RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (Full Version)

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



Message

cloudboy -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/18/2007 10:28:07 PM)


The lack of an armed populace is the least of the United States' problems.



Pulpsmack -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/18/2007 10:58:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack


Here's the short version since cyberspace swallowed the more elloquent piece.

- The majority of those you would worry about would be prohibited from having guns regardless because of age.

College students and teenagers obtain drugs and firearms illlegally.


- There is a minority of people that will do whatever they wish regardless of law (including illegally carrying/misusing firearms) they are known as criminals and they have and will continue to carry them on campus whether we allow their fellow classmates/victims to do so as well

And if caught they suffer the consequences.  Can you provide statistics as to how many students participate in this type of criminal behavior?


- We cannot as a society tackle a problem by stealing a freedom from everybody in the vain hope it will protect us from a minority. Generally it just does not work, and in this specific instance it is proven not to work. Moreover, this restriction goes far beyond recreational enjoyment of shooting, like one might enjoy a fine wine, a marajuana cigaratte, or a Sunday drive. This is the deprivation of the ability of EVERY person to defend his/herself from this kind of violence. It just does not make any sense and it is not worth the cost.

Where in my post are getting the idea that I am advocating any type of restriction? 




Where I was getting you advocating any type of restriction:

quote:

I hear what you are saying about not wanting the Second
Amendment rights limited and that is a legitimate concern.
 
But I also have serious concerns about the potential outcomes
of college students bringing firearms into dormitories, classrooms,
their apartments, social activities, etc, for all the reasons previously
listed.



If your concern is merely about young hotheads who are illegally carrying/misusing firearms on/off campuses however, then we are speaking about completely different matters.

My argument has been one allowing for legal carry by qualified adults on public property. If these students or nearby dwellers are under twenty one years old, or if they don't meet all of the qualifications, or they do meet the qualifications but would carry in a reckless, negligent or dangerous way, then they do not apply, because these people are criminals, and they can/will do these things regardless of legal permissiblilty.



SusanofO -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/18/2007 11:03:34 PM)

I just think its depressing that the answer for many, seems to be that the answer to fighting gun violence, is to give everyone in sight their own gun.

Also, presumably having a police force is what is seen as addressing the issue you are addressing, Pulpsmack. I know they aren't perfect, but that is their entire function, IMO.

And I really don't see how in this particular case, it is really a pertinent issue, or an answer. The perpetrator in this case, was obviously un-hinged. For all anyone knows, he could have been believing he was shooting at anything except innocent people, when he did what he did.

These people exist, and they probably always will. It's not their fault, and unfortunately he slipped throught the cracks of the mental health-care system.

I fail to see how arming every citizen with a gun even really relates to this larger social problem.

Maybe people should be able to defend themselves, but I know my (now deceased) grandmother went out and bought a gun once, after someone got into her car, and tried to over-take her from the back-seat, while she was driving.

I know she was terrified, but she kept it under her bed, and she didn't even bother to learn to use it, really, with any sense of safety in mind. It was always loaded, and I couldn't help but picture some tragic incident occurring, regardless of whether or not she had a "right" to own it.


No she didn't ever kill anyone accidentally, but - I do know a family, where the father kept and collected guns as a hobby. He was very depressed, because he had six children, and didn't make a fabulous living as a Milk man (this was in the old days, when people still had things like milk delivery men). Well one day, he just killed himself with one of his own guns.

Nobody can tell me, even though he may have done it anyway, using some other method,  that it wasn't easier, because the gun was just there to begin with, for the taking and using. Also, one of his kids could easily have accidentally gotten into his collection, and shot themselves as well. His family was devastated, and never the same afterwards, either.


When you kill someone, accidentally or not, they're dead, and forever, too.

Why promote using weapons that may invovle using deadly force accidentally, in the hands of people who won't bother to learn to use them properly, when there are other options less deadly and less complicated to use (like Stun-guns, or mace, or other less deadly weapons, and also self-defense classes) that serve the stated purpose?

- Susan



Pulpsmack -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/18/2007 11:35:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

I just think its depressing that the answer for many, seems  to be that the answer to fighting gun violence, is to give everyone in sight their own gun.


