Why Gun is Civilization...

[RJDiogenes]

RJDiogenes, are you aware that as per Warren vs. DC, the SCOTUS held that law enforcement agencies are under no obligation to protect individuals?

The Supreme Court of the United States made no such ruling, despite the frequent claims to the contrary by gun advocates. That was The United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which was formerly known as The Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. That ruling had no effect outside of DC.

However, courts in other states and municipalities have made similar rulings to avoid rampant lawsuits if police should happen to fail in protecting an individual from harm. It was not intended to grant an excuse for police to actively ignore a crime in progress, it's simply seeking to avoid the inevitable tide of lawsuits one would expect in our extremely litigious society should the police fail to "serve and protect" in every situation.

Thanks for clarifying that; now I feel a bit better. Although, as you say, a suit in that particular case was absolutely justified, being an epic of negligence and systemic failure.

So answer the question and quit dodging. So you love restricting the freedom of others? What other restrictions would you place upon someone who is doing no one any harm? When did you become the arbiter of rights? Based on your statement it is a very fair question. You said it.

I'm not dodging at all. Locutus was quite right on all counts (thank you, LOC); I've said on many occasions that I support Second Amendment rights, though not without some controls.

 

[Man Afraid of his Shoes]

^ Perhaps a better analogy would be, would I trust a hungry lion to protect me from a rabid dog? I just might. I'm not so naive as to hate all police, or equate them all with such lions, but I'd much rather have that than risk being filled full of lead just for stepping out onto my front porch.

I don't hate police officers, I just don't want to trust them. Since power always corrupts, I tend to regard anyone with power I don't have with great suspicion. Even my best friend wouldn't be exempt from this rule.

Power doesn't *always* corrupt. It *tends* to corrupt, yes. But it's not universal.

And besides, even if it does always corrupt, then the power gained by being armed also corrupts...

My guns got me addicted to porn.

 

[msbae]

I don't hate police officers, I just don't want to trust them. Since power always corrupts, I tend to regard anyone with power I don't have with great suspicion. Even my best friend wouldn't be exempt from this rule.

Power doesn't *always* corrupt. It *tends* to corrupt, yes. But it's not universal.

And besides, even if it does always corrupt, then the power gained by being armed also corrupts...

^^^Spoken like a man who doesn't pay attention to Politics, the inner-workings of most organized religions or big businesses. Enjoy your Kool-Aid. I hear they're serving Red today. ;P

Also, just to stir the pot a little, my latest MySpace Blog...

TITLE: Getting in touch with your inner Redneck/Gun Nut...

So, my Dad has a .357 Magnum revolver. He bought it from my Uncle Frank when I was a baby. Frank was cop and this was one of the many pieces in his gun collection. It's a sweet weapon, too. 4-inch barrel, chrome, wood handle, double-action and LOUD AS HELL when it fires. I was too afraid to fire this gun until I was about 17, I think. It is that loud and powerful. In fact, it's the only gun with a caliber who's number doesn't start with 4 that I would use for my personal protection.

Dad said he'd give this gun to me when he buys a Glock. Personally, I think I'll be getting the better end of that deal. Guns should not be made of plastic components. That is Bullshit.

Anyway, neither of us were sure about the model number. So, I did a little research just now and discovered that it's most likely a Model 19 or it's very similar successor, the Model 66. Either way, it's a great American-made revolver that is guaranteed to put a man down the first time.

I look forward to when it becomes mine. I've been meaning to add a good revolver to my firearms collection. While a Smith & Wesson Model 686 would still be a wonderful addition (which I will one day acquire), the need won't be quite as pressing as it would without 'Dad's Magnum.'

- msbae

WORKS CITED

Smith & Wesson Model 19 - Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_&_Wesson_Model_19

Smith & Wesson Model 686 - Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_&_Wesson_Model_686

Don't worry, folks. My 'collection' isn't really all that large yet. So far, it's just a few pistols and a KA-BAR.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Power doesn't *always* corrupt. It *tends* to corrupt, yes. But it's not universal.

