stigma of weapons.

[wu_de36]

Euros (and democrats ;) ), please chime in. I don't need to speak to the Texans in the group :)

A very common thing I sense when discussing weapons with others is fear. I'm not necessarily talking about fear of an inanimate object (although this is often the case) but rather the fear that:



But On the other hand I would be more nervous walking these streets knowing that basicly everyone could carry this kind of weapon. (even I)


This implies that there is a belief that merely having access to weapons will turn people in pure animals, acting upon every whim of their Id to murder, rape, and pillage.

Most of us study an art which has weapons in its curriculum. Has there ever been an incident in your kwoon where someone pulled a spear off the wall and stabbed their sifu for being mean just because there was a weapon nearby? If not, do you attribute this to the "superior moral conduct of all gungfu practitioners."

Your wife probably has access to an arsenal of weapons. Most kitchens have a wooden block filled with knives. Do we avoid women and cooks because they're more likely to have access to knives?

You see a minister walking down the street, and you stand at the crosswalk next to him. Seems safe enough, right?

As it turns out, he has a stalker and has armed himself with a concealed pistol. Is he really any more dangerous?

Is it because priests and ministers are better people?

Should a man in a wheelchair forced to take the bus home from work at night be forced to go home unarmed because he can't be trusted, while a movie star who is rich and famous can get a carry permit? I haven't read of any movie stars having brushes with the law... Certainly those angry cripples would lash out at society for being cursed by God.

I'm sorry this is more Martial than Art, but it bugs me, and I'm curious to see the roots of this school of thought.

[apoweyn]

well...

i think the theory is that the more steps a person has to go to in order to use a weapon in angry or fear, the more chances that person gets to reevaluate the situation and make a rational decision.

in other words, if i'm in a blind rage and i have a gun or knife, there's a better chance that i'll use it than if i have to 1) drive home, 2) go into the basement, 3) do the combination on the gun safe, 4) get back in the car...

not having weapons readily accessible presumably increases the chances of a person 'coming down' before doing something stupid.

remember that rules and laws have NEVER been in place to govern the actions of wise and responsible people. presumably, wise and responsible people govern themselves. and if we could be assured that even the majority of people were wise and responsible, then we'd be all set.


stuart b.

[DelicateSound]

Ap is right. It is the d!cks of society that can't be trusted with a Bic.

I think concealed weapons SHOULD be illegal, because most people are stupid and irrational. Even by debating this topic we elevate ourselves from mindlessness.


Not to be arrogant - but it's the truth.

[Black Jack]

Ya all know my stance, I am all for weapons, and believe in the right that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to carry concealed weapons.

Here in the USA, a LOT of us can carry concealed firearms, some states and cities are tighter than others, but gun advocates are tearing down those unconstitional walls.

[shaolinboxer]

Yep, as an American I have come to respect and understand the fact that lots and lots of folks carry concealed weapons.

The only reason I don't carry one is the fear of using it.

I have to admit though, when I went to a martial arts store the specializes in knives the other day, seeing two fellows who smelled of prolonged alchohol use and two kids who just turned 18 buying spyders and combat daggers, I nearly crapped in my pants.

Ah well, on to my kenjutsu lessons ;).

Also, a hard fist or a boot is also a concelaed weapon....just another blunt object.

As for firearms, I don't carry because I want to live in a world where carrying a gun is not necessary. Whether that is delusional or not I don't care. (My step father, an exmarine with a expert ranking in marksmanship has helped me understand guns as a tool, and they are certainly necessary for some jobs) We create the world we live in through our own actions.

[red5angel]

I think Ap has hit it right on the head. Hopefuly he didnt have to go to far for that hammer ;)
Serisouly I thin it is probably a reasonable assumption. The idea that having to think about what you are doing would do away with crimes of pasison possibly. Did I just say do away with? I meant reduce the possibility of, yeah thats it, you will have to excuse me I just ATE A FRIGGIN WORM IN MY APPLE!!!!
I would have to say that regardless, if someone has decided to kill someone else then they may just do that with whatever they can get thier hands on...then maybe weapon possesion is more of a humanitarian question.... ;)

I think they should have safes for martial arts hands! I dont know how many times I have sat in this cube and imagined myelf doing various deadly techniques on co-workers! Did I type that outloud? oops....

[apoweyn]

LOL

[Sharky]

Priests and ministers are better people?

LOL

[apoweyn]

sharky has a point. if a priest lacks the self control to stop himself from molesting a child, i don't want him packing heat, no.

and before anyone says, "not all priests do that", obviously they don't. but we don't know who's the nutcase and who isn't. so we make rules that govern across the board.

that's why we can't have nice things.


stuart b.

