Forums > Social Discussion > US Gun laws are "License to murder"
Login/Join to ParticipateStargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Non-Https Image Link
[ed]I am going to update this OP as ppl who have not followed the discussion (in the past 2 years it is running now) cannot be bothered to go through all 50+ pages only to inform themselves about all the arguments brought forward. I hope it's allright with everybody.
Please patiently note that this is going to be a massive post that sum up all significant arguments that have been brought forward by both sides so far.
Thus: If you're bothered to read all the post, just scroll down to the bottom of it to get to the links and arguments - NEWEST information at the end of each section
Reading this post will keep you up-to-date with the current level of arguments brought forward - and you might not have to read all the 700+ posts.
If you have any new arguments that you find important to get included in this OP, please feel free to PM me at any time. Please note that I will only honor those arguments that you can back up with verifiable sources (quote your sources). I will *not* honor personal opinions as in 'I feel more comfy with a gun at my side' or in 'I feel horrified with guns present'. Feel free to post your opinions as you like *at the end of this thread*.
As this is a highly political issue, it will be almost impossible to keep this 'objective' and I will honor arguments of both sides, those who are pro and those who are against guns, regardless whether they directly come from the NRA or the Brady campaign.
The entire thread started like this:
Taken from: New York Times on August 7th
Originally Posted By: NYT
In the last year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder.
Jacqueline Galas, a Florida prostitute, shot and killed a 72-year-old client. She was not charged.
Supporters call them “stand your ground” laws.
Opponents call them “shoot first” laws.
The Florida law, which served as a model for the others, gives people the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. They no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person they killed had intruded unlawfully and forcefully. The law also extends this principle to vehicles.
In addition, the law does away with an earlier requirement that a person attacked in a public place must retreat if possible. Now, that same person, in the law’s words, “has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force.” The law also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the people covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them.
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the N.R.A., said the Florida law had sent a needed message to law-abiding citizens. “If they make a decision to save their lives in the split second they are being attacked, the law is on their side,” Mr. LaPierre said. “Good people make good decisions. That’s why they’re good people. If you’re going to empower someone, empower the crime victim.”
The N.R.A. said it would lobby for versions of the law in eight more states in 2007.
In the case of the West Palm Beach cabdriver, Mr. Smiley, then 56, killed Jimmie Morningstar, 43. A sports bar had paid Mr. Smiley $10 to drive Mr. Morningstar home in the early morning of Nov. 6, 2004. Mr. Morningstar was apparently reluctant to leave the cab once it reached its destination, and Mr. Smiley used a stun gun to hasten his exit. Once outside the cab, Mr. Morningstar flashed a knife, Mr. Smiley testified at his first trial, though one was never found. Mr. Smiley, who had gotten out of his cab, reacted by shooting at his passenger’s feet and then into his body, killing him.
Cliff Morningstar, the dead man’s uncle, said he was baffled by the killing. “He had a radio,” Mr. Morningstar said of Mr. Smiley. “He could have gotten in his car and left. He could have shot him in his knee.”
Carey Haughwout, the public defender who represents Mr. Smiley, conceded that no knife was found. “However,” Ms. Haughwout said, “there is evidence to support that the victim came at Smiley after Smiley fired two warning shots, and that he did have something in his hand.”
“Prior to the legislative enactment, a person was required to ‘retreat to the wall’ before using his or her right of self-defense by exercising deadly force,” Judge Martha C. Warner wrote. The new law, Judge Warner said, abolished that duty.
Jason M. Rosenbloom, the man shot by his neighbor in Clearwater, said his case illustrated the flaws in the Florida law. “Had it been a year and a half ago, he could have been arrested for attempted murder,” Mr. Rosenbloom said of his neighbor, Kenneth Allen.
“I was in T-shirt and shorts,” Mr. Rosenbloom said, recalling the day he knocked on Mr. Allen’s door. Mr. Allen, a retired Virginia police officer, had lodged a complaint with the local authorities, taking Mr. Rosenbloom to task for putting out eight bags of garbage, though local ordinances allow only six.
“I was no threat,” Mr. Rosenbloom said. “I had no weapon.”
The men exchanged heated words. “He closed the door and then opened the door,” Mr. Rosenbloom said of Mr. Allen. “He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands up. He didn’t even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest.”
Mr. Allen, whose phone number is out of service and who could not be reached for comment, told The St. Petersburg Times that Mr. Rosenbloom had had his foot in the door and had tried to rush into the house, an assertion Mr. Rosenbloom denied.
“I have a right,” Mr. Allen said, “to keep my house safe.”
Taken from sbcoalition
Originally Posted By: sbcoalition
In Colorado, another state where this law has already passed, when Gary Lee Hill stood on the porch with a loaded rifle, he was afraid the people outside his home would attack him. That was what the jury heard in his murder trial. The jury foreman said that left them no choice but to find Hill not guilty of murder under Colorado’s Make My Day Law. “Although Mr. Knott was in his vehicle, there was no credible evidence that Mr. Knott was leaving,” the foreman wrote, adding that testimony showed some of the people were still outside in a car yelling at Hill.
Gary Hill, 24, was found not guilty of first-degree murder in the shooting death, in the back, of John David Knott, 19, while he was sitting in a car outside Hill’s home.
Chief Deputy District Attorney Elizabeth Kirkman stated, “However, the way the Make My Day Law is worded, it allows for deadly force if the shooter reasonably believes the other person might use physical force against the home dweller.” She said her office supports the Make My Day Law and respects the jury’s decision. She also said, “At the time he was shot, there was no imminent danger to the home dweller.”
“Trust me,” wrote Bill Major of Colorado Springs, “this will open the door for assaults and murders by those who will now accept this as an interpretation of the Make My Day Law.”
I try this to become a comprehensive list, so please feel free to PM me.
Thanks for participating in this discussion, times and again posts get heated (as it is a highly sensitive AND political topic) please do not take criticism on your opinion personal. Usually it relaxes pretty soon.
You're entitled to your *opinion* - whatever it is - hence quote your sources please if you want your *arguments* get taken serious...
In the past 2 years we have collected data and facts from various sources. Please verify these arguments yourself and get informed at these websites:
Wiki on gun control
The second amendment of the US constitution, on "the right to bear arms"
Pro-guns
National Rifle Association USA
How to obtain a class III license
A 1995 DOJ's study on Guns used in Crimes
Microstamping opposition
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Anti gun
Brady Campaign
Informations on the NRA's board of directors
Website on comments of the NRA leaders
A UC study showing that microstamping is feasible but has flaws
Gun control network
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Scientific Studies on gun ownership and the resulting facts
Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007 through April 2009 according to a new study
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of homicide
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of suicide
1999 Canadian study: "The rate of f...eightfold"
Utah medical library states that: "...uctivity."
Statistics on Teen homicide, suicide and... in 2004."
Articles in the news about guns, gun laws and accidents
USA Today on the expiry of the assault weapons ban
LA Times on bulletproof parks
CBS reports March 2008 that: "the U...in crimes"
A federal judge has stopped enforcement ...deadly weapons.
Violence Policy Center on CCW permit holders committing violent (armed) crimes
US weaponry spills into neighboring Mexico - across America
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1249974498)
Non-Https Image Link
[ed]I am going to update this OP as ppl who have not followed the discussion (in the past 2 years it is running now) cannot be bothered to go through all 50+ pages only to inform themselves about all the arguments brought forward. I hope it's allright with everybody.
Please patiently note that this is going to be a massive post that sum up all significant arguments that have been brought forward by both sides so far.
Thus: If you're bothered to read all the post, just scroll down to the bottom of it to get to the links and arguments - NEWEST information at the end of each section
Reading this post will keep you up-to-date with the current level of arguments brought forward - and you might not have to read all the 700+ posts.
If you have any new arguments that you find important to get included in this OP, please feel free to PM me at any time. Please note that I will only honor those arguments that you can back up with verifiable sources (quote your sources). I will *not* honor personal opinions as in 'I feel more comfy with a gun at my side' or in 'I feel horrified with guns present'. Feel free to post your opinions as you like *at the end of this thread*.
As this is a highly political issue, it will be almost impossible to keep this 'objective' and I will honor arguments of both sides, those who are pro and those who are against guns, regardless whether they directly come from the NRA or the Brady campaign.
The entire thread started like this:
Taken from: New York Times on August 7th
Originally Posted By: NYT
In the last year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder.
Jacqueline Galas, a Florida prostitute, shot and killed a 72-year-old client. She was not charged.
