Of Cars and Guns and the Nature of Man (quite long)

[Dowding]

 

A better, clearer law would be "you cannot kill another human being in defense of your property or person." That is real clear, and that's what your saying.

No, no and no - that is not what I'm saying. You can defend yourself with lethal force, but the circumstances have to fit. The reason why it is so vague is because we leave the decision to the judge and jury - it can be made based on the facts specific to the case, not some clumsy pseudo-coverall statement like the one you give above.

 

So ownership did deter them in the end.

It did not deter the thieves from breaking into the house, despite the fact they KNEW he was an eccentric loner armed with a shotgun, who was known for his less than friendly attitude to strangers. That is an example of deterence failing, not succeeding.

 

>Thank god American ideas on life have changed - or otherwise you'd still be defending institutionalized racism and refusing the vote based on colour of skin, well into 21st century.

And this is relevant to the gun issue in what way? I see that you can predict the future as well as read minds.

I'm not the one who implied that England was some early 19th century draconian state. You said that English ideas on life had not changed for 200 years; I was implying that attitudes that are OVER 200 years old were still present in the US only 40 years ago. And if things hadn't changed then, the state of affairs in the South of your country MIGHT have persisted into the 21st century. Thank god things did change.

 

The fact that they were attempting a burglary says plenty about what kind of loss they (he) were to your society. No loss at all in my book. Tony Martin on the other hand was a valuable, producing member of society.

I say again - capital punishment should not be dished out to anyone for burgalry. Let's say for sake of argument that the 16 old had not been shot, that they over-powered Martin and tied him up (without harming him). They turn the place over and escape. Eventually the lad is nicked for the crime and is sentenced to a jail term. Who's to say he would not be rehabilitated (which is one of the key ideals behind prisons in this country), and becomes a worthwhile member of society - doesn't he (or anyone else) deserve that chance?

As an aside - I wouldn't want the British public to get their hands on hand-guns. Some recent stories highlight how stupid a proportion of the public is, and how much damage they could do. We've had a lot of controversy over paedophiles living within the community over here this summer. This led to demonstrations, where large groups of parents trawled their housing estate 'outing' suspected paedophiles (the only evidence they had was hearsay and rumour). Vigilante action in any form is abhorrant, but these guys took it a little further. They went to a paedeotrician's house and kicked her and her family out of it, simply because she was a paedeotrician (i.e it sounded close enough to paedophile for them to be satisfied they were that kind of person). Imