pilkguns wrote:
Gerard, I can truly appreciate that you are a disciple of Noam Chomsky, as you seem to master the concept of leaving logical thought and knowledge of prior human existence and history outside your postulations. And politely ignoring those who do use logical thinking and have a knowledge of history.
I'll answer, because you have insisted that I answer and because I wish to re-post the comment I made earlier and which you deleted, Pilkguns. I did not answer this post of yours previously because frankly I did not take it seriously, thought it to be of very little value in this debate especially considering how apparently obvious are the answers. So here goes, point by point so I don't miss anything and so fail to satisfy your new Gerard-specific rule for posting in this forum:
It would appear that you have not read, or perhaps simply not understood Mr. Chomsky. For anyone to claim that his work lacks logical consistency is an admission of failure in their understanding, as his logical, detailed, and very consistent approach over a number of decades is surely not arguable. Was he wrong about US complicity in the slaughter of almost a million people in East Timor? He was shouting into the wind, sure, but being unpopular and right seems a more valid position than either being ignorant and complicit or being aware and directly involved in the conspiracy to murder hundreds of thousands. Similarly his logical approach to the Middle East violence has remained consistent for over 40 years, and yet the violence rages and his rather conservative, cautious, staged set of solutions remains unconsidered by anyone profiting from the ongoing violence there.
As for being a "disciple" I resent such a label, and made no claim to such status personally. I do find the clarity and precision of Chomsky's whole approach refreshing in the vast and muddy waters of global politics, but that does not make me a disciple. For many years I followed the writings and debates of William F. Buckley Jr., and even of Milton Freedman, both morally repugnant, reprehensible individuals, but both brilliant in their ways and worthy of consideration. Just the same Ayn Rand. A pitiful excuse for a human being and an outright failure as a social philosoper, offering considerably less value than the fetishist/obsessed Freud, but in her own strange sphere an interesting spectacle and worth studying her output in aid of apprehending the mystery that is right-wing thinking.
pilkguns wrote:What method do you propose to respond to someone who is shooting bullets at you? or an innocent child?
This a question YOU must answer Gerard, before anymore of your statements will be allowed on Target Talk. I am sick of your failure to engage with those whose powerful arguments you don't like.
Two part answer to this. Part 1: The particular response to someone shooting at me would of course vary depending on the exact circumstances in terms of a) layout (relative availability of cover, objects suitable for use as projectiles, shielding, distractors, etc.), b) apparent availability of the shooter for verbal interaction (but it's probably a safe assumption from examination of Pilkguns' attitude in previous postings here that his postulated shooter isn't responding to anything shy of a bullet in return, so b) is probably moot), and c), proximity of myself to the shooter. It is not technically possible to answer this question with any significant degree of accuracy or appropriateness without establishing at least some parameters to variables a) and c) and as such I must qualify my answer 1) by saying that it is a trick question, one which cannot be answered as posed. However, as I'll further guess that Pilkguns is not seeking an actually logical response, but rather a satisfying emotional one, I'll give that:
I'd do whatever was necessary to the best of my ability to ensure the survival of my child, or anyone's child, up to the moment of my death. Meaning I'd tear the guy apart if need be, grab the child and move myself between the gun and the child and flee for cover, or whatever course of action seemed most pertinent at the moment. As would anyone with a bit of sense I think... but from my experience most people don't display a lot of sense under hostile pressures such as this scenario, they panic, most freeze, some run herd-like in such a fashion as to make them easy prey, etc. Most people do not prepare mentally for such events, just blissfully go through their days in a state which one might call naive, or a sort of permanent 'victim' state. I prefer to move through live alert and aware, not to the point of disabling paranoia but ready for whatever happens at any time. This state has been helpful on a number of occasions, including one in which an attempt was made on my life in pitch darkness, completely unexpected. I responded instinctively and overwhelmed my attacker, took his weapon (pair of 10" ViseGrips which I still use in my shop) and ushered him away from the scene with a firm threat against his own life. It was not a brilliant attack and he was a smaller man, so hardly anything heroic, but it did demonstrate along with a few other instances of potentially life-threatening hostility aimed at me that I am capable of responding immediately and effectively to random attacks.
