No need to hijack (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

TheHeretic -> No need to hijack (4/3/2009 10:04:11 PM)

       Guns are tools that make things die.  A free people should have the right to own them.  Discuss.


     



Kirata -> RE: No need to hijack (4/3/2009 10:12:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Guns are tools that make things die.

Let's start with that proposition then. They are weapons. They have the purpose of weapons. The electric chair is a "tool that makes things die".
 
K.
 

 
 



outlier -> RE: No need to hijack (4/3/2009 10:54:41 PM)

Heretic,

In the Fall of 93 an essay was publihed in the Journal The Public Interest

The essay is A Nation Of Cowards by Jeffrey Snyder

It advocates not only having but carrying and using guns, specifically handguns.
I do not agree with the whole essay but I do think it sets a standard for reasonable
discussion of this frequently inflammatory issue.

One of the best parts is the following:

The Gift of Life

"Although difficult for modern man to fathom, it was once widely believed that life was a gift from God, that to not defend that life when offered violence was to hold God's gift in contempt, to be a coward and to breach one's duty to one's community. A sermon given in Philadelphia in 1747 unequivocally equated the failure to defend oneself with suicide:

" He that suffers his life to be taken from him by one that hath no authority for that purpose, when he might preserve it by defense, incurs the Guilt of self murder since God hath enjoined him to seek the continuance of his life, and Nature itself teaches every creature to defend itself."

"Cowardice" and "self-respect" have largely disappeared from public discourse. In their place we are offered "self-esteem" as the bellwether of success and a proxy for dignity. "Self-respect" implies that one recognizes standards, and judges oneself worthy by the degree to which one lives up to them. "Self-esteem" simply means that one feels good about oneself. "Dignity" used to refer to the self-mastery and fortitude with which a person conducted himself in the face of life's vicissitudes and the boorish behavior of others. Now, judging by campus speech codes, dignity requires that we never encounter a discouraging word and that others be coerced into acting respectfully, evidently on the assumption that we are powerless to prevent our degradation if exposed to the demeaning behavior of others. These are signposts proclaiming the insubstantiality of our character, the hollowness of our souls.

It is impossible to address the problem of rampant crime without talking about the moral responsibility of the intended victim. Crime is rampant because the law-abiding, each of us, condone it, excuse it, permit it, submit to it. We permit and encourage it because we do not fight back, immediately, then and there, where it happens. Crime is not rampant because we do not have enough prisons, because judges and prosecutors are too soft, because the police are hamstrung with absurd technicalities. The defect is there, in our character. We are a nation of cowards and shirkers."

Outlier



SteelofUtah -> RE: No need to hijack (4/3/2009 11:01:44 PM)

**Makes a Mental Note to follow this thread**

Back to cleaning my Guns.

A Poorly cared for tool is a waste as well shows no respect for the purpose of that tool.

Steel



DomKen -> RE: No need to hijack (4/3/2009 11:13:25 PM)

First let's establish some things. There is no such thing as rampant crime. Crime rates are dramatically lower than they were 30 or 40 years ago, when gun access was far easier.

Self defence with a firearm is so rare that it is very difficult to even find case studies much less statistically useful data. We do know it happens far less frequently than legally owned weapons are used to kill in domestic disputes.

Ease of purchase in many parts of the nation does fuel gun crime in other parts of the nation as well as internationally. Guns purchased in stores just off I-95 in VA, GA and the Carolinas are implicated in an astonishing number of NYC gun crimes.

The recent SCOTUS ruling remains an contradictory ruling that will inevitably be revisited. No other right protected by the Constitution can be taken away forever by a civil court judge's decision but for some reason the majority decided that the second ammendment worked this way which is contradictory with a whole host of earlier precedent.

I'm in favor of private ownership of firearms just not ones, handguns, meant exclusively for killing human beings.