And besides, even if it does always corrupt, then the power gained by being armed also corrupts...

^^^Spoken like a man who doesn't pay attention to Politics, the inner-workings of most organized religions or big businesses. Enjoy your Kool-Aid. I hear they're serving Red today. ;P

Ha bloody ha.

And you didn't answer my last point. If, as you say, power always corrupts, then having a gun must (by your own admission) be a corrupting influence - since a gun *is* a form of power. At least to the unarmed.

To put it another way: If you and I were standing face to face having this discussion, you would be armed and I would not be. Therefore you would have some form of power over me. Don't even try to tell me that you wouldn't be tempted to use that power...I wouldn't even need the Kool-Aid at that point.

 

[Mallory]

To put it another way: If you and I were standing face to face having this discussion, you would be armed and I would not be. Therefore you would have some form of power over me. Don't even try to tell me that you wouldn't be tempted to use that power...I wouldn't even need the Kool-Aid at that point.

You think he'd be tempted to shoot you because you don't agree with him?

 

[Surefire]

To put it another way: If you and I were standing face to face having this discussion, you would be armed and I would not be. Therefore you would have some form of power over me. Don't even try to tell me that you wouldn't be tempted to use that power...I wouldn't even need the Kool-Aid at that point.

You think he'd be tempted to shoot you because you don't agree with him?

This is the type of hysteria I hear often from some people. They assume that all gun owners are pyscho. I work with several people who believe guns owners are by definition evil pyschos.

 

[FrontLine]

To put it another way: If you and I were standing face to face having this discussion, you would be armed and I would not be. Therefore you would have some form of power over me. Don't even try to tell me that you wouldn't be tempted to use that power...I wouldn't even need the Kool-Aid at that point.

You think he'd be tempted to shoot you because you don't agree with him?

Yeah. Babaganoosh, seriously, I think you need help.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

You think he'd be tempted to shoot you because you don't agree with him?

I was going to say that you'd be surprised at what I think, but now that I consider it...no, you wouldn't.

This is the type of hysteria I hear often from some people. They assume that all gun owners are pyscho. I work with several people who believe guns owners are by definition evil pyschos.

If you would not be opposed to sufficient background checks to keep guns out of the hands of *real* evil psychos, then I'm cool with that.

Babaganoosh, seriously, I think you need help.

You're probably right. But that's a matter for another day.

Let me slightly rephrase, then. I've already told you that I haven't ever owned a gun and that I never want to. You seemed to indicate that it was okay for me to think this. Assuming that's on the level, then how would you have me be protected - if at all? I was telling the truth when I said that I don't want a gun, and that I respect the role of the police and other such authorities to protect society and keep our streets safe (note: this is not the same thing as advocating a police state, which I definitely don't).

I am not lazy or unmotivated in general, but even so, I have neither the time nor the inclination to fully devote my entire waking existence to arming myself, keeping a constant watch, etc. But I'm definitely getting a strong anti-police, anti-government message from this thread. What would you suggest I do? Forcibly change myself? Or do nothing and allow myself to be overpowered and killed, on the assumption that anybody who won't arm themselves doesn't deserve to live anyway?

I guess I don't have a real problem with law-abiding, dedicated citizens arming themselves for defense at home, but what about those who can't protect themselves? The very old, very young, the sick, the weak, people like me , etc.? See, that's why I believe in the role of the police and the civil authorities. Not to be a nanny (or police) state, but to ensure a *reasonable* level of safety and security for all. Some people can't protect themselves, some won't. But they all deserve to live.

Now tell me, was anything I've said here in this post, really that unreasonable?

Another example. You may not know, or believe, this, but I am 100% against the death penalty. I didn't used to be. But I learned to change. One of the things that *made* me change my mind was this: If a criminal faces the death penalty for something like, killing a police officer, then they might be more likely to shoot on sight anyway - on the undertaking that they have nothing to lose. Similarly: If too many people have guns, I can't shake the thought that some people might start shooting with comparatively little provocation - assuming that the other person will also be armed, and will be more likely to kill *them*.

