quote: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.
Sorry, Tom, but if you were given the power to change laws and precedence, I am afraid gun ownership would be a thing of the past, which in my opinion, is just as fanatical as Ted urging the killing of criminals and bypassing due process of law. Not only that, but making gun-ownership a moral issue is just plain wierd to me.
I also wanted to quote the statement that might be causing so much confusion:
quote: There is a saying among people who might agree with Ted:
"The only people who should fear honest people with guns are criminals and politicians."
As I stated, I never stated that I subscribe to this viewpoint. But many of my neighbors do. Sure, I own a gun, but for me, it is not an instrument of destruction. I do not plan on using it for self-defense. I will not use it to shoot another human being.
For the record, when I lived in Chicago, there was no need for me to own a gun, so I did not. When I moved back home, I still did own a gun, even though I inherited this beautiful gun cabinet that my grandfather made (he was a carpenter). Not until I moved to the country did I realize that I needed a rifle. I picked up a 30-30 at WalMart. Actually, I had my wife pick it up for me on her way home. For me, it is a tool, an instrument. I also like to hunt. And although your arguments against hunting are noble in a sense of not being an Unmaker, I would be frightened at the loss of something I consider to be deeply rooted in my DNA. Call it savage if you want, but I would still argue that I am a noble savage.
Tom, I carry a knife to work everyday. It is a Gerber that has a 3 inch blade. It is a tool. I use it to open boxes and cut zip-ties all day long. I do not carry it to maim or kill or for self-defense.
I hope you can at least respect the distinction I am trying to convey, even if you disagree with it.
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't say that I'm in 100% disagreement with Tom over this, actually. My husband made this decision without consulting me, but I'd rather not raise a whole bunch of drama by arguing over it endlessly. I'm of the opinion that, were I in our friend's situation, I wouldn't want to carry a gun (or any other weapon that could be taken and used against me), but I've never been physically attacked ever in my life, let alone lived in an abusive relationship, so I really don't know what my decision would be if I were really in her shoes. My inclination would be to learn a martial art (so that the weapon is my body, which is always with me and can't be turned against me), but that takes a considerable amount of time to do properly, and she didn't really have that option at the time, she needed something right away.
She's since changed jobs and, as I said, moved in with us, and we're pretty sure that he doesn't know where she lives or works now. I've never met her ex, so I don't have anything besides her word to go on in terms of what kind of threat he represents, but I'd rather take her at her word and be overly cautious than underestimate the danger and have a tragedy occur.
I guess I'm just saying that I'm not 100% certain that the gun is necessary now, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. There are no children in the house, nobody who doesn't live there knows where it's kept, and everyone who lives there know show to handle it safely. I think we've minimized the risks as much as possible, and I have to admit I do feel better knowing that we're not completely reliant on the response time of the police should anything happen. Maybe that makes me a less-than-honest person; if so, I can live with that.
posted
There is a vast difference between arming oneself against a specific threat from a particular person who has demonstrated a propensity toward violence and arming oneself against boogeymen and bumps in the night.
Just as there is a vast difference between owning a rifle for hunting as opposed to owning a handgun to shoot cops and politicians.
quote: Just as there is a vast difference between owning a rifle for hunting as opposed to owning a handgun to shoot cops and politicians.
Thanks, aspectre.
I feel a bit of vindication and hope that some progress is being made. And for the record, I do not believe there as big a need as is marketed concerning the ownership of handguns. Personally, I do not see the need to own a handgun unless a person intends to use it (which I would not). But this does not mean I would try to enforce my opinion on someone else who has the right to own and carry a handgun.
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I am afraid gun ownership would be a thing of the past, which in my opinion, is just as fanatical as Ted urging the killing of criminals and bypassing due process of law.
quote: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.
Dag, suppose there were a non-lethal form of self-defense with the same "stopping power" as a handgun. Would you then support a ban on guns? That would seem compatible with (and even required by) your premise.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I forget who said it now, but last time we had a second amendment debate, someone pointed out that individual criminals weren't even the intended focus. The amendment was there to protect Americans from their government.
At the time, I felt a ban on assault weapons was appropriate. But if the civilian population has no way to defend itself from its military, it is held hostage by its own government. In that context, assault rifles and armor piercing bullets are more civically responsible than hunting rifles.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, suppose there were a non-lethal form of self-defense with the same "stopping power" as a handgun. Would you then support a ban on guns? That would seem compatible with (and even required by) your premise.
It depends. If it were really equivalent - range, immediacy of incapacitation, number of rounds, price, reliability, ease of self-maintenance etc. - I might support a ban. That assumes that there's no way to remotely disable the new device.
I would say that someone would be morally obligated to investigate and use such a means if it would work. And this moral obligation would extend to paying an increased price or having the more difficult maintenance. But I'm not sure I'd want to legally obligate someone to do so.
posted
AvidReader, precisely the point I was trying to make. Handguns are utterly useless in that context. Now, if National Guard members were allowed to store tanks in their garages, then you would have a good case for the second amendment. The day is past when army and civilian weapons were even approximately equal in effect.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But if the civilian population has no way to defend itself from its military, it is held hostage by its own government. In that context, assault rifles and armor piercing bullets are more civically responsible than hunting rifles.
Does that extend to shoulder-launched SAMs? Seems like you'd need a few of those to take on the US government.
By the way, my reading of the Second Amendment is that it does extend to all types of weapons. We're talking about the right to "keep and bear arms," no qualifications. People back then just didn't realize how dangerous weapons were going to get. But we're being shady, Constitutionally, every time we withold some form of weapon from the public.
The solution, if we had the stones, would be a new amendment. But I'm not holding my breath.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It depends. If it were really equivalent - range, immediacy of incapacitation, number of rounds, price, reliability, ease of self-maintenance etc. - I might support a ban.
That's good. I think this is an issue that'll be solved by technology, in time. Once a gun is no longer the single best way to protect yourself, the NRA will no longer be able to "rally 'round the family with a pocket full of shells," to borrow the words of the poet.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, OSC once laid out a beautiful set of parables in one of the Ender books (Xenocide, I believe, but I could MOST LIKELY be incorrect) that was a variation on the stoning of a prostitute and who might be worthy to cast the first stone.
Although it may be bold of me, the fanaticism of gun ownership and your application of moral responsibility preventing gun ownership are similar to the extremes of corruption and rigidity of the parable (in my eyes at least).
The beliefs or attitues of society swing like a pendulum. I suppose this is easier to see when you stand at the middle of an issue instead of at one if its poles.
posted
"Once a gun is no longer the single best way to protect yourself..."
See, I believe it already isn't. Living a careful, deliberative, and decent life is the single best way to protect yourself. A gun can be a fallback, but it's not nearly as useful as the former option.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
These aren't mutually exclusive methods, I'm afraid. Sounds like the single best way to protect yourself is to be careful and have a gun.
For myself, I accept the risk factor of violent crime that goes along with just being careful -- I am, after all, OK with the much greater danger of driving a car. But some people are very worried about violent crime, either because they live in bad neighborhoods or because they have an unrealistic sense of the risk factor. And I have a hard time telling them that they can't take the extra steps they see as necessary.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, are you unwilling to kill if attacked in a situation from which you can't retreat? Because a gun isn't really required to do that, and in some situations there is no other choice except die or kill.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Living a careful, deliberative, and decent life is the single best way to protect yourself. A gun can be a fallback, but it's not nearly as useful as the former option.
