FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Okay, Ted Nugent has finally reached the point... (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Okay, Ted Nugent has finally reached the point...
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Reasonable gun control isn't a bad idea. Not outright banning them, just at least keeping them out of the hands of ex-cons and people who have restraining orders against them.
I totally agree. I'm in favor of banning private and show sales and better enforcement of the existing rules.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mothertree
Member
Member # 4999

 - posted      Profile for mothertree   Email mothertree         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
What kills more people a year? Guns or motor vehicles?

Don't pharmacists kill more people than guns? I mean, so do honeybees, and I don't want to do away with them either.

My first response to this was going to be "so which are you, Tom, a carjacker, rapist or ..." But "bad guys" is troublingly vagzue.

Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Dagonee, I've been over this ground before with you about the weakness of people and their right to use a gun in defense and our differing beliefs.

Being a weak person who lacks the physical strength to repel an attacker yet would never consider carrying a gun I feel qualified to say why a gun in most cases is completely unnecessary.

Here's the thing: I don't feel qualified telling someone else how they should defend themselves. And I'm frankly amazed that other people do. I'm especially amazed that they will tell people how they're allowed to defend themselves.

quote:
If walking alone, I can protect myself in many ways. I know you've said before that having to walk in lighted areas that may not be the quickest direction is giving into those who may attack me, but there are other ways to think of it. If I had a gun and I knew that walking alone through a certain area was entertaining the possibility of being attacked but I forged ahead because I had I gun to shoot my attacker, am I not going out looking to kill or maim or at least threaten? What does that make me?
It's good that you can make that choice. Others can't. And I hope you realize that your particular take on how you would act differently with a gun doesn't apply to everyone that has one.

quote:
If I feel I may be tempting danger and there is NO alternative, I can carry keys or a water bottle. I can wear shoes in which I can move quickly. There are a number of options that would work in a pinch.
I'm guessing I'm stronger than you, but by no means could I fight off two average size guys. And there are LOTS of single guys who could take me. And I can't run fast - my knees sound like the door to a haunted house.

quote:
I do not need to kill to defend my poor weak female self, and without a gun I am in no way "condemned". There are other ways that do not inconvenience me or inhibit my freedoms.
And those means do not suffice for some. Go back and read some of Mrs.M's posts on the subject. You may feel comfortable with your safety precautions. Others don't. Why do YOU get decide for them?

Dagonee

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
Because why should I permit their insecurity to threaten me? Gun killings from accident and incompetence are, I believe, a lot more common than valid self-defense.

There is no absolute security; the quest for it merely makes everyone else more insecure. If I owned Superman's fortress at the north Pole, and had the power to kill anyone merely by looking at them funny, I'd be pretty safe from assault - but noone else would be, and I suspect you would try to prevent me having such a means of self-defense. (Which would be wise of you, what with our religious disagreements.) Some reasonable compromise between individual and collective security must be reached; I believe that handguns take away much more from the collective than they add to the individual.

Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Teshi
Member
Member # 5024

 - posted      Profile for Teshi   Email Teshi         Edit/Delete Post 
That's not really what I'm arguing. You said "the weak" are condemned by banned handguns and yet I know this is not the case for me or any of the other millions who inhabit the place where I live.

Just making sure we're all on the same page. [Smile]

Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Alucard...
Member
Member # 4924

 - posted      Profile for Alucard...   Email Alucard...         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"The only people who should fear honest people with guns are criminals and politicians."

And, see, I have trouble believing that honest people own guns.

Tom, I own a gun. In your worldview, does this make me somehow not honest? If so, then brace yourself: I own more than one gun. I am sure to blaze a fiery path to Hell for sure!

I hope I am misunderstanding your post. It is late, and I am not awake. Maybe I am taking offense where none is meant. What is sad is that I am trying to illustrate a situation in which I deal with people of the Ted Nugent mentality every day. They would be cheering and firing their rifles in the air right along side Ted. This does not mean I empathize with them or admire them. But I do associate with them and understand them.

What is truly insensitive of many of you (that I still refer to as fellow Jatraqueros) even though I cringe a bit is this:

Some of the most respected and honest people I know own guns and hunt regularly. To somehow equate the ownership of a gun to becoming or supporting fringe "hardcore" lunatics like Ted Nugent is just flawed and spiteful.

In a world that I usually feel quite at home, I suddenly feel a bit alone, with the exception of Dag (thanks [Smile] ).