Although maybe it's the *concealed* bit, that's the real concern. If I can see that somebody has a gun, I can more easily avoid a confrontation with them. It's easier to walk away from somebody I know is armed - easier to know for certain that I shouldn't mess with them. You can at least respect that, can't you?

 

[msbae]

And you didn't answer my last point. If, as you say, power always corrupts, then having a gun must (by your own admission) be a corrupting influence - since a gun *is* a form of power. At least to the unarmed.

To put it another way: If you and I were standing face to face having this discussion, you would be armed and I would not be. Therefore you would have some form of power over me. Don't even try to tell me that you wouldn't be tempted to use that power...I wouldn't even need the Kool-Aid at that point.

The gun would just be a tool. It has no power unless I use it, which I would not. You don't strike me as someone who would be threatening enough for me to want to use deadly force. Despite all appearances in this thread, I am civilized. I simply recognize that not everyone else is civilized and I need a way to defend against them. Having firearms available serves that purpose very well.

Also, I took another look at Dad's Magnum. It's a Model 66.

 

[Surefire]

If you would not be opposed to sufficient background checks to keep guns out of the hands of *real* evil psychos, then I'm cool with that.

I think INSTANT background checks (as many states currently use) are a reasonable way to keep guns out of wrong hands. In most cases, the buyer would know within an hour if they pass the check. This would be a reasonable compromise between freedom and safety IMO.

I do NOT support 15 day waiting periods, such as California uses.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The gun would just be a tool. It has no power unless I use it

To be fair, though, that is true of almost any kind of power.

I think INSTANT background checks (as many states currently use) are a reasonable way to keep guns out of wrong hands. In most cases, the buyer would know within an hour if they pass the check. This would be a reasonable compromise between freedom and safety IMO.

How do they do that? Can a background check be both instant *and* comprehensive?

 

[Surefire]

Although maybe it's the *concealed* bit, that's the real concern. If I can see that somebody has a gun, I can more easily avoid a confrontation with them. It's easier to walk away from somebody I know is armed - easier to know for certain that I shouldn't mess with them. You can at least respect that, can't you?

The best advice I can offer is to always avoid a confrontation if possible. There is no need to escalate a situation over pride, or trying to prove yourself. Even if you win a fist fight, chances are you may be arrested and spend time in jail. Worse, you may seriously hurt someone which should be avoided if possible. And if the other party has a knife, it can very well do a lot more damage to you than a handgun. People that go out looking to pick fights are IMO inherently unstable, and may be prone to using a weapon anyway.

 

[Surefire]

I think INSTANT background checks (as many states currently use) are a reasonable way to keep guns out of wrong hands. In most cases, the buyer would know within an hour if they pass the check. This would be a reasonable compromise between freedom and safety IMO.

How do they do that? Can a background check be both instant *and* comprehensive?

I don't know the details, but it apparently works in the states have have instant checks.

 

[msbae]

The gun would just be a tool. It has no power unless I use it

To be fair, though, that is true of almost any kind of power.

The gun is a TOOL. It is a POWERLESS INANIMATE OBJECT unless I use it for its intended purpose. That means that I have the power all along, not the tool I used. This should not be such a difficult concept to grasp.

I think INSTANT background checks (as many states currently use) are a reasonable way to keep guns out of wrong hands. In most cases, the buyer would know within an hour if they pass the check. This would be a reasonable compromise between freedom and safety IMO.

How do they do that? Can a background check be both instant *and* comprehensive?

In my case when I bought my .45, the 'instant' check was less than 15 minutes. Oh, why can't more Gov't. agencies get things done as fast (and as well) as the FBI with that background check?!...

 

[RJDiogenes]

Yeah. Babaganoosh, seriously, I think you need help.

Come on, you should know better than to Post something like this. Keep it civil, please.

This is the type of hysteria I hear often from some people. They assume that all gun owners are pyscho. I work with several people who believe guns owners are by definition evil pyschos.

