jwoody

If I wanted to be awkward, I could read how the story also negatively affects your ratio of responsible:irresponsible gun owners, chances of being hit by stray bullets and likelyhood of a carelessly discarded weapon falling into criminal hands.

__________________
.

Cynthetiq

you could...

but the ROOT of the issue is the irresponsible law enforcement officer

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

dksuddeth

not sure how you could read that in to it, but ok. As it stands, the story only points out how one supposedly responsible LEO fell in to the irresponsible category, doesn't mention a thing about all the responsible gun owners at all. That must be some of that media bias I keep hearing about.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Redjake

I haven't read the entire thread, but I definitely have a firm opinion on gun laws and gun control.

Banning hand guns in any city will not reduce hand gun crimes.

Crack cocaine is banned. Marijuana is banned. A lot of shit is banned. Yet it's still there. Yes, let's punish the law abiding citizens of the US by taking away their defense against bastards that are willing to use guns to commit a crime.

If you take away the legal guns, the illegal guns will still remain. We are then defenseless. Unless the US wants to pay all of the former handgun owners to learn knife training and close quarter combat. And hand out bullet proof vests.

I can see it now. "let's rob that house......they look like law-abiding citizens. they won't have any hand guns. let's do this."

__________________
Off the record, on the q.t., and very hush-hush.

Sweetpea

exactly.

what is the addage....

"if you outlaw guns, then the only people who will have guns are outlaws"

I'm just glad the NRA has such a powerful loobying group with congress.

sweetpea

__________________
Having a Pet Will Change Your Life!
Looking for a great pet?! Click Here!
"I am the Type of Person Who Can Get Away With A lot, Simply Because I Don't Ask Permission for the Privilege of Being Myself"

longbough

1010011010

Other way around, chief.
The 14th Amendment, ratified in the late 1860s, basically created the doctrine of Equal Protection in consitutional law.

The 2nd Amendment says this: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed". Interesting thing about the Bill of Rights and why they're different from other amendments: Rights are not granted by governments and are not exclusive to citizens. If the United States dissolved tomorrow we'd all still have the right to free speech, religion, assembly, to bear arms, to be secure in our persons and property, et al.
The 2nd Amendment does not create the Right to Bear Arms. It, like all Rights, exists independent of governments.Have you ever heard "regulars" used to refer to professional soldiers? What do you suppose "well regulated" means in light of this usage? Also, the heart of the law is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Not "the people in a militia" or "the right of the militia." The subordinate justification (a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state) for protecting a Right of The People isn't terribly relevant.Today? Yesterday? How many countries have run the numbers on invading the continental US and noted that civilian resistance is an unmanagable problem?
I'm not sure if you paid attention to how the American Revolution was waged, but do note that nowhere in the 2nd Amendment is there any reference to foreign threats.All of them? Anyone trained and/or proficient at arms is a member of the militia. The recent concept of "militia" to mean a dozen guys in camo that get together on the weekends to shoot AR-15s and try to use their club as a reason they all need Class III licensing has nothing whatever to do with the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

Disclaimer: I don't own any guns and never have. I do periodically have to qualify and occassionally carry one at work. So keep the "Oh, you crazy gun nuts trying to compensate for your tiny micropenis with firepower" comments in the box.

__________________
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions

ZeRoGRaViTY

Gun ownership with responsible citizens? Sure, why not. After all it is protect under our constitutional rights. But there is just so so so much more to guns and gun violence in the US than just the 2nd ammendment. I mean sure if someone feels the need to own a handgun for protection from the boogey man entering your house while you are sleeping, then sure get a gun. Even though in most cases of home invasions people aren't even awaken by a burglar or aren't even home, and by the time they wake up and see there house in ruins it is too late to draw your weapon from it's safe on the top shelf of your closet and oops, you left the key for the case downstairs to open the case, and then you struggle to get the thin safety sticker of the box of the ammo. But still, if you had managed to wake up in the middle of a home intrusion and were able to secure a loaded gun into your hands would you rationally be able to identify a thief and pull the trigger to end this persons life knowing that it wasn't your child sleep walking or going for a midnight snack, or a family member entering your house because there was a family emergency and your phone line got knocked out? I would put my money on no.

