a society that fundamentally frowns on gun ownership, and where the vast majority of citizens don't own one.

I daresay that we'd both be nervous about owning one and having one within reach. But, seriously, if you knew that violent criminals were in your neighbourhood, and you also knew that you could expect the police to be several minutes away at absolute best (and that's sometimes an optimistic assessment, isn't it !) .. really, wouldn't you feel safer with a level of protection available to you which you could just keep a few feet away from you ?

I know I would. Tell me you can disagree, and if so, WHY you do.

I suggest to you that American society has various advantages over ours, this being a particularly notable one. Americans have the right to bear arms not only sanctioned as a Constitutional right, but have it (in many instances) hardwired into their very thinking that this is a basic human right. But, WE DO NOT ... and really, Noir, don't you feel much the weaker for that ?



Sir Drummond... Sadly, Great Britain and Northern Ireland did have gun ownership rights.

But they gave them away electing Labor Party Liberals and Socialist Progressives...

Thats what We're facing here in the States today...

But whatever happens we'll always have Great Britains back...

You know we Yanks couldnt get on without you....


Now the French? Different story

[Drummond]

wow... you'd rather die then protect yourself or your family?

What a loser you are...seriously... where is your courage?

Someone attacks me, my family or my home I will fight until the attacker is dead defending them.

you're a coward and a Fool

I agree with your thinking, basically speaking. However ... I'd like to attempt a measure of balance here, which I think I can provide because I come from much the same social environment as Noir does.

It isn't quite that simple, unfortunately.

You are clear that you'll do whatever it takes to fight an attacker, and the consequences to the attacker aren't of any great concern to you. Fair enough, I get that, and I think that's entirely reasonable. However, in the social situation Noir is conditioned by, he'll have responses inbuilt into him that demand a certain holding-back. Unfortunately, in my society, we've long since agonised over what constitutes 'reasonable force' to use in defence. We had, several years ago, the Tony Martin case, a case of a farmer who, with his illegally owned shotgun, fired it at burglars, killing one of them. And the case sharply divided opinion for a long time. Martin was arrested, jailed, faced at one point the prospect of lengthy incarceration ... and for merely defending his property.

He received death threats from people who disagreed with him, people who sided with the BURGLAR. It was a very nasty business. Ultimately Martin was freed, but he suffered comparably to the surviving burglar. Such is the inbuilt resistance to the use of guns, such - perversely - is the idea of the CRIMINAL'S human rights needing to be protected !!!

This will seem crazy to you. It does to me, too. BUT, we're the product of a society maintaining perverse attitudes, unfortunately, brought about by almost a pacifistic loathing of certain levels of violence, EVEN when such acts are necessary to serve a greater good.

Accusing Noir of any level of cowardice may conceivably be fair, but very possibly is UNfair, because he, like me, has had a lifetime of conditioning helping to govern his attitudes.

The difference between myself and Noir is that I'm capable of standing back from it and judging it ... to be completely crazy, and one massive disadvantage to me.

I am clear on this: British thinking needs to change. We have social stresses building which should make that change necessary. We need to be more like you. Whether we'll manage it .. I have my doubts. But the American way is the SANE way. Noir, you need to see that.

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond... Sadly, Great Britain and Northern Ireland did have gun ownership rights.

But they gave them away electing Labor Party Liberals and Socialist Progressives...

Thats what We're facing here in the States today...

But whatever happens we'll always have Great Britains back...

You know we Yanks couldnt get on without you....


Now the French? Different story

I appreciate your comments !

I have an honest answer to give you, though. Much as I appreciate the expression of support, I'd suggest that there's a level of 'carrying us' that, if taken beyond a certain point, becomes equivalent to a waste. See the comment I just posted to Voted4Reagan. What matters - and I have severe doubts it can happen - is that we need to change our thinking as a people, to accept life's realities, and have the attitude which demands the realisation of a backbone !!

We're not naturally cowards. It isn't that simple. But, we are victims of an insane pacifistic thinking that has made us fundamentally weak.