So if Tom's comment wasn't a bit disappointing, there is the new galacticly myopic comment:

quote:
Don't pharmacists kill more people than guns?
mothertree, at risk of being offensive, I will only say this and then shut up:

No. They do not. If you can somehow show me irrefutably that I somehow kill more people than I help, or even save once in a while, I will quit my job and start walking the earth like David Carridine from Kung Fu , in my best attempt to save the planet. Or hey, taking a page from your avatar, I could be the 21st equivalant of Johnny Appleseed and plant trees wherever I go! Now there's an idea! But now that the shadow of doubt has been cast in my mind, I do not know if I can count and dispense another pill! The horror!

See, I ignored my own warning.

[ April 19, 2005, 02:31 AM: Message edited by: Alucard... ]

Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Alucard...
Member
Member # 4924

 - posted      Profile for Alucard...   Email Alucard...         Edit/Delete Post 
http://cgibin.rcn.com/mwhite28/warstat8.htm#Total

Here is an amateur attempt at collating many sources of death and mortality tables.

Ironically, it seems that causalties of war rank near or at the top for deaths caused by fellow human beings.

Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Because why should I permit their insecurity to threaten me? Gun killings from accident and incompetence are, I believe, a lot more common than valid self-defense.
Gun killngs from accident and incompetence are a lot more common than killings from self defense.

Incidents where a gun is used for self defense without killing are far more common than gun killings from incompetence or self defense.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
"I don't feel qualified telling someone else how they should defend themselves. And I'm frankly amazed that other people do."

And yet you did.
You quite specifically made the argument that I couldn't use a vial of poison gas or a tank to defend myself because, in your opinion, these objects are impractical -- even excessive -- for personal defense.

If I disagree with you, what is my recourse? Moreover, if I disagree with you that a handgun is a practical method of personal defense, what distinguishes it from a tank?

-------

"Tom, I own a gun. In your worldview, does this make me somehow not honest?"

It makes you less honest than you would be without a gun, yes.

[ April 19, 2005, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aspectre
Member
Member # 2222

 - posted      Profile for aspectre           Edit/Delete Post 
"Incidents where a gun is used for self defense without killing are far more common than gun killings from incompetence"

Is that as defense against being flambéd by dragons and speared by unicorns?
Or to scare off ghoulies and ghosties and long leggedy beasties and things that gob ump in the night?

[ April 19, 2005, 09:18 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]

Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
OK, could I just note that I feel about TomD's stance on this the way he probably feels about mine on religion? I mean, ok, we agree on the need for control, but come on. This is not a subject for jihads. Reasonable people can legitimately disagree, here, without being dishonest.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It makes you less honest than you would be without a gun, yes.
I'm not seeing that Tom. Could you elaborate?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
"Honesty," in this context, really stands for social responsibility. I believe that gun ownership in modern society -- particularly the kind of fetishism that's produced by collectors -- is an indicator of a certain level of reckless selfishness that, by its very nature, is highly socially irresponsible. It means that someone has spent money to acquire something which has as its primary purpose the very essence of Unmaking.

You are, of course, welcome to disagree. But you're wrong. [Smile]

--------

And as a side-note, I'm such a bigot. Salon's running this article today about this Democratic governor of Montana who may just be a new hope for the party, and all I can think as I read is is "Gee, I hope this slick, down-home shyster falls off a horse and dies before that happens." It's uncharitable, but there's something about cornpone that really ticks me off.

http://www.salon.com/news/lotp/2005/04/19/montana_governor/index.html

[ April 19, 2005, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post 
Oh, so you're doing the old "define a commonly used term in an uncommon way" thing? What's the point of that anyway? Seems like a good way to cloud your meaning.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
And yet you did.
You quite specifically made the argument that I couldn't use a vial of poison gas or a tank to defend myself because, in your opinion, these objects are impractical -- even excessive -- for personal defense.

If I disagree with you, what is my recourse? Moreover, if I disagree with you that a handgun is a practical method of personal defense, what distinguishes it from a tank?

You can't use a tank, vial of poison gas, or nuclear bomb to only kill the person or persons attacking you.

If you can't see the difference between a weapon which can be targeted at individuals and one that can't, then I can't help you.

Dagonee

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm using it as it's meant in the original phrase "the only people who need to fear honest people with guns..."

The phrase in that context does not mean "people who do not steal," or "people who do not lie," but rather "people who are socially responsible, and not criminals."

-----

"If you can't see the difference between a weapon which can be targeted at individuals and one that can't, then I can't help you."

Actually, Dag, you probably could use a tank or vial of poison gas to kill just the person threatening you. Would your objections go away if it were possible to demonstrate a single-use vial of poison gas, or is it the mere ability to kill multiple people at once -- like, say, with assault rifles -- that bothers you?