The NRA to me is just a bunch of little kids who abuse the 2nd ammendment and have no rational judgement. Speaking to a hard-core member of the NRA is 100% pointless. You could bring up 1,000 valid arguements on restrictions and limitations that should be put on "arms". It just falls upon deaf ears. If you do every manage to enter a debate with an individual of sorts you will see. If you do corner them in a legitimate arguement and have their backs against a wall, the only response you will get from them is. "Well, the second ammendment states..." Enough to make you pull your hair out and just want to move far far away from these people.

True what the previous post did say about taking guns out of the hands of responsible citizens. That would accomplish nothing at all. Guns would still remain in the hands of the wrong people and would probably become more of a threat than they were before. There could potentially be so many reasonable solutions to the gun epidemic and murder rate from guns in the US, but as long as there are assholes like the NRA defending guns and not people. Well, we all see the outcome everyday. Maybe this year we can hit that 12K murder mark from guns. We were only 200 shy last year. Good job Heston. BTW NRA...National RIFLE assoc. Stick to what the name of your organization states. It's not NHGA.

Suave

1. Firearm control will not work in the United States. If you doubt me, look at the census data between areas that have strict gun control laws and those that do not; you will see no causal relationship between having stricter control and lower incidence of firearm-related assault and murder.

2. Doesn't this belong in politics?

3. In response to "binary": the right accorded by the Bill of Rights would not exist if the United States dissolved. They exist only because they are supported by the current infrastructure, and if said infrastructure no longer exists, then neither do the rights, regardless of how essential your society deems them.

__________________
"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." - Albert Einstein

"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." - Plato

1010011010

The Bill of Rights accords no rights. The Bill of Rights limits federal power to infringe certain Rights. It's a formal acknowledgement that these Rights exist, but they exist independent of the government. Since the government does not grant these Rights, it cannot take them away.

The reason people get a bug up their ass when people say "Just amend the Constitution." in respect to the 2nd amendment (or any of the Bill of Rights, really), is that if you say there's a way to wave a magic pen and remove the Right to Keep and Bear Arms... that way will work just as well for the Right to Free Expression, Free Exercise of Religion, et al.They'd still exist, they'd just be unjustly infringed and oppressed. And it would be our duty to fight injustice. That's part of the reason why we continue to create the US Government... to protect our rights and, to a recently much lesser extent, protect the rights of others. If it becomes incompetent or ineffective at that task, or hostile to that task, it serves no further useful purpose.

__________________
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions

longbough

Regardless of rationale, this is what will happen if the gun ban remains over the next couple of years:

1.) Statistically significant increase in violent crime - ESPECIALLY rape - which has been the one crime that disproportionately rises with every increase in gun-control legislation (e.g. this is what happened when the Brady Bill went into effect.)

2.) If there is only a moderate increase in violent crime it will not be discussed in the media at all. The opponents of gun-control legislation will publish the facts on blogs and in forums like these ... while gun-contol advocates will dismiss the statistics as biased and probably twisted simply because it's coming from people supporting gun-rights. Still, the majority will refuse to find an objective source for facts.

3.) If there is a significant increase in violent crime and rape - then the blame will be placed on the surrounding counties. Gun control advocates would paradoxically use it as "proof" that the ban needs to include surrounding counties... and so on and so forth. Its just like what's going on in Canada (with its restricitve laws) where violent crime has increased in comparison to the crime rates in the US ... and the blame is placed on gunrunning from the US (where overall crime rates have decreased).

I'll mention the analogy with The War on Drugs again ... If anything it's easier to find illegal drugs because it's a chemical that can be detected in the body, smelled in many cases, sniffed out by trained dogs - yet people are still growing MJ in their back yards and cooking Meth in their basements without problem. Controlling illegal guns will be much more difficult because, broken down, they're just pieces of metal, springs and machinery that wouldn't look out of place in a box of machine parts.

