> Ev noteth:
> >Now THERE'S a model of induction.
> >
> >(1.) "Not-P occurred once"
> >
> >(2.) "Therefore, P never occurs"
> >
> >Now somebody please explain to me precisely what situation
could possibly
> >have required a gun, given a noise on the roof. Is there some
kind of
> >general belief that it's OK to execute people who are on your
roof? Is
> >there some kind of general belief that one needs to at least
threaten to
> >execute people who are on your roof? Is there some kind of
general belief
> >that people on your roof are typically present for the purpose
of
> >executing you and need to be dealt with accordingly?
> >
>
> Evan, you complain about logic then your logic is a joke!
Well, no. He correctly points out the gaping flaws in the logic
of whoever it was (I forget) who basically said that "See, JP and
everybody else in his neighborhood were out on the streets with
guns and no one got shot, therefore fear of guns is silly."
> Your assumptions
> are rife! JP has a gun, therefore purpose os to execute
someone, etc etc.
I interpret the word "execute" to be Evan's usually sarcastic,
hyperbolic manner. A less hyperbolic summation of his statement
might be "One purpose JP has a gun is to shoot someone jumping on
his roof under certain criminal circumstances." Which, since
your points are:
> (*) Lets say someone had jumped on my roof. There are two . .
. likely explanations. The first is that it's kids fooling
around. The
> second is that it's a criminal.
> Lets say its a criminal. If its a criminal there's real chance
that the
> criminal is 'armed and dangerous', i.e, you have probably heard
that a
> great many people get killed by criminals.
> (*) Protection.
...I therefore think it is quite safe and accurate to assume that
you do indeed think that (controlling for Evan's hyperbolic use
of "execute") you believe it's OK to shoot people (specifically
criminals) who are on your roof, that you believe one needs to at
least threaten to shoot people/criminals who are on your roof,
and that you believe people on your roof are typically present
for the purpose of shooting or violently attacking you and need
to be dealt with accordingly. Is that not accurate???
(Evan actually questions whether those are general beliefs in
America, though. To answer that I would say that they are
*common* beliefs, at least, if not generally held. )
Evan, apparently, and myself as well do NOT believe that these
beliefs should be the case. While there is certainly a chance
someone on your roof is a criminal (and most likely a burglar),
the vast majority of burglaries do not include violent attacks
and probably do not warrant a violent response.
Anway, IMO, I think it would be much preferable to get out of the
house and as far away as possible rather than confronting whoever
is on the roof with a gun. As soon as a gun comes into play in
ANY situation, whether the gun is wielded by the "bad guy" OR the
"good guy," the likelihood of death or severe injury skyrockets.
As someone else (I think Deb) said, if everyone ran out of the
house with guns, there's a "real chance" (to use JP's phrase)
that someone could get shot. If nobody had a gun, there's "no
chance" that someone could get shot.
> In reality however, police rarely stop a crime. They persecute
justice
> afterwards. Once or twice a year, a criminal commits a crime
and there is a
> policeman at hand. The policeman stops the crime. As I say
this happens
> once or twice a year worldwide.
Are you being serious or exaggerating? If you're trying to be
serious, I'd sure like to see the source, because without even
researching I can think of at least half a dozen crimes stopped
in the act by police in the last year here in Richmond alone.
Matter of fact, I can think of two in the last month. And, though
I don't have statistics on hand, I'd wager that the number of
crimes stopped by police is far greater than the number of crimes
stopped by armed citizens.
-- Greg Ritter gritter@felix.vcu.edu ritter@urvax.urich.edu http://www.urich.edu/~ritter