[ April 19, 2005, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Go ahead and demonstrate how you can control gas in the atmosphere and I'll bless you're use of it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
So, again, your primary objection is a technical one? That if someone did indeed come up with a single-target poison applicator, you'd be A-OK with that concept?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zgator
Member
Member # 3833

 - posted      Profile for zgator   Email zgator         Edit/Delete Post 
Tom, do you not differentiate between someone who owns a handgun for self-defense and someone who owns guns for hunting?
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
"Tom, do you not differentiate between someone who owns a handgun for self-defense and someone who owns guns for hunting?"

Should I? What makes one ethically superior to the other?

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I'm using it as it's meant in the original phrase "the only people who need to fear honest people with guns..."

The phrase in that context does not mean "people who do not steal," or "people who do not lie," but rather "people who are socially responsible, and not criminals."

Okay, actually, that makes sense. You're right that "honest" wasn't being used in its conventional sense in the original quote, and I can see why you used it the way you did. Objection withdrawn.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
So, again, your primary objection is a technical one? That if someone did indeed come up with a single-target poison applicator, you'd be A-OK with that concept?
Assuming strict liablilty for the one who uses it in case it goes awry, yes.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I believe that gun ownership in modern society -- particularly the kind of fetishism that's produced by collectors -- is an indicator of a certain level of reckless selfishness that, by its very nature, is highly socially irresponsible. It means that someone has spent money to acquire something which has as its primary purpose the very essence of Unmaking.

Do you feel this way about all weapons, or just guns?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zgator
Member
Member # 3833

 - posted      Profile for zgator   Email zgator         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Should I? What makes one ethically superior to the other?
Are you saying that you're ethically superior because you go to the store and buy meat? People who hunt and kill for their meat are not as honest as you? I think the reverse could be argued pretty easily.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
I knew I should have gone into the swords, bows, tasers and knives diversion, Noemon. [Smile] I thought about it, and then decided against it because I figured it would create complications. *grin* Let me try to come up with a way to articulate my feelings on those items that won't produce half a thread in itself.

--------

"Are you saying that you're ethically superior because you go to the store and buy meat? People who hunt and kill for their meat are not as honest as you?"

In modern society, there are remarkably few people who hunt for their meat. It's certainly not affordable to do so. And in that context, hunting becomes a leisure activity that has a secondary benefit of producing meat. I submit that this knowledge -- the knowledge that the hunt is primarily a sport and a leisure activity, and only incidentally a food-gathering process -- affects the emotional impact of the hunt and the moral calculus involved.

Hunting is a lifestyle nowadays, and not a financial necessity. Even when it's considered an "ethical" necessity -- as with several Indian tribes who use it as a right of passage -- it is clearly an optional recreational behavior.

There is, then, no moral superiority to be had in hunting; the hunter is not starving himself should he be unable to acquire food, and any sorrow or awareness of his action is tempered by his enjoyment. At best, then, hunting is a morally neutral action -- which makes it ethically equivalent to killing someone's who's determined to shoot you, as far as I'm concerned, given that we do not assume that animals have as much of a right to live as humans do.

So I'm not sure where hunting for sport (and a little meat) fits in with owning a gun to protect yourself from rapists. Both have legitimate arguments in their favor, and I think their grey areas overlap enough to make them morally equivalent.

[ April 19, 2005, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post 
[Smile] Okay.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zgator
Member
Member # 3833

 - posted      Profile for zgator   Email zgator         Edit/Delete Post 
I can understand that. I don't necessarily agree, but I understand.

For what it's worth, I know several people here are as fanatical about hunting as Alucard's neighbors. Between hunting and fishing, they rarely buy meat in stores at all and generally give away quite a bit.

I've never actually been hunting myself. Not for any moral reasons, but simply because the thought of sitting in a tree stand all day hoping a deer would wander buy would bore me to tears.

Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post 
This is completely off the subject of the debate going on here, but I've been thinking for a few months that if I'm going to continue to eat meat I should probably go deer hunting, and have the experience of killing and butchering my prey at least once. I kind of recoil at the idea of doing so (the killing, that is. The butchery would be sort of interesting), and recognize that I might have to go hunting quite a few times to succeed in getting a kill, but it seems like if I'm going to continue eating meat taking responsibility for it, really connecting with the fact that I'm taking another creature's life because I want to consume its body.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AndrewR
Member
Member # 619

 - posted      Profile for AndrewR   Email AndrewR         Edit/Delete Post 
Re: the poison gas analogy.

Actually, I think you have a better chance of killing only the person threatening you with a vial of poison gas than with a gun. After all, to kill another person with poison gas requires that person to be downwind of the assailant, and within a fairly short distance to prevent the gas from disappating.

