RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


crazyml -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/7/2013 2:22:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
if Joe Methhead is thinking about climbing into a window at night, he has to give a little bit of thought to: "I wonder if this person might have a gun. I wonder if they have it, concealed. I wonder if it is close to their night stand". Those kinds of things.


Do you really think that Joe is going to be carefully considering the consequences of his actions?




butternutsquash -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/7/2013 5:34:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

You're not alone in having had the experience, and I'm personally convinced that the "non threatening and cooperative" approach is, on balance, the most likely to get you out a live.

For the benefit of others, I said "on balance" and "most likely".


It is a fair assumption that a person who has a weapon trained on you does not actually want to harm you, which may be counter-intuitive but does happen to be a fact. Most victims of armed robbery come out completely unharmed. I've never been mugged, but my understanding is that these things tend to happen pretty fast. An armed robber really doesn't want to stick around. He just wants to grab what he can get and run. Handing over your belongings immediately just reduces your involvement.

The simplest way to avoid a robbery in the first place, though, is simply don't look like a victim. I maintain a bolt-upright posture that I consciously model after US Marines: I never slouch when I walk, no exceptions. I make eye-contact with everybody, and I talk to people frequently, especially people who might be locals. "Good morning." "Nice weather we're having." Simple stuff you say in passing, not stopping to waste people's time; besides, that's a good way to end up in a con game. If a shady-looking individual is approaching me, I shout an audible, ostensibly friendly greeting and make my presence known, not only to that person but to anybody around me, but I NEVER stop to talk at length in those situations, having had experience with creeps trying to get familiar and either pan-handling or trying some con game on me. I maintain a very visible presence, and I move fearlessly, quickly and with a sense of purpose. If I feel that I am being followed in the night, I run as fast as I can move in the direction of a populated area. On the other hand, if you LOOK like a victim, then chances are that you will BECOME a victim.




butternutsquash -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/7/2013 6:01:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

I had assumed that the point of c/c was that if someone showed you a gun, you cloud then reveal your weapon and show yours, now you seem to be suggesting that that would be fruitless?

And then what? Compare how big they are? Heh. If someone has a gun pointed at me, what I will do is going to depend very much on the circumstances. How I size him up. Distance. Cover. What options I have, if any. Trust me, I've been there. If none, then I'm going to be totally non-threatening and cooperative until either he gives me an opening or I can create one. Which may not happen, if he's very careful. But I still have the advantage that he doesn't know I'm armed. And if he isn't smart enough to make finding out his first order of business, he's probably more at risk than I am. Because if he hasn't already shot me, he probably doesn't want to. But I will definitely shoot him.

K.




There's another "angle" to that in that; if the gun laws are lax, the statistics say that more people are going to have weapons. This has to give any idiot law breaker a little bit of pause.

I admit that concealed carry has very little deterrent qualities against shooters like the kids at Columbine or the movie theater, etc. but, if Joe Methhead is thinking about climbing into a window at night, he has to give a little bit of thought to: "I wonder if this person might have a gun. I wonder if they have it, concealed. I wonder if it is close to their night stand". Those kinds of things.

In an unarmed society, all he has to do is grab a piece of wood or rebar on his way to the evening "festivities" and he has a really good chance of being better armed than the sheep upon which he preys.





Joe Methhead is an ignorant shit who is probably not even aware of the "concealed carry" law. You are assuming that Joe Methhead, when he is not breaking into houses, is an upstanding citizen who reads the papers and participates actively in public debates over the passage of city ordinances. Be fucking realistic here.




thishereboi -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/7/2013 6:53:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
if Joe Methhead is thinking about climbing into a window at night, he has to give a little bit of thought to: "I wonder if this person might have a gun. I wonder if they have it, concealed. I wonder if it is close to their night stand". Those kinds of things.


Do you really think that Joe is going to be carefully considering the consequences of his actions?


The one I knew did. He used to spend a lot of time checking out a house before he hit it and the first thing he checked was whether or not the owners were likely to have guns. If they did he moved on to the next target.




thishereboi -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/7/2013 7:01:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

I had assumed that the point of c/c was that if someone showed you a gun, you cloud then reveal your weapon and show yours, now you seem to be suggesting that that would be fruitless?

And then what? Compare how big they are? Heh. If someone has a gun pointed at me, what I will do is going to depend very much on the circumstances. How I size him up. Distance. Cover. What options I have, if any. Trust me, I've been there. If none, then I'm going to be totally non-threatening and cooperative until either he gives me an opening or I can create one. Which may not happen, if he's very careful. But I still have the advantage that he doesn't know I'm armed. And if he isn't smart enough to make finding out his first order of business, he's probably more at risk than I am. Because if he hasn't already shot me, he probably doesn't want to. But I will definitely shoot him.

K.




There's another "angle" to that in that; if the gun laws are lax, the statistics say that more people are going to have weapons. This has to give any idiot law breaker a little bit of pause.