Kirata -> RE: No need to hijack (4/4/2009 12:32:14 AM)

~ Fast Reply ~
 
World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock
US defensive gun use statistics
 
Armed Resistance to Crime
Kleck and Gertz, 1995
Reprinted from the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law
 
National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms
US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice Research in Brief, May 1997
 
K.
 
 



slaveboyforyou -> RE: No need to hijack (4/4/2009 12:42:54 AM)

FR:

This just happened a few weeks ago in Little Rock, about 50 miles away from me:

http://www.katv.com/news/stories/0309/606739.html

quote:


Little Rock - An armed man attempting to rob a Little Rock woman on a Walmart parking lot fled when he was shot at many times by the shopper's husband.

Police say Lydia Antonete, 57, was loading up groceries in her car Monday night outside the store in west Little Rock when a man pointed a gun at her and grabbed her purse. Her husband, John W. Antonete, 63, took out a gun from a concealed holster in his clothing and shot at the man three times, then fired another shot when the man got into his vehicle and drove off.

Police used the description of the vehicle to find the suspect. They arrested Jonathan Terry, 24, of England at the University Hospital. Two others also were arrested on charges in the case. They were Sherry Battles, 25, of North Little Rock, and Tequila M. Rice, 22, of Lonoke 

Police said Antonete has a concealed weapons permit.





sambamanslilgirl -> RE: No need to hijack (4/4/2009 6:25:45 AM)

define "free people"

are they people with or without a criminal record?

those who obtain them via legal and proper channels, at the local swap-n-trade gun shows (in which you can buy "under the table" bypassing local ordinances/laws) or "straw" shops - street gun dealers for gang members?



it's wonderful that many uphold the "right to bear arms" however i feel there should be stricter gun control laws ...especially where i live.




DomKen -> RE: No need to hijack (4/4/2009 6:33:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

~ Fast Reply ~
 
World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock
US defensive gun use statistics
 
Armed Resistance to Crime
Kleck and Gertz, 1995
Reprinted from the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law

1994 data? Did you read the study? It was based on a telephone survey produced by calling random phone numbers. No attempt was made to verify teh veracity of the claims. That isn't science that is statistics as applied to assertions.

 
quote:

National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms
US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice Research in Brief, May 1997
K. 

This study actually makes my point for me. Read the section on defensive gun uses. It debunks the claims of the above study and shows that the incidence of defensive gun use was rare indeed.



ScooterTrash -> RE: No need to hijack (4/4/2009 6:35:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

       Guns are tools that make things die.  A free people should have the right to own them.  Discuss.


     

Not really anything to discuss, your statement is basically true. Yes, possessing them should (& is in the US) be a right. I would adjust the initial statement however, guns are for much more than just making things die, they are simply a method of presenting a projectile at high velocity. Sporting events utilizing firearms do not make anything die but targets (and perhaps previous records). I own guns, knives, swords, flails, maces, bows, clubs and many power tools, any one of them could be used to make things die, but that is not the real intent. For those who would like to see firearms banned because they have the potential to cause death, they need to rethink their position because death could be cause by a wide variety of impliments and banning them all, would simply be ludicrous. Cars cause an amazing amount of death, but I don't see anyone jumping on the bandwagon to ban minivans (although it's a thought...lol).



TheHeretic -> RE: No need to hijack (4/4/2009 6:47:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Self defence with a firearm is so rare that it is very difficult to even find case studies ...



         But what about the deterrence factor of guns that are never used?  What about the deterrence of the simple knowledge that the citizenry is armed? 

       I'll tell you a little story of one such incident.  I suppose I could Google up a link, but the story that ran ran in the local paper, and was picked up by a few larger sources had the facts in error anyway.  Some years back, a liquor store robbery in SoCal went bad, and the clerk was murdered.  The killer fled through yards and an apartment complex, before hiding in the garage of an elderly woman's home a few blocks away (she had a horrible habit of leaving the door up).  She heard a noise and, believing it to be a neighborhood dog going after the cats, went into the garage waving a broom and yelling "get out."  Imagine her surprise when the killer darted from behind some old furniture and ran down the driveway, right in front of a passing police car.  He was promptly taken into custody.  He saw something long and black in her hands, and thought it was a gun.