Supporters call them “stand your ground” laws.
Opponents call them “shoot first” laws.
The Florida law, which served as a model for the others, gives people the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. They no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person they killed had intruded unlawfully and forcefully. The law also extends this principle to vehicles.
In addition, the law does away with an earlier requirement that a person attacked in a public place must retreat if possible. Now, that same person, in the law’s words, “has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force.” The law also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the people covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them.
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the N.R.A., said the Florida law had sent a needed message to law-abiding citizens. “If they make a decision to save their lives in the split second they are being attacked, the law is on their side,” Mr. LaPierre said. “Good people make good decisions. That’s why they’re good people. If you’re going to empower someone, empower the crime victim.”
The N.R.A. said it would lobby for versions of the law in eight more states in 2007.
In the case of the West Palm Beach cabdriver, Mr. Smiley, then 56, killed Jimmie Morningstar, 43. A sports bar had paid Mr. Smiley $10 to drive Mr. Morningstar home in the early morning of Nov. 6, 2004. Mr. Morningstar was apparently reluctant to leave the cab once it reached its destination, and Mr. Smiley used a stun gun to hasten his exit. Once outside the cab, Mr. Morningstar flashed a knife, Mr. Smiley testified at his first trial, though one was never found. Mr. Smiley, who had gotten out of his cab, reacted by shooting at his passenger’s feet and then into his body, killing him.
Cliff Morningstar, the dead man’s uncle, said he was baffled by the killing. “He had a radio,” Mr. Morningstar said of Mr. Smiley. “He could have gotten in his car and left. He could have shot him in his knee.”
Carey Haughwout, the public defender who represents Mr. Smiley, conceded that no knife was found. “However,” Ms. Haughwout said, “there is evidence to support that the victim came at Smiley after Smiley fired two warning shots, and that he did have something in his hand.”
“Prior to the legislative enactment, a person was required to ‘retreat to the wall’ before using his or her right of self-defense by exercising deadly force,” Judge Martha C. Warner wrote. The new law, Judge Warner said, abolished that duty.
Jason M. Rosenbloom, the man shot by his neighbor in Clearwater, said his case illustrated the flaws in the Florida law. “Had it been a year and a half ago, he could have been arrested for attempted murder,” Mr. Rosenbloom said of his neighbor, Kenneth Allen.
“I was in T-shirt and shorts,” Mr. Rosenbloom said, recalling the day he knocked on Mr. Allen’s door. Mr. Allen, a retired Virginia police officer, had lodged a complaint with the local authorities, taking Mr. Rosenbloom to task for putting out eight bags of garbage, though local ordinances allow only six.
“I was no threat,” Mr. Rosenbloom said. “I had no weapon.”
The men exchanged heated words. “He closed the door and then opened the door,” Mr. Rosenbloom said of Mr. Allen. “He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands up. He didn’t even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest.”
Mr. Allen, whose phone number is out of service and who could not be reached for comment, told The St. Petersburg Times that Mr. Rosenbloom had had his foot in the door and had tried to rush into the house, an assertion Mr. Rosenbloom denied.
“I have a right,” Mr. Allen said, “to keep my house safe.”
Taken from sbcoalition
Originally Posted By: sbcoalition
In Colorado, another state where this law has already passed, when Gary Lee Hill stood on the porch with a loaded rifle, he was afraid the people outside his home would attack him. That was what the jury heard in his murder trial. The jury foreman said that left them no choice but to find Hill not guilty of murder under Colorado’s Make My Day Law. “Although Mr. Knott was in his vehicle, there was no credible evidence that Mr. Knott was leaving,” the foreman wrote, adding that testimony showed some of the people were still outside in a car yelling at Hill.
Gary Hill, 24, was found not guilty of first-degree murder in the shooting death, in the back, of John David Knott, 19, while he was sitting in a car outside Hill’s home.
Chief Deputy District Attorney Elizabeth Kirkman stated, “However, the way the Make My Day Law is worded, it allows for deadly force if the shooter reasonably believes the other person might use physical force against the home dweller.” She said her office supports the Make My Day Law and respects the jury’s decision. She also said, “At the time he was shot, there was no imminent danger to the home dweller.”
“Trust me,” wrote Bill Major of Colorado Springs, “this will open the door for assaults and murders by those who will now accept this as an interpretation of the Make My Day Law.”
I try this to become a comprehensive list, so please feel free to PM me.
Thanks for participating in this discussion, times and again posts get heated (as it is a highly sensitive AND political topic) please do not take criticism on your opinion personal. Usually it relaxes pretty soon.
You're entitled to your *opinion* - whatever it is - hence quote your sources please if you want your *arguments* get taken serious...
In the past 2 years we have collected data and facts from various sources. Please verify these arguments yourself and get informed at these websites:
Wiki on gun control
The second amendment of the US constitution, on "the right to bear arms"
Pro-guns
National Rifle Association USA
How to obtain a class III license
A 1995 DOJ's study on Guns used in Crimes
Microstamping opposition
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Anti gun
Brady Campaign
Informations on the NRA's board of directors
Website on comments of the NRA leaders
A UC study showing that microstamping is feasible but has flaws
Gun control network
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Scientific Studies on gun ownership and the resulting facts
Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007 through April 2009 according to a new study
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of homicide
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of suicide
1999 Canadian study: "The rate of f...eightfold"
Utah medical library states that: "...uctivity."
Statistics on Teen homicide, suicide and... in 2004."
Articles in the news about guns, gun laws and accidents
USA Today on the expiry of the assault weapons ban
LA Times on bulletproof parks
CBS reports March 2008 that: "the U...in crimes"
A federal judge has stopped enforcement ...deadly weapons.
Violence Policy Center on CCW permit holders committing violent (armed) crimes
US weaponry spills into neighboring Mexico - across America
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1249974498)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Dragon Drafin,
I think most countries already have self defense laws.
Dragon Drafin,
I think most countries already have self defense laws.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
So are the Italian self defense laws a "License to murder" as well?
https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4645228.stm
How about the UK? They say I can use whatever force I "honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment" even if the the intruder/attacker dies as a result.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/householders.html
They all say pretty much the same thing, are you just arguing that a firearm is never 'reasonable force'? Should we try those 'non-violent communication' techniques with a predatory rapist in the middle of an attack?
So are the Italian self defense laws a "License to murder" as well?
https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4645228.stm
How about the UK? They say I can use whatever force I "honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment" even if the the intruder/attacker dies as a result.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/householders.html
They all say pretty much the same thing, are you just arguing that a firearm is never 'reasonable force'? Should we try those 'non-violent communication' techniques with a predatory rapist in the middle of an attack?
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored 
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Lurch,
I was thinking more along these lines:
“The question to be asked in the end is quite simple. It is whether the accused believed upon reasonable grounds that it was necessary in self-defence to do what he did. If he had that belief and there were reasonable grounds for it, or if the jury is left in reasonable doubt about the matter, then he is entitled to an acquittal. Stated in this form, the question is one of general application and is not limited to cases of homicide (wiki)”
For sure, learning about “non-violent communication' has to be the ultimate answer. Unfortunately, many people seem to have lost the ability to communicate, except with a gun. I know that if people developed better communication skills then the rate of gun violence would drop dramatically.
Let me know if you would like to learn more about communication.
Lurch,
I was thinking more along these lines:
“The question to be asked in the end is quite simple. It is whether the accused believed upon reasonable grounds that it was necessary in self-defence to do what he did. If he had that belief and there were reasonable grounds for it, or if the jury is left in reasonable doubt about the matter, then he is entitled to an acquittal. Stated in this form, the question is one of general application and is not limited to cases of homicide (wiki)”
For sure, learning about “non-violent communication' has to be the ultimate answer. Unfortunately, many people seem to have lost the ability to communicate, except with a gun. I know that if people developed better communication skills then the rate of gun violence would drop dramatically.
Let me know if you would like to learn more about communication.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Lurch, I‘ll just add a bit more to the above.
You raise an excellent point about no violent communication.
Communication is the key. Don’t you think if people had better communications skills there would be a reduction incidence of serial rapists? There would certainly be a reduction in domestic violence. And if people had better communication skills they would have better jobs, and the crime rate would drop.
Lurch, I‘ll just add a bit more to the above.
You raise an excellent point about no violent communication.
Communication is the key. Don’t you think if people had better communications skills there would be a reduction incidence of serial rapists? There would certainly be a reduction in domestic violence. And if people had better communication skills they would have better jobs, and the crime rate would drop.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Better communication does lead to less violence.