Answer part 2: And this is the really obvious one, if the above was not obvious enough; most live fire attacks cannot effectively be countered with returned fire as you've spelled out this attack. Someone is already firing upon me, or upon my child? I won't have time to draw a weapon and return fire. Ask a cop if they have time to return fire when a guy already has them in his sights and is firing. You know what happens, Pilkguns, you die unless you are fast enough and lucky enough to evade the bullets, that is, if the guy's a pathetically bad shot and everything happens to work just right for you as the target. What, does a concealed carry permit holder magically become Bruce Lee with lightning reflexes? Come on, be serious. Should this rare event happen to choose me or my child as a target, as stated above, I'd do whatever seemed to be the most effective thing possible at the time, but the likelihood is that whether or not I had a gun or any other weapon, I'd be shot, my child would be shot. That's the problem with guns. overwhelming, easily applied user interface. Point and click. Almost no time involved, fractions of a second between seeing a potential target and that target being eliminated. Getting out a gun, even with open carry and endless hours of practice drawing from all positions is still far slower than merely swivelling and firing once the gun's out and running. I'd wager 9 times out of 10 I'd die, my child even more so as getting to that child and moving the mass of that child to a safer position takes even longer than drawing a gun or getting myself out of the line of fire. I'd have a better chance of saving my kid from a truck doing 60 at an intersection, which is to say not much of a chance.
The problem with the question is that it assumes there are guns to be used by said attacker. This is at present a valid assumption. Is that a good thing? Or should we be using this opportunity brought about by the tragedy at Sandy Hook (not the gun regulation discussion as it's been rather shamefully renamed here) to really dig down to the roots of how our society is set up and what we might want to change? Are you, Pilkguns, demanding that I bow down and agree with the incredibly vacuous and irresponsible speechifying of the NRA's CEO and just agree that more guns in more places is the answer? I will not, unless and until someone among you can prove to me incontrovertibly that this is the right answer. Unless you're seeking that your gun culture move steadily towards automated armed turrets in all public spaces with logic circuits selectively weeding out would-be killers from crowds, I think your way is among the more irresponsible and short-sighted of the various options.
pilkguns wrote:Someone is shooting at you, or God forbid one your children, What would YOU do?
Since you've demanded more than once that I answer your questions it seems I must answer each part, so... I'll save space and suggest you re-read what I wrote above to what is obviously the same rather ineffectual question. Really, one might as well ask what one would do if a car crash were about to happen. Any number of things, depending on the particulars of the situation, obviously! Accelerate, decelerate, swerve, do nothing, brace for impact, and on and on go the variables depending on so many details one can only assess on a case-by-case basis. I raced various kinds of bicycles for years and faced a number of group crashes and one-on-one crashes and individual crashes in that time. Every one was different. I responded to each on its merits. I've also been car doored on my street bike. Had all of about 1 second to respond. I took in the variables while beginning an emergency braking procedure I'd rehearsed hundreds of times offroad, bringing the back wheel about 4" off the road to focus maximum stopping force on the front wheel while simultaneously throwing my weight behind and below the seat such that I would not go over the bars. There was a tour bus hard on my left handlebar whose back wheels were placed such that even a 6" swerve to the left would result in my deflecting from the wide-thrown limousine door edge under those wheels, resulting in my death. I'd already passed the rear bumper so a somersault over the limo was no longer an option. I decided within 1/5th of a second (my estimate in hindsight based on skid marks and my speed at the location where I began braking) that hitting the door and allowing my relaxed body to wrap around it to absorb my momentum was the best course of action, through it would likely result in splitting my face on the edge of the door. In a little side thought I crossed fingers that the driver might leap out and absorb the impact, as he deserved to suffer some damage for this blatant violation of the motor vehicle code. Then I just settled in for the latter half-second and let it happen as planned. Couldn't have rehearsed it better. I turned my head about 15 degrees to the left so that my mouth wasn't hit, the door's top corner bounced off my helmet, then cheekbone and sliced downwards through my cheek to my jaw, and by that time the transfer of momentum from my arms and legs and bike hitting the door had succeeded in stopping me. Bled on the driver, got stitched up, done deal. One does what must be done, depending on circumstances.
pilkguns wrote:Will you do nothing? Or will you seek to grab whatever you can find as a weapon and try to stop that person? a 2x4? , baseball bat ? , a rock? Even your IZH46 with a well placed shot in the eye could disable the attacker. What will YOU do?