 
         I must say, I'm rather surprised that the hordes who have been so eager to hijack discussion of recent tragedies aren't flocking in for this topic.  Perhaps they feel their arguments aren't worth much without some shock and tears to milk to political purpose... 



RainydayNE -> RE: No need to hijack (4/4/2009 7:08:01 AM)

i'm not really sure where i sit on this
if you make a law mandating that no citizen has the right to a firearm, then people who never cared about the law in the first place will still have them. =p making a law about it really is not going to solve whatever problem with guns that we have, since the primary people using guns against others are people who don't care about the law. =p
if you get rid of guns altogether, like they did in Japan, you'll get umbrella stabbings (like they have in Japan.)
people will find a way to kill each other.
are we going to wrap the walls in bubble wrap and only issue out safety scissors? nobody has access to razor blades or tire irons or pipes or ropes or any number of other things people have used to kill each other? shovels? ice picks? matches and gasoline? shall we ban umbrellas?

i was raised in a house full of all sorts of guns and nobody died. my uncle taught me all sorts of gun safety information. i uuuused to be a hilariously good shot.



FullCircle -> RE: No need to hijack (4/4/2009 7:23:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
   Guns are tools that make things die.  A free people should have the right to own them.  Discuss.

Well that’s a nonsense argument since there are plenty of other things for killing things we as free people don’t have a right to own:

Poisons/Chemicals
Explosives
Nuclear weapons
 
In fact chemicals and explosives have other legitimate business uses but we still can't horde them for ourselves.



DomKen -> RE: No need to hijack (4/4/2009 7:29:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Self defence with a firearm is so rare that it is very difficult to even find case studies ...



        But what about the deterrence factor of guns that are never used?  What about the deterrence of the simple knowledge that the citizenry is armed? 

      I'll tell you a little story of one such incident.  I suppose I could Google up a link, but the story that ran ran in the local paper, and was picked up by a few larger sources had the facts in error anyway.  Some years back, a liquor store robbery in SoCal went bad, and the clerk was murdered.  The killer fled through yards and an apartment complex, before hiding in the garage of an elderly woman's home a few blocks away (she had a horrible habit of leaving the door up).  She heard a noise and, believing it to be a neighborhood dog going after the cats, went into the garage waving a broom and yelling "get out."  Imagine her surprise when the killer darted from behind some old furniture and ran down the driveway, right in front of a passing police car.  He was promptly taken into custody.  He saw something long and black in her hands, and thought it was a gun.


        I must say, I'm rather surprised that the hordes who have been so eager to hijack discussion of recent tragedies aren't flocking in for this topic.  Perhaps they feel their arguments aren't worth much without some shock and tears to milk to political purpose... 

Seems odd that a cold blooded killer would hesitate in using his weapon from hiding against a person who can't see him but instead runs out into traffic. That's the problem with anecdotes, not enough information to know whetherwhat is claimed is the actual facts.

The facts are that deterrence is a very small factor in criminal decision making. Texas has hundreds on death row and has executed many hundreds since the 70's but Texas still has one of the highest mruder rates in the country.



TheHeretic -> RE: No need to hijack (4/4/2009 8:01:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Seems odd that a cold blooded killer would hesitate in using his weapon from hiding against a person who can't see him but instead runs out into traffic.



       Agreed.  It was very lucky for her that she encountered one who was panicked, instead of the cold-blooded variety, and it was a residential street, not a six-lane boulevard. 

     I'd be happy to discuss the death penalty with you, Ken, even if our positions wouldn't line up very well for debate, but comparing the long-term reasoning of a possible death sentence to the instinctive reaction to an immediate threat is nonsense.