But, at the point when a decent, reasonable, non-aggression-seeking individual is having to defend themselves from a unprovoked, violent attacker, it's generally gone way past the point where that kind of communication is viable and, what is needed is 'self-defense'.
Better communication does lead to less violence.
But, at the point when a decent, reasonable, non-aggression-seeking individual is having to defend themselves from a unprovoked, violent attacker, it's generally gone way past the point where that kind of communication is viable and, what is needed is 'self-defense'.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
OWD your example, like Lurch's example, sounds a little conceptual, so I’m left wondering where is the paranoia coming from.
I’m not against self-defense. I just don’t think going around armed with a 45 magnum, with the intent to kill someone and "Make-My-Day" represents self-defense.
We can all find ourselves dangerous situations. If it’s gone way past the point of communication, how much of that is in due to a lack of awareness, and providing an easy target?
As good O’l retired LTC Dave Grossman, author of "On Killing" said “There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.”
We’ve done all these arguments, yet gun violence increases. The only reasonable conclusion is Gun laws led to fewer deaths:
The authors conclude that "The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from a community can be associated with a sudden and on-going decline in mass shootings, and accelerating declines in total firearm-related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides.”
The Truth is out There.
Written by
But, at the point when a decent, reasonable, non-aggression-seeking individual is having to defend themselves from a unprovoked, violent attacker, it's generally gone way past the point where that kind of communication is viable and, what is needed is 'self-defense'.
OWD your example, like Lurch's example, sounds a little conceptual, so I’m left wondering where is the paranoia coming from.
I’m not against self-defense. I just don’t think going around armed with a 45 magnum, with the intent to kill someone and "Make-My-Day" represents self-defense.
We can all find ourselves dangerous situations. If it’s gone way past the point of communication, how much of that is in due to a lack of awareness, and providing an easy target?
As good O’l retired LTC Dave Grossman, author of "On Killing" said “There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.”
We’ve done all these arguments, yet gun violence increases. The only reasonable conclusion is Gun laws led to fewer deaths:
The authors conclude that "The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from a community can be associated with a sudden and on-going decline in mass shootings, and accelerating declines in total firearm-related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides.”
The Truth is out There.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
member
51 posts
51 posts
Posted:
Quite true Stone. But how many still allow defenders to be taken to civil court for wrongful death? Or are charged with manslaughter?
I'm glad Australia has had a decrease in their crime and suicide rate. The sad part is, unless the police went on mass raids going door to door to collect the guns then the only people who gave up their firearms were the law abiding citizens who should be allowed to have them.
The criminals still have their guns.
The real question for the Australian people is, (in the case of crime not suicide) has the removal of firearms reduced premeditated crime or crimes that were not premeditated.
If the crime reduction is only from non-premeditated crimes then it serves to show that the Australian people might not be much safer than they were before the reduction.
Still any reduction is something to celebrate.
The people bent on committing crimes still have their guns. And to me personally, that is a scary thought.
Just because it worked in Australia, doesn't mean it will work in other countries.
Written by :Stone
Dragon Drafin,
I think most countries already have self defense laws.
Quite true Stone. But how many still allow defenders to be taken to civil court for wrongful death? Or are charged with manslaughter?
I'm glad Australia has had a decrease in their crime and suicide rate. The sad part is, unless the police went on mass raids going door to door to collect the guns then the only people who gave up their firearms were the law abiding citizens who should be allowed to have them.
The criminals still have their guns.
The real question for the Australian people is, (in the case of crime not suicide) has the removal of firearms reduced premeditated crime or crimes that were not premeditated.
If the crime reduction is only from non-premeditated crimes then it serves to show that the Australian people might not be much safer than they were before the reduction.
Still any reduction is something to celebrate.
The people bent on committing crimes still have their guns. And to me personally, that is a scary thought.
Just because it worked in Australia, doesn't mean it will work in other countries.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Being mugged/attacked is not conceptual- it happens, to people who have not 'asked-for-it-by-having-victim-body-language.
Neither do me or Lurch. Responsible gun owners do not go around with the intent of killing.
I know this.
People don't mess with me, probably cos I avoid putting myself in dodgy areas and, when I do, I have sufficiently good body language/posture/size/attitude, that there's probably much easier looking potential victims.
But, it would be the height of arrogance for me to asume that I'm immune from attack- not to mention pretty insulting for actual victims of muggings/rapes, who, by implication, according to your view, have mainly themselves to blame.
At best, i make it less likely that I will be targeted- anyone, whatever their attitude/posture, can be the victim of a vicious, unprovoked attack.
Written by :StoneWritten by
But, at the point when a decent, reasonable, non-aggression-seeking individual is having to defend themselves from a unprovoked, violent attacker, it's generally gone way past the point where that kind of communication is viable and, what is needed is 'self-defense'.
OWD your example, like Lurch's example, sounds a little conceptual, so I’m left wondering where is the paranoia coming from.
Being mugged/attacked is not conceptual- it happens, to people who have not 'asked-for-it-by-having-victim-body-language.
Written by :Stone
I’m not against self-defense. I just don’t think going around armed with a 45 magnum, with the intent to kill someone and "Make-My-Day" represents self-defense.
Neither do me or Lurch. Responsible gun owners do not go around with the intent of killing.
Written by :Stone
We can all find ourselves dangerous situations. If it’s gone way past the point of communication, how much of that is in due to a lack of awareness, and providing an easy target?
As good O’l retired LTC Dave Grossman, author of "On Killing" said “There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.”
I know this.
People don't mess with me, probably cos I avoid putting myself in dodgy areas and, when I do, I have sufficiently good body language/posture/size/attitude, that there's probably much easier looking potential victims.
But, it would be the height of arrogance for me to asume that I'm immune from attack- not to mention pretty insulting for actual victims of muggings/rapes, who, by implication, according to your view, have mainly themselves to blame.
At best, i make it less likely that I will be targeted- anyone, whatever their attitude/posture, can be the victim of a vicious, unprovoked attack.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
Thanks OWD
Stone: I'm sure I've posted the story of sheep sheepdogs and wolves. You brought up Grossman, I'm not sure if you've read his book since I posted it awhile ago, or if you were pulling something from one of my old posts, but you should read this again if you haven't already: https://mwkworks.com/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html
I have *never* condoned violence for the sake of violence, but like OWD said, there are hundreds of unpovoked violent crimes every day that go beyond 'talking' in an instant.
Do I think the world would be less violent if we had better communication skills in our daily lives? Of course I do, but I'm not going to stick my head in the sand and pretend nothing bad can happen to me because I can talk well. Even the non-violent communications guy said there are times where talking is pointless.
P.S. There *is* a 45 magnum, but it's rare, so I'm guessing you meant 44 magnum
EDITED_BY: Lurch (1205529481)
Thanks OWD
Stone: I'm sure I've posted the story of sheep sheepdogs and wolves. You brought up Grossman, I'm not sure if you've read his book since I posted it awhile ago, or if you were pulling something from one of my old posts, but you should read this again if you haven't already: https://mwkworks.com/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html
Written by :
It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.
Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.
Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling."
Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level.
And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes. If you are a warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself...
"Baa."
I have *never* condoned violence for the sake of violence, but like OWD said, there are hundreds of unpovoked violent crimes every day that go beyond 'talking' in an instant.
Do I think the world would be less violent if we had better communication skills in our daily lives? Of course I do, but I'm not going to stick my head in the sand and pretend nothing bad can happen to me because I can talk well. Even the non-violent communications guy said there are times where talking is pointless.
P.S. There *is* a 45 magnum, but it's rare, so I'm guessing you meant 44 magnum
EDITED_BY: Lurch (1205529481)
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Good points Dragon Drafin,
I don’t have a problem with people going to court and being investigated when they kill someone; regardless of whether is was self-defense or careless driving. I think it depends how much your society values human life.
Actually, the real problem with gun violence is about the number of suicides, the number of people killed in domestic violence and accidental shootings.
If gun laws worked in Australia, then I expect there is a fair chance they would work in America. The scenario of “guns being outlawed, leading to only the outlaws having guns” has not happened. The scary part about guns in America is the attitude of the NRA. Existing gun laws are not enforced because people seem to see them as an infringement of their rights. There is no commitment to reducing gun violence, and this is a major reason why criminals and terrorists have access to guns.
I really think the solution is learning how to communicate without guns.