It's the gun worshipers who are disturbing; what's called the "Gun Culture." That faction whose lives revolve around these instruments of killing, who collect them like comic books, shoot at things for fun, obsess over them day and night-- or, like the guy quoted in the first Post, are afraid to face the world without one.

The gun is a TOOL. It is a POWERLESS INANIMATE OBJECT unless I use it for its intended purpose. That means that I have the power all along, not the tool I used. This should not be such a difficult concept to grasp.

What shouldn't be difficult to grasp is that carrying a gun gives you the power to easily injure or kill another person, especially one who is unarmed. If you believe that power corrupts, then you believe that carrying a gun is a corrupting influence.

 

[msbae]

The gun is a TOOL. It is a POWERLESS INANIMATE OBJECT unless I use it for its intended purpose. That means that I have the power all along, not the tool I used. This should not be such a difficult concept to grasp.

What shouldn't be difficult to grasp is that carrying a gun gives you the power to easily injure or kill another person, especially one who is unarmed. If you believe that power corrupts, then you believe that carrying a gun is a corrupting influence.

Horseshit. I never feel tempted to shoot someone when I have one of my guns in my hands. How do you know I would (hypothetically) use a gun to injure/kill someone? Why not use a knife? Or some kind of large tool? Or my bare hands? One thing does NOT necessarily lead to another, RJ.

I don't feel overly scared of people who 'collect guns like comic books.' I know a few people like that and they are the most stable people you'll meet. One of them is also a Sheriff's deputy too. While I distrust the police in general, I like this particular law man. He's a good neighbor. He even offered to share his ammo with us during/shortly after Hurricane Gustav a few months ago. What a nice guy.

Also, you should see this weapon of his called 'The Landry.' It's a M-1 upgraded to M-14 specs. Oh, that weapon is a sight to behold! He's actually taken it with him on patrols in the months following Katrina. I feel bad for anyone who might have had that Landry pointed at them. It's a virtual certainty that they'd need a change of underwear afterward.

 

[Pingfah]

Horseshit. I never feel tempted to shoot someone when I have one of my guns in my hands. How do you know I would (hypothetically) use a gun to injure/kill someone? Why not use a knife? Or some kind of large tool? Or my bare hands? One thing does NOT necessarily lead to another, RJ.

But you just said it did. You said that power ALWAYS corrupts.

Do try to keep up with what you yourself are saying

 

[Man Afraid of his Shoes]

Although maybe it's the *concealed* bit, that's the real concern. If I can see that somebody has a gun, I can more easily avoid a confrontation with them. It's easier to walk away from somebody I know is armed - easier to know for certain that I shouldn't mess with them. You can at least respect that, can't you?

You can solve that problem simply by avoiding confrontation with anyone, and not going around messing with people.

 

[RJDiogenes]

The gun is a TOOL. It is a POWERLESS INANIMATE OBJECT unless I use it for its intended purpose. That means that I have the power all along, not the tool I used. This should not be such a difficult concept to grasp.

What shouldn't be difficult to grasp is that carrying a gun gives you the power to easily injure or kill another person, especially one who is unarmed. If you believe that power corrupts, then you believe that carrying a gun is a corrupting influence.

Horseshit. I never feel tempted to shoot someone when I have one of my guns in my hands. How do you know I would (hypothetically) use a gun to injure/kill someone? Why not use a knife? Or some kind of large tool? Or my bare hands? One thing does NOT necessarily lead to another, RJ.

It does if you believe that power corrupts; that's what the phrase means. As for other weapons, they would be corrupting, too, to a degree determined by the power and ease of use of each-- if you believe that power corrupts.

 

[Peak]

I would never like to meet anybody that owns a gun and is not a hunter (with a hunting rifle), police officer or military. I do think that the idea that you need to own a gun is a danger sign itself to others to stay away from that person.

On the other hand, the only one i know owned a gun (a hunter) killed himself with his own gun a few years ago. I never met anyone that needs a gun to protect himself, and the idea itself should be very suspect in my (and, I'm certain a lot other Swedes) eyes.