Suave

In recognizing these rights, it is according them. Rights do not exist ipso facto; they are created for and by societies. If the US dissolves (which I extrapolate to mean into anarchy) then those rights are no longer existant.

I do understand what you mean about people wanting to amend the Bill of Rights though. The government amending something that is meant to keep them in check is a bit of a conflict of interest.

__________________
"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." - Albert Einstein

"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." - Plato

dksuddeth

HUGE disagreement here. If the US were to dissolve, I'd still have the right to free speech and religion. I'd still have the right to be reasonably secure in my home. I'd still have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and I'd still have the right to keep and bear arms to protect and secure those other rights. The government does not grant these rights to me, they are inalienable rights as written by the founders who acknowledged that they pre-exist.


the government cannot just 'amend' the constitution. There is a huge expansive process that ultimately needs the consent of a supermajority of the people in order to ratify a new amendment. What we have now is a minority of people using their influence among legislatures to 'regulate' rights out of existence. The gun control act is the best example of it. From there it just slides down to states and localities.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Suave

The problem with that outlook is that, if there is no government to enforce your beliefs and somone happens to disagree with you, tough shit. When there is no government or cohesive set of social norms, there is only one right, and that is the right of the strong to impose their will.

__________________
"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." - Albert Einstein

"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." - Plato

dksuddeth

Why should the government enforce my beliefs on others? Why shouldn't someone be allowed to disagree with me? The government is not there to provide or enforce a societal standard when it comes to individual rights, especially those rights that are natural rights listed in the constitution. The government has no real responsibility to you and reading the gonzale vs. castle rock decision should tell you that.

The primordial order of strong ruling the weak is an animal kingdom rule, not a human society rule, and as such humans have every right to use whatever means necessary to defend their life. The government does not 'grant' me these rights, they are natural rights granted to us by our creator. They pre-exist the government.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

Upon much reflection, I have deicded that at this debates very core is a matter of my perception and philosophy differening greatly from others. I will let Ghandi speak for me in answer to several previous insinuations: "Nonviolence and cowardice are contradictory terms. Nonviolence is the greatest virtue, cowardice the greatest vice. Nonviolence springs from love, cowardice from hate. Nonviolence always suffers, cowardice would always inflict suffering. Perfect nonviolence is the highest bravery. Nonviolent conduct is never demoralizing, cowardice always is."

I am such a strong believer in nonviolence, that I believe that violent self defense is still violent, whether the cause of that violence is nobel or not. Ghandi again: "However much I may sympathize with and admire worthy motives, I am an uncompromising opponent of violent methods even to serve the noblest of causes." It took me years of martial arts training and much violence to realize that true peace means a dedication to nonviolence that is uncompromising. While I have the skill to defend myself or attack someone with a high success rate, I know that I will never be able to do it beacuse it's wrong. When I hear people justifying murder or violence, no matter the reason, I see one thing: entitlement. While you will not agree with me in this, I must tell you how I perceive the subject. If a man acts in such a way as to purpously take my life or the lives of my wife or daughter, he is posturing for battle or conflict. If I counter and injur or kill him, have I won? Is it really a victory if he is left injured or killed? I would say not. It is the general sense in our society that it IS okay to murder in self defence that I speak of when I say entitlement. This is why I so ademently support security doors and passive defensive measures. Buying a gun to defend yourself is similar to making a doomsday device to keep yourself safe. It is the most severe form of contradiction.

If you wish to buy a gun in order to keep yoursrelf safe, please do so. If you want to question why others don't have a gun, expect an answer that has more to do with philosophy than statistics. I realize, as someone who lives in the real world, that the statistics point to probable failure for the San Francisco gun ban. I also know that I sleep more soundly knowing that others are, like me, so dedicated to non violence that they are willing to gamble their lives on it. If it doesn't make sense to you, that's fine. I expect no concessions on the matter. I just wanted to come back fresh and let you know what I was thinking.

