{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
2/12/2015 3:44:14 PM
14
Are both of these statements equally illogical?
Statement 1:
[spoiler]A person firing a gun into a crowd of unarmed individuals will have the same effect as if said shooter was using a knife/axe/bat/other similar item.[/spoiler]
Statement 2:
[spoiler]A person firing a gun into an unarmed crowd will have the same effect as if the same person was firing a gun into a crowd of people who were also armed with guns. [/spoiler]
Inb4 Replies are exactly the same as those of every gun control debate ever.
-
Not completely illogical, just really immoral lol
-
The first statement is inaccurate due to the difference in lethality between a melee and projectile weapon, whereas statement 2 is illogical due to the possible increase in deaths resulting from multiple panicked people bearing firearms in a crowd.
-
Edited by Abject Tangent: 2/12/2015 7:53:01 PMThe first one is slightly more illogical but not because of why you would think it is. Here's my reasoning. If you are shooting bullets into an unarmed crowd it would cause a lot of damage and injuries. However, if you are shooting knives, axes, or a bat at the same rate of fire and/or velocity as the bullets, then that is definitely more dangerous and would have a much worse effect than the bullets.
-
7 RepliesHaving avoided the gun debate so far it's time to put in my view of things. The first statement could be logical or illogical depending on the firearm it is compared to. If the firearm in question was a rifle or pistol then the knife/cleaver/etc. could be equally dangerous. You start stabbing at random in a crowd you could probably take out half a dozen people before anyone really knew what was going on, and another half dozen before anyone thought to try stopping you. Assuming the members of the crowd are unarmed you could probably kill more whilst they're running or trying to fight. Compared to a handguns clip of, what? 15 rounds? They work out about even. If, however, you where comparing an assault rifle then things would be different. The knife/whatever couldn't possibly keep up with several rounds per second. The second statement is completely logical. You start shooting at a crowd, you've still got reaction time before the armed members of the crowd go to draw their weapons, then they have to figure out who the shooter is, wait for a clear shot... The killed/injured count would be the same regardless of whether the crowd were armed or what type of weapon the attacker was using.
-
Wow 7%... The second is more illogical because an armed man shooting into an armed crowd would be shot down quickly and such would do much less harm than an armed man shooting into a helpless crowd. The first is also illogical as the gun would kill a lot quicker than a bat or axe and would be safer to the killer as he has distance. But the first example is much worse for logic. Not an opinion. Simple fact.
-
They are both illogical. Statement 1's problem occurs when the attacker switches to a melee weapon, such as a knife or a bat. These weapons do not kill near-instantaneously at far range, and do not cause as much noise. A gunshot would sent people into more of a panic. Although, if someone were to use a chainsaw instead of a knife, the statement might be more true. Statement 2 is illogical because people who are armed, and know how to use those arms, are more likely to defend themselves than if they were unarmed.
-
14 RepliesEdited by maisydog: 2/12/2015 6:46:41 PMOr you could just not allow people to have guns without a strict licence. Like in England. Where I live. Where we barely have any gun crime. Yeah. Edit: I know this wouldn't really work in the US... Just more saying it works here.
-
To determine one as logical or illogical, you have to define what you mean by "effect". If by "effect" you mean physical, a gun shot and a stab can both kill a person. If the receiving end is killed, it doesn't matter if the receiving end is armed or unarmed, and what happens to the attacker is negligible because that would be an indirect physical effect of the attackers actions. So both statements would be logical. But that is another thing you also would have to define, whether or not you are talking about the direct or indirect "effect" of the attacker's actions. Also, statement cannot be more logical than another, and vice versa with being illogical, it is either illogical or logical.
-
Considering past events, many more people would get hurt in the first situation
-
The first one isn't true Using a different weapon would make a different effect Statement is irrelevant to gun control The second one the shooter will get shot up Therefore different effect
-
2 RepliesClearly, the first is more illogical. If some dude starts trying to batter a crowd,that I'm standing in, with a knife or bat.... I'm taking his ass down. In the second situation, to my mind the way it should be, said perpetrator won't even bother knowing that everyone else is packing and he won't stand a chance. Barring the suicidal types, obviously. In those cases he wants to die anyway so.... You know...
-
Mind=blown
-
2 RepliesDidn't even understand the question
-
Bhamp