Scott
This rant of yours degenerated, and still it's the same question, over and over. Oh well... in order then:
Will I do nothing? Of course not, unless my assessment of the particular circumstances dictates that doing nothing for the moment seems the safest course of action, though obviously this seems unlikely.
Will I pick up any weapon available, including one of my air pistols? Well not the air pistols, that seems very unlikely indeed, as they stay in a locked Pelican case when I'm not practicing and it's rather unlikely that I or my child would come under attack from a gunman while I'm practicing Olympic style 10 metre air pistol. Unless of course a fellow club member happens to bring a firearm to practice or a match and go nuts... in which case obviously I'd retain my loaded pistol and if it seemed useful might use it to distract or disarm him. But that's pretty far-fetched, really. For one thing he'd likely be as good a shot as I am and I'd have no chance, as he'd have the draw on me, as stated above. Even sweeping an arm with a pistol 90 degrees to one side is a whole lot slower than squeezing a trigger. I'd be dead. Or my child would be. Wouldn't matter one little bit if I had a friggin' bazooka Scott, it really wouldn't. All I might be able to do was return fire once injured, and that's a long shot considering the way a bullet impact tends to make one less functional than usual. After the first impact I'd have even less chance of fighting back, with any sort of weapon, and since the first shot from this theoretical aggressor would obviously out-pace anything I might do, the second bullet would no doubt beat me as well owing to this reduced efficiency on my wounded-ass self's part.
Now if you're suggesting that a gunman would for some mysterious reasons all his own was pointing a gun at me, then turning away or allowing his gun to drop before raising it again and firing upon me and/or my child, well of course I would take whatever opportunity was afforded to me, be it baseball bat, 2" x 4" (what am I now, Buford T. Pusser or something? This is getting ridiculous.), piece of pipe, whipping off my belt and hitting him with the buckle, a leg sweep, or... get this, a really imaginative one here... deaking to one side and getting low and running the hell away and hoping for the best, my kid tucked into my front and held there hard.
Or who knows? I mean really, who can guess what opportunities might arise in any firearm-laden situation? If someone threatens me or mine, I'll do what I can. That'll be better than some can do, worse than others with better skills can do. I'll negotiate. I'll go berzerker and shred the creep. I'll take a swing with hand or whatever and knock the weapon away if close enough. Whatever might work, depending.
What would you do Scott? When faced with a man pointing a gun at your torso, or holding it to your child's head, what would you do? Please answer directly. I don't have moderator powers here so I can't threaten you with superior firepower, as you've threatened me (and gone on to pull the trigger, deleting my rather lengthy bit of writing), but be brave, answer the question of what you would do. Would you switch into faster-than-the-speed-of-sound mode and get your gun out and drop the guy before he had time to move a little metal trigger a few millimetres and kill you or the child? Fine, I hope that works out for you really well should the circumstance ever arise. I really do, as I hate the thought of anyone, even the most cretinous little power-abusing worm like some child molester getting killed without due process. People do have rights under your precious Constitution, correct?
Or do you aspire to a Dredd style society where the mightiest of gun-wielders will serve as judge, jury, and executioner? That's what guys like this creepy kid in Sandy Hook want. Do you share that vision for your society? I ask because surely you see how this doesn't end well for the weak, the unwary, those with lesser weapons and a 'weaker' sense of survival such that they won't shoot first. It's a race to the bottom being advocated by the NRA. I do not want to participate in that race. As any father should, I will defend my children as needed. But I'll first live intelligently, use my experience and common sense in avoiding risky situations (like visiting crowded places in major US cities, for example), and associate with people who like me are not much interested in guns for so-called self-defense.