I apologize if I offended anyone with my eariler posts. I started to lose my temper, and that is something I have to live with.

One more Ghandi quote to go out on: "You must be the change you wish to see in the world."

Sweetpea

I understand and see what you are saying Willravel... and i am the most non-violent person you could ever meet, and i agree with you that being peaceful is VERY important.

but if some guy is going to try to rape me or try to kill me... i'll be prepared to protect my life at the cost of his.
Once you've known someone (and i have, she was my good friend) who was kidnapped, beaten and raped... it changes how you feel about people and about how far you will go to protect yourself. If my friend had had something to protect herself when she was kidnapped, her whole life would be different.

that's why i support gun ownership and self-protection is why most people i know support it.

sweetpea

__________________
Having a Pet Will Change Your Life!
Looking for a great pet?! Click Here!
"I am the Type of Person Who Can Get Away With A lot, Simply Because I Don't Ask Permission for the Privilege of Being Myself"

Willravel

I watched my best friend get shot in the face and I still don't believe that self protection takes priority over nonviolence. I would also say that you are probably not the most nonvoilent person I could ever meet. If you are prepared to protect your life at the cost of an attacker you are non nonviolent. This is just my philosophy, and I don't want to judge those who have a different philosophy. I only mean to point out something like: Vegitarians don't eat meat. Nonviolent people don't kill.

Sweetpea

and i realize my own faux paz by saying i'm non violent. rather, i meant, i'm not violent by nature, but would be prepared to be, point taken

i see what you are saying. and i respect that you feel that way. thank you for clarifying.

Sweetpea

__________________
Having a Pet Will Change Your Life!
Looking for a great pet?! Click Here!
"I am the Type of Person Who Can Get Away With A lot, Simply Because I Don't Ask Permission for the Privilege of Being Myself"

Willravel

OH, gotcha. I know that you're not violent by nature. Most people are not violent by nature. I appreciate your understanding. I wish more people were able to be as understanding as you.

longbough

I agree there exists a noble virtue in a life conducted according to a personal principle (e.g. "nonviolence") - especially when it bears the risk of personal loss or harm. For example, to take the "high road" of principle may require that one to "turn the other cheek" in the face of harm or to never raise one's hands in aggression towards another human being. And that is a very difficult thing to do – I can respect someone who is strong enough to live that way.

However, for me, that philosophy falls entirely apart when you accept responsibility for the well-being of other people (e.g. as a father with family or as a leader of a town, city, state or nation). It is one thing to be willing to sacrifice your own health and life for principle … but should you sacrifice the lives of the people you govern (or love) to satisfy your personal principles?

Note: Leadership of a “movement” is a different matter, however. As an iconoclast for ideals, Ghandi’s influence in history and world consciousness is undeniable. I’ll leave it to the reader to research Mahatma Ghandi’s effectiveness as a responsible husband to his wife and father to his children.

In my opinion, self-proclaimed “non-violent” purists thrive in self-indulgence but suffer in positions of responsibility for the well-being of others.

I too have studied different types of martial arts since childhood. The practice and skill does grant one a sense of peace in that you have “nothing to prove” in a potential altercation. I believe that the cause of much aggression and violence is often simple fear of the unknown – and violence is frequently the reactive manifestation of simple ignorance. (or "cowardice" as you describe above).

… in that much I completely agree with you.

However, I don't believe that all acts of violence are a product this mechanism. It’s a convenient stereotype to make about all acts of violence … but that would be both naïve and wrong.
I can't speak for others - only myself. If I ever make the unfortunate choice to enact some violent means to resolve conflict it wouldn't be a matter of "justice" (as you describe) at all. It would be for the explicit purpose of saving the lives of people I care about. Justice is for the courts/philosophers/pseudo-intellectuals to decide - I'm just trying to protect my loved ones.