[Jimbo]

People who do not believe in weapons being available to law-abiding citizens at all, do not deserve their country's soldiers to use weapons and deadly force to fight and/or die for them to live in freedom.

The simple availability of weapons to (law abiding) citizens does not automatically turn people into lawless savages. The fact is, someone can easily be killed with a screwdriver, a small statue, a kid's baseball bat, a pen/pencil, chair, car, etc. More people are killed with simple, cheap kitchen knives than all the super-duper Navy SEALS-carried tactical folders and automatic knives put together.

As for martial arts weapons, anyone who has an abnormal fear of them is more afraid of the "unknown" and the exotic. To them, they are "mysterious Oriental implements of death." They will believe all the media and legal hype surrounding them. That's why, in the '80s, former sport karate competitor and mail deliveryman Larry Kelley of Massachusetts testified before Ted Kennedy to stop delivery of martial arts weapons in the mail. This is the same guy who used to expouse high sport karate kicks as the ultimate life and death self-defense weapon.

Jim

[Badger]

You gonna use your unbeatable kungfu skills?:rolleyes:

Call 911? Sorry but they will only be able to clean up the mess.

Gun bans only effect people who obey the law.
Criminals dont obey the law...thats why they are criminals.
Criminals already have guns...who in their right mind can be against leveling the playing field?

Remember the LA riots? try that crap in Texas & you will be leaving in bodybags.
No Reginald Denny here.

[apoweyn]

jimbo,

"People who do not believe in weapons being available to law-abiding citizens at all, do not deserve their country's soldiers to use weapons and deadly force to fight and/or die for them to live in freedom."

this is your opinion, and you're welcome to it. i respect and share the high regard you hold for our armed forces.

that said, you've completely skirted the issue. i'm not expressing my own opinion. but the original question asked for opinions on why this is the prevailing attitude.

and here's why, as far as i can tell: we're all law-abiding citizens until the first time that we choose not to abide by the law. by your reasoning, we all have access to weapons before committing a crime. that strikes me as a problem.

as i said before, the laws aren't there to govern wise and benevolent people. we don't need laws to govern such people. we need laws to govern the rest of us.

"The simple availability of weapons to (law abiding) citizens does not automatically turn people into lawless savages. The fact is, someone can easily be killed with a screwdriver, a small statue, a kid's baseball bat, a pen/pencil, chair, car, etc. More people are killed with simple, cheap kitchen knives than all the super-duper Navy SEALS-carried tactical folders and automatic knives put together."

so what you're saying is that the availability of weapons doesn't turn people into lawless savages, but the availability of kitchen knives and baseball bats does? if more people are killed with kitchen knives than with tactical knives, what does that suggest to you? it certainly doesn't suggest that we're all law-abiding citizens to be inherently trusted.

it suggests, frankly, that people get killed with what's available at the moment. if baseball bats and kitchen knives are available at the moment (and they frequently are), then that's the weapon of choice. if tactical knives and guns were available at the moment that a formerly law-abiding and currently out-of-control individual decides to make their move, then that may be the weapon of choice.

all that said, you did raise a really good point. if everybody has access to deadly implements of one sort or another, and most of those people are law-abiding citizens, how do they defend themselves against the nutcases?

that, i have to admit, i don't know. but to my mind, the mild-mannered citizenry never devote the time to weapons training that the paranoid nutjobs do anyway. take your mum for instance. or mine. can you picture her going to the shooting range twice a week? or learning the intricacies of knifefighting? i certainly can't. so who are we talking about? you and me? we're going to go out and make the streets safe for democracy?

what are you picturing?


stuart b.

[wu_de36]

Originally posted by apoweyn
as i said before, the laws aren't there to govern wise and benevolent people. we don't need laws to govern such people. we need laws to govern the rest of us.



But we all know that laws are not deterrants. Laws are merely written down to give a government a basis for retribution. If all we had to do were pass laws, we wouldn't have any problems.

I believe Maryland has some of the most draconian gun laws in the country, and it doesn't make Baltimore any safer.



it suggests, frankly, that people get killed with what's available at the moment. if baseball bats and kitchen knives are available at the moment (and they frequently are), then that's the weapon of choice. if tactical knives and guns were available at the moment that a formerly law-abiding and currently out-of-control individual decides to make their move, then that may be the weapon of choice.


Possibly. But then crimes of passion are rarely well thought-out. I still don't see how banning firearms gets to eliminating murder? A baseball bat or kitchen knife may not be optimal compared to a Glock, but you can bet it will get the job done.

So if 60,000,000 people own guns, and 59,000,000 of them manage to live their normal lives without shooting someone for cutting them off in traffic, etc... Why should the rest of us be treated as "potential criminals?"

