Subject:
|
Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 May 1999 14:53:43 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
c576653@cclabs=AvoidSpam=.missouri.edu
|
Viewed:
|
774 times
|
| |
|
|
Richard Dee wrote:
>
> (When considering flameage in your replies, remember I am
> actually half-American, by way of my father).
How would that change anything?
> The last comment, antisocial shooters. Intriguing, and I shall
> dredge up the old, gun-ownership isssue.
OK, I'll bite :-)
> In light of the events at Columbine, would you (plural, all
> Americans, anyone in general, and perhaps proponents of some
> political philosophies), still support gun ownership?
Absolutely. 100%
> Would
> it still be the contention that any one of the lives of the
> 15 that died would be insignificant, when weighed against the
> symbolic notion of freedom that the pro-gun people imply gun
> ownership to represent?
I don't want to call them insignificant, but I think that due to the way
you've phrased the question, the only answer I can give is Yes. I think
that the RKBA as guaranteed by our supreme law, is more important than
any one or all fifteen of those lives.
> Would pro-gun people still argue that "keeping the government
> in check," to be one of the tenets and responsibilities of
> gun ownership?
Absolutely.
> Do people really think that the military
> would sit by and allow a dictatorship to evolve and rule?
It is a historically common event. What is different now? And anyway,
dictatorship isn't the only evil government that the 2nd amendment is
designed to protect against.
> Do people actually believe the oft-repeated notion that
> people kill people, not guns?
I should think that you'd have to believe it. I certainly do.
> Will people keep voting for legislation that makes it easier
> to acquire weaponry?
Yes. I am an extremely hard-line 2nd amendment purist and I think that
there are tons and tons of laws being enforced across the US that are
criminal in that they violate the spirit and wording of the constitution.
> Will *any* legislation passed in relation
> to gun ownership continue to fail the innocent?
I don't follow. I believe that laws will always fail the innocent and
that people are the only things that can protect people, laws mostly
can't do it.
> Do people really, truly fear, or believe, that there is a gun-
> toting maniac around every corner?
Some people might, but I think that either they are paranoid, or ought
to move.
> Or that their mild-mannered,
> harmless neighbour will snap, necessitating them to heavily
> arm themselves to protect against such a possibility?
I live in a lower middle-class (barely) neighborhood in which one
next-door neighbor just got out after 1.5 years for burglary. And the
other gets strange visitors 24*7 who drive up, honk, meet outside,
exchange goods and money, and then depart. I assume he's a crack (or
something) dealer. Both neighbors are friendly, and one regularly buys
ice cream from the ice cream van for my son, but I'm still glad that I
have 15 9mm rounds ready to go in case someone enters my house unwelcome.
> Or will there continue to be a mini-, localised arms race,
> and more innocents dying because no politician has the
> stomach to do anything about it.
This doesn't happen, so I don't know what you mean by continue.
> Think about it. By doing nothing for so many years, the problem
> has only gotten worse, and much harder to do anything about it.
Agreed. They should lift all weapons bans and everyone would be equal
instead of having the law abiding productive citizens at the mercy of
the savages.
> What real need has anyone to possess a gun.
A) I suppose I've addressed that in the description of my neighborhood.
B) In the US, I don't need a need. I have the right.
C) So that when the jack-booted storm troopers try to come through my
door, I can go out knowing that there are a dozen fewer criminal agents
of the government in existence.
D) It is a basic precept of "The American Way." If you don't feel it,
then don't own one. I promise not to kill you with mine (assuming you behave).
> What real justification?
I'll still stand by the 2nd Amendment, though it appears you'll be
misrepresenting it shortly.
> When was the Constitution written, 1789? 210 years ago! What
> was life like then? Then, you could argue that justification
> existed. "Hostile" natives, the need to hunt for much of the
> food to be consumed, etc.
In addition to the natives, there were soldiers of other nations about,
and we would have had to wait longer to declare independence from the
tyranny of King George. (Actually, I'm partially joking, I mostly think
our revolution was a silly petulant knee-jerk tax revolt, but I wasn't
there, and I've profited from it, so I don't complain too much.) I
think there was lots of reason (inarguably) for firearms to be
commonplace at the time.
> ("Hostile" natives. Hmmmmm, a group
> of people, though not recognised as being part of the nation,
> excersising their democratic rights, both in what would later
> be defined in international law, and what would then have been
> their constitutional rights, to protect their homes, culture,
> and way of life, from what was then a far more hostile and
> powerful foe.