In your case that would be true. But for me I’m not concerned with the issue of “victory” because for me it’s a purely practical issue, not a purely philosophical one.
If I cause harm to another individual because they posed an otherwise unavoidable threat to my family then my decision to act represents a simple equation: his/her life vs. my loved one(s) life (lives).
The need to make such a decision is the consequence of his/her initiative - not mine.

Does it mean I have no qualms about doing it? Not at all. If I ever killed another person ("justifiably" or not) I will most certainly endure the psychological and emotional aftermath for many years ... probably for the rest of my life.
I don't look forward to facing that possibility, but currently I believe I may have to accept that burden some day if the lives of my family are at stake.

But FAILING to protect my family also bears an emotional and psychological burden - one that would be more unplesant to face. I couldn't forgive myself if I had to choose this path.

Perhaps in your “moral” sensibility I have “lost” because I resorted to violence. Fine. The value of my entire life doesn’t revolve around a singular philosophic principle.

---------------------

I don’t believe that life is constructed solely of moral dualities. Not all choices are clearly “right” or “wrong.” “Moral dilemmas” are, by definition, those cases where personal principles come into conflict – and where every option has a measure of “good” and “bad.”

I believe life isn’t simple. If I choose to steal bread to feed my family I have weighed the consequences and made a commitment. If I choose to let my family starve rather than steal I have chosen the path of a different principle. I believe life is full of ugly decisions in an imperfect world. The purest life can only be conducted in isolation beyond the complexities of people, community and political strife. Maybe that's why "holy men" often live as celebate hermits without possessions or responsibilities.

IMO If life was meant to be “pure” without conflict … then what’s the point of living? That’s what I believe.

Do I feel at peace understanding that I have the means of committing violence with a firearm? Of course not. But it is my choice.

If your choice is different - I can't venture to say you were "wrong" - only that your balance of principles is different.
I don’t have a gun just because society says I can justifiably kill people. That's not what responsible gun ownership is about.

Should I consider you a more dangerous person because you mentioned you are adept at martial arts? How would you feel if people said that your training just means you are a violent person? How would you feel if the laws determined that you, as a martial artist, has a greater potential for violence against your family and/or society because you have chosen to learn skills specifically designed to cause injury or death? How would you feel if, because of that, you had to register with the local sherrif every time you move to a different county?

As a fellow practitioner of martial arts I believe that the principle of knowledge (e.g. in martial arts) is a greater empowerment. Like you I believe I have become even less prone to violence when I became more proficient in learning martial arts. That’s because the study of martial arts gives knowledge and self-awareness especially in the face of adversity.

For myself, firearms training is very similar. When you are properly educated (e.g. at Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, LFI, Front Sight etc.) you are introduced to the legality, the emotional consequences and the responsibility of owning a firearm. In fact, many people seek the training but choose not to carry a gun in the car because of the consequence – often they return for training simply because it grants knowledge. Professional firearms instruction is every bit as much a mental, physical and philosophical discipline as the study of martial arts using hands, bo staff, bokken, katana, escrima, kama or kerambit.

Professional firearms instruction teaches breath control, stance, balance, awareness, concentration, logic, improvisation, physical conditioning and personal discipline.

Of course that’s simply your opinion.

But, as I have replied many times before, (i.e. every time you make this same statement) –“Passive security measures” and guns serve entirely different roles. A gun won’t provide a physical barrier between you and an intruder in the living room. And a security door won’t help you when you get pulled from your car in the middle of LA during a riot.

It’s only a contradiction if one considers himself or herself a non-violent purist. I don’t consider myself a non-violent purist.

Is it a “severe form of contradiction” that you, as a practiced martial artist, considers himself a non-violent person? Ghandi wasn’t a martial artist, as I recall.

Gun ownership IMO is only appropriate when an individual is willing to take the initiative to learn the discipline of responsible ownership – which isn’t easy at all. I agree that most people (including many existing gun-owners) are mentally and emotionally unprepared to own a gun.