I’ve discussed all these points many times, and I decided I would not get drawn into the topic again. Though, I enjoyed reading Men and Guns (link below) and have come to the conclusions that owning a gun is a men’s health issue, more than anything else.
Good points Dragon Drafin,
I don’t have a problem with people going to court and being investigated when they kill someone; regardless of whether is was self-defense or careless driving. I think it depends how much your society values human life.
Actually, the real problem with gun violence is about the number of suicides, the number of people killed in domestic violence and accidental shootings.
Written by
Guns don't kill people, the gun lobby insists; people kill people. Guns certainly help, though. It is, of course, well known that America's gun homicide rates are far higher than those of other industrialized nations. But our gun suicide rates are also much higher. More Americans kill themselves with guns than by all other methods combined. A University of Pennsylvania study found that rural residents were just as likely to die of self-inflicted gunshot wounds as inner-city dwellers were to be murdered. And yet, you don't hear much about an "epidemic" of rural suicide. "It's the forgotten issue," says study author Charles Branas, Ph.D., an epidemiologist at Penn (Men and Guns- below).
If gun laws worked in Australia, then I expect there is a fair chance they would work in America. The scenario of “guns being outlawed, leading to only the outlaws having guns” has not happened. The scary part about guns in America is the attitude of the NRA. Existing gun laws are not enforced because people seem to see them as an infringement of their rights. There is no commitment to reducing gun violence, and this is a major reason why criminals and terrorists have access to guns.
I really think the solution is learning how to communicate without guns.
I’ve discussed all these points many times, and I decided I would not get drawn into the topic again. Though, I enjoyed reading Men and Guns (link below) and have come to the conclusions that owning a gun is a men’s health issue, more than anything else.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
OWD, if you are carrying a concealed weapon then you intend to kill another human being, otherwise what would be the point.
Being mugged/attacked is not conceptual, but making up stories to justify carrying a weapon is. Carrying a weapon is not a guarantee that you won’t get mugged, and the chances are it will get used against you.
Actually, owning a gun is a men’s health issue. I suggest you read this rather humorous Special Report: Men and Guns: "Men buy 90 percent of all firearms sold. We're also the ones most likely to be hit when one goes off. Is it time to reevaluate this explosive relationship?"
So, Lurch, if you don’t condone violence what’s with the “Glock” - rabbit hunting?
I know pink guns came up somewhere before, but have you heard of the “pink test”?
Non-violent communication is about more than talking well, it's about communicating well with the rest of the population. Losing the ability to communicate effectively is one of main reasons why there is so much violence in America. People can’t communicate effectively, so they turn to guns and bully-boy tactics instead. Look at the social misfits the run the NRA.
OWD, if you are carrying a concealed weapon then you intend to kill another human being, otherwise what would be the point.
Being mugged/attacked is not conceptual, but making up stories to justify carrying a weapon is. Carrying a weapon is not a guarantee that you won’t get mugged, and the chances are it will get used against you.
Written by
The idea of self-defense, community defense, has a lot to do with being a good American," says Abigail Kohn, Ph.D., author of Shooters: Myths and Realities of America's Gun Cultures (and a shooter herself). "Part of the attraction for a lot of American men involves identifying with those archetypes in American history, the cowboy/lawman or the citizen/soldier, who wear a gun on their hip.”
Actually, owning a gun is a men’s health issue. I suggest you read this rather humorous Special Report: Men and Guns: "Men buy 90 percent of all firearms sold. We're also the ones most likely to be hit when one goes off. Is it time to reevaluate this explosive relationship?"
So, Lurch, if you don’t condone violence what’s with the “Glock” - rabbit hunting?
I know pink guns came up somewhere before, but have you heard of the “pink test”?
Written by
Ruggieri, the lawyer for Brandon Maxfield said. "If someone asks whether I think they should buy a gun, I say, ‘Do you care if it's pink?' If you have a good and legitimate reason to own and carry a gun as a tool," he says, "then it shouldn't matter if it's pink. If you're buying it for machismo reasons, as a penis extender -- which some people do -- then you won't want to own a pink gun. If it matters that it's pink, don't buy it (Men and Guns).
Non-violent communication is about more than talking well, it's about communicating well with the rest of the population. Losing the ability to communicate effectively is one of main reasons why there is so much violence in America. People can’t communicate effectively, so they turn to guns and bully-boy tactics instead. Look at the social misfits the run the NRA.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
The point is self-defense.
Clearly there is a world of difference between-
1. a thug carrying a gun with the intention of using it in a murder, or a mugging, or as a means of forcing a woman into his car so he can abduct and rape her
(all of which do happen- thankfully rarely, but they do happen)
and
2. a responsible, well-trained, well-adjusted individual who carries a gun, who will never draw it in public, unless there is a clear need for doing so
of course it's no guarantee- once again, I'll point out that neither me, or Lurch, have claimed otherwise.
As for it being used against you, that very much depends on your competence and training. As I understand it, those in the US with concealed carry permits, only pull their guns when
1. it is absolutely necessary (ie, someone is about to die)
and
2. when they do draw it, the next step is to use it (assuming the threat doesn't cease)- in that case, if they know what they're doing, there's little chance of the attacker being in a position to use their own gun against them.
And, of course, for the situation to be so serious that they draw their weapon in the first place, the chances are that the attacker already has their own drawn gun/knife drawn and about to be used.
Again, apologies for anticipating the views of Lurch or other responsible US gun owners, but, if it was made the case that all legally sold guns must be pink, I have no doubt that any responsible gun owner would indeed, given a choice of no gun, or a pink gun, be happy to carry a pink gun.
A responsible gun owner will be far more interested in the function of a gun, than its appearance.
After all, it's not like the thing's on display- 'concealed carry' means no one's going to see it (unless the worst happens, at which point pinkness will be the last thing on anyones mind.)
Written by :Stone
OWD, if you are carrying a concealed weapon then you intend to kill another human being, otherwise what would be the point.
The point is self-defense.
Clearly there is a world of difference between-
1. a thug carrying a gun with the intention of using it in a murder, or a mugging, or as a means of forcing a woman into his car so he can abduct and rape her
(all of which do happen- thankfully rarely, but they do happen)
and
2. a responsible, well-trained, well-adjusted individual who carries a gun, who will never draw it in public, unless there is a clear need for doing so
Written by :
Carrying a weapon is not a guarantee that you won’t get mugged, and the chances are it will get used against you.
of course it's no guarantee- once again, I'll point out that neither me, or Lurch, have claimed otherwise.
As for it being used against you, that very much depends on your competence and training. As I understand it, those in the US with concealed carry permits, only pull their guns when
1. it is absolutely necessary (ie, someone is about to die)
and
2. when they do draw it, the next step is to use it (assuming the threat doesn't cease)- in that case, if they know what they're doing, there's little chance of the attacker being in a position to use their own gun against them.
And, of course, for the situation to be so serious that they draw their weapon in the first place, the chances are that the attacker already has their own drawn gun/knife drawn and about to be used.
Written by :
I know pink guns came up somewhere before, but have you heard of the “pink test”?Written by
Ruggieri, the lawyer for Brandon Maxfield said. "If someone asks whether I think they should buy a gun, I say, ‘Do you care if it's pink?' If you have a good and legitimate reason to own and carry a gun as a tool," he says, "then it shouldn't matter if it's pink. If you're buying it for machismo reasons, as a penis extender -- which some people do -- then you won't want to own a pink gun. If it matters that it's pink, don't buy it (Men and Guns).
Again, apologies for anticipating the views of Lurch or other responsible US gun owners, but, if it was made the case that all legally sold guns must be pink, I have no doubt that any responsible gun owner would indeed, given a choice of no gun, or a pink gun, be happy to carry a pink gun.
A responsible gun owner will be far more interested in the function of a gun, than its appearance.
After all, it's not like the thing's on display- 'concealed carry' means no one's going to see it (unless the worst happens, at which point pinkness will be the last thing on anyones mind.)
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
OWD, the point is if you are carrying a gun for self-defense, then you are prepared to use it in self-defense, and ultimately kill someone. So, regardless of the morality, what’s the difference, dead is dead? Or are you going back to the “he deserved to die” scenario?
To be honest, I don’t see the carrying a concealed weapon a responsible act, or the actions of a well-adjusted human being. Quite the opposite, I for introducing psych tests, as was mentioned earlier. Though, it depends on where you live and the laws in your country.
Did you read the Special Report: Men and Guns?
Do you really believe this?
