Subject:
|
Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 May 1999 00:37:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
840 times
|
| |
|
|
I just want to put my two cents on this one, whereas I will just keep my
big mouth shut about the other threads...
For what its worth, Mike Stanly seems to absolutely right! (again)
Mike Stanley wrote in message ...
> Richard Dee <richard.dee@virgin.net> wrote:
> > The last comment, antisocial shooters. Intriguing, and I shall
> > dredge up the old, gun-ownership isssue.
> Why? People are usually as polarized on this issue as the abortion
> issue.
Good point, I think I will unsubscribe for awhile, since my view is
unmovable.
> > 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? 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?
> It is my contention that the only thing more disgusting than bringing
> up a tragedy like this in such a "if you support the right to own a
> gun you think those children who died are less important than your
> right to own a gun" way would be the gun-nut who would counter with
> something equally ridiculous like "well, if it weren't so hard already
> to buy a gun maybe some of the other kids could have shot the evil
> shooters before they killed all those kids."
Both of these are extreme, and don't have anything to do with the actual
argument. They are both ridiculous. I certainly do still support the
Constitution, which demands that the citiizens of the US always have the
right to own guns.
> > Would pro-gun people still argue that "keeping the government
> > in check," to be one of the tenets and responsibilities of
> > gun ownership? Do people really think that the military
> > would sit by and allow a dictatorship to evolve and rule?
> Mmmmm.... not that I'm stating whether or not I believe a bunch of
> heavily armed rednecks could do much against any government that
> wanted to squash them, but do you realize how silly what you just
> wrote sounds?
I believe a government is less likely to terrorize its citizens if they
are adequately armed, so, yes, I do believe that is "still" a valid
argument. And normally, the military supports or IS the dictatorial
government, so I would not trust it to protect the citizens.
> > Do people actually believe the oft-repeated notion that
> > people kill people, not guns?
> A gun, like almost all inanimate objects, cannot do much of anything
> without the help of a willing animate object. In most cases that
> means a person.
Its a slogan, not an argument. Its catchy, it makes people think, which
is obviously something they should do a little more frequently. And guns do
faciliate murder, but a person commits that act.
> > Will people keep voting for legislation that makes it easier
> > to acquire weaponry? Will *any* legislation passed in relation
> > to gun ownership continue to fail the innocent?
> I haven't kept up with the gun debate for years. So I don't know much
> about recent legislation. I know a lot of it from the time I was
> paying attention was mainly stupid.
Most gun legislation is pointless and "fails the innocent." As long as
guns exist, which I suspect will be forever, people will own and use them.
It is unjust to allow one person to have a gun and another person not to
have a gun. A criminal will own a gun *regardless* of legality and a law
abiding citizen has the right to protect himself from such a criminal.
Further, much like prohibition of alcohol in the 1930s, gun legislation will
only create more criminals and a more corrupt justice system. For the
government to provide security for its citizens to an extent where its
citizens will be safe without guns would require such absolute control of
each individual that I would be much happier how it is now. I would move if
the government ever asserted that much power over my life.
> > Do people really, truly fear, or believe, that there is a gun-
> > toting maniac around every corner? Or that their mild-mannered,
> > harmless neighbour will snap, necessitating them to heavily
> > arm themselves to protect against such a possibility?
> No. But I know _for a fact_ that within 3 months of moving into my
> current residence, that a woman pretending to be in need of help with
> her car tried to scam her way into my apartment at 2am one night when
> Rachael and I were up late watching TV. I say tried to scam her way
> in because she claimed to be alone even though I couldn't see her
> through the peephole and when I wouldn't let her in I heard about 6
> sets of footsteps walking down the stairs and saw a like number of
> shadows head off to another building in my complex.
Like Mike, I know there are dangerous people, and I know I will protect
myself "by what ever means necessary" from them. Whether it is legal or
not, I will own a gun for the sole purpose of self protection. The NRA,
although it is extreme, is the sole reason miilions of Americans with this
same sentiment have not become criminals. A lot of the NRA's arguments are
ludicrous, but this one alone is enough for me to send them a check every
year.
> In that situation I did the best thing I could do - I didn't let her
> into my home, I merely offered to make the call to a relative for her.
