|
|
| From | Message |
|---|
|
 THERE IS NO WAR ON RELIGION |
|
jdh ...
... although I'm familiar with weapons (former military experience), I'm not particularly one who supports the public owning "anything they want" and I no longer own the 357 I once had long ago. That said, I've been asking questions regarding this issue, and I'm pounced upon by diehard 2nd Amendment advocates who say no new laws are needed, it's the user not the weapon, and security at schools needs to be increased while lambasting my intelligence ... or, I read all the emotional arguments about banning guns (sometimes banning guns altogether) as a kneejerk reaction to recent events (these folks lambaste the 2-A folks hard too). Meanwhile, I'm trying to understand both sides of this issue ... and it's been hard to get a discussion going. I read your post: "We should talk about why allowing people to have guns is a good idea on the aggregate" and thought that might be a good starting point. What do you think?
|
|
Chaz
Sure.
You know, i would like to say though, I'm not against gun laws per se. I also tend to think that in general the problem really is t the guns but that doesn't mean I think just anything should go. I also want to temper any of that with personal freedom. I almost always err on the side of the individual over the group when it gets to be about things that are not directly effecting anyone else.
With all that said, do you think a person has the "right" to defend himself? If someone attacks you in the street is it ok if you fight back?
We have to answer these questions before we can get anywhere near guns.
|
|
jdh ...
... I believe there is a basic, instinctive reaction when it comes to defense. You raise an arm to avoid the punch, or you punch back to neutralize the opponent, or you run away because you might be faster/smarter than he (etc.). This is true for women as well; they're just not as usually strong as the average guy. The "intent" on fighting back becomes the issue ... is it honestly defense? ... or is it revenge? Since we cannot usually determine intent, it's prob'ly important to understand that a line needs to be drawn on what extent defense evolves into offense/revenge. That said, if a guy punches you hard, it's prob'ly not OK to kill him ... that places too high of judgment onto the "victim".
|
|
Chaz
You're getting into territory that isn't helpful. We can eventually come back to it but its muddying the waters now.
You have can instinct to defend yourself, ok, but do you have a legitimate right to do so? I'm asking is it ok, in general, to defend yourself? Yes or no.
|
|
Sorry. Posting from my phone. So forgive typos. Translate as best you can. Lol
Waiting for a 3pm patient.
|
|
jdh ...
... yes, you have a right to defend yourself. With that "right" come an examination of your intent, of course ... and one may be co-responsible in the outcome; but, yes ... each individual has the "right" to defend him/herself.
|
|
Flight or Fight reflex is part of the human condition. The only weapon we are born with is a brain.
|
|
My condolences to all affected by the current tragedy. The gun lobby and military industrial complex in the US have been a formidable force . If Obama manages to make significant inroads into this entrenched position he will indeed be remembered as a pivotal leader.
In Oz, our (Rt wing) prime minister took a brave stance after a massacre ( pretty much the only good change he made imho and most guns were outlawed and "bought back" by the government. I believe it was a positive defining moment for the Oz nation in terms of beliefs regarding the nature of our civil society. Would you agree Change?
|
|
One stricter law that would have stopped this tragedy...
A man walks into a school and decides he's going to immortalize himself, fully knowing he's going to die. Whether he carried a knife, a gun, an AK-47 or a suitcase full of dynamite there is one thing that is sure to stop him...
A sniper with a tranquilizer dart. If you change the judicial system, you change the mindset of someone who plans to die. He then has to ask himself, "What if I don't die?" You catch one of these creeps and give them electro-shock-therapy treatment 6 times a day for the rest of their life, televise it once in a while, and I will personally guarantee you that mass killing, murder-suicides will solely become suicides.
I'm sick of hearing this "Capitol Punishment is inhumane" garbage. There are instances where Capitol Punishment is perfectly acceptable, whether someone had mental issues or not. Do you see Charlie Manson living it up in prison??? This is unacceptable. The gunman got what he wanted, and many, many children never got to know what they wanted.
But this is a country where selling marijuana can get you a life term and yet shaking a baby to death is worth a month or two at most. People need to be held accountable for their actions, there is no excuse for this.
|
|
mark
I agree wholeheartedly with your comment.
|
|
Chaz
Why do you think that a person has a right to defend themselves?
And what would you base that on?
|
|
kingnothing
i feel you. i feel the same way myself. but it think differently. while i want to string these people up and slowly eviscerate them, i am glad that there is a system there to moderate my reptilian instincts. i actually prefer to live in a society that does not torture, even the torture-worthy.
anyway, i am not at all sure that public torture would really dissuade copycat imbeciles. i think you might well descend that dark path only to find it did not take you where you thought you were going after all.
i absolutely agree that the comparison between punishments for baby shakers vs. drug users is ludicrously out of balance.
|
|
jdh ...
... I'm not sure I understand the question here. If I'm punched, I'll try to deflect the next punch; if I get another punch, I'll become more strenuous in my retorts ... or I'll run [fight/flight]. But, I'm not sure I would agree with hurting that person on purpose or in a revengeful spirit (hence "intent" is critically important here), I would want to stop the action (my definition of protecting myself or others). Is this what you're getting at? Or, am I missing the point of your question.
|
shamash
18-Dec-12, 20:09
|
Deleted by shamash on 18-Dec-12, 20:21.
|
|
chaz
I'm merely trying to figure out why you think it's ok to defend yourself and what you base that on. Why do you think it's ok to to deflect punches, or run - stop the the action? And what do you base that on?
|
|
it's not a trap
|
|
guys
Whatever happened to holding people accountable for their actions?