Bella1965 -> RE: No need to hijack (4/4/2009 8:10:04 AM)

G'morning all:


(Fast Reply)

Free people also have the right to fart. Should they fart everywhere, on everyone, for the sake of farting? Simply because they have the right? Discuss. [8|]


Stay safe, play nice, & share your toys w/ others...


[:D]


Bella



FullCircle -> RE: No need to hijack (4/4/2009 8:24:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bella1965
G'morning all:
(Fast Reply)
Free people also have the right to fart. Should they fart everywhere, on everyone, for the sake of farting? Simply because they have the right? Discuss. [8|]
Stay safe, play nice, & share your toys w/ others...
[:D]
Bella

I'm of the opinion that it generally depends on the category of fart i.e. scale of lethalness (rated 1-10 and based on main ingredients from the night before), also the volume of the area in which the person is currently situated should be taken into account i.e. restricted areas such as elevators need careful consideration before letting one go.
Ayes to the right?[8|]



outlier -> RE: No need to hijack (4/4/2009 8:52:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

First let's establish some things. There is no such thing as rampant crime. Crime rates are dramatically lower than they were 30 or 40 years ago, when gun access was far easier.

Self defence with a firearm is so rare that it is very difficult to even find case studies much less statistically useful data. We do know it happens far less frequently than legally owned weapons are used to kill in domestic disputes.

Ease of purchase in many parts of the nation does fuel gun crime in other parts of the nation as well as internationally. Guns purchased in stores just off I-95 in VA, GA and the Carolinas are implicated in an astonishing number of NYC gun crimes.

The recent SCOTUS ruling remains an contradictory ruling that will inevitably be revisited. No other right protected by the Constitution can be taken away forever by a civil court judge's decision but for some reason the majority decided that the second ammendment worked this way which is contradictory with a whole host of earlier precedent.

I'm in favor of private ownership of firearms just not ones, handguns, meant exclusively for killing human beings.



OK, I am going to institute Outlier's Law Of The Boards:

"The more interesting a discussion the more likely I am to have an appointment
so I cannot stay to respond" There are some further corollaries about the qualities
of the participants to follow.

You did note that the essay was from the early 90s.

I believe that crimes with guns are reported much more often than potential
crimes that are stopped by showing of guns. At least that has been true twice in my case.

And the signs on the Alarm notices around the expensive homes here do not say
GUN FREE ZONE they say ARMED RESPONSE, so I think they believe in the
deterrent power of a gun.

The difference between the crimes in differnt states could be used to argue
for stiffer gun control in VA, GA etc. Or they could be used as examples of the
stupidity of labeling yourself a gun free zone therefore an easy target.

I have no comment on SCOTUS decisions and no time to look it up.

Question, now that you have nitpicked the quote from the essay would you
please address the issues it raises as a central thesis. The role of personal
responsability in self pertection. Given that we live in a crowded complex society.

Thank you,




ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: No need to hijack (4/4/2009 8:58:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
I'm in favor of private ownership of firearms just not ones, handguns, meant exclusively for killing human beings.


I own three handguns, and I've fired more thousands of rounds through them than I could even begin to count. But I've never killed a human being with any of them. Have I been misusing them?



DomKen -> RE: No need to hijack (4/4/2009 9:28:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: outlier
Question, now that you have nitpicked the quote from the essay would you
please address the issues it raises as a central thesis. The role of personal
responsability in self pertection. Given that we live in a crowded complex society.

If an essayist finds it necessary to lie to advance his point that invalidates the essay.

As to the role of personal responsibility in self protection, I'm all for it. However self protection doesn't require a weapon and definitely doesn't require a handgun.

As to living in a crowded complex society that is actually an argument against possesion of a firearm. With crowding and complex situations comes opportunities for small things to become big things based on outside pressures. The easier it is for an angry person to lay hands on a gun the more likely it is that people will get killed over things like bad driving or the neighbor trimming the hedges too much.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.09375