Should we take away driver's licenses because 1 in 3 people have driven drunk and are just as much "potential criminals?"



all that said, you did raise a really good point. if everybody has access to deadly implements of one sort or another, and most of those people are law-abiding citizens, how do they defend themselves against the nutcases?


Well, by your logic, they're up the river. I guess they could call 911 and hope for the best. Response times are usually within half an hour. Maybe they can toot their rape whistle till help arrives. I'm being a little melodramatic here, but this is what some people suggest.


that, i have to admit, i don't know. but to my mind, the mild-mannered citizenry never devote the time to weapons training that the paranoid nutjobs do anyway.

Technically, I would say that anyone taking a martial art IS a paranoid nutjob compared to the rest of the populace. We're learning self-defense (some better than others.)

Most people are conditioned to think that if they have trouble, they can call the police and be taken care of. Luckily for them, most people won't be in a situation where they need someone to save their life.

What most people don't understand, or don't want to understand is that they are ultimately responsible for their own protection. Thinking about this causes many people to have to face other unpleasant thoughts (such as " there's no way I could beat a hardened criminal." "I could die." etc) It's much easier to go through life as a sheep.

If you figure out these shortcomings in the sheep, you either become a wolf or a shepard. I can think like a wolf, but I prefer to think of myself as a shepard. To some sheep, I would imagine that my affection for keeping my teeth and claws sharp would make me look like a wolf.



take your mum for instance. or mine. can you picture her going to the shooting range twice a week? or learning the intricacies of knifefighting?

My mom is a good shot, and she would have no conflict emptying a shotgun into the chest of someone trying to kill her or her family.

My girlfriend, after 2 hours of instruction, can outshoot most police officers. She is a natural shot. She also is a red belt in Tang Soo Do, and can do very pretty kicks. Both her and I would be much more comfortable if she could rely on her Browning Hi-Power than a tollyo-cha-ki if she was accosted in a parking garage.



so who are we talking about? you and me? we're going to go out and make the streets safe for democracy?

Yes. In fact, I would go so far as to say it is our individual responsibility to do so.

Let's face it, our government and our law enforcement system is not set up in a manner to prevent crime. It is excellent in investigating crimes already committed. It is excellent at apprehending people, who have already committed crimes, from committing further crimes. There is a reason they call it "the thin blue line."

So, if we can all acknowledge that, we must acknowledge that we are ultimately responsible for our own safety. Most of us are. We take self-defense, we are aware of our surroundings, and we avoid confrontation and dangerous situations. Most of us can handle a rowdy drunk, or an opportunist.

Many people say the best defense against someone trying to kill you is to RUN.

What if you have your 10 year old son with you? Your elderly grandmother? What if you're on crutches?

A lot of the non-violent solutions are great and should be used, but there are times where they are impractical. You don't want to be in a situation where you need to get violent really quick, and you're restricted by a government who -with your best interests in mind -- states that they only condone non-violent methods.

My point is that we have to realize that violence isn't going away soon. Rather than sanctioning the method, there needs to be harsh and quick sanction on the act. It may not be a deterrant, but it is excellent when it comes to recidivism.

i.e.

it should not be a crime to conceal a firearm, just as it should not be a crime to drive a car.

it SHOULD be a crime to use a firearm in a robbery or murder, just as it is should you drive intoxicated or commit vehicular homicide.

[apoweyn]

wu_de,

"But we all know that laws are not deterrants. Laws are merely written down to give a government a basis for retribution. If all we had to do were pass laws, we wouldn't have any problems."

no, we don't all know that. i'm sorry, but without well documented research, i'm not buying that. i'll grant you that the strength of the law is, in large part, that it gives basis for retribution. but it's the threat of retribution that acts as a deterrant. and i believe (though i'm not sure) that statistics would bear that out.

"I believe Maryland has some of the most draconian gun laws in the country, and it doesn't make Baltimore any safer."

again, based on what? do you have statistical evidence that shootings have not declined with increased gun control? (i'm not trying to be conflictual. if you do have evidence, i'm all ears. i'm just not convinced of your characterization of baltimore. it seems based on an impression rather than on facts.

"I still don't see how banning firearms gets to eliminating murder? A baseball bat or kitchen knife may not be optimal compared to a Glock, but you can bet it will get the job done."

i never said it eliminates murder. i'm contesting the idea that more weapons being available will reduce the crime rate. and i could certainly be wrong about this. you originally asked for the rationale being used. i'm trying to provide it. am i providing any sort of ultimate truth? i have no idea.

"So if 60,000,000 people own guns, and 59,000,000 of them manage to live their normal lives without shooting someone for cutting them off in traffic, etc... Why should the rest of us be treated as "potential criminals?"

well, unless you happen to know the names and addresses of the other 1,000,000, by my calculations, that's one million maladjusted and well-armed people out there doing their thing. and instead of doing it with a baseball bat or kitchen knife, they're doing it with eight in the clip and one in the pipe (or something).