Don't you think that making fun of Ryan Lanza and labeling him a freak and a weirdo and an outcast is a more effective way to discourage shootings? There's a pretty big difference between doing that, versus empathizing with a shooter by blaming firearms and bullying and social awkwardness. Or worse, blaming everyone around the person for not seeing the red flags or signs or by blaming the government for making it easy to acquire guns.
Someone who shoots their mother and then shoots 18 kids, ten adults and themselves is total lunatic freak. It seems to me that these things happened less frequently back when people were still ridiculed, ostracized and made fun of for behaving in socially weird or deviant ways............but that's just me.......
|
|
Something to think about:
i47.tinypic.com
|
|
tat ...
... the shooter prob'ly had mental issues, of course; but, to use that as a defense for gun ownership (or to deflect away from the 'greater issue' here) is remarkably short-sighted for the entire population.
|
|
jdh ...
... and I'm not trying to be deliberately naive either.
Defense may be defined in different ways, I'm guessing. I'm trying hard to distinguish between preventing further confrontation (my definition of defense here) on one hand (blocking a punch, flight, protection of others, etc.), with a revenge response (or a getting even type defense where one punches back or tries to hurt the opponent, or tries to gain some other unworthy advantage ... which in my opinion are as not honorable defenses), on the other. I'm defending my definition of defense in this conversation, yes. But, I'm quite unsure how defensible the second definition is. I must include 'intent' into this equation for it to work one way or the other. Does this make sense to you?
I'm also (so far) excluding the role of others (bystanders, police, etc.) in this conversation.
|
|
smoke screen
talking about defending oneself after 20-children were slaughtered is counterproductive. Ban the assault rifles and ban any clips over 10-rounds,close the gun-show loopholes and be done with it. I'm sure the Hunters can live with only shooting a poor deer 10-times. Most Hunters and gun owners agree. Only the greedy NRA and the stupid tea party see a problem with that. Party is over boys.
|
|
Chaz
You're not addressing the questions I raised. I think for the discussion to be productive on the topic at hand we need to assess the questions. And they are not gotcha traps of any kind.
|
|
jdh ...
... I'm not deliberately trying to avoid the question. Help me out here. How can I say it's OK to defend oneself without considering the "response intent"? Not all defenses are the same.
|
|
self-defense is not "revenge" - your intent is to stop the violence against your person
we've already established this is an ok thing to do
I'm asking why is it ok
|
|
what's the defugilty?
if your a gun owner and someone breaks into your home you shoot him. If you legally carry a hand gun and someone attacks you with deadly intent you shoot him. But you should only have 10-bullets in your gun. You should not own a Assault Rifle. You should also have to go through a deep background and psychological evaluation before being allowed to own a gun.The gun 'must' be registered and licenced. You should not be able buy guns on/line or at gun/shows. You cannot carry a gun in Schools or bars or the workplace.I don't see the argument here. I own guns.I have no problem with such restrictions. In fact they are not 'restrictions'. Just common sense rules that any 'thinking' Human being should want to follow. My 2nd amendment rights will remain intact. The Government is not going to take over anything. And even if they did,do you think a bunch of dumb red necks are going to be able to stop Abrams tanks and tomahawk cruise missiles?, with semi-automatic weapons?.These high capacity magazines and Rifles are for one thing.....killing as many people as you can. And now there are 20 children dead. Some shot in the head 11-times!!!.You red neck and tea party people have got to stop believing the bull coming out of the NRA. This organizations leadership are just as responsible as the sick people committing these crimes!! even more so because they are profiting from it!!!!!!
|
|
jdh ...
... OK. It is OK for anyone to "block the punch" (to protect oneself, to defend oneself without intended harm to others, etc.). Why? Because we have an inalienable right to remain alive.
|
|
chaz
It is an instinct for survival, kill or be killed, most animals if not all have this instinct, but only use it when threatened. Human beings are the only animals that will deliberately kill for fun. I fail to see what jd is trying to elicit here, or where he intends going with it. Perhaps you could elaborate jd? It is purely an instinctive reflex, no thought necessary.
|
|
self defense
is acceptable because all life is equally precious to its possessor. my life is worth no more to me than a cat's is to him. that is why a cat has as much right to defend herself from a human as a human has to defend herself from a cat... or from another human.
|
|
bc
it is easy to say we should ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines. and i will not disagree.
but most of these are meatheads. they're under the belief that their guns are there to protect them from a fascistic government. one determined to steal their rights, guns, and gold. since it really is about defending yourself from the us military (or nato , of course it makes sense to them that they need the big guns.
i have to admit, i sympathize with this pov. i do worry about a military/corporate takeover, but i do not believe us citizens, no matter how well armed, could ever defeat the us military, although we could create a really annoying guerilla movement.
furthermore, the threat of a military takeover is smaller and less troublesome than the very real danger posed by disengaged, angry, lost young men with large powerful guns. sometimes there are no good choices. it would be nice if we could protect our kids and selves AND also allow absolute freedom to own whatever armaments one might choose. but it seems obvious that we cannot do both adequately - unless you are willing to cede a certain number of innocent casualties as the price of your freedom to own guns.
we already compromise - there are already limits on what you can own. it is not a question of limiting ownership of weapons, but of where to draw the line.
|
|
|
Log in 