It’s a good idea though, only being able to buy pink guns. I’m thinking gun sales would plummet, and gun shops would go out of business over night. That Glock would look pretty in pink, and I’m thinking Charlton Heston would not have said “from my cold, dead hands" if his gun was pink.
Good Idea
OWD, the point is if you are carrying a gun for self-defense, then you are prepared to use it in self-defense, and ultimately kill someone. So, regardless of the morality, what’s the difference, dead is dead? Or are you going back to the “he deserved to die” scenario?
To be honest, I don’t see the carrying a concealed weapon a responsible act, or the actions of a well-adjusted human being. Quite the opposite, I for introducing psych tests, as was mentioned earlier. Though, it depends on where you live and the laws in your country.
Did you read the Special Report: Men and Guns?
Written by
The idea of self-defense, community defense, has a lot to do with being a good American," says Abigail Kohn, Ph.D., author of Shooters: Myths and Realities of America's Gun Cultures (and a shooter herself). "Part of the attraction for a lot of American men involves identifying with those archetypes in American history, the cowboy/lawman or the citizen/soldier, who wear a gun on their hip.”
Do you really believe this?
Written by OWD
Again, apologies for anticipating the views of Lurch or other responsible US gun owners, but, if it was made the case that all legally sold guns must be pink, I have no doubt that any responsible gun owner would indeed, given a choice of no gun, or a pink gun, be happy to carry a pink gun.
A responsible gun owner will be far more interested in the function of a gun, than its appearance.
After all, it's not like the thing's on display- 'concealed carry' means no one's going to see it (unless the worst happens, at which point pinkness will be the last thing on anyones mind.)
It’s a good idea though, only being able to buy pink guns. I’m thinking gun sales would plummet, and gun shops would go out of business over night. That Glock would look pretty in pink, and I’m thinking Charlton Heston would not have said “from my cold, dead hands" if his gun was pink.
Good Idea
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Yes, I really do believe that a responsible gun owner who carries a gun for the worse-case-scenario that they may need it in self-defense (or to defend others), will, if they have the choice between a pink gun and no gun,carry a pink gun.
The fact that you can't seem to believe it, is possibly an indication that you have a pretty low opinion of gun owners and perhaps are unable to recognise the existence of responisible gun owners?
Do you agree that-
Maybe you really can see no difference, in which case your opinion of responsible gun-owners is bordering on contemptuous, because it would indicate that the intentions of responsible concealed-carry-permit holders, is the same as the intentions of the illegal gun carrying mugger/murderer/abductor.
Yes, I really do believe that a responsible gun owner who carries a gun for the worse-case-scenario that they may need it in self-defense (or to defend others), will, if they have the choice between a pink gun and no gun,carry a pink gun.
The fact that you can't seem to believe it, is possibly an indication that you have a pretty low opinion of gun owners and perhaps are unable to recognise the existence of responisible gun owners?
Do you agree that-
Written by : OWD
Clearly there is a world of difference between-
1. a thug carrying a gun with the intention of using it in a murder, or a mugging, or as a means of forcing a woman into his car so he can abduct and rape her
(all of which do happen- thankfully rarely, but they do happen)
and
2. a responsible, well-trained, well-adjusted individual who carries a gun, who will never draw it in public, unless there is a clear need for doing so
Maybe you really can see no difference, in which case your opinion of responsible gun-owners is bordering on contemptuous, because it would indicate that the intentions of responsible concealed-carry-permit holders, is the same as the intentions of the illegal gun carrying mugger/murderer/abductor.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
We need to get a few key points straight here Stone. Just because I carry a gun does not mean I intend to kill anyone. Intent changes a lot of things. I will never shoot to kill someone. If I'm threatened to the point where I need to shoot, I'm shooting to stop the threat, not kill the person. There is a huge difference. Whether or not they survive is of no concern to me at that point, all I want is to stop the threat. And yes, after that threat is gone I would go so far as to perform first aid and try to make sure they didn't die.
Yes, if I'm carrying a gun I'm ready and willing to use it. I'm failing to see how using a gun automatically means death. Or how death automatically means murder.
Neither of us have said that weapons are a guarantee against mugging. Are you listening to yourself? If all guns were pink no I wouldn't mind carrying it one bit. As OWD said concealed carry is *concealed* noone should know it's there. How is a gun suddenly okay to you if it's pink?
As for why the Glock, no it's not for rabbit hunting. I don't generally hunt. It is however my duty weapon for my volunteer deputy position with the Sheriff's office. Is that acceptable to you?
We need to get a few key points straight here Stone. Just because I carry a gun does not mean I intend to kill anyone. Intent changes a lot of things. I will never shoot to kill someone. If I'm threatened to the point where I need to shoot, I'm shooting to stop the threat, not kill the person. There is a huge difference. Whether or not they survive is of no concern to me at that point, all I want is to stop the threat. And yes, after that threat is gone I would go so far as to perform first aid and try to make sure they didn't die.
Yes, if I'm carrying a gun I'm ready and willing to use it. I'm failing to see how using a gun automatically means death. Or how death automatically means murder.
Neither of us have said that weapons are a guarantee against mugging. Are you listening to yourself? If all guns were pink no I wouldn't mind carrying it one bit. As OWD said concealed carry is *concealed* noone should know it's there. How is a gun suddenly okay to you if it's pink?
As for why the Glock, no it's not for rabbit hunting. I don't generally hunt. It is however my duty weapon for my volunteer deputy position with the Sheriff's office. Is that acceptable to you?
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Come on guys, pink guns aren’t sexy.
OWD,
Responsible gun owners use their guns for hunting or target shooting, and leave policing to properly trained police officers. Otherwise they are no more that vigilantes.
What I see clearly, is you making up stories about hypothetical situations to justify carrying a concealed weapon.
Did you know that three quarters of assaults against women occur in homes? The next most common place is in a car. Then come to public buildings like shops.
For all of the promises made on behalf of the self-defense handgun, using a handgun to kill in self-defense is a rare event. Looking at both men and women, over the past 20 years, on average only two percent of the homicides committed with handguns in the United States were deemed justifiable or self-defense homicides by civilians. To put it in perspective, more people are struck by lightning each year than use handguns to kill in self-defense.
Lurch,
You shoot someone dead.
As to the other question:
Did you read the Special Report on Men’s Health: Men and Guns?
runs for cover
Come on guys, pink guns aren’t sexy.
OWD,
Written by Abigail Kohn, Ph.D.,
Shooters: Myths and Realities of America's Gun Cultures
Through her conversations-with cowboy action shooters at a regional match, sport shooters, hunters, with shooters of all ages and races-we hear of the "savage beauty" of a beautifully crafted long gun, of the powerful historical import owners attach to their guns, of the sense of empowerment that comes with shooting skill, and the visceral thrill of discharging a dangerous weapon. Kohn convincingly brings out the myths, norms, and beliefs of gun ownership, stressing how values such as individualism, toughness, and liberty are intricately linked with the gun and exploring how these core values connect pro-gun ideology to wider cultural and political concerns. Cutting through the cliches that link gun ownership with violent, criminal subcultures and portray shooters as "gun nuts" or potential terrorists.
Responsible gun owners use their guns for hunting or target shooting, and leave policing to properly trained police officers. Otherwise they are no more that vigilantes.
What I see clearly, is you making up stories about hypothetical situations to justify carrying a concealed weapon.
Did you know that three quarters of assaults against women occur in homes? The next most common place is in a car. Then come to public buildings like shops.
For all of the promises made on behalf of the self-defense handgun, using a handgun to kill in self-defense is a rare event. Looking at both men and women, over the past 20 years, on average only two percent of the homicides committed with handguns in the United States were deemed justifiable or self-defense homicides by civilians. To put it in perspective, more people are struck by lightning each year than use handguns to kill in self-defense.
Lurch,
Written by
Yes, if I'm carrying a gun I'm ready and willing to use it. I'm failing to see how using a gun automatically means death. Or how death automatically means murder.
You shoot someone dead.
As to the other question:
Did you read the Special Report on Men’s Health: Men and Guns?
Written by
The idea of self-defense, community defense, has a lot to do with being a good American," says Abigail Kohn, Ph.D., author of Shooters: Myths and Realities of America's Gun Cultures (and a shooter herself). "Part of the attraction for a lot of American men involves identifying with those archetypes in American history, the cowboy/lawman or the citizen/soldier, who wear a gun on their hip.”
runs for cover
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
I don't care if my gun is sexy or not, as long as it's functional. There are a lot of fugly guns out there.