"Should we take away driver's licenses because 1 in 3 people have driven drunk and are just as much "potential criminals?"

one out of every three?! is that true?!! if so, then maybe we should. bloody hell.

"Well, by your logic, they're up the river. I guess they could call 911 and hope for the best. Response times are usually within half an hour. Maybe they can toot their rape whistle till help arrives. I'm being a little melodramatic here, but this is what some people suggest."

i believe i admitted that this was a good point and that i didn't have the answer.

"My mom is a good shot, and she would have no conflict emptying a shotgun into the chest of someone trying to kill her or her family.

My girlfriend, after 2 hours of instruction, can outshoot most police officers. She is a natural shot. She also is a red belt in Tang Soo Do, and can do very pretty kicks. Both her and I would be much more comfortable if she could rely on her Browning Hi-Power than a tollyo-cha-ki if she was accosted in a parking garage."

my mum would be bloody hopeless. refuses to even touch the handgun. my sister too. and my fiancee.

"Let's face it, our government and our law enforcement system is not set up in a manner to prevent crime. It is excellent in investigating crimes already committed. It is excellent at apprehending people, who have already committed crimes, from committing further crimes. There is a reason they call it "the thin blue line."

you have a point. but the government deters crime by the threat of retribution, which is perhaps exactly the same form of prevention created by an armed citizenry. you're suggesting that crime will be reduced because of the threat that any given victim will be able to fight back. and that's not really bad logic. but it's the same form of deterrance that the government is using. i don't think that statistics will bear out the idea that crimes are consistently prevented by armed citizenry actually pulling the trigger or swinging the sword or whatever. perhaps i'm wrong about that.

"A lot of the non-violent solutions are great and should be used, but there are times where they are impractical. You don't want to be in a situation where you need to get violent really quick, and you're restricted by a government who -with your best interests in mind -- states that they only condone non-violent methods."

i absolutely agree that this is a problem. that's the thing. i'm not certain that i disagree with you. i just know that it's not as simple as all that.

"Many people say the best defense against someone trying to kill you is to RUN. What if you have your 10 year old son with you? Your elderly grandmother? What if you're on crutches?"

and what happens to them when you and the bad guy whip out berettas?

"it should not be a crime to conceal a firearm, just as it should not be a crime to drive a car. it SHOULD be a crime to use a firearm in a robbery or murder, just as it is should you drive intoxicated or commit vehicular homicide."

but isn't this distinction every bit as 'after the fact' as you're attributing to the government? 'well, i knew he had that gun hidden on him, but he seemed like a law-abiding citizen. right up until he robbed me.'

i don't know, wu_de. i'm not really arguing with you so much as pointing out the dimensions to this that i'm worried you might be overlooking. please don't take any of this as an attack.


stuart b.

[red5angel]

Wu_de36 - Laws do act as deterrants, sayin they dont is ignorant.

Ap - "and here's why, as far as i can tell: we're all law-abiding citizens until the first time that we choose not to abide by the law. by your reasoning, we all have access to weapons before committing a crime. that strikes me as a problem. "

Residing in a lawfuly country does not make one law abiding. Thats circumstance, I may not be law- abiding, it just so happens that so far the laws have not restricted me. Aslo -

"it suggests, frankly, that people get killed with what's available at the moment. if baseball bats and kitchen knives are available at the moment (and they frequently are), then that's the weapon of choice. if tactical knives and guns were available at the moment that a formerly law-abiding and currently out-of-control individual decides to make their move, then that may be the weapon of choice. "

This also suggest that regardless of whether a weapon is in posession, this person is going to do harm, with whatever they can get thier hands on. Its incidental at that point whether it is a gunor a hammer. A law of this kind will not restrict these type of murders, it will only restrict murders committed with a gun.

For myself, I believe it could curb some murder, but ultimately will make little impact. I think the best solution is more stringent gun control laws. Thorough background checks, possibly even psycological evalutaions, who knows.....

[apoweyn]

red5angel,

"Residing in a lawfuly country does not make one law abiding. Thats circumstance, I may not be law- abiding, it just so happens that so far the laws have not restricted me."

the law doesn't really care why you haven't broken it. if you haven't, you're law abiding. it doesn't ask motivation.

"This also suggest that regardless of whether a weapon is in posession, this person is going to do harm, with whatever they can get thier hands on. Its incidental at that point whether it is a gunor a hammer. A law of this kind will not restrict these type of murders, it will only restrict murders committed with a gun."

and wouldn't that be a nice start.

btw, it matters to me if it's a gun or a hammer. my chances of survival are much better with the latter than with the former.