International law doesn't hold water since it wasn't around, and they
didn't have constitutional rights because they weren't in-group, just
like the slaves.
> Sound familiar? A nation being invaded for nothing
> more than profit, or to conduct "ethnic cleansing." Oh the irony,
Of course, I don't think anyone would dispute that this was why the
British sent colonists there - and all over the world.
> when the US government should decide to send in Apache helicoptors,
> to protect the Kosovans. Sending in a piece of military hardware
> to protect a group of people from "ethnic cleansing," named after
> a group of people "ethnically cleansed" by the owners' recent
> ancestors!) Back to the story.....
I guess that is mildly amusing :-)
> What justification is there today for gun ownership? None, really.
> How many people are shot in their homes by hostile invaders? I
> would suggest (I have no *evidence* to support the notion) that
> more people are shot accidentally, or by other members of that
> household, then by outsiders.
What if I cited lots of numbers suggesting you were wrong? I've done
this for people before, but the typical response is "Oh yeah, but those
are your numbers, I could find equally significant studies on the
opposite side" (but of course they've never produced them) or "Yeah,
yeah, yeah, anyone can make numbers say anything...don't you know you
can't trust studies."
> From whom might one expect a military
> invasion? Canada? Mexico? Cuba?
Washington DC.
> Hunting nowadays, more for sport
> than food procurement I imagine.
For some people.
> And most meat is available
> packaged in the refrigerated section of the local supermarket,
If you can afford it.
> already killed for you. And really, what are the odds, of you going
> to a bank or shop, and arriving, or being present, for an
> armed robbery?
It happens all the time. (Not me, but someone.)
> Infinitessimal. And would you really, truly want
> everyone to be armed for such an unlikely eventuality.
Yes.
> I cannot explain coherently or eloquently the next point. *I*
> know what I am trying to say, I just cannot quite explain it!
>
> One last thing, pertaining to the notion of people kill people,
> though I cannot quote a source, it has been proven, from a
> psychological standpoint, that guns *do* kill. If faced with a
> situation where violence might be used, the weaponry available
> to the individual will dramatically alter the life expectancy
> of the person on the receiving end.
This is an interesting point, and it's one that I've not been presented
with before. There is another psychological construct at work -
Deterrence. Studies find that typically there is a weak inverse
correlation between commonality of firearms and violent crime. It is
believed that it would be somewhat stronger except that the cause of
increased or decreased firearm presence is problem crime rates which
mask the connections somewhat. It appears that armed societies actually
are polite societies.
> Reactions to different
> forms of attack, and the ability to counter different forms
> of attack will increase the survivability of that attack. A gun
> doesn't so easily enable an individual to have second thoughts
> about an action. One has a higher probability of dying from
> a gunshot than being stabbed. One might need to stab more than
The huge majority of violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders,
and are not crimes of passion. Thus, they are committed by people who
are already criminals. So, someone committing a crime - as a criminal -
isn't going to be put off by the penalties associated with illegal
firearm use. They will have the gun anyway. The people who won't have
guns are the people who could save the victim because they are concerned
by the potential penalties.
> once, or should one strangle.....I give up. I cannot explain
> it! A goodly proportion of murder is "crime of passion." The
> methods available to act upon a shock that leads to it, alter
> the survivability chances of the victim.
I very much want to increase the survivability chances of the victim.
--
Sincerely,
Christopher L. Weeks
central Missouri, USA
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: New Web Page
|
| On Thu, 13 May 1999 14:53:43 GMT, Christopher L. Weeks uttered the following profundities... (...) It wouldn't generally, but might temper the reaction of "stupid bloody foreigner!" That could instead be "half-stupid, half- foreigner!" (...) (...) (25 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) If I may jump in to interject my 2 slugs worth;-) I don't know if the Constitution guarantees the right to possess *guns* per say, merely to "bear arms". Suppose technology creates a Star Trekkian phaser capable of merely stunning an (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) Just one point here. (Christoper is doing fine otherwise) There is no need for EVERYONE to be armed. An armed populace does not mean 100% heated. 1% or even 1/10% is all it takes. Not everyone in the old west was a gunslinger, but it was a (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New Web Page
|
| On Wed, 12 May 1999 00:32:49 GMT, Larry Pieniazek uttered the following profundities... (...) No comments on education. I am not of schooling age, nor have children, or likely to in the near future. (When considering flameage in your replies, (...) (25 years ago, 12-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
