4 ms·
He could be holding a small pistol - it can still kill me. A gun is just a thing, a tool, it can't do anything. What matters is the operator, his intent. A M
by bdunbar 15y ago
He could be holding a small pistol - it can still kill me.
A gun is just a thing, a tool, it can't do anything.
What matters is the operator, his intent.
A Marine with his bare hands is dangerous. A cheerleader with a bazooka is not.
- tbsdy 15y agoI'll have you know I'm a Marine with ambitions of cheerleading, you insensitive clod! I'm sorry, but a cheerleader with a bazooka is most decidedly dangerous.
- bdunbar 15y agoI'm sorry, but a cheerleader with a bazooka is most decidedly dangerous. Not a bit. The bazooka is not dangerous, the _operator_ is. Thought experiment. We've got a Thunderdome. Make it bigger (for kicks) and with more protection so shrapnel doesn't shred the crowd. We've got Midvale High's cheerleader team, two US Rangers just back from Afghanistan. Give the Rangers knives, the cheerleaders bazookas, grenades, shotguns, whatever. I'll take the Rangers to win anyday. You'll really bet on the cheerleaders to win?
- gwillen 15y agoThe point is not who is more dangerous _in battle_. The point is who is more dangerous _to me_, who poses no threat. An untrained operator is far more dangerous _to me_, as compared to a trained operator who will be aware that I do not need shooting, and who will be capable of hitting other targets, if necessary, without accidentally hitting me.
- bdunbar 15y agoThe point is not who is more dangerous _in battle_. The point is who is more dangerous _to me_, Your point and my point diverged somewhere upthread. It's not about 'battle', never was to my mind. It's about intent, will, and capability.
- DanBC 15y agoAnother thought experiment. Imagine a short tunnel. You're in the tunnel. The cheer leader is also in the tunnel. Give the cheerleader a live, loaded, bazooka. Cheerleader doesn't know where or what the trigger is, or what any of those flaps, buttons, and triggers are, or how to hold the device. Where do you want to stand? Within arms length of the cheerleader? Within 10 metres of the cheerleader, in front of the bazooka? Most people are saying that the cheerleader might have no intention of killing you (and would be horrified if they did) but that there is a strong chance that they would, by accident.
- bdunbar 15y ago1. I don't stand anywhere. I yell like a banshee, run forward, knock her on her butt and smash her over the head with the bazooka. Or, I talk nice, put on my authority voice, walk forward and then knock her down and smash her over the head with the bazooka. Depends on the cheerleader. Talking nice will probably work best, thinking about it. And oh, hey, there is that intent thing again. 2. Thunderdome is a much better example for a melee battle than a short tunnel. 3. It's fascinating how my comments in this thread get modded down to 0, or -1 but people keep replying.
- DanBC 15y agoSo, both your examples in 1 suggest that you think a cheer leader having a bazooka is not a good idea. Other people agree, not because the cheer leader is wanting to kill you with it, but because the cheerleader has a good chance of accidentally killing you (or others) with it. (I haven't down-voted you. I do disagree with you, but that's not a reason why I would down vote.)
- tbsdy 15y agoI don't agree with him either, but the discussion isn't bad. I've up voted him so that the text goes darker :-)
- k-mcgrady 15y agoI'd be more worried about the cheerleader. The marine has a lot of training so unless I do something stupid they will most likely stay in control and not use their power over me. A gun can make any idiot as deadly as a well trained marine - but the idiot may not have the same amount of control making them more dangerous.
- bdunbar 15y agoI'd be more worried about the cheerleader. Sorry, wrong answer. It's not 'staying in control' it's the will to use the weapon to cause harm that 'will or may result in death'. A cheerleader has no training, is not desensitized, hasn't been indoctrinated that guys downrange are targets and no longer actually human.
- Zak 15y agoI may be overstretching the example, but a cheerleader with a rocket launcher has a non-trivial probability of unintentionally firing it in an unsafe direction.
- bdunbar 15y agoYou're over thinking the problem. We're not ... I'm not ... talking about anything but intent to harm. Marine has it. Cheerleader doesn't. Cheerleader is harmless. Marine isn't. This intentionally simple example excludes random fumbling with controls.
- Zak 15y agoWell, I'm going to overthink it a bit more. An armed cheerleader, given alcohol or significant emotional distress is more likely to act rashly than a marine who was intentionally subjected to abuse in basic training to see if he'd snap under pressure and trained to be disciplined at all times. Your initial thinking isn't wrong, but this is HN; we pick things apart here.
- 15y ago