Perhaps so, but the equally dismal and myopic counterpart is regulating law-abiding people in the vain hope that the bad guys just might see the light and follow those rules when they plot their next crime.

quote:

Also, presumably havin g a police force is what is seen as addressing the issue you are addressing, Pulpsmack. I know they aren't perfect, b ut that is their entire function, IMO.


I would love to agree with that but there is no way I can. The police function is not to protect YOU, like the armed guards that hypocrite Rosie O Donnell has. The Police are there to serve society, the people at large, and that plus the practical constraints of the police budget clearly illustrate that you cannot rely on police to stop your violent crime. The detective might find your rapist or the SWAT sniper might take down your daughter's killer AFTER the fact, but the odds the police can respond to stop such a violent incursion as it's happening are astronomically low.  YOU are responsible for your individual safety and the security of your loved ones. 

quote:

And I really don't see how in this particular case, it is really a pertinent issue, or an answer. The perpetrator in tis case was obviously un-hinged. For all anyone knows, he could have been believing he was shooting at anything except innocent people .when he did what he did.

These people exist, and they probably always will. It's not their fault, and unfortunately he slipped throught the cracks of the mental health-care system.


Other than giving a teacher or adult who was there and who would have used a concealed firearm against him a chance at doing so and defending others, there is no other point.

quote:

I fail to see how arming every citizen with a gun even really relates to this larger social problem.


Then you fail to understand my argument (or you are taking issue with another post) since I do not advocate arming society at large. I simply advocate preserving the Second Amendment so that those who chose to do so lawfully have that ability.

quote:

Maybe people should be able to defend themselves, but I know my (now deceased) grandmother went out and bought a gun once, after someone got into her car, and tried to over-take her from the back-set while she was driving.

I know she was terrified, but she kept it under her bed, and she didn't even bother to learn to use it, really, with any sense of safety in mind. It was always loaded, and I couldn't help but picture some tragic incident occurring, regardless of whether or not she had a "right" to own it, or not.


I am sorry to hear about that loss in your life, but this does nothing to sway the argument that people should be able to defend themselves. The right exists for all who qualify, but that does not necessesarily mean that all who qualify should excercise that right (or have to). Certain Old, irresponsible, or infirmed people do things every day that make them a danger to themselves, but enslaving society with regulations for the actions of a few grandmas is as unjust and fundamentally wrong as enslaving society with regulations for the actions of criminals. Next we come up with old behind the wheel, old having electric appliances, etc. We cannot regulate against the old because of equal protection issues, so we must either live with those problematic cases as we enjoy the freedoms in our lives or we must enslave everybody equally. 

quote:

No she didn't ever kill anyone accidentally, but I do know a family, where the father kept and collected guns as a hobby. He was very depressed, because he had six children, and didn't make a fabulous living as a Milk man (this was in the old days, when people still had things like milk delivery men). Well one day, he just killed himself with one of his own guns.

Nobody can tell me, even though he may have done it anyway, using some other method,  that it wasn't easier, because the gun was just there to begin with, for the taking and using. Also, one of his kids could easily have accidentally gotten into his collection, and shot themselves as well. His family was devastated, and never the same afterwards, either.


Making a suicide a hair more convenient with a gun versus sitting in a running car in the garage with the New York Times is a futile argument. If a guy wants to kill himself, he will. As for the children, the same can be said for any dangerous hazard in the household: poison, powertools, etc. It is the responsibility of the parent to protect the children in the household. It is not the responsibility of the government to micromanage society because there are a few idiot parents who leave guns unattended, wall sockets uncovered, and poison under an unlocked cabinet. Regulating guns for this reason is as assinine as regulating Mr. Clean.



SusanofO -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/18/2007 11:39:08 PM)

And because these things might happen anyway, we should make it even easier by adding more available deadly weapons to the list of supposed "things that might be deadly, and are within reach" someday"?

I obviously already disagree with that assertion (sorry).

Pulpsmack: *I noticed you did not address my last, and possibly most pertinent, point.

Why guns? Why not self-defense classes instead? I suppose Judo, for instance, could be deadly, but not near as deadly due to accidents occurring with its use.

Please don't answer (if you are going to do it) with "why not?" It is a serious question.