I suggest ... 'have our backs', but only if the burden is worth it. If not, then it ISN'T.

.. But, thank you all the same. Very appreciated !

[hjmick]

Noir, you and I are from the same part of the world. You, like me, exist in a society that fundamentally frowns on gun ownership, and where the vast majority of citizens don't own one.

I daresay that we'd both be nervous about owning one and having one within reach. But, seriously, if you knew that violent criminals were in your neighbourhood, and you also knew that you could expect the police to be several minutes away at absolute best (and that's sometimes an optimistic assessment, isn't it !) .. really, wouldn't you feel safer with a level of protection available to you which you could just keep a few feet away from you ?

I know I would. Tell me you can disagree, and if so, WHY you do.

I suggest to you that American society has various advantages over ours, this being a particularly notable one. Americans have the right to bear arms not only sanctioned as a Constitutional right, but have it (in many instances) hardwired into their very thinking that this is a basic human right. But, WE DO NOT ... and really, Noir, don't you feel much the weaker for that ?


I agree with your thinking, basically speaking. However ... I'd like to attempt a measure of balance here, which I think I can provide because I come from much the same social environment as Noir does.

It isn't quite that simple, unfortunately.

You are clear that you'll do whatever it takes to fight an attacker, and the consequences to the attacker aren't of any great concern to you. Fair enough, I get that, and I think that's entirely reasonable. However, in the social situation Noir is conditioned by, he'll have responses inbuilt into him that demand a certain holding-back. Unfortunately, in my society, we've long since agonised over what constitutes 'reasonable force' to use in defence. We had, several years ago, the Tony Martin case, a case of a farmer who, with his illegally owned shotgun, fired it at burglars, killing one of them. And the case sharply divided opinion for a long time. Martin was arrested, jailed, faced at one point the prospect of lengthy incarceration ... and for merely defending his property.

He received death threats from people who disagreed with him, people who sided with the BURGLAR. It was a very nasty business. Ultimately Martin was freed, but he suffered comparably to the surviving burglar. Such is the inbuilt resistance to the use of guns, such - perversely - is the idea of the CRIMINAL'S human rights needing to be protected !!!

This will seem crazy to you. It does to me, too. BUT, we're the product of a society maintaining perverse attitudes, unfortunately, brought about by almost a pacifistic loathing of certain levels of violence, EVEN when such acts are necessary to serve a greater good.

Accusing Noir of any level of cowardice may conceivably be fair, but very possibly is UNfair, because he, like me, has had a lifetime of conditioning helping to govern his attitudes.

The difference between myself and Noir is that I'm capable of standing back from it and judging it ... to be completely crazy, and one massive disadvantage to me.

I am clear on this: British thinking needs to change. We have social stresses building which should make that change necessary. We need to be more like you. Whether we'll manage it .. I have my doubts. But the American way is the SANE way. Noir, you need to see that.


Brilliant. Seriously.

[Drummond]

Voted4Reagan ... an apology !

This is what comes of posting at around midnight, when you're feeling weary. I quickly read your message, got its gist, saw the 'Sir Drummond' reference and immediately associated it with 'Aboutime', as he characteristically posts that to me.

VERY stupid of me to make such an error. I hope you'll accept my apology.

[Kathianne]

I agree with your thinking, basically speaking. However ... I'd like to attempt a measure of balance here, which I think I can provide because I come from much the same social environment as Noir does.

It isn't quite that simple, unfortunately.

You are clear that you'll do whatever it takes to fight an attacker, and the consequences to the attacker aren't of any great concern to you. Fair enough, I get that, and I think that's entirely reasonable. However, in the social situation Noir is conditioned by, he'll have responses inbuilt into him that demand a certain holding-back. Unfortunately, in my society, we've long since agonised over what constitutes 'reasonable force' to use in defence. We had, several years ago, the Tony Martin case, a case of a farmer who, with his illegally owned shotgun, fired it at burglars, killing one of them. And the case sharply divided opinion for a long time. Martin was arrested, jailed, faced at one point the prospect of lengthy incarceration ... and for merely defending his property.