I admit that concealed carry has very little deterrent qualities against shooters like the kids at Columbine or the movie theater, etc. but, if Joe Methhead is thinking about climbing into a window at night, he has to give a little bit of thought to: "I wonder if this person might have a gun. I wonder if they have it, concealed. I wonder if it is close to their night stand". Those kinds of things.

In an unarmed society, all he has to do is grab a piece of wood or rebar on his way to the evening "festivities" and he has a really good chance of being better armed than the sheep upon which he preys.





Joe Methhead is an ignorant shit who is probably not even aware of the "concealed carry" law. You are assuming that Joe Methhead, when he is not breaking into houses, is an upstanding citizen who reads the papers and participates actively in public debates over the passage of city ordinances. Be fucking realistic here.


And you are assuming that Joe Methhead is an ignorant shit who is probably not even aware of the "concealed carry" law. Now I admit the guy I knew would be properly named joe cokehead but it still fits. And yes he was aware of the "concealed law" because he read the paper every day. He didn't however participate in any debates that I know of so that part is right but I am not sure why that would matter. Now he did have the idea that it was ok to rip people off and that he was above getting a minimum wage job, so he was defiantly an asshole and should have been locked up but he wasn't stupid by any means. And if he never admitted what he did for a living most of the folks on p & r would love him because he hated the right with a passion.




Nosathro -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/7/2013 7:04:36 AM)

Well this blew my socks off, a gun magazine calling for gun control.

http://news.yahoo.com/guns-ammo-editorial-controversy-203042117.html




HunterCA -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/7/2013 7:41:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

You know HunterCA I keep wondering why you use terms like

Postmodernism is a term that describes the postmodernist movement in the arts, its set of cultural tendencies and associated cultural movements. It is in general the era that follows Modernism. It frequently serves as an ambiguous overarching term for skeptical interpretations of culture, literature, art, philosophy, economics, architecture, fiction, and literary criticism. Which has nothing to do with politics.

The word "Capitalism" was coined around 1850. Marxism was started about 8 years later.

I get the feeling you just trying to impress us, not working very well is it.


Oh dear. You went away and studied for a couple of hours and came back an expert. Jees, now I'm really impressed with all your knowledge. In your life time you've had a couple of hours to study just about everything. So from now on I'm going to consider you an expert on everything and worship at your feet.




HunterCA -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/7/2013 7:46:24 AM)

Nosathro, tell me you don't believe me if you wish. But don't go study for two hours and come back and claim you are sufficiently studied up to be an expert.




Nosathro -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/7/2013 8:00:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Nosathro, tell me you don't believe me if you wish. But don't go study for two hours and come back and claim you are sufficiently studied up to be an expert.



Interesting that you rather then explain you use personal attacks. But I am not surprised by it.




HunterCA -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/7/2013 8:26:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Nosathro, tell me you don't believe me if you wish. But don't go study for two hours and come back and claim you are sufficiently studied up to be an expert.



Interesting that you rather then explain you use personal attacks. But I am not surprised by it.


Here you go. But you won't like it. http://www.peterberkowitz.com/sciencefiction.html




HunterCA -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/7/2013 8:31:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Nosathro, tell me you don't believe me if you wish. But don't go study for two hours and come back and claim you are sufficiently studied up to be an expert.



Interesting that you rather then explain you use personal attacks. But I am not surprised by it.


Here you go. But you won't like it. http://www.peterberkowitz.com/sciencefiction.html



Oh, the citation is to an article written by an associate professor of government at Harvard in 1996.




HunterCA -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/7/2013 8:38:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Nosathro, tell me you don't believe me if you wish. But don't go study for two hours and come back and claim you are sufficiently studied up to be an expert.



Interesting that you rather then explain you use personal attacks. But I am not surprised by it.


Here you go. But you won't like it. http://www.peterberkowitz.com/sciencefiction.html



Oh, the citation is to an article written by an associate professor of government at Harvard in 1996.



Again, you won't like it. An article publish by the Hoover institute roughly discussing British, French and American enlightenment http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6302




HunterCA -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/7/2013 8:47:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Nosathro, tell me you don't believe me if you wish. But don't go study for two hours and come back and claim you are sufficiently studied up to be an expert.



Interesting that you rather then explain you use personal attacks. But I am not surprised by it.


Here you go. But you won't like it. http://www.peterberkowitz.com/sciencefiction.html



Oh, the citation is to an article written by an associate professor of government at Harvard in 1996.



Again, you won't like it. An article publish by the Hoover institute roughly discussing British, French and American enlightenment http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6302


For instance, the second article quotes Immanuel Kant, a late 18th century philosopher, saying, "maturity, from the moral point of view, consists in the use of reason in all matters of conscience. From the political point of view, maturity consists in government that leaves matters of conscience to the free choice of individuals."