I never questioned your decision to NOT have a gun. Like many others I only respond to opinions that challeng MY decision to have one. The gun ban affects gun owners it has nothing to do with people who choose NOT to own a gun.

I do understand and respect your philosophy. That is why I’m not one to tell you that you are conducting your life inappropriately. Like yourself, I offer my beliefs as they relate to MY vision of the world. I wouldn’t venture to assume my beliefs are universally acceptable.

Please don’t lose your temper. As far as I’m concerned this is a peaceful discussion. I wouldn’t be a part of it otherwise.

Willravel

Ultimately, the responsibility of one lies in him or herself. Let me put it this way. I have a 2 year old daughter. At one time ot another 24 hours a day, my wife or I are near her. If someone were to try and hurt her or take advantage of her, I would not sit in front of the state capitol building with a sign. If she were taken for monitary gain (ransom, slave labor), I or my wife would simply confront - stand between her and the kidnapper - and try to resolve the issue. "What are you doing?" and a simple posture would deter many, but not all. Let's say that this person has a knife (we've overused guns in the hypothetical situations posed in this thread). This person wants to do me bodily harm. I can stay between him and my daughter without hurting or killing him. If I were to try and take the knife, for example, I would not need to hurt him. We can go through hypothetical situations until we are blue in the face [fingers], the point is that I believe that I can live and even be responsible for my daughters life without being violent, under any circumstances.
My daughter is not dead or injured because of my philosophy. Because of a man like Ghandi, I have learned that there is an outlet for my furstration with violence. In fact, I can take a passive role in decreasing violence in the world. Ghandi's teatment of his family was and is enexcusable, but it doesn't negate his great work. No one is perfect, and we all have our demons.
[QUOTE=longbough]However, I don't believe that all acts of violence are a product this mechanism. It’s a convenient stereotype to make about all acts of violence … but that would be both naïve and wrong.
I can't speak for others - only myself. If I ever make the unfortunate choice to enact some violent means to resolve conflict it wouldn't be a matter of "justice" (as you describe) at all. It would be for the explicit purpose of saving the lives of people I care about. Justice is for the courts/philosophers/pseudo-intellectuals to decide - I'm just trying to protect my loved ones.[/QUOE]
I recognise that not all violence stems from a lack of self control, or anger, or rage, or anything dishonorable. I know that much violence comes from self defense. I have no illusions about that. "However much I may sympathize with and admire worthy motives, I am an uncompromising opponent of violent methods even to serve the noblest of causes."
Moral equasions offer a dangerous prescedent for negotiating one's morality. What use are morals if you do not adhear to them? Also, a fight takes two or more. One person cannot fight.
I appreciate that you do not take this lightly, nor would I expect you to. The logical conclusion from your responses and points is that you are educated and thoughful, and more importantly sympathetic.
I realize that. Either way, this is a terrible situation that no one wants to find himself or herself in. The one difference between us is a simple difference of perspective.
This is hardly my only moral, and there are other related morals attached to this one. In fact, most people have a very intrecit system of morals that each have their limits, in fact mine could even have their limits after all I make this post being of sound mind. I don't know how I would respond if my daughter were in danger and I were in a position to help her. The closesest I have come to that was a bad cold she had a year ago.
Agreed and understood.
I understand that. You have a gun because you've taken a different path on your feelings about violence. In the extreme situation where you or one of your loved ones is in danger, you have a gun as the absolute last resort. I understand.
I do not think you are dangerous because you have a gun. I think you could be dangerous to someone who puts you into a situation where you would use that gun. If I were a gun owner, I would not be dangerous to anyone. My gun would be in a safe, in the basement, behind the old dresser. It would be in a place where no one could get at it, even me.
It's all very Daoist, I know, but in understanding violence I was able to get a better perspective of peace.

longbough

My whole point was that such a decision has nothing to do with morals or legality. It is a (fortunately rare) circumstance that is faced each day by someone in the world.

I don't understand your point.
We're talking about guns, right?