"For myself, I believe it could curb some murder, but ultimately will make little impact. I think the best solution is more stringent gun control laws."

i'd be fine with that.


stuart b.

[red5angel]

I dont htink I expressed myself very well there. IMO, Law-abiding implies intent. I will follow the law because I do not want to get in trouble or I agree with it. Does that make more sense?

Yes, I would agree, survivability goes up when it is a hammer and not a gun. But who is to say those who use guns to kill now wont be able to get them later? Its not hard to get things into and out of america, Al Queda snuck several willing terrorist in, trian most of them here, and then successfully hijacked 4 large airplanes.
I think the idea that gun control laws only hurt those who are law abiding is a pretty strong argument.

Part of my thing is where do you draw the line? Who is it that wants guns controlled? Whats to say they dont decide Martial arts is just as dangerous?

[apoweyn]

i don't know, mate. i really don't.

the argument that more guns will reduce violence seems pretty counterintuitive to me.

of course, so did the nuclear arms race. and look how well that turned out.


stuart b.

[Merryprankster]

More guns do not necessarily reduce crime rate. There are many factors involved, including economy, etc.

Correllation is not Causation.

The very best you can say is there is no evidence to suggest that more guns automatically means more crime.

[Black Jack]

It reduced this crime-

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/metropoliton/1397397

What would the gun grabbing crowd think if this was there home, there elderly parents home or there childs home who was invaded by armed intruders, maybe they could of used there allmighty bare-handed fighting skills to defeat the bad guys alla jet lee style, or maybe have there bjj wrestling moment to submit the attackers with a armbar.

If these people were not armed they could very well be dead.

[Merryprankster]

Sigh...

Yes, Black Jack--I know... but I think we already had this discussion, right? :)

[wu_de36]

My vested interest in weapons is personal and some may argue selfish.

If someone gets the wise idea to try and take out myself or my loved ones, I am going to react as quickly and violently as possible to end the threat. I would prefer to do this in the most efficient means possible. Preferably with a Remington 870.

Now, I think Apoweyn said something like "what if you both pull out your guns?" (I'm eating, and too tired to quote)

Well, hoepfully I'll win. The gun isn't coming out until I'm in a position where I would already be the loser. At least this way, I have a chance. I believe Nathanial Bedford Forrest said "no man kills me and lives." If I am going to die, I'm going to kill the SOB before he touches my kid or my wife.

Do I think that someone will try to legislate out certain martial arts? Absolutely. If they ever watched a fillipino ma class, and saw stick and knife work they'd be yelling "won't someone PLEASE think of the children??!!"

I don't think there is an easy answer to solving the problem of crime. But I certainly think that some people see banning firearms and weapons as that "easy answer."

[apoweyn]

i actually came up in a successful filipino martial arts program with a lot of children in it. a little neutered for the kids' benefit, admittedly.

[red5angel]

I know not. I do know it will make a change, for the good, for the bad, hard to say. I am sort of on the fence about it. I dont own a gun, probably wont again, but I have in the past. It didnt make me feel any more safe with it then without it.

[Shadow Dragon]

If I am going to die, I'm going to kill the SOB before he touches my kid or my wife.

So you would rather die protecting your family and than leave them to a uncertain future without your protection and your income.

That is if I read you correctly.
Sorry, sounds like a tough man attitude without much thought behind it.

For me protection my Family means getting US out of a danger situation with as little harm/injury as possible, or even better never to get us into one.


I don't think there is an easy answer to solving the problem of crime. But I certainly think that some people see banning firearms and weapons as that "easy answer."

From what I can see what decreases crime the best is a good economy with a well spread level of wealth.

[joedoe]

I don't really want to get into the gun debate again, but I just want to point out one thing in support of ap.

Guns make killing easier. You can point a gun and kill from a distance. With a knife/baseball bat/screwdriver etc. you have to be up close and in their face to kill someone. You have to look them in the face while you take their life away, and you have to stab/bash them until they die. That is a whole lot harder than pulling a trigger.

[dre]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by wu_de36
Euros (and democrats ;) ), please chime in. I don't need to speak to the Texans in the group :)

Well you're getting the opinion of a Chilean, too bad. lol

A very common thing I sense when discussing weapons with others is fear. I'm not necessarily talking about fear of an inanimate object (although this is often the case) but rather the fear that:
his implies that there is a belief that merely having access to weapons will turn people in pure animals, acting upon every whim of their Id to murder, rape, and pillage.

People fear what they don't understand. By far, most people DO NOT understand ANYTHING about weapons. Blades, blunt or missle , they know absolutley nothing about them ,and are terrified of them. A result of this fear is a hatered of a kind - they associate their fear with some kind of intrinsic evil in the object. I've had to ween more than one newbie off his fear of all thing bladed before.