HunterCA -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/7/2013 8:48:29 AM)

Not about art nosthros.




HunterCA -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/7/2013 9:43:28 AM)

For our British friends, the second paper does touch on Tocqueville's explanation of French thinkers. French intellectuals sought to elaborate abstract principals for good governance in complete independence of those who had to administer the state. Or, as I've consistently said on this thread, socialism, a product of French philosophy, continues to do the same. It dreams up abstract theories and then applies them to governance with no history for the theory. My problem (metaphorical problem) with Britain governance, as well as Europe as a whole, now is that they left their roots in British philosophy and have implemented the French branch philosophy, and further that they expect the US to do so as well, or at least seem puzzled why we don't.

In the context of this thread, I think someone said why should we adhere to a 250 year old document in reference to the constitution. I say because it is rooted in human nature rather than an abstraction. My belief is that as we see communism and socialism fail all over the world, we will all eventually come back to the British branch philosophy and gain maturity in governance by making the government leave us alone.




Kirata -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/7/2013 9:47:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

The simplest way to avoid a robbery in the first place, though, is simply don't look like a victim. I maintain a bolt-upright posture that I consciously model after US Marines: I never slouch when I walk, no exceptions. I make eye-contact with everybody... if you LOOK like a victim, then chances are that you will BECOME a victim.

That sounds good, but it only works because there are Marines, and RTC laws, which leave the criminals not knowing whether you might be armed. If they knew you were just another sheep-herder pretending to be something else, they'd laugh and rip your ass off. Plus, while I agree with the general philosophy of not attracting trouble by looking like a victim, there really isn't any nice pat "recipe" for avoiding crime. In some neighborhoods, the last thing you want to do is "make eye-contact with everybody." The best plan I know is to be aware of your surroundings, and most importantly which ones to avoid.

K.





HunterCA -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/7/2013 9:53:12 AM)

The French branch of enlightenment philosophy, as discussed in the second paper is stated by Rousseua, believed that the people's best interest could be determined without their input or involvement. Sorta like Obamacare today. "We have to pass the legislation before we can see the legislation." I personally don't think that little of the governed. And I certainly don't give sovereignty to people who think that way about me. Therefore, for me, with respect to this thread, the logical conclusion is that not only do I have the right to defend myself but I have the responsibility to do so.




HunterCA -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/7/2013 9:59:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

The simplest way to avoid a robbery in the first place, though, is simply don't look like a victim. I maintain a bolt-upright posture that I consciously model after US Marines: I never slouch when I walk, no exceptions. I make eye-contact with everybody... if you LOOK like a victim, then chances are that you will BECOME a victim.

That sounds good, but it only works because there are Marines, and RTC laws, which leave the criminals not knowing whether you might be armed. If they knew you were just another sheep-herder pretending to be something else, they'd laugh and rip your ass off. Plus, while I agree with the general philosophy of not attracting trouble by looking like a victim, there really isn't any nice pat "recipe" for avoiding crime. In some neighborhoods, the last thing you want to do is "make eye-contact with everybody." The best plan I know is to be aware of your surroundings, and most importantly which ones to avoid.

K.




Actually, I have to agree with butterscotch on this one. But it argues my point. When a bad guy is looking for a victim and he knows either nobody is armed or everybody may be armed, it affects their choice. And, I believe how concealed carry affects their choice is that the bad guys go and do property crime. Guns studies seem to agree. And what butterscothes economic projections don't take into consideration is that specific thought process at the moment the thought process is occurring. They are abstract projections separated from the criminal and victim.




HunterCA -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/7/2013 10:17:47 AM)

O
quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash


There was a rash of studies back in the late 1990's, a lot of which was published in journals of economics and other weird places, that seemed to support RTC laws, but more recent analysis of that data demonstrates that RTC laws don't have any such effect.


Economics journals bad here. The American Law and Economic Review a few notes down from here is good. Just need to get the standards settled.




Kirata -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/7/2013 10:17:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

You know HunterCA I keep wondering why you use terms like

Postmodernism is a term that describes the postmodernist movement in the arts, its set of cultural tendencies and associated cultural movements. It is in general the era that follows Modernism. It frequently serves as an ambiguous overarching term for skeptical interpretations of culture, literature, art, philosophy, economics, architecture, fiction, and literary criticism. Which has nothing to do with politics.

I get the feeling you just trying to impress us, not working very well is it.

You know, Nosathro, I keep wondering why you so often plagiarise other people's work.

Postmodernism is a term that describes the postmodernist movement in the arts, its set of cultural tendencies and associated cultural movements. It is in general the era that follows Modernism.[1] It frequently serves as an ambiguous overarching term for skeptical interpretations of culture, literature, art, philosophy, economics, architecture, fiction, and literary criticism. ~Wikipedia

I get the feeling that you're trying to impress us. It's working, but not the way you think.

K.




Page: <<   < prev  51 52 [53] 54 55   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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