Let me tell you where I'm coming from:
If someone wants to steal my wallet, car, briefcase etc. I DON'T reach for a gun - I let him have it all. That's what insurance is for.
If someone verbally threatens me, I DON'T reach for a gun. I try to talk to him and find a resolution.
If someone verbally threatens my family, I DON'T reach for a gun. I stand between him and my family and try to talk to him to find a resolution.
If someone verbally threatens my family AND he's holding a knife I DON'T reach for a gun. I stand between him and my family and try to talk to him to find a resolution.
But if a stranger is charging at my helpless family with knife in hand, clearly in a threatening manner, - I WILL draw my weapon to STOP him.

I don't see this as a fight.
My intent is to STOP an act of violence against myself or a loved one ... that's all. The mortality/morbidity of my target is not the main issue. This is not just a euphemistic distinction:

If I happen to shoot and miss but the agressor drops his knife and/or runs away - I am successful.

If I shoot him and the bullet lacerates the thoracic aorta but he is able to plunge a knife into a loved one just before he dies from rapid internal bleeding - I am unsuccessful.

My only concern is the protection of my family - the aggressor's health is a secondary consideration. That's why it's not a fight.

I think we all shudder to consider that possibility. I appreciate your honesty. If anyone ever claimed they had no problems withold their parental obligations in favor of their moral beliefs I'd say they were full of crap.

I have seen many cases in my work and life where people who never considered such a scenario found themselves facing it - Where they had to act within 1-2 seconds ... and couldn't.

Which isn't trivial, I know.
As a physician I'm terrific at treating others ... but it's much harder for me to feel objective with my own family. You think the worst things when a child has a severe cold. I can still feel helpless in that case ... and I'm a doctor!
What I get from daoism is the absolution from expectation - to understand that a life of principle isn't calculated to create goodness, peace etc. ... That I can live by my beliefs ... but that won't guarantee that shit won't happen.

ziadel

I don't think I've posted in this thread yet.

Heres what I think:



Don't fuck with Moses.

/tongue and cheek mode off

__________________
Ron Paul '08
Vote for Freedom
Go ahead and google Dr. Ron Paul. You'll like what you read.

Willravel

I think it's important to say that Ziadel DOESN'T always scare me.

ziadel

I believe that, but admit it, your terrified of moses, you're scared shitless that at any moment he will descend and reign blows upon you while laughing maniacally.

__________________
Ron Paul '08
Vote for Freedom
Go ahead and google Dr. Ron Paul. You'll like what you read.

ziadel

I will say this in all seriousness tho, I like guns. I like all weapons. A lot. So much so in fact that I'm moving 2,000 miles to a place that is much more gun friendly. If things change there I'll move somewhere else, until I run out of places to goto, then there will be a problem.
I carry a firearm every day, it's not something I take lightly outside of jest, every one of us has a duty to our loved ones to fight kill and die with the most effective tools necessary to defend life and liberty. To not do so, to me is unfathomable and in many cases unexcusable. Inherent in the ability to kill is the ability to save life, imo.

__________________
Ron Paul '08
Vote for Freedom
Go ahead and google Dr. Ron Paul. You'll like what you read.

dksuddeth

I'd like to add one more ghandi quote:

MAHATMA GANDHI, PEACEFUL REVOLUTIONARY
“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act
depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

longbough

Also from Mahatma Ghandi: "Better far than cowardice is killing and being killed in battle. "

dksuddeth

Gonzales LA police above state law and supreme court

I could be wrong, but my guess is that after the taxpayers get a bill for millions of dollars because their police are violating civil rights, they will care about it then.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." — The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times) speaking at the "Educating Heart Summit" in Portland, Oregon, when asked by a girl how to react when a shooter takes aim at a classmate

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

ziadel

you see, this, more specifically, is what I am referring to when I talk about protecting yourself from the police. Every cop swears an oath to uphold the constitution, to violate it like that is treasonous. I think we all know what the penalty for treason is. In a pinch a tall tree and an extension cord will work just fine.