Most of us study an art which has weapons in its curriculum.

heh , there are several weapons in European Fencing.

Has there ever been an incident in your kwoon where someone pulled a spear off the wall and stabbed their sifu for being mean just because there was a weapon nearby?

No, but someone HAS taken a staff off the wall and took a swing at out Master. The Sifu did a Low Spin Kick and took the guy down. This was a prospective student who wanted to test. We run a closed school, so there are always testers out there for us.

I am a staunch 2nd Amendment guy, and I belive in the right of every human being to defend themselves with guns, knives and whatever else they can convieniently carry :)

[scotty1]

The story that Black Jack posted sounds dodgy as phuck.
Something going on there, I think.

But anyway, I've read and taken part in a few of these debates on KFO, and I am no nearer reaching a personal conclusion than I ever was.

Spins my head around, it really does.

[Merryprankster]

Scotty, I think a very reasonable conclusion to reach is that the Second Amendment allows regulation of weapon ownership provided that such regulation does not constitute infringement of that right.

Depending on where you are in the debate, the amount of regulation that doesn't constitute infringement varies--but that's up to the COURTS to decide.

There is nothing about the registration processes, or waiting periods, background checks, or restricting access to prior felons, or having age limits on owndership (a personal right is not necessarily absolute in the face of public safety--can't yell fire in a burning building--can't slander somebody just because, etc), that constitutes infringement.

[scotty1]

So what you're saying MP is that gun ownership should be tightly regulated, and that would be an acceptable conclusion to the debate?

Apologies if I'm putting words in your mouth BTW.

Although I suppose that anyone who failed to pass the regulations and obtain a gun legally could just go out and buy one illegally anyway.

[wu_de36]

Originally posted by Shadow Dragon
So you would rather die protecting your family and than leave them to a uncertain future without your protection and your income.

No, they're future would be quite certain: they too would be dead.


That is if I read you correctly.

Guess not, bub.


Sorry, sounds like a tough man attitude without much thought behind it.

You should be sorry, because you've clearly put little thought into your analysis. You've wasted a lot of bandwidth, and should write a letter of apology to Gene.


For me protection my Family means getting US out of a danger situation with as little harm/injury as possible, or even better never to get us into one.


Boy, aren't you a preachy l'il ****. I believe I made it exceedingly clear that this was a situation where, unarmed and defenseless, we would already be dead. If it is made clear that they are going to kill us, I'm not going to sob and plead and hope for mercy from a lowlife sociopath. Good luck to you though.

Do you think all encounters end with the bad guy taking your wallet, nodding his hat to your wife and disappearing into the night?

Where do you draw the line?
- He wants your wallet?
- He wants to steal your car?
-----------------------------------------------------
- He wants to sodomize you and your wife? (hey, at least he's not killing you, right?)
- He wants to put you in the trunk of the car and drive to a remote location?
- He wants you to put on a blindfold, and get on your knees? (Maybe he's just running away and doesn't want us to follow him!)

Do you see that series of dashes? That is where I personally draw the line. I may even fight the previous two if I feel I have the upper hand, or can easily get the upper hand.


From what I can see what decreases crime the best is a good economy with a well spread level of wealth. [/B]

Oh, I see the problem... I'm dealing with a ****ing marxist. Did you just take soc 101?

[Kristoffer]

So much for "open minded" :rolleyes:


anyway I just have to throw this in:
I agree with Wu_De about this much, if someone would try to do any harm on people I know/love and care of.. then I would be raging monster and definatly could kill that attacker. Now, this is the exact thing this whole discussion was about in the first place. If I have acces to a gun I will use it. Derefore I think guns should not be legal. Doesn't matter how evil the creature you killed, I still will feel horrible for it for my whole life. It's easy to act tough here, but I sure wouldn't want to have caused anyones death. Not even the lowest of scum.

hmm.. and yah, dis was about pepper spray in the first place. If you open a new thread based on someting I wrote previously, would u mind putting it in the correct context? thx

[red5angel]

"So you would rather die protecting your family and than leave them to a uncertain future without your protection and your income.

That is if I read you correctly.
Sorry, sounds like a tough man attitude without much thought behind it.

For me protection my Family means getting US out of a danger situation with as little harm/injury as possible, or even better never to get us into one. "

I feel the same way actually ,and its not about being a tough guy. Sometimes sacrifice may be what it takes. your right, it sucks you have to leave behind your family but they get a second chance, and thats what is important, they will move on, and continue to live life.

joedoe - just to play devils advocate, most people who fire a gun on the street, miss. It runs about 8% hit, that swithin 5-8 ft believe it or not. Over 8 ft and it drops to like 4%.

Also, as far as the Constituion goes, its not a reasonable argument to say that anyone can carry a gun, its the right to bear arms, which could mean, and is widely interpreted as, the right to create and arm a militia, in this case the national guard, for national and state use.