Answering  it might just convince me, that your love-affair is truly with the idea of self-defense, as opposed to merely possessing deadly weapory equipment. 

Not that I really care - to each their own.

But - you do seem pretty devoted to the idea of promoting simply gun ownership, vs. the ability of someone to react in self-defense while instead using another method that can be equally powerful.

And if you don't think a good Judo Master, for instance, cannot completely dis-arm someone who has a gun, you are wrong.

- Susan



seeksfemslave -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 12:10:32 AM)

I expect this point has been made before but the sad fact is that had someone had access to a weapon this nutter could have been stopped. Given the resolve to shoot someone virtually in cold blood. Itself no easy thing to do.

Having said that it does seem ridiculous to me that so many Americans do have firearms handy, but that is where you have arrived at and I see no practible way of making a change..

The remorselessly violent images put out by the so called entertainment industy dont help much either. If the killer was deemed to be needing counciling(sp?) as a result of his literary efforts what about some of those who write the violent filth that the film industry produces ?



GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 12:11:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

I just think its depressing that the answer for many, seems  to be that the answer to fighting gun violence, is to give everyone in sight their own gun.

And I really don't see how in this particular case, it is really a pertinent issue, or an answer. The perpetrator in tis case was obviously un-hinged. For all anyone knows, he could have been believing he was shooting at anything except innocent people .when he did what he did.


I appreciate where you are coming from Susan, and yes, I am sure we all wish that this had never happened.  However, the innocent people who were killed are no less dead because he was un-hinged.

quote:

These people exist, and they probably always will. It's not their fault, and unfortunately he slipped throught the cracks of the mental health-care system.


It is also not the innocent people's fault that he slipped through the cracks of the mental health system.  How much responsiblity must we all take for every single person's mental stability?  He was having some serious problems that were worsening for the last year or more, according to various reports.  Well, where were his parents?  Why didn't they see it and try to get him help.  School officials?  Same question.  Except that I think there was a certain awareness of the situation and we must remember that many hands are tied.  No one, except by court order, can be forced to take medication or get help. 

quote:

I fail to see how arming every citizen with a gun even really relates to this larger social problem.


This is a social problem?  This is a case of a distressed young man who lost his coping skills and did not receive the guidance he needed to get help and keep him safe from doing harm to himself and others.  These things are going to happen.  It is tragic.  I am completely sympathetic to the people who had such a loss.  But there is no way, other than reaching for an impossible Utopia that these situations will not continue to occur.
We are not saying  we should arm everybody.  We are saying that those who are comfortable and have the training should be able to arm themselves.  This campus was already a gun free zone.  So who had the gun?  The one who was unhinged, didn't care about the law or the "rule" and proceeded to kill 32 people before taking his own life.  Do you honestly believe that reinforcing this "gun free zone" policy, and making it even stricter is going to stop these situations?  We will always have the people who believe with all their hearts that taking the guns away from everyone will stop all gun related incidents.  I am not that naive.  But I think there are also people who are hesitant about allowing guns on a campus, for instance, because this will only invite more troubles. I do not believe this, and I am willing to bet that the moment one of their own was shot and wounded or killed in such an incident, they would change their minds in a hurry.  "If only somebody could have stopped him!"
 
quote:

Maybe people should be able to defend themselves, but I know my (now deceased) grandmother went out and bought a gun once, after someone got into her car, and tried to over-take her from the back-set while she was driving.

I know she was terrified, but she kept it under her bed, and she didn't even bother to learn to use it, really, with any sense of safety in mind. It was always loaded, and I couldn't help but picture some tragic incident occurring, regardless of whether or not she had a "right" to own it, or not.