With a gun, the other person simply needs to be behind the assailant, and within a much larger distance. (Remember the old Mad magazine label on ammunition: "Accurate to 1 mile. After that, who knows what you'll hit." [Smile] )

Not that I agree with Tom--after you've been terrorized a few times, a means of self-defense is comforting--but I do enjoy his arguments. [Smile]

Posts: 2473 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dkw
Member
Member # 3264

 - posted      Profile for dkw   Email dkw         Edit/Delete Post 
Noemon, you could also go to a farm and help with butchering. Or tour a slaughterhouse/packing plant. More accurate to the type of meat you probably eat.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sid Meier
Member
Member # 6965

 - posted      Profile for Sid Meier   Email Sid Meier         Edit/Delete Post 
NO ONE should have the [sarcasm]right[/sarcasm] to own an automatic weapon. A rile for hunting sure! If you live in a wooded or farm area not in a crowed city. Pistols? Only the police and highly responsible people should have them.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post 
That's a thought Dana. I doubt they'd just let me volunteer for a day at a meat packing plant, but it's possible I could find a farmer in my area who'd be willing to let me assist.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
"A rile for hunting sure! If you live in a wooded or farm area not in a crowed city. Pistols? Only the police and highly responsible people should have them."

Let me point out, Sid, that I'm more uncomfortable letting the government decide which "responsible" people get to own guns, especially if that decision is based on whether or not they live in a wooded area, than I am about gun ownership in general. [Smile]

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sid Meier
Member
Member # 6965

 - posted      Profile for Sid Meier   Email Sid Meier         Edit/Delete Post 
What why would that be? Governments are perefeclty responsible and wouldn't abuse their power at all and of course wouldn't abuse their power in any way.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
"Governments are perefeclty responsible and wouldn't abuse their power at all and of course wouldn't abuse their power in any way."

Ah. I see. You were attempting satire. [Smile]

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stray
Member
Member # 4056

 - posted      Profile for Stray   Email Stray         Edit/Delete Post 
I haven't read every single post in the thread, so I may have missed something, but Tom, are you saying that it's never necessary for anyone in our modern society to own a gun?

My household owns one (well, several; my roommate is a collector, but I don't really understand that mindset). My husband bought it for our girlfriend when her abusive ex and a couple of his friends started stalking her at her work. She later moved in with us, and the gun now resides in a safe place, but where any of us could easily reach it on short notice.

Now, I want to let it be known that I absolutely abhor guns. It may even qualify as an actual phobia. Seeing one out of its case makes my breathing, pulse, and blood pressure spike, handling one makes me feel like throwing up. I hate them and wish they didn't exist. But I asked my husband to show me how to handle and operate it safely, and take me to the range a time or two, until I could be reasonably sure that I could fire it only on purpose, and have a reasonable chance of hitting whatever I was firing at. Doing that made me tense, spiky, and generally freaked out for the rest of the day, but I did it because I need to know that I can have this in the house without bringing harm to my family, yet still use it to defend us should the need arise (god forbid; it hasn't happened yet and I think it's less likely with every passing day--if he was going to come after her, he probably would have by now).

So, even though I hate guns, I still tolerate one in my house, and despite considerable psychological distress, learned what I need to know in order to handle it. Does this make me less than honest, in your estimation?

Posts: 957 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
"My husband bought it for our girlfriend when her abusive ex and a couple of his friends started stalking her at her work."

See, there's a logical leap here that I don't quite trust. I'm sure your husband had his reasons, but I don't think they were particularly good reasons.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Alucard...
Member
Member # 4924

 - posted      Profile for Alucard...   Email Alucard...         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Honesty," in this context, really stands for social responsibility. I believe that gun
ownership in modern society -- particularly the kind of fetishism that's produced by collectors -- is an indicator of a certain level of reckless selfishness that, by its very nature, is highly socially irresponsible. It means that someone has spent money to acquire something which has as its primary purpose the very essence of Unmaking.

You are, of course, welcome to disagree. But you're wrong.

Well, Tom I could say much, but to no avail. I will say this, though. The fact that you presume that honesty stands for social responsibility is flawed. I am sure you could argue your point till the end of time, though, and still come up with the same smug conclusion in your quote.

I will give you this. If you believe me to be less socially responsible for owning a gun, then that is your opinion. That is all. Sadly, you have demsonstrated that you are just as extreme as Ted Nugent, although diametrically opposed in each of your beliefs.

What makes me sad is that I expected a more compassionate and understanding person in someone who I consider to be one of the founders and leaders of Hatrack. What is also sad are the others here bouncing off of Tom their moral dilemmas as if his viewpoint is the benchmark for acceptance.