Of course we are making up hypothetical situations where we would need a firearm. If we had already been in them situation we would be dead. See, thats the point of carrying a gun. So I DONT DIE when one of these scenarios may occur. Nonetheless these things DO happen, to deny that and write them off as pure fantasy is foolhardy, they even happen in your Utopian "gun free" Australia.
To say it yet again, Self Defense is NOT policing. It's not "taking the law into your hands". It is SELF DEFENSE. It's funny that you say citizens should not take policing into their own hands. Haven't you ever heard of a citizens arrest? Neighborhood Watch?
Using a gun in self defense does NOT mean someone dies. Why is that so difficult to understand? Every Use of Force scale starts with presence. Simple presentation of a firearm can stop a situation from escalating. Or do you honestly think police officers have to shoot whenever they draw their weapon?
I don't care if my gun is sexy or not, as long as it's functional. There are a lot of fugly guns out there.
Of course we are making up hypothetical situations where we would need a firearm. If we had already been in them situation we would be dead. See, thats the point of carrying a gun. So I DONT DIE when one of these scenarios may occur. Nonetheless these things DO happen, to deny that and write them off as pure fantasy is foolhardy, they even happen in your Utopian "gun free" Australia.
To say it yet again, Self Defense is NOT policing. It's not "taking the law into your hands". It is SELF DEFENSE. It's funny that you say citizens should not take policing into their own hands. Haven't you ever heard of a citizens arrest? Neighborhood Watch?
Using a gun in self defense does NOT mean someone dies. Why is that so difficult to understand? Every Use of Force scale starts with presence. Simple presentation of a firearm can stop a situation from escalating. Or do you honestly think police officers have to shoot whenever they draw their weapon?
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Thank You, for your honesty
EDITED_BY: Stone (1205566842)
Written by Lurch
Of course we are making up hypothetical situations where we would need a firearm.
Thank You, for your honesty
EDITED_BY: Stone (1205566842)
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Lurch, I'd suggest that it's unlikely that Stone is going to be open to any kind of fruitful discussion on this issue, because, unless I've misunderstood some of his posts, he is either unable, or unwilling, to make a disctinction between
1. a responsible gun owner (trained, with concealed-carry permit, with no intention to use his/her weapon unless it is necessary for the defense of themselves or others)
and
2. a criminal carrying a gun with the express purpose of using it to mug, murder or abdupt a victim
If he is unwilling, or unable, to make that distinction, then anything you say, however well thought out or reasonable, is going to fall on deaf ears and simply provoke more of the kind of circular and, pointless 'debate' that is rife in this thread.
Lurch, I'd suggest that it's unlikely that Stone is going to be open to any kind of fruitful discussion on this issue, because, unless I've misunderstood some of his posts, he is either unable, or unwilling, to make a disctinction between
1. a responsible gun owner (trained, with concealed-carry permit, with no intention to use his/her weapon unless it is necessary for the defense of themselves or others)
and
2. a criminal carrying a gun with the express purpose of using it to mug, murder or abdupt a victim
If he is unwilling, or unable, to make that distinction, then anything you say, however well thought out or reasonable, is going to fall on deaf ears and simply provoke more of the kind of circular and, pointless 'debate' that is rife in this thread.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
*sigh* I agree OWD.. This sort of close mindedness makes me sad
*sigh* I agree OWD.. This sort of close mindedness makes me sad
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
I love how some people think that communication will lead to less violence.
The men who beat me had no wish to communicate nonviolently. Not because they don't know how-they knew how. If they were just violent beasts, I never would have dated them
Similarily, the rapist is not interested in nonviolent communication. At least not during the rape.
The world is not fluffy bunnies and cotton candy rainbows
I love how some people think that communication will lead to less violence.
The men who beat me had no wish to communicate nonviolently. Not because they don't know how-they knew how. If they were just violent beasts, I never would have dated them
Similarily, the rapist is not interested in nonviolent communication. At least not during the rape.
The world is not fluffy bunnies and cotton candy rainbows
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Stone, you will not change or open the minds of ppl who have already cast their judgement. As much as I appreciate your effort: you will not change the strange perception of the world they live in.
We have presented sufficient scientific data and studies that unmistakeably prove the arguments of NRA and gun owners to be erroneous. We have presented enough evidence that ridicule the *need of guns for self defence*.
We have tried to explain that "second hand sales" of guns performed without proper background checks raise the number of illegally owned guns within the US - BY THAT we have again proven that the US gun laws are 'license to murder'.
We have presented a lot of evidence on the small percentage of justified self defence involving guns and proved how unlikely it really is that a gun can actually prevent a crime and by that shown how ridiculous it is to claim that "guns make a society safer".
On a sidenote: Lurch himself has admitted that a knife in a skilled hand is more dangerous (and effective) than a gun.
We have tried to explain that the US gun culture reflects in its foreign policies and how likely the NRA is only an extension of the arms industry.
It is obvious that the arms industry causes a great deal of suffering not only within the US but also worldwide.
To me it remains completely absurd that individuals condemn the consumption of meat by the argument of global suffering and at the same time defend the support of a violent industry on grounds of self defence.
However, we have tried to explain how the world inside the heads manifest on the outside world and how paranoia feeds a violent system, how a violent system is in desperate need of paranoia and fear and people who run around with (best intent) to kill each other.
It remains a mystery for me what strange paths ppl seem to walk inside their head, when meditating [no offence intended, OWD - but your position remains ambiguous to me]
Bottom line: its not been working, Stone, we have failed to provide evidence in a way so they acknowledge that water is wet and that fire burns.
We will fail to prove that the difference between a responsible gun owner and a thug is only the intent on *why he carries* a gun. Intent can change, responsibility can change, the 'right to carry' remains. We will fail to prove that it is braver not to carry than to do otherwise, because ppl have their concept and the right to live by it. People prolong suffering and stick to the concepts inside their heads, namely paranoia and fear by engaging in ridiculous mindgames.
Stone, you will not change or open the minds of ppl who have already cast their judgement. As much as I appreciate your effort: you will not change the strange perception of the world they live in.
We have presented sufficient scientific data and studies that unmistakeably prove the arguments of NRA and gun owners to be erroneous. We have presented enough evidence that ridicule the *need of guns for self defence*.
We have tried to explain that "second hand sales" of guns performed without proper background checks raise the number of illegally owned guns within the US - BY THAT we have again proven that the US gun laws are 'license to murder'.
We have presented a lot of evidence on the small percentage of justified self defence involving guns and proved how unlikely it really is that a gun can actually prevent a crime and by that shown how ridiculous it is to claim that "guns make a society safer".
On a sidenote: Lurch himself has admitted that a knife in a skilled hand is more dangerous (and effective) than a gun.
We have tried to explain that the US gun culture reflects in its foreign policies and how likely the NRA is only an extension of the arms industry.
It is obvious that the arms industry causes a great deal of suffering not only within the US but also worldwide.
To me it remains completely absurd that individuals condemn the consumption of meat by the argument of global suffering and at the same time defend the support of a violent industry on grounds of self defence.
However, we have tried to explain how the world inside the heads manifest on the outside world and how paranoia feeds a violent system, how a violent system is in desperate need of paranoia and fear and people who run around with (best intent) to kill each other.
It remains a mystery for me what strange paths ppl seem to walk inside their head, when meditating [no offence intended, OWD - but your position remains ambiguous to me]
Bottom line: its not been working, Stone, we have failed to provide evidence in a way so they acknowledge that water is wet and that fire burns.
We will fail to prove that the difference between a responsible gun owner and a thug is only the intent on *why he carries* a gun. Intent can change, responsibility can change, the 'right to carry' remains. We will fail to prove that it is braver not to carry than to do otherwise, because ppl have their concept and the right to live by it. People prolong suffering and stick to the concepts inside their heads, namely paranoia and fear by engaging in ridiculous mindgames.
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Well said, Fire Tom. I think you make an excellent summary, one written with both clarity and insight.
I agree it’s not about providing scientific evidence or rational thinking, and our approach has not been working. For my part, I’ve been more interested in winning arguments than changing perceptions.
Though, I can see that there has been at least a token acknowledgement of the hypothetical fantasises that go into justifying the need to carry a firearm for self defense.
Well said, Fire Tom. I think you make an excellent summary, one written with both clarity and insight.
I agree it’s not about providing scientific evidence or rational thinking, and our approach has not been working. For my part, I’ve been more interested in winning arguments than changing perceptions.