On an interesting side note, reading about people breaking in to houses, I told my wife last night I would shoot to kill anyone who came into my house uninvited, barirng very few exceptions. Why? I dont know thier intent, if I shoot to wound, its his word against mine, if I kill him, its my word. I get told this just about every year when I get interviewd by the local police, its for a job I do seasonally.
Also, my wife knows a guy who got so sick of his radio being stole from his car, he attach razor blades underneath where you have to go to disconnect it etc.... the next guy who tried to steal it cut his hands up so bad he had to go to the hospital, there he go tarrested. He sued, and won the guy whoes radio he was stealing.......

[wu_de36]

Originally posted by Kristoffer

anyway I just have to throw this in:
I agree with Wu_De about this much, if someone would try to do any harm on people I know/love and care of.. then I would be raging monster and definatly could kill that attacker. Now, this is the exact thing this whole discussion was about in the first place. If I have acces to a gun I will use it. Derefore I think guns should not be legal. Doesn't matter how evil the creature you killed, I still will feel horrible for it for my whole life. It's easy to act tough here, but I sure wouldn't want to have caused anyones death. Not even the lowest of scum.


That is asinine.

[Dark Knight]

"Also, as far as the Constituion goes, its not a reasonable argument to say that anyone can carry a gun, its the right to bear arms, which could mean, and is widely interpreted as, the right to create and arm a militia, in this case the national guard, for national and state use. "

When this was written there was no National Guard, actually it didnt exist until 1903.

Such a claim is not only inconsistent with the statements of America's early statesmen, and the concept of individual rights as understood by generations of Americans, it misdefines the term "militia."

For centuries before the drafting of the Second Amendment, European political writers used the term "well regulated militia" to refer to the citizenry on the whole, armed with privately-owned weapons, led by officers chosen by themselves.

America's statesmen defined the militia the same way. Richard Henry Lee, before ratification of the Constitution the author of the most influential writings advocating a Bill of Rights, wrote, "A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms. . . ." Making the same point, Coxe wrote that the militia "are in fact the effective part of the people at large." And George Mason asked, "[W]ho are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

The Militia Act of 1792, adopted the year after the Second Amendment was ratified, declared that the Militia of the United States (members of the militia obligated to serve if called upon by the government) included all able-bodied males of age. As the U.S. Supreme Court observed in U.S. v. Miller (1939), "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the [Constitutional] Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense . . . bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." The National Guard was not established until 1903. In 1920 it was designated one part of the "Militia of the United States," the other part remaining all other able-bodied males of age, plus some other males and females.

However, in 1990, in Perpich v. Department of Defense, the Supreme Court held that the federal government possesses absolute, unlimited power over the Guard. (The Court never mentioned the Second Amendment, noting instead that federal power over the Guard is not restricted by the Constitution's Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16.)

Thus, the Guard is in fact the third component of the United States Army, behind the Army and Army Reserve. The Framers' independent "well regulated militia" remains as they intended, America's armed citizenry.

[Black Jack]

wu de 36, tell me about it:rolleyes:


I wonder why this 71 year old invalid granny did not just use her chi to ward off the man that broke into her home and assualted her?

Thank goodness she was not trained in contemporary WuShu or that guy would of been in real trouble, forget the gun, a few flips and a smile should of done the job to impress the psycho enough for a medal of some sort.

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/news-story.asp?date=030502&ID=s1110938[/url]

According to the gun grabbers illusion of protection via government and closeminded wishfull thinking she would be a rotting corpse right now.

[Dark Knight]

Kris, what you are saying is based on what you feel, guns should be ilegal, not statistics that show gun owners are not killing everyone.

We try to not let our government govern this way.

[Dark Knight]

"Although I suppose that anyone who failed to pass the regulations and obtain a gun legally could just go out and buy one illegally anyway."

And gun control would not change that from happening.

[Dark Knight]

MP makes a good point. There is no coorelation between more guns and higher crime. So if there are no more crimes with an increase in guns, why ban them?

Just because you "feel" unsafe. There is no proof that more guns cause crime.

Lets look at what "Feel unsafe" can lead to.....

"Critics point to a handful of cases in which Zero Tolerance has led to absurd results, including elementary school children suspended for carrying nail clippers or bringing plastic knives to school to cut the fruit in their lunches," State University of New York at Buffalo law professor Charles Patrick Ewing wrote in an article for the Harvard Education Letter, "Zero Tolerance for Zero Tolerance."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Earlier this spring, a 10-year-old Sumter County, Fla., girl was suspended after she pointed an oak leaf she was pretending was a gun at classmate during a game she called "Civil War." School officials said the girl threatened her classmate, pretended to stab her and said she was going to kill her." ABC News


----------------------------------------
"The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that 17-year-old Frank James
Gelman Jr., a junior at Fayette County High School, has been arrested for
bringing a machete to school. 'His father, Frank Gelman Sr., said that his
son just started a landscaping business with friends to earn extra money.
The younger Gelman worked late Monday and forgot the machete and a chain saw
were in his truck when he drove to school Tuesday morning.'"