I cannot presume to know when this happened to your grandmother or how old she was at the time.  But there is a personal responsibility with many things that most people refuse to take on.  One of those very important personal responsibilities is to learn how to hande any weapon, especially something like a gun, if you choose to have one in your possession.  For whatever reason your grandmother just went out and got a gun.  I guess it made her feel safer.  And, yes, there could have been an accident.  But gun control?  No...  It is not difficult to get a gun as a law abiding citizen.  You pass a background check and walk out of the store.  It took Me about 12 minutes.  In other places there is a waiting period, 3 days, 7 days, 30 days...whatever.  I am okay with all of those stipulations.  I am a law abiding citizen.  There is no waiting period if you are buying the gun illegally.  If someone is hell bent on getting a gun, they are going to get it.   So perhaps, rather than saying, "get the guns!", which only leaves the law abiidng citizen unarmed and helpless, it would be smarter to provide regular classes on gun use prior to issuing a permit to purchase one.  They do it for concealed.  They could provide a modified na dless expensive class for simple ownership.  *Shrug*  Maybe...Just a thought.  We no longer live in a time when Pa taught the kids how to shoot.  And he made sure his wife knew how to load the rifle and point it too!.  The guns are not going away.  So perhaps people just need to have some confidence that every person with a gun is not out to indiscriminately shoot up the world.   I learned to use a gun before I bought it.  It is with Me on long trips, or in My house...loaded and where I can get to it if I need it.  Police Officers have seen it in My car.  They don't say a word.  And when they ask Me if I have a weapon, I am honest and say "Yes, Sir!"  Still not a word.  I have never had to use it, except for target practice, and I hope I never do.  But I do have it, I can use it, and I would use it, if the need arose.  I completely respect people who are afraid of them and don't want anything to do with them.  I hope they are never in a position where they wished they had a mutual method of defense, but if they are, I am sure they would be very grateful that citizen John or Jane Doe is ready at the rescue. 

quote:

No she didn't ever kill anyone accidentally, but I do know a family, where the father kept and collected guns as a hobby. He was very depressed, because he had six children, and didn't make a fabulous living as a Milk man (this was in the old days, when people still had things like milk delivery men). Well one day, he just killed himself with one of his own guns.
Nobody can tell me, even though he may have done it anyway, using some other method,  that it wasn't easier, because the gun was just there to begin with, for the taking and using. Also, one of his kids could easily have accidentally gotten into his collection, and shot themselves as well. His family was devastated, and never the same afterwards, either.


And I know a man who quietly got up, as he had planned, got his gun, left the house, went to a local park, and then shot himself.  He had lots of time to think it through, he made his decison and he did it anyway.  It is an easier way out than other methods of suicide.  But don't think that just because he had a gun available, he wouldn't have done something else.  People run their cars off the road, wrap them around telephone poles..."no skid marks".  They take overdoses of drugs, or they climb into a bathtub full of hot water with a razor blade.  If someone is so far down that they decide this is the only way out, they are going to find some way to do it.   

My own daughter was always nervous about the gun I kept.  She was younger then.  She took the Concealed class last semester.  She is no longer afraid of guns.  And she told Me a funny thing, just last night.  She said..."Mom, there were people who came in to take that class just because they wanted to give the instructor a hard time and convince everybody that guns were bad.  Every one of them changed their minds by the end of the class."
 
Knowledge is a powerful thing. 
 
Edited to add since more was posted while I was typing for way too long...
 
A self defense class like Judo?  Well it can be done...possibly if there were 4 or 5 who had the time to take that class and were all there, and one sacrificed himself..."I'll cover you guys by running at him while you others get into position and kick the shit out of him...don't forget to chop the gun out of his hand!..Here I go!"
Okay, tongue out of cheek now.  It is possible, Susan.  But a karate chop is not the most effective way to disarm a unhinged gunman when he is 20 feet away.  That bullet will travel faster than you can get to him.  I believe in self-defense, and it is every effective when you are up close and personal.  It is a little different if you are trying to face down a gun from a number of feet or yards away.  And the criminals are not going to worry about whether or not you have a fighting chance.  They don't play by any rules.  It isn't hand to hand, it is hand to gun...The entire intent is to get you with as little consequence to themselves as possible.  A good example would be...Can you stop the car carrying the  "drive by" shooters with a judo kick?    



Lordandmaster -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 12:26:00 AM)

The flaw in this kind of reasoning is the assumption that "the bad guys" will have equal access to firearms whether they're legal or not.  It's just not true.  The murderer in this case bought one of his weapons at a local gun store.  Just walked right in, Hi, I'd like to buy this one.  If you remove strip-mall gun outlets from society, lone psychotics are going to have a MUCH more difficult time finding firearms to kill people with.  Terrorists, mobsters--sure, they'll still find ways to buy guns if they need them.  But insane South Korean college students won't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

I just think its depressing that the answer for many, seems  to be that the answer to fighting gun violence, is to give everyone in sight their own gun.