Though, I can see that there has been at least a token acknowledgement of the hypothetical fantasises that go into justifying the need to carry a firearm for self defense.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
When you have two sides engaging in a debate, for it to be fruitful, I think it's important to know the things on which both sides do agree.
The common ground from which further agreement and possible resolution can come.
What I said above was through frustration at Stones absolute refusal (or inability) to distinguish between-
To agree, or at least, acknowledge that distinction is essential if the points Lurch was trying to make are going to be debated.
To refuse to acknowledge or talk about the above distinction is a debate-killer worthy of a politician (who are generally more interested in 'winning' than finding the truth).
-------------------------
I've been involved in this discussion at the start and, at the last couple of pages- I've missed much of the middle section, so can't really comment on what happened there.
Interestingly, when I came into it at the start, I was very much against any kind of legal gun ownership.
So, I think that that pretty much demonstrates that I'm not fixed in my opinions or not open to having my mind changed by good reasoning
(Though I will point out that I'm not necessarily supporting of gun ownership- just that I'm not anywhere near as opposed to it as I was at the start.
As to why my opinions have changed, in part it's because Lurch has presented a lot of facts about, for example, 'concealed-carry' requirements, which, previously I was not aware of.
Secondly, there's the actual supporting arguments, which, I've found, in Lurches case, have been rational, clear and sincere.
Whereas, the anti-gunners arguments have frequently been somewhat dubious, appearing on occasions to be, as previously mentioned, more political (point-scoring, deceptive, avoiding etc).
(That may be intentional, or, to give the benefit of the doubt, simply a result of not being able to stick to a rational approach).
Either way, I've found that, when I'm seeming to be arguing against a anti-gun point, more usually I'm actually pointing out that the logic behind the point is flawed.
I won't give examples in this post (other than the previously mentioned one of Stone refusing to acknowledge a clear difference) but, if requested, can do so.
When you have two sides engaging in a debate, for it to be fruitful, I think it's important to know the things on which both sides do agree.
The common ground from which further agreement and possible resolution can come.
What I said above was through frustration at Stones absolute refusal (or inability) to distinguish between-
Written by : me
1. a responsible gun owner (trained, with concealed-carry permit, with no intention to use his/her weapon unless it is necessary for the defense of themselves or others)
and
2. a criminal carrying a gun with the express purpose of using it to mug, murder or abdupt a victim
To agree, or at least, acknowledge that distinction is essential if the points Lurch was trying to make are going to be debated.
To refuse to acknowledge or talk about the above distinction is a debate-killer worthy of a politician (who are generally more interested in 'winning' than finding the truth).
-------------------------
I've been involved in this discussion at the start and, at the last couple of pages- I've missed much of the middle section, so can't really comment on what happened there.
Interestingly, when I came into it at the start, I was very much against any kind of legal gun ownership.
So, I think that that pretty much demonstrates that I'm not fixed in my opinions or not open to having my mind changed by good reasoning
(Though I will point out that I'm not necessarily supporting of gun ownership- just that I'm not anywhere near as opposed to it as I was at the start.
As to why my opinions have changed, in part it's because Lurch has presented a lot of facts about, for example, 'concealed-carry' requirements, which, previously I was not aware of.
Secondly, there's the actual supporting arguments, which, I've found, in Lurches case, have been rational, clear and sincere.
Whereas, the anti-gunners arguments have frequently been somewhat dubious, appearing on occasions to be, as previously mentioned, more political (point-scoring, deceptive, avoiding etc).
(That may be intentional, or, to give the benefit of the doubt, simply a result of not being able to stick to a rational approach).
Either way, I've found that, when I'm seeming to be arguing against a anti-gun point, more usually I'm actually pointing out that the logic behind the point is flawed.
I won't give examples in this post (other than the previously mentioned one of Stone refusing to acknowledge a clear difference) but, if requested, can do so.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
You won't fail to prove that the difference between a responsible gun owner and a thug is 'intent'.
That, in my eyes, is the difference.
(interesting to note that you, however, insert 'only' before it- a common tactic used to indicate that soething is inconsequential without actually providing a reason why and, again, much used in political 'debates')
In this case, it is the intent and, IMO, intent is very important.
If you then want to go on and point out that intent can change (as you do), then you've got, IMO, a valid line of reasoning with the possibiltiy of debate.
Whereas Stone, previously, in simply brushing the difference between the responsible gun owner and the thug, simply makes it impossible to proceed.
Hopefully, with this example, both sides can see the value in finding common ground and approaching debate in a sincere way.
Because, while me and firetom are in no way in agreement with gun ownership, we do now obviously agree that there is a clear disctinction between a responsible gun-owner and a thug.
We even seem to be in agreement that that difference lies in the 'intent'.
From there, progression in the debate is possible.
Written by :FireTom
We will fail to prove that the difference between a responsible gun owner and a thug is only the intent on *why he carries* a gun. Intent can change, responsibility can change, the 'right to carry' remains. We will fail to prove that it is braver not to carry than to do otherwise, because ppl have their concept and the right to live by it. People prolong suffering and stick to the concepts inside their heads, namely paranoia and fear by engaging in ridiculous mindgames.
You won't fail to prove that the difference between a responsible gun owner and a thug is 'intent'.
That, in my eyes, is the difference.
(interesting to note that you, however, insert 'only' before it- a common tactic used to indicate that soething is inconsequential without actually providing a reason why and, again, much used in political 'debates')
In this case, it is the intent and, IMO, intent is very important.
If you then want to go on and point out that intent can change (as you do), then you've got, IMO, a valid line of reasoning with the possibiltiy of debate.
Whereas Stone, previously, in simply brushing the difference between the responsible gun owner and the thug, simply makes it impossible to proceed.
Hopefully, with this example, both sides can see the value in finding common ground and approaching debate in a sincere way.
Because, while me and firetom are in no way in agreement with gun ownership, we do now obviously agree that there is a clear disctinction between a responsible gun-owner and a thug.
We even seem to be in agreement that that difference lies in the 'intent'.
From there, progression in the debate is possible.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
OWD, I’ve answered this question before. If you take out the morality and the self-righteous attitude, then there is no difference. Both are carrying guns, with the distinct possibility that they will cause harm or kill another human being.
I acknowledge you and Lurch find this concept difficult, but that’s where we differ. Like you make it “your” common ground, not mine. Perhaps, you could reconsider your point of view.
Written by OWD
What I said above was through frustration at Stones absolute refusal (or inability) to distinguish between-
1. a responsible gun owner (trained, with concealed-carry permit, with no intention to use his/her weapon unless it is necessary for the defense of themselves or others)
and
2. a criminal carrying a gun with the express purpose of using it to mug, murder or abduct a victim
OWD, I’ve answered this question before. If you take out the morality and the self-righteous attitude, then there is no difference. Both are carrying guns, with the distinct possibility that they will cause harm or kill another human being.
Written by OWD
To agree, or at least, acknowledge that distinction is essential if the points Lurch was trying to make are going to be debated.
I acknowledge you and Lurch find this concept difficult, but that’s where we differ. Like you make it “your” common ground, not mine. Perhaps, you could reconsider your point of view.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
I've gotta say...Stone's pig picture perspective did a pretty good job of convincing me that it's better to live in a society where people aren't subscribing to an ideal where they feel a need to equip themselves with anti-personnel weapons.
Would I support a Canadian initiative to adopt American style laws and attitudes towards "packing heat" ?
no.
I wonder how many of those guns used in domestic disputes were bought with "good intentions" Likewise, how many guns sold at second hand gun sales or those guns that leave their owners against the owner's will only to be later used in a criminal way, were also bought with the same good intentions.
I've gotta say...Stone's pig picture perspective did a pretty good job of convincing me that it's better to live in a society where people aren't subscribing to an ideal where they feel a need to equip themselves with anti-personnel weapons.
Would I support a Canadian initiative to adopt American style laws and attitudes towards "packing heat" ?
no. I wonder how many of those guns used in domestic disputes were bought with "good intentions" Likewise, how many guns sold at second hand gun sales or those guns that leave their owners against the owner's will only to be later used in a criminal way, were also bought with the same good intentions.
member
51 posts
51 posts
Posted:
Sorry Stone, there is a huge, massively huge difference between a criminal carrying a gun and a citizen who has gone through the proper channels to carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise.
Stout, because a gun is used in violence against the innocent does not mean that guns should not be allowed in the general populace. People have been stabbed to death with steak knives, does that mean that we should no longer allow sharp metallic objects in and among the general populace?
