OmSigDAVID wrote:U know, since the Va. Tech. disaster, there is a movement afoot in several states authorizing
students to be defensively armed on campus. It seems only fair, to me.
Quote:The logic of your position is that the more people who carry weapons,
the safer everyone becomes right?
Yes, true, inasmuch as the risk is elevated against predatory felonies.
Criminals interviewed in prisons make no secret of this.
Thay fear armed victims or armed bystanders
MUCH more than police.
Quote: And the more people who are armed, the more people feel the need
to arm themselves because you know, there are a lot of people carrying guns out there.
That is false.
Being in the presence of armed people is not intimidating.
I can assure u of that, based upon the basis of years and decades of personal experience.
However, it is prudent for them to be well armed
ANYWAY
the same as it is wise for all motorists to carry spare tires in their trunks
and also to carry health insurance, just in case.
These are
NOT emotional decisions, simply
wise practices.
Quote:So ultimately everyone is armed,
Ideally, yes.
In my concept, ideally men who have proven themselves
to be intolerably violent will have gone the way of Botany Bay,
or something similar in principle so that thay will be isolated
from the decent people.
Quote:and then what? No one shoots anyone? The crime rate falls to zero?
Then it is
BETTER; not PERFECT.
That 'd be inconsistent with millenia of human experience.
It also respects the
natural right of each and any person
to defend himself from the violence of man or beast.
Quote:Its not realistic is it? In fact its absurd.
Zero crime is absurd; we agree.
U r very keenly insightful today, Steve.
Quote:Is that the sort of society you want to see?
Yes.
I desire it to go back to how it was in the early 1900s.
I understand that in England, u had as much freedom as America,
until around approximately the First World War.
Is that accurate, Steve ?
We know from the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ( as a possible example )
as a historical and cultural guide, that gentlemen like the fictional
Dr. Watson routinely carried a revolver, along with a pocket watch.
Quote:Where everyone is armed and everyone is very very careful not to say
or do anything untoward? ...in case they end up shot dead?
Yes; the old saying was that: " an
armed society is a
POLITE society."
Think of the Japanese samurai.
Quote:And what about those people who might have a moral or other argument
against carrying a gun...they choose to be disarmed in an armed society...?
Well, perhaps in fairness,
we 'd multiply their income taxes,
in that thay require more than average police protection.
Quote:You would say they are jerks and asking for it...
THAT is too strong a word.
Merely that thay r unwise; comparable to drunken driving,
thay
irresponsibly invite unnecessary danger.
Quote:perhaps they are fair game for criminals?
No; the laws against felony still protect them ( in theory
only, of course ).
Quote:Or the elderly or infirm or children or mentally retarded...
I am no longer a young man.
A few years ago, I was confined to the hospital
for abdominal surgery, and so badly debilitated that I cud not walk.
When I left the hospital, I was thinking that I better not get into any fights.
It 'd have been hopeless if I were unarmed.
Guns are the great equalizers.
Quote:they are at a severe disadvantage in your armed society.
How ? Y ?
Quote:The land of the free is free only for those packing a pistol.
Again; as Karl Malden used to say: "
Don t leave home without it";
but
however unwise it may be to walk thru the world without
your health insurance, u
can still
DO so; the days are long past
when citzens were checked to make sure thay were well armed.
The unarmed are still
free, tho imprudent, like a motorist with no jack in the trunk.
Quote:I dont believe you have thought your position through,
O,
GOODNESS !! Thanx for alerting me.
What did I forget ??
Quote:or if you have you ignore the obvious conclusion
WHAT is the obvious conclusion ?
Quote:
because the fact is I think you like your boys toys and playing with guns.
Its
TRUE;
I
DO.
I 've always been a hedonist; I recommend it.
I enjoy my cars, my real estate, my library, my old gold coins
my giant High Definition Televisions, my fine dining SIG.
I 've been accousted more than once at gunnery ranges by people,
including the police, commending me on the striking
beauty of my gun collection.
I ofen buy with an eye to the esthetics, beyond functionality.
Do u permit esthetic considerations to influence your personal choice of defensive guns ?
Quote:They are play things for you.
Yes,
the same as my cars and assorted other chattel,
in addition to their functional defensive purpose.
Quote: You dont patrol the streets in uniform.
GOODNESS, yes, I don 't.
I have no aspiration to join the police.
I am satisfied to wear vested suits.