Perhaps so, but the equally dismal and myopic counterpart is regulating law-abiding people in the vain hope that the bad guys just might see the light and follow those rules when they plot their next crime.



GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 12:34:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

The flaw in this kind of reasoning is the assumption that "the bad guys" will have equal access to firearms whether they're legal or not.  It's just not true.  The murderer in this case bought one of his weapons at a local gun store.  Just walked right in, Hi, I'd like to buy this one.  If you remove strip-mall gun outlets from society, lone psychotics are going to have a MUCH more difficult time finding firearms to kill people with.  Terrorists, mobsters--sure, they'll still find ways to buy guns if they need them.  But insane South Korean college students won't.


We will just have to disagree on that one.  I believe that he wanted the guns and he would have gotten it, by hook or by crook.  He bought one a little over a month earlier.  And he bought the second one shortly prior.    The only thing that might have stopped him was a record of an "order of protection" against him.  Unfortunately, the person he was stalking did not bother.  That would have put something in the hoppers and he might not have been able to get the gun quite as easily.  And an attempt to purchase could have also been reported. 




meatcleaver -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 12:35:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

The remorselessly violent images put out by the so called entertainment industy dont help much either. If the killer was deemed to be needing counciling(sp?) as a result of his literary efforts what about some of those who write the violent filth that the film industry produces ?


Let's put this into context. This is not just the work of a crazy man, it has happened too often for that, it has become a cultural phenomenon. How many times in American films and TV shows do you see killing sprees as a way to solving problems. There is even a President and his administration in the Whitehouse that believes violence solves problems, aka Iraq. Yet this culture sees sex between two people as something to censor. This is the problem of the profit motive controling popular cultural output, it panders to and reinforces base human instincts and to those views that control the money. When you get influential politicians coming on TV advocating violence whilst denying constructive engagement works, what can people expect. America isn't devoid of rational intellectual thought, I have enough books in my book case to know that but it just doesn't seem to listen to them.



SusanofO -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 12:49:11 AM)

I do think there is a larger social issue in that people like this slip through the mental health care system (or school officiials ignore they have a problem) or their parents are absentee parents, and ignore any warning signs they may have deep "issues" etc. 

I agree it makes the victims no less dead, but that larger social issue does exist, and I notice some pro-gun  proponents immediately jump on the "if people had been armed this would never have happened" argument instead, first. I do understand this is probably because people are upset it happened at all.

As far as suicides, I agree that someone truly depressed, will probably find some other way to maybe committ suicide - my point was - why maybe increase the odds?

I am just not a huge fan of inherently deadly weapons in general I guess. If someone else wants to own one, and is responsible about it, I haven't got problems with it.

I can understand how someone who has been attacked might want one. I considered buying one, at one point, myself. I was scared it would somehow fall in to the wrong hands - but that is just me. Other people can do what they want, and I am not going to second guess them. I have not been in their shoes. 

Unfortunately where I live, there is a huge gang problem that is starting to creep into even the suburbs. Now due to recent laws passed, any gang member (the ones with no criminal record yet), can supply their fellow gang members with even more guns. Yay. I feel so much more secure as a citizen now...

**As for why not Judo, for instance, instead - well, for older people maybe something else, that isn't inherently potentially deadly, like a stun-gun?

Because supposedly part of Pulpsmack's argument is that responsible gun-owners will have to take lessons to learn how to properly use them anyway.

Drive by shootings are going to happen anyway, regardless. Fortunately in  my neighborhood, they are not a frequent occurrence. For those in which they are frequent - I throw the original argument back at ya'll.

The fact they occur at all, IMO is related to a larger social problem, and it's not going away simply because people own more guns, any more than it is likely to go away simply because people own fewer guns. The problem is a violent, criminal mind-set, IMO.