What you are doing is trying to remove personal accountability from the situation.
The gun or what ever weapon used in crime is not at fault. It is the action of the person using the weapon.
( I wonder if a study has been done to determine if the crime would have been still commited if the offender had not had a firearm. )
That is like blaming teachers for poor test scores. The teacher isn't the one taking the test, and the teachers job is to provide the information to the student. It is the student's responsibility to learn and study the information. And honestly until that student is old enough and mature enough to do that on their own then the responsibility falls on the parents or guardians.
No, it is not better to live in a society where the only people with the guns are government agencies.
The people must be able to defend themselves against the government if needs be. Think back to 1776 when the Colonies first threw off the tyrannical chains of the British.
---- edit----
Lets play a hypothetical game.
If all weapons in the entire world are removed, destroyed, what have you, and violent crimes still happend, what recourse would you suggest?
You see, the concept of total pacifisim does not garunte a utopia. All it garuntes is that those who are corrupt will have easier targets. Man kind is not capeable of peace. Individuals may be, but as a whole, it cannot happen.
EDITED_BY: Dragon_Drafin (1205856615)
Sorry Stone, there is a huge, massively huge difference between a criminal carrying a gun and a citizen who has gone through the proper channels to carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise.
Stout, because a gun is used in violence against the innocent does not mean that guns should not be allowed in the general populace. People have been stabbed to death with steak knives, does that mean that we should no longer allow sharp metallic objects in and among the general populace?
What you are doing is trying to remove personal accountability from the situation.
The gun or what ever weapon used in crime is not at fault. It is the action of the person using the weapon.
( I wonder if a study has been done to determine if the crime would have been still commited if the offender had not had a firearm. )
That is like blaming teachers for poor test scores. The teacher isn't the one taking the test, and the teachers job is to provide the information to the student. It is the student's responsibility to learn and study the information. And honestly until that student is old enough and mature enough to do that on their own then the responsibility falls on the parents or guardians.
No, it is not better to live in a society where the only people with the guns are government agencies.
The people must be able to defend themselves against the government if needs be. Think back to 1776 when the Colonies first threw off the tyrannical chains of the British.
---- edit----
Lets play a hypothetical game.
If all weapons in the entire world are removed, destroyed, what have you, and violent crimes still happend, what recourse would you suggest?
You see, the concept of total pacifisim does not garunte a utopia. All it garuntes is that those who are corrupt will have easier targets. Man kind is not capeable of peace. Individuals may be, but as a whole, it cannot happen.
EDITED_BY: Dragon_Drafin (1205856615)
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Many of Stones points are good ones- for example, I fully agree that fear and paranoia lead to more violence.
I know personally the destructive consequences of excess fear, or seeing threats everywhere to the point of paranoia.
Being obsessed with violence can definitly lead to violence being prevalent in your life.
I agree with all of that- however, some people seem to take that principle in an absolute way- believing that, if paranoia and excessive fear are eliminated from your life, that you will then encounter no violence.
Dealing with those negative aspects of mind and life, makes it less likely that you will encounter violence, but it will not bring immunity.
Take the example of Ghandhi- arguably the epitomy where peace is concerned- in the face of violence he made it a principle to not physically defend himself.
He probably acheived more with the use of peace, than any other human being.
Yet, he ended his life being gunned down by an assassin.
Like Stone, i'm watchful and on guard against negativity, fear and paranoia poisoning my life and, looking at the state of the world, i wish a lot more people would do the same, cos the world would be a better and less violent place if they did.
Personally, I can't carry a gun, as i live in the UK- if I could, I probably wouldn't.
But, for those living in the US, where guns carried and used illegally by criminals are more common- they have to decide where the line between paranoia and realism is.
And, while guns are legal (with the rquired 'concealed-carry' requirements) and the potential owner is well-adjusted, responsible and well-trained- if they choose to carry a gun, then that makes sense to me.
It's like insurance- chances are good that it won't be needed, but, there's a chance that it may and, those who have a realistic understanding of the risks, realise that, if that chance arises, when they need the gun, if it isn't present, they may not be around afterwards to learn from the experience.
Many of Stones points are good ones- for example, I fully agree that fear and paranoia lead to more violence.
I know personally the destructive consequences of excess fear, or seeing threats everywhere to the point of paranoia.
Being obsessed with violence can definitly lead to violence being prevalent in your life.
I agree with all of that- however, some people seem to take that principle in an absolute way- believing that, if paranoia and excessive fear are eliminated from your life, that you will then encounter no violence.
Dealing with those negative aspects of mind and life, makes it less likely that you will encounter violence, but it will not bring immunity.
Take the example of Ghandhi- arguably the epitomy where peace is concerned- in the face of violence he made it a principle to not physically defend himself.
He probably acheived more with the use of peace, than any other human being.
Yet, he ended his life being gunned down by an assassin.
Like Stone, i'm watchful and on guard against negativity, fear and paranoia poisoning my life and, looking at the state of the world, i wish a lot more people would do the same, cos the world would be a better and less violent place if they did.
Personally, I can't carry a gun, as i live in the UK- if I could, I probably wouldn't.
But, for those living in the US, where guns carried and used illegally by criminals are more common- they have to decide where the line between paranoia and realism is.
And, while guns are legal (with the rquired 'concealed-carry' requirements) and the potential owner is well-adjusted, responsible and well-trained- if they choose to carry a gun, then that makes sense to me.
It's like insurance- chances are good that it won't be needed, but, there's a chance that it may and, those who have a realistic understanding of the risks, realise that, if that chance arises, when they need the gun, if it isn't present, they may not be around afterwards to learn from the experience.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
No, of course not, that's a silly argument. We all know the intended uses of steak knives vs guns. Just because something can be used as a weapon, doesn't mean it will be used as a weapon. Anti-personnel weapons are just that, intended to be used as weapons, against people. I could use my truck as a weapon.
Nor is it removing the personal accountability factor either. People act like idiots, all the time, with everything..including guns. Now, America, with the highest per capita prison population is big on the whole personal accountability issue, so be it, You may rest assured that that guy who you just cut off in traffic, acting in a moment of rage, emptied his clip into your chest is going to get life for his crime as you lie in the street taking your last breaths, but wouldn't you prefer that he didn't have the means to fill you full of holes in the first place ?
It's a really, really tough sell to try and convince those of us who live in unarmed societies that the way of the gun is "better" I much prefer going about my daily business not even thinking about who's got a gun and will they use it.
1776 ??? America's come a long way since then, except on this issue. Defending yourself against a tyrannical government ? David Koresh didn't have much success in that department. Or were you thinking in terms of an upcoming revolution ?
Americans may be happy with the status quo ( btw I've switched "sides" in this discussion ) and I wouldn't particularly care what Americans do inside America, but the problem is, America's exporting all this law and order, us and them, paranoia and we, as Canadians, seem to be buying it.
example...our border guards weren't armed until last year and were only armed due to the threat of American citizens and their personal firearms.
Written by
Stout, because a gun is used in violence against the innocent does not mean that guns should not be allowed in the general populace. People have been stabbed to death with steak knives, does that mean that we should no longer allow sharp metallic objects in and among the general populace?
No, of course not, that's a silly argument. We all know the intended uses of steak knives vs guns. Just because something can be used as a weapon, doesn't mean it will be used as a weapon. Anti-personnel weapons are just that, intended to be used as weapons, against people. I could use my truck as a weapon.
Nor is it removing the personal accountability factor either. People act like idiots, all the time, with everything..including guns. Now, America, with the highest per capita prison population is big on the whole personal accountability issue, so be it, You may rest assured that that guy who you just cut off in traffic, acting in a moment of rage, emptied his clip into your chest is going to get life for his crime as you lie in the street taking your last breaths, but wouldn't you prefer that he didn't have the means to fill you full of holes in the first place ?
It's a really, really tough sell to try and convince those of us who live in unarmed societies that the way of the gun is "better" I much prefer going about my daily business not even thinking about who's got a gun and will they use it.
1776 ??? America's come a long way since then, except on this issue. Defending yourself against a tyrannical government ? David Koresh didn't have much success in that department. Or were you thinking in terms of an upcoming revolution ?
Americans may be happy with the status quo ( btw I've switched "sides" in this discussion ) and I wouldn't particularly care what Americans do inside America, but the problem is, America's exporting all this law and order, us and them, paranoia and we, as Canadians, seem to be buying it.
example...our border guards weren't armed until last year and were only armed due to the threat of American citizens and their personal firearms.
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com