> She declined. But if, for some strange reason, she or her 5 friends
> had tried to force their way into my apartment, they would have been
> met with deadly force from two handguns, both wielded by adults who
> felt comfortable with their use and were good shots.
> So no, I don't own weapons to protect myself and my wife from the
> silly boogymen you conjur up to ridicule people who do feel the need
> to own a gun. I own one because in the real world some people are
> bad, and if I'm ever forced to deal with one I want to make sure the
> right person walks away from it.
>
> > 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.
> Dunno about an arms race. My next "gun" purchase will be a paintball
> gun. Sometime this year I plan on purchasing a shotgun. Two handguns
> and a shotgun ought to do it for me since I doubt I'll ever need a
> rifle because I don't think hunting (in my circumstances) is much fun
> or justifiable.
Whatever. The only arms race going on is those gun dealers who have the
wits to fear possible legislation. If any laws are passed, I am sure they
will be prepared to become wealthy. I don't see how you can connect people
hoarding guns for future profits with innocents dying!
> > Think about it. By doing nothing for so many years, the problem
> > has only gotten worse, and much harder to do anything about it.
> > What real need has anyone to possess a gun. What real justification?
You are right; by doing nothing for so many years, the problem has gotten
worse. For thousands of years people have been killing other people without
punishment. People do not value their lives or the lives of others enough.
That is the problem that seemingly has gotten worse. It is very hard to do
anything about it. But eliminating innocent people's best protection is an
assinine way to attempt to correct the problem!
> You probably won't accept any of the reasons I could give, even though
> I could back them up with real-life personal facts, not NRA
> propaganda, so what's the point in asking. Are you honestly prepared
> to consider the "debate" with an open mind? I'm honet enough to
> admit that I'm not, although I'm for reasonable control measures as
> long as they don't overly hinder my right as an adult citizen with
> nothing more than a speeding ticket or five on his record.
Yah, me too, I am not open minded at all, I will not veer. If you want to
argue, I imagine others will be glad to, but I don't have the time.
> > 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. From whom might one expect a military
> Ok, so borrowing a page from your book up top, would you say the lives
> of those who ARE saved, even if only a few, aren't worth making it
> possible for law-abiding citizens to own guns?
And I would beg to differ, that most murders are by criminals against
unarmed victims. Perhaps, had the victim been armed, the outcome would be
different? People who are willing to kill illegally are willing to own an
illegal gun!
> > invasion? Canada? Mexico? Cuba? Hunting nowadays, more for sport
> > than food procurement I imagine. And most meat is available
> > packaged in the refrigerated section of the local supermarket,
> > already killed for you. And really, what are the odds, of you going
> Yep, one of the reasons I couldn't, with a clear conscience, hunt.
I am not too worried about a war, and if we had one I would like to be in
an Abrams tank, but any gun would do, for a little added security.
> > 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. 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
> > 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.
>
> Ah. Ok, so guns are bad because they don't allow people with
> murderous intent to rethink their course of action while in the
> process of killing someone. How clear it seems now.
Yes, so clear! My last word. It would be nice if I and the millions of
people fighting against gun legislation could do something better with their
money, like spend it on law enforcement, rather than protecting ourselves
from useless, detrimental legislation. I must say I fear my own government
more than any kook with a gun, but I suppose thats because I have a defense
for him. Whereas my only defense against my government is the sound minds
of my countrymen, which is very unreassuring.
--
Have fun!
John ( jdiri14897@email.msn.com ) remove NOSPAM:
John's Lego Web Trade Page:
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/lego/index.htm
MOC,CA[cl,bf,cr,fm,bk+++ wp,dm,rk,df++ fk-]++++(6035)
SW,TR,old(456)+++ TO++ PI,SP+ DU--
#+++++ S LS¼ Hy? M+ A+++ LM-- IC12m
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) For the record, I think that my beliefs are subject to change, but others have tried to convince me and it hasn't happened on this issue. (...) This is the key practical point, as far as I see it. (...) And this is the key ethical point which (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: New Web Page
|
| Mike and John are doing fine. I wish I had time to participate in this debate as I usually do... it's fun. Not likely to change anyone's mind but fun. (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) Why? People are usually as polarized on this issue as the abortion issue. (...) It is my contention that the only thing more disgusting than bringing up a tragedy like this in such a "if you support the right to own a gun you think those (...) (26 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
|
|
|
|