You aren't going to stop a drive by shooter with your own gun, in 99% of the cases  - a drive by shooting occurs in a matter of a split second. By the time someone who is shot at reacts, it is either too late, or else they are going to perpetrate some "shoot-out" mentality by reacting. Better to drive quickly, and get the hell out of the vicinity as fast as possible, IMO.     

If it is really true that guns are only for self-defense - why not just ditch the idea of using a weapon that can more often result in accidental homicides, and use something less inherently deadly, instead? I can think of more than a few:

Stun-gun (aka "Tazers)

Using self defense such as Karate or Judo

Mace or Pepper Spray

Bee-bee guns

and the list goes on.

I get the impression sometimes, that it is the "macho idea" of owning a gun, not purely the idea of self-defense, that is the draw to owning one. I am not trying to be insulting, just trying to understand, period.

- Susan 



cyberdude611 -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 1:09:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

The remorselessly violent images put out by the so called entertainment industy dont help much either. If the killer was deemed to be needing counciling(sp?) as a result of his literary efforts what about some of those who write the violent filth that the film industry produces ?


Let's put this into context. This is not just the work of a crazy man, it has happened too often for that, it has become a cultural phenomenon. How many times in American films and TV shows do you see killing sprees as a way to solving problems. There is even a President and his administration in the Whitehouse that believes violence solves problems, aka Iraq. Yet this culture sees sex between two people as something to censor. This is the problem of the profit motive controling popular cultural output, it panders to and reinforces base human instincts and to those views that control the money. When you get influential politicians coming on TV advocating violence whilst denying constructive engagement works, what can people expect. America isn't devoid of rational intellectual thought, I have enough books in my book case to know that but it just doesn't seem to listen to them.


The man that did this was seriously disturbed. He was declared mentally ill in 2005 and said to be a danger to himself. He should not have had access to a gun. But the gun was not the reason this crime occured. So I think people need to stop the knee-jerk reactions for a minute and evaluate the situation.
To me, this shows more evidence of problems with the mental health system than gun control. This guy displayed warning signs that everyone ignored for countless years. He should have been placed in a mental hospital years ago.

There is also a cultural problem with the youth generation. Practically all the students that go on these killing sprees in schools are people with severe depression. And are basically bullied for years non-stop. They are usually social outcasts that people just eventually start ignoring. The two boys that did the Columbine shootings were frequently bullied and the warning signs they gave went over the course of years which were again ignored. Eventually they built up a lot of anger and hate, and they started to direct that anger towards their peers.

There is practically ZERO support structure for mental health in the US. School counselers are mostly unqualified for the tasks that are expected of them. And the federal government does not like to fund mental institutions. In fact, over the past decade, many mental hospitals have been forced to close because of reductions in funding. Most of the patients were simply released back into the population. Insurance companies also do not like to pay for mental healthcare. So people that need help, rarely get it. Taxpayers don't want mentally disturbed people in the population, but they dont want to pay for their treatment either. So, the taxpayers get what they pay for. Untill Americans figure that out, this type of stuff will keep happening.

As for your other points...Sex is censored not because of money, but because of religion. You will find that the majority of people in the US that support censorship are bible freaks. And there are way more than enough of those freaks in the US.



GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 1:20:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO


**I also notice nobody ever addressed my last point. Why guns? Why not Judo, for instance, instead? Or for older folks, maybe something else, that isn't inherently potentially deadly, like a stun-gun?

Because supposedly part of Pulpsmack's argument is that responsible gun-owners will have to take lessons to learn how to properly use them anyway.

If that is true, why not just ditch the idea of using a weapon that can more often result in accidental homicides, and use something less inherently deadly, instead?

- Susan 


I did address it, Susa...on edit.  I saw your additonal post after I hit enter, so I added it.  I am afraid I was a bit tongue in cheek, and that is not directed at you.  My knee jerk reaction.  I stand by the fact that I do not have anything against self defense such as Judo or Karate, and I encourage such knowledge.  It has it's place.   But it is not a reasonably viable defense against a gun.  Criminals don't care and will laugh as they pull the trigger while you are winding up for your kick.  Try it if you have the knowledge, but to limit people by saying that they should learn a self-defense tencnique such as Judo, and that this will have to be sufficient in case they are ever faced with a loaded gun is asking a bit much, in My opinion.   We no longer live in the days when a "gentleman" would not shoot another who is unarmed.  There are no "fair rules" concerning criminal activity.  It is what it is.  Best be prepared to appropriately defend. 