__________________
Ron Paul '08
Vote for Freedom
Go ahead and google Dr. Ron Paul. You'll like what you read.

Telluride

I own guns and I'm not frightened or feeling powerless. So far none of my guns have ever been used for anything other than target shooting. But self-defense is certainly a consideration.

I know that not everyone is out to kill me. I also know that there are people out there who wouldn't hesitate to kill me if they thought they would benefit from it in some way.

__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek

Suave

You may believe whatever you want about which rights human beings are "inately" given. My point is that, no matter how strongly you may believe in those rights, they only exist in the practical sense if they are agreed upon and enforced by society (the government being a direct institutional embodiment thereof).

Let's say for example that you believe that everyone has the right to live without being insulted. There is no government at this time, of any sort. A man comes along who happens to believe that everyone has the right to say absolutely anything that they want. He insults you. Did he just violate human rights, or did he merely act upon human rights? The only way to define whether his action was in accordance with his rights as a human being is if there is a larger group, society represented by the government, who will decide. Otherwise, the man who insulted you had the right to do so, because he imposed it upon you. If you had a shotgun and you shot him for doing so, then it was you who had the right not to be insulted, because you imposed your will on him, in the form of punishment.

__________________
"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." - Albert Einstein

"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." - Plato

1010011010

My comments were more about how the social fiction of the US Government defines itself in respect to the social fiction of Rights. It's about how the government, on paper, is allowed to function.

People say "If you want to ban guns, amend the constitution." This misses the fact that the government is not authorized to make laws infringing the Right of The People to bear arms any more than it is authorized to make laws forcing everyone to convert to Mormonism or to criminalize questioning the conduct of the Presidency.

Freedom of speech is just as sacred a Right as owning a gun or being able to believe in whatever deity you prefer. Anything that can be done to gut the 2nd Amendment can be practiced equivalently on any other Right.

__________________
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions

dksuddeth

maybe you could use a more realistic example.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

and have they? I know the 2A has been gutted in almost every state in this union, Illinois/new york/mass/california are the best examples i know of, the other amendments have been gutted by this and other previous administrations but why did they? because we allowed it to plain and simple but that certainly doesn't make it right.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Suave

I think it's pretty realistic, but sure I'll toss out some more.

Let's say there is a government in place. Someone breaks into your house and steals your stereo. How do you know that you currently have the right to ownership of property, and to have your own private property? Because if you call the police (a branch of the government), people will come and enforce that right for you.

Or speaking practically, women in certain poor nations do not have the right to free speech. You and I may believe that the right to free speech should be universal, but their circumstances (a government and social system that do not recognize a woman as having the right to free speech) state that they do not have that right.

__________________
"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." - Albert Einstein

"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." - Plato

dksuddeth

A much more realistic example. thanks.
whether someone breaks in to my house or not has no relevance to whether or not a government is in place. The government is not there to protect me, it is there as a 'reactive' force to administer justice. I still have the right to my own private property and its privacy as well as the right to protect it from someone who would break in and steal it. With a government in place, they only have the right to prosecute as 'the people' to provide justice and show the criminal element that 'the people' speak with one voice against those that violate those individual rights.

We, in the USA, have the right to free speech. We consider this a pre-exixsting right. Just because other nations have allowed a single leader or group to assume control and deny them that right does not mean that this right does not exist, it is just being denied them at that time by those in power at that time.

This is the problem with alot of peoples thinking. The government is not there to provide, protect, or promote our own individual rights, we do that. That is what is so important about the 2A, when the government decides that it's power is more important than our rights, we can tell them 'not so much'.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

It's really not that simple. I honestly believe that the state does NOT have the right to take a persons life, a.k.a. capitol punishment. I have a friend who swears it's the right of the people to have justice and remove the evil from the world by killing those we have proven guilty. Who's right?

Rights are relative, and the rights that we practice now have more to do with the history of government and less to do with philosophy or morality.