Quote:You dont shoot rabid dogs.
True.
We 'r a bit short on rabid dogs here.
The only time I 've ever seen one was in the "Cujo" movie
maybe 25 ( ? ?) years ago.
Quote:And although America is a more violent place than Europe
(measured by gun crime anyway) I dont believe you actually need a gun to feel safe.
Well, as far as my
EMOTIONS are concerned (since u raise the issue),
before I armed myself at age 8,
I felt a little uneasy
as to how I 'd defend my home, if that became necessary.
It never did. I lived in a good neighborhood.
I do now also, but I am not going back to a state of helplessness;
no reason to do
that.
Quote:I suggest to you that no other country takes seriously thinking such as yours,
that is more guns = less gun crime.
That is insignificant, assuming that it is true.
On a moment 's reflection,
I believe that the Swiss and the Jews
disprove your allegation.
In any event, we have no wish to join collectivist fashions of thought.
Quote:The far better answer is not to say, ok we give up,
I
NEVER SAID that we
gave up anything.
That was never our goal.
Living in a state of helplessness was never our goal.
Living in a state of personal liberty is our goal.
The way that u expressed that, u made it sound
as if we abandoned some goal that was inconsistent with extant conditions.
Quote:we live in a violent society
That is the nature of the universe.
U don 't claim to be free of crime in England or Europe.
Quote:so every citizen better look after him or herself,
Yes indeed; such is the nature of America:
libertarian-individualism
Its better to
HAVE a gun and not
NEED one
than it is to
NEED a gun and not
HAVE one.
Quote:but to build a society where the average citizen doesnt feel the need
to be armed, where he can go to school or to the shopping mall without the need of a handgun.
Please take cognizance that no government in the USA has any jurisdiction
to build any societies.
It only has specific, limited delegated powers, which do not include that.
Quote:Ok you say the bad guys will always get weapons, and thats true
Yes.
Quote:but they are outside the law, and the law always has superior force at its disposal.
So WHAT ??
How much does THAT matter to an individual citizen
who has fallen victim to the predatory violence of man or beast ?
How much good did THAT do Kitty Genovese or Reginald Denny,
or however many people fell victim, in HELPLESSNESS
because thay were so
INJUDICIOUS as to obey gun control laws ?
Shud thay put it on the victims' tombstones
: he or she was
in perfect compliance with
ALL gun control laws at time of death ?
What is HIS or HER
reward for this obedience
to unconstitutional laws ?? Will u tell me
that ??
Quote:
(Its a myth btw that the British police are unarmed. True local police do not routinely carry a side arm, but if they so much as suspect a firearm is involved, an armed response team are called up immediately. Anyone carrying a weapon in Britain is likely to be shot dead by police....even if it turned out to be a table leg or a cigarette lighter).
I 'm sorry to hear it.
I believe that England was a better place when my grandfather emigrated therefrom in the 1800s.
Quote:For every un-armed innocent shot by a criminal in a society where guns are illegal,
I suggest there are 10 or more citizens shot in the United States where guns are treated as a fashion accessory.
Putting aside my skepticism for the moment,
even if that were TRUE, it 'd not matter because the well-being of the
INDIVIDUAL is important,
NOT the well-being of society (
altho, states that have repealed gun control laws in favor of "shall issue"
non-discretionary licensure of CONCEALED carry weapons licenses have had drops in crime thereafter,
owing to the danger to criminals).
"Every man for himself, and let the devil take the hindmost !"
Quote:I know how US society has grown up to accept weapons,
Similar to pre-WWI England, right ??
Were the bullets flying thru the air of London
as thick as mosquitos in a swamp ?
Did the streets English cities run red with blood before then ??
I
don 't believe that thay did.
Quote:
from early settler times with no standing army, through the Constitution etc etc.
I know how and why you think about guns the way you do. I just think america has to take a collective deep breath and resolve to work towards a society where the citizen does not expect or want to carry weapons, rather than follow the path your thinking would prescribe.
HOW ?? Please note that America is
NOT collectivist.
What are u suggesting ? tranquilizers in the water ?
Maybe something like the Borg half human robots ? What ?
In Colonial times, the gun control laws required the citizens
to be well armed, the same way that today thay 'r required to have seatbelts in cars.
Indeed, this was also true of England (the Statute of Winchester).
Let 's go back to that point of vu.
David