SusanofO -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 1:27:22 AM)

I know I just saw it, sorry (didn't see that, Oops). I added to my original question, though, too, since then.

I don't have a problem with responsible gun owners. Although stun-guns can be pretty effective, too, in simply disarming someone. Nor is it that I cannot see how someone wouldn't feel perfectly justified in seriously injuring someone else who had every intent to harm them.  

But, the laws currently passed in my area are allowing even  more gang member than before to puchase them, too (as long as the haven 't accumulated a crim inal record yet. And they've got plenty of "fresh recruits" who don't have one yet). It just seemed slightly self-defeating to me, as far as being effective legislation. 

I am not really sure what the answer is, overall. It is just kind of depressing, really.
I think using less inhernetly less deadly force can dis-arm an attacker in many if not most cases, probably. 

Knives scare the hell out of me, too.

- Susan



Pulpsmack -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 1:29:42 AM)

quote:


SusanofO
And because these things might happen anyway, we should make it even easier by adding more available deadly weapons to the list of supposed "things that might be deadly, and are within reach" someday"?

I obviously already disagree with that assertion (sorry).

Contradiction/disbelief is a default position. You are free to believe what you wish but if you have no cogent argument the (dis)belief makes no difference. I believe you are looking at the situation backwards. This isn’t campaigning about the privilege to gain access of self-defense instrumentalities. This is about reclaiming rights taken from us so that we may (if we choose to) protect ourselves from such situations as best we are able.


Pulpsmack: *I noticed you did not address my last, and possibly most pertinent, point.

Why guns? Why not self-defense classes instead? I suppose Judo, for instance, could be deadly, but not near as deadly due to accidents occurring with its use.

Please don't answer (if you are going to do it) with "why not?" It is a serious question.

Frankly, “why not” is a valid answer because it is my right to carry and use firearms, but I will humor you nevertheless.

Which would YOU find more useful, the ability to use your body as a defense weapon or a firearm? There is no right or wrong answer so far as a choice is concerned. Both are extremely useful and have their strengths and weaknesses.

Having said that, I make firearms my preferred choice because while my ability to keep up with shooting will decrease somewhat with age, the fundamentals remain. I guarantee there are septuagenarian masters who could put me on my ass, but I am certain that my decreased shooting skills as an old man would be far better than my decreased hand-to-hand fighting skills. That’s just me. Moreover, If I was cornered in a situation where I was not within striking distance and the assailant had a gun, I would be at a bigger disadvantage in hand to hand combat. This may be a wash, because at close distances there is merit with hand-to-hand over firearms, but I have actually been in this situation with a legal firearm and survived it. I would also much rather be armed with a gun against multiple assailants than with hand-to-hand. Finally, skill matters much more in hand to hand where size is concerned than it does with firearms. It takes less skill and dedication to remain an effective shooter (although it requires diligence nevertheless) than it does martial arts, and very importantly, physical disparity means much less when you protect yourself with a firearm than it does hand-to-hand.




quote:

Lordandmaster

The flaw in this kind of reasoning is the assumption that "the bad guys" will have equal access to firearms whether they're legal or not.  It's just not true.  The murderer in this case bought one of his weapons at a local gun store.  Just walked right in, Hi, I'd like to buy this one.  If you remove strip-mall gun outlets from society, lone psychotics are going to have a MUCH more difficult time finding firearms to kill people with.  Terrorists, mobsters--sure, they'll still find ways to buy guns if they need them.  But insane South Korean college students won't.


I would counter with the flaw in reasoning is that less freedom to acquire means “much more difficult” or even impossible to acquire. Any nation that is a serious military power has enough weapons and security issues that ensure such instrumentalities will be readily available to the criminal population. Just this year we have had an MP5 submachine gun, a Glock .40 pistol, and two AR-15s (2 separate occasions) stolen from police cars in TX. There are too many guns here in the civilian population alone to EVER make regulation in the criminal world a reality. Remove those and it is too easy given the weaponry available to the military and law enforcement. Remove that and our borders are too soft to repel imported firearms from China, Russia, Mexico, etc. Remove that and a good old machine shop and some simple know how can churn out submachine guns from scratch.

