HAHA @ Pieman!

Our discussion is turning into one of those awkwardly long quotefests; a hazard and a limitation of the medium, naturally. If it won't bother you, I'll leave some of it for another time and head back to the original discussion:



I wasn't actually aiming my statement at anyone specific, but you're not exactly setting my mind at ease by suggesting some of them appear to be paranoid. I'll grant that their position is ostensibly defensive, but if you wander through this thread I think the only people you'll see advocating actual violence are the guns-rights advocates.

That's a very uncivilized default position for debate, threatening to kill people that disagree with you. I shouldn't have to bring my gun(s) to the table to be taken seriously.

P.S.,



I didn't know about the church shooting until you mentioned it. I do think the fact that an off-duty officer took out the shooter - instead of, say, a civilian with an AK-47 - reinforces my contention that professional situational and weapons training is the best way to deal with chaotic violence.

Actually, I don't remember exactly what we were arguing about there; I think we may actually agree there. Maybe I got a little lost in the 'Wild West disarmament' section

It is also an attempt at a 'reduction to absurdity' argument, but that cuts both ways, as you pointed out earlier.

Say we follow the argument that "guns do not kill people, people kill people," and that therefore restriction of guns is unnecessary.

Substitute the following for "guns" and the proposition must stand: land mines, miniguns, hand grenades, mortars, tanks, howitzers, poison gas, weaponized biological and neurotoxic agents...and so on and so forth.

course not.
I'm not sure specifically what you are speaking about, but your statement has an implication that all violence is inherently a bad thing. I'd say the important part is where the violence begins; the initiation of force.
I don't advocate violence willy-nilly.




Every once in a while, it happens.
I'm not saying that a weapon should be in everyone's hand at all times, but like anything else, they ought to have the option. It is as irresponsible to wield a weapon you aren't trained to use as it is to get behind the wheel of a car and drive if you don't know how. And while I've used the terms 'civilian' and 'LEO', I personally don't recognize the distinction. They are all human beings, no more rights or privilege than anyone else; people.
People should be held accountable for what they do...not what they might do. The reason I disagree with restriction.
I disagree with licensing in general, but that's another debate.

Who did that and when? I sure don't see it.





WTF? Are you kidding? You can't rely on others to protect you. What don't you get about that? Cops can't be everywhere at once. It's UP TO YOU to defend yourself from harm. This is not a complicated concept to grasp.

And what this nonsense about people with AKs? When was the last time you saw someone walking around with an AK-47? People carry pistols, which are small and concealable. A larger firearm like a rifle would be for home defense, also recreation, hunting, etc. A person with a gun could have stopped it just as easily as some stupid cop. If they have it in them at least. The fact that you think shooting a gun takes all this training shows you no nothing about firearms. If you can drive a car, you can shoot a gun. However, training does indeed help, but it doesn't take a Navy SEAL or an Army Ranger to line up the sights and pull the trigger, or to know how to take cover from fire.

You don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about and it shows.

Good luck taking my "assault" rifles and "high capacity" magazines away from me.

If you want to live in an oppressive country where you have no freedom, then move to Canada or Europe or something.

Don't take my freedom away.

You already sound like you live in an oppressive country. A state of anarchy and paranoia.

But really, isn't all violence a bad thing? I'm enough of a realist to accept that is an idealistic position rather than a feasible one, but I really think you're going to struggle to codify your "initiation" concept of justifiable violence.

For example, does a verbal threat constitute initiation? Or for that matter, meet your definition of 'violence?'




I do see your point in general, but doesn't this mean we take the gun away from a bipolar person only after he suffers a manic episode and goes on a shooting spree?

An extreme example, hopefully not too tasteless given current events.

Or what, tough guy? Are you going to shoot me?

No, it isn't. I like to ask this question of true peaceniks (not calling you a peacenik, btw):
Would you hurt someone to protect yourself? Many have said no. I can imagine what situation and leader on a pedestal they're channeling.
But when I ask "Would you fight someone who was harming a member of your family? Your mother? What if it was your child being hurt by someone?"
The answers swerve wildly. Frustrating to them, and delightful to me, to see them really think.
I'd like to think of myself as an idealist, but there is the optimistic outlook, and the realistic one. I think it's quite simple.

Absolutely not. I remember in another thread I was speaking of how I began to see nursery rhymes as important facets of early indoctrination and behavioral modification. I was joking, but Sticks and Stones seems like it could be the most important lesson that can be learned. No matter what any number of psychologists may proclaim, speech and force are not the same thing. Particularly in a country that recognizes them both as rights, in one capacity or another. I personally see them as absolute, despite the regulations and restrictions of either the 'assault weapons' or 'fire in a crowded theater' arguments, which I could rail against all day.
Hopefully I'm not straying too far off topic, but it's something that has bothered me about the entire 'bullying' media blitz. There seems to be this push to include hurt feelings as assault; I think it would do well by everyone to learn the true line. You can say anything you want; the second a physical act is introduced, it becomes something else.
I find that to be logical, as well as balanced. Maybe it's just me; I grew up fighting; I enjoy it, it's part of my culture, but until philosophy hit my eyes as a teenager, it was just exercise, and the how became much less important than the why.


Yes it does. It is unfortunate, but it may be a price we pay to not all be in chains, all the time. We've heard wise words parroted from Franklin, but he's got a point. I think given enough fear, most people would choose to be safe over free.
I'm not one of them.