----------------------------------------
"At San Diego's Rancho Bernardo High School, Assistant Principal Rita Wilson
reportedly demanded that students attending a dance show her their drawers.
'Several girls attending the dance Friday said they were asked if they were
wearing skimpy thong underwear, and told to go home and change if they were,
' the San Diego Union-Tribune reports. 'Female and male students complained
of having their clothing lifted and undergarments exposed by . . . Wilson
outside the gym, while their peers watched.'

"Why would the principal's underling undertake to force underage students to
undergo a once-over of their undergarments? Is her sense of propriety
underdeveloped? Was she just being underhanded? In any case, she
underestimated the reaction, wound up under fire and may have undermined her
own authority. Understandably, some parents are calling for her to be fired.
-----------------------------------------------------
"One example noted in the ABA resolution was the case of a 12-year-old Louisiana boy who was turned over to police for telling the kids ahead of him in a lunchroom line, "I'm going to get you," if they took all the potatoes. "ABC News


Here is the ABC article:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/zero_tolerance020508.html

[red5angel]

Dark Knight - What you say is correct to a certain point. Up until the National Guard was created, militai were used to fill the role of a force that could be called up on demand to defend the country on its own soil. The intent of the document was arguably not to arm all men who are of age and fill the ideals of what a 'militia' should be. The intent is to lay claim to the United States rights to defend itself by arming the militia, which at the time was not established but among the general populace made up of volunteers. That is outmoded and outdated with the establishment of the National Guard who now fulfills the role of the Past Militia. So the argument is still very viable regardless of creative interpretation.
Regardless, I do not argue that people shouldnt be alowed to own them, it does not bother me at all if they do or did. It does bother me when people misinterpret ages old documents written in the parlance of the time as a basis for doing what they do. It is still illegal to drive a red vehicle of any sort in downtown minneapolis unless it is a firetruck, but I have not heard of anyone being written up for it in quite some time.

[Radhnoti]

Well, here's the current administration's opinion:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52223,00.html

Also, it was reported that many in the opposing party were stepping up and declaring that they were "pro-gun":

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washdc/2002/04/30/guns.htm

So, the U.S. (in the post 9/11 world) seems to be leaning toward a "pro-firearm" point of view.


For the record, I'm pro-freedom whenever possible. That includes firearms. Outlaw them and it's pretty much guaranteed that the criminals WON'T care...that lawless streak would be why we have defined them as criminals. ;)

dnc101 phrased it QUITE well I think-
"Ultimately there are only two philosophies regarding the role of government. The higher view is that men are basically good and are capable of governing themselves- this is the view of our founding fathers. The other view is that men are basically evil and incompetent and must therefore be controlled- this is the most common viewpoint. Our Constitution (but not our present government) puts the responsibility for your life and your actions on you, the individual. "

So, in my opinion, support of gun ownership is both the most reasonable AND the "higher view of man".

:)

[Merryprankster]

Scotty--what I'm saying is that regulation of our right to bear arms does not automatically constitute infringement, which is not what the rabid dogs in the NRA would have you believe. Many of them honestly feel that every regulation past is an "infringement," on their rights.

On the other end, you have those that believe that it should be so regulated that it's practically impossible to purchase, own, and use a firearm.

The real answer is somewhere in the middle--and that's what the courts are for:

SOME level of regulation is acceptable. The courts will eventually decide how much is acceptable and how much isn't.

Black Jack and I are not in the same political spectrum when it comes to this, I think, but a lot of people are missing something big, that he nailed:

The purpose of an armed populace is two fold--to provide for a militia (draft, anyone?) in times of invasion, and to protect the people of the US from tyranny.

Both are remote possibilities in our times, but their reasoning was that if you arm the citizens, the government cannot run roughshod over them in acts of tyrannical oppression.

[Radhnoti]

MP said - "The purpose of an armed populace is two fold--to provide for a militia (draft, anyone?) in times of invasion, and to protect the people of the US from tyranny."

I agree with you and Blackjack 100% on that.

[joedoe]

joedoe - just to play devils advocate, most people who fire a gun on the street, miss. It runs about 8% hit, that swithin 5-8 ft believe it or not. Over 8 ft and it drops to like 4%.

If that is the case, then it seems like a pretty poor self defense weapon does it not? I would want better %ages than that for a personal defence weapon.