The thing that people cannot wrap their heads around is that arms control is a lost cause. It’s an impossibility. Not an unlikelihood… an impossibility. We can bury our heads in the sand and make hopeful gestures like pissing in the wind, or we can accept the reality of the situation and do our best to protect ourselves. The only effective way of countering the violence (short of sociological breakthroughs) would be to have a police state, which runs counter to everything this nation stood for.



SusanofO -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 1:34:06 AM)

It is not "backwards thinking" - it's my thinking, though . I've never felt passionate about some "right" to accumulate weapons that are inhernetly deadly, and wouldn't miss it if disappeared, probably.

To each their own, and I am not meaning to diss you. I just don't see it as integral to the overall quality of my life, that's all. Defending myself, and my fighting for my life, fortunately doesn't play into my everyday existence. I realize for some people it may, to a greater degree, though. But -

Why not just use a stun gun? Youre not going to actually kill anyone with it - but from the way many are constructed and appear, an attacker isn't necessarily going to be able to deduce that, and it wil stun someone enough to be able to dis-arm them totally. 

- Susan 



GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 1:44:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

<snipped> I've never felt passionate about some "right" to accumulate weapons that are inhernetly deadly, and wouldn't miss it if disappeared, probably.

To each their own, and I am not menaing to diss you. I just don't see it as integral to the overall quality of my life, that's all. Defending myself, and my fighting for my life, fortunately doesn't play into my everyday existence. 

- Susan 


And what will happen if and when it might, Susan?  You would then  not even have the option of owning a gun, should you choose to, and if there is suddenly a rash of home invasions in your neighborhood, your only option is to dial 911 as the window is being smashed in and hope someone gets there in time.  I am not saying you have to choose to own a gun.  I am saying that this is your choice.  Please don't take away Mine just because you are uncomfortable with the idea and it is not persoanlly affecting your life at this moment.   



SusanofO -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 1:56:16 AM)

I am not trying to take away anyone's choice. But I do think it's ironic that the way some want to stop gun violence is with more gun use. It is less extreme, but along the lines of chopping the hand off a burglar, for instance, The old eye for an eye thinking. 

It is justified, in a sense, and if somebody were actually trying to kill me, I can't say I wouldn't be sorely tempted. But I think, frankly, we should stun-gun all of these folks, and just make them live with eachother on an island somewhere ,and maybe they'll finally figure out what it's like to have to live in fear. They might not die (or maybe they will) but possibly a light may start to dawn along those lines. But -  

that way, at least I won't have to fear them, and live with them, and their own self-destructive tendencies will be responsble for their demise, and I find it even more ironic that it will be at the hands of people who think just like they do - not by gradually dragging the mind-set of basically nice people into the toilet, and forcing them to arm themselves in response - where the criminals' mind set is already located.

I realize this is a somewhat idealistic statement.

Okay. Nuff said by me on this topic.I enjoyed reading all the comments.

- Susan 



Pulpsmack -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 2:02:43 AM)

I feel like I have adequately covered why I choose to train with firearms as a first line of defense. If there was a better mousetrap (that worked better for me) I would have had X years developing skills with that instread.

Have you noticed that police have stunguns on their duty belts but they still have their sidearms as well? There is a reason for this. Stun guns are administered when less-lethal force is necessary. When it comes time to preserve the life of oneself/others the stun gun is among the worst possible tools to rely upon.

They have marginal accuracy, no appreciable range, and subject to both mechanical and electrical failure. I can go on and on about stun guns, or pepper spray or this or that. You either get it or you don't. To date, there is no more effective tool against someone exerting deadly force upon you than a firearm.



SusanofO -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 2:07:35 AM)

Okay. But I am probably not going to run right out and get one. I don't care if you want to do it, though.

And I don't believe that all of the gun  buyer's who are now rushing out to buy guns in my area, are being tracked, as far as whether or not they actualy are learning how to use their weapons with the degree of responsibility that would be necessary to not accidentally kill someone.

- Susan



Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.589844E-02