Especially, when by and large, it is not.

[ April 20, 2005, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: Alucard... ]

Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
foundling
Member
Member # 6348

 - posted      Profile for foundling   Email foundling         Edit/Delete Post 
Hey Noemon,

You could always watch the Simpsons episode where Lisa becomes a vegetarian. If you didnt like meat after that, you'de be an "idiot". Or a "dumbnut". Or some other insulting word that I dont remember...

Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
See, there's a logical leap here that I don't quite trust. I'm sure your husband had his reasons, but I don't think they were particularly good reasons
Well, instead of casting doubt on the reasoning and intent behind the action-giving the seriously threatened woman the gun for self-defense purposes against a known-aggressor-why not just answer the question?

Is a woman who is being stalked by an abusive ex and his friends dishonest and somehow irresponsible for purchasing a firearm with the intent of owning it for self-defense?

There is really only one answer to that question, and yours is wrong.

[Smile]

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Bowles
Member
Member # 1021

 - posted      Profile for David Bowles   Email David Bowles         Edit/Delete Post 
I just wanted to reference the original article and come out in favor of killing rapists and child molestors when they're caught in the act. Pull them off their victims and fire a bullet into their brain.

Works for me.

Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stray
Member
Member # 4056

 - posted      Profile for Stray   Email Stray         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
What is also sad are the others here bouncing off of Tom their moral dilemmas as if his viewpoint is the benchmark for acceptance.
I'm not doing that, though it may have come across that way. I'm not going to change my actions based on what he says, I was just curious how my situation would fit into his worldview. I guess I got a little carried away with elaborating about it though.
Posts: 957 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
I agree, David. While on almost every issue out there, I don't think you'll find many who disagree that shooting rapists and child molesters while raping or molesting is very radical.

Or at least I don't.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
"Sadly, you have demsonstrated that you are just as extreme as Ted Nugent..."

No, not quite. When Ted Nugent was calling people who weren't gun owners "limp-d**ked p**ssies," he was only mildly more extreme than I am. When he calls for the suspension of the process of law and argues for vigilante justice, he's considerably more extreme than I am. I did not comment on his extremism until the latter case. [Smile]

"The fact that you presume that honesty stands for social responsibility is flawed."

No, it's not. Again, in the quote "the only people who need fear honest people with guns are criminals and politicians," "honest" means "socially responsible," not "likely to tell the truth."

"Well, instead of casting doubt on the reasoning and intent behind the action-giving the seriously threatened woman the gun for self-defense purposes against a known-aggressor-why not just answer the question?"

I believe I did. I'm not questioning the woman's intent. I was questioning her friend's -- Stray's husband's -- reasoning. I believe it is socially irresponsible to purchase a gun against a perceived threat of that nature, not least because it implies a tacit surrender to and acceptance of the breakdown of civil protections; I can elaborate if you want on that topic, but I suspect that we're going to get back to unshared premises eventually. [Smile] But as I've said before in discussions about war, the wrong thing to do is often the most expedient thing to do, regardless.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
...not least because it implies a tacit surrender to and acceptance of the breakdown of civil protections...
Not remotely, Tom. All the giving of the gun can be said to imply is the acknowledgement that the cops can't always get there in time, and that the police are reactive in nature, by and large.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
"All the giving of the gun can be said to imply is the acknowledgement that the cops can't always get there in time, and that the police are reactive in nature, by and large."

And you wouldn't describe that, were you in a less generous frame of mind, as a recognition of the breakdown of civil protections? [Smile]

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
And you wouldn't describe that, were you in a less generous frame of mind, as a recognition of the breakdown of civil protections?
Not really. If you believe in civil liberties at all, you have to accept that the police can't regulate everyone's behavior every second of the day.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
*nod* Oh, absolutely. And is the purchase of a gun and the assumption of the right to kill a worthwhile substitute for that lack?

This is where we come down to premises again, I'm afraid.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Yes. My premise is that when someone becomes an aggressor, their right to life is forfeit to the extent necessary to protect their potential victim's.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
And you wouldn't describe that, were you in a less generous frame of mind, as a recognition of the breakdown of civil protections?
If I ever believed that civil protections were (or should be) as absolute as you are implying, yes, that is how I would describe it.

And the woman with the gun in this situation would not really have assumed the right to kill-it would have been thrust upon her by her assailant and friends, if they attacked her.

Frankly it is reprehensible that you're suggesting that someone willing to kill to avoid being raped, maimed, etc., is somehow immoral or lacking. You've said that this is a moral neutral zone (or grey zone, I forget the term you used), but you are consistently implying otherwise.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2