He received death threats from people who disagreed with him, people who sided with the BURGLAR. It was a very nasty business. Ultimately Martin was freed, but he suffered comparably to the surviving burglar. Such is the inbuilt resistance to the use of guns, such - perversely - is the idea of the CRIMINAL'S human rights needing to be protected !!!

This will seem crazy to you. It does to me, too. BUT, we're the product of a society maintaining perverse attitudes, unfortunately, brought about by almost a pacifistic loathing of certain levels of violence, EVEN when such acts are necessary to serve a greater good.

Accusing Noir of any level of cowardice may conceivably be fair, but very possibly is UNfair, because he, like me, has had a lifetime of conditioning helping to govern his attitudes.

The difference between myself and Noir is that I'm capable of standing back from it and judging it ... to be completely crazy, and one massive disadvantage to me.

I am clear on this: British thinking needs to change. We have social stresses building which should make that change necessary. We need to be more like you. Whether we'll manage it .. I have my doubts. But the American way is the SANE way. Noir, you need to see that.

Obama really, really wants to get us there, in 8 years at minimum. More if he can deal it.

[Drummond]

Brilliant. Seriously.

Well, many thanks, but I don't know.

I want Noir to take my comments to heart. We've had literally generations of Left-wing supposed 'progress' in attitudes shoved down our collective throats, and coupled with tough legislation, it has brainwashed us into weak thinking. Cowardice isn't the issue (for the most part). Sheer idiocy, IS.

Take the UK riots of two years ago. The thugs creating unrest, looting stores, even burning buildings to the ground, would've never considered themselves free to do more than a tiny fraction of that, if they'd believed that shopkeepers had guns to defend themselves with. I feel enormously sorry for the Croydon shop-owner who saw his business burn to ashes and had no realistic way of fighting back.

But, EVEN after those riots, which spread across England for several days, the thinking that people deserve far greater freedom to rely on self defence didn't kick in. It didn't take root. Instead, people complained about the lack of preparedness of the police.

I don't think I have a prayer in making any useful impact on Noir. But, well, I have to try - and I have.

What's your reply, Noir ?

[Drummond]

Obama really, really wants to get us there, in 8 years at minimum. More if he can deal it.

I don't doubt it for a second. Creating and maintaining a dependence culture is central to Left-wing thinking. That it harms individual welfare matters not a jot to him, I'm sure. He'll milk situations such as school shootouts for all they're worth.

[revelarts]

Not what i meant by the way of the analogies failing.

To put it another way - If no one, law abiders, criminals, government employees etc had a fire extinguisher, legally or illegally, their would still be need of them, because fires are independant of fire fighting equipment. The same can not be said for guns.


No analogy is perfect but I don't think your challenge is a real defeater

It only works if there were ALWAYS fire extinguishers in history.
But before they were invented people just used water. A less effective and available tool to control fires.
The invention of a better tool makes it's utility obvious on both cases.

the idea of fire always being and option is analogous to the idea that there will always people around that want to hurt others or control others.

I mentioned I witnessed an event where a women was saved from rape because she had a gun. And her Attacker did not.

[Drummond]

For anyone who's interested .. links to references I've made.

The first, the Croydon business burned to the ground. No mention made of self-defence measures taken ..

http://www.voice-online.co.uk/article/london-riots-11-years-man-who-set-fire-croydon-shop

The second ... about Tony Martin - a timeline of events. See what he went through, courtesy of our sick society ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/3087003.stm

Charlton Heston gets a mention, for offering his support.

[Drummond]

No analogy is perfect but I don't think your challenge is a real defeater

It only works if there were ALWAYS fire extinguishers in history.
But before they were invented people just used water. A less effective and available tool to control fires.
The invention of a better tool makes it's utility obvious on both cases.

the idea of fire always being and option is analogous to the idea that there will always people around that want to hurt others or control others.

I mentioned I witnessed an event where a women was saved from rape because she had a gun. And her Attacker did not.

Seems we actually agree on something ... scary ... !!!

It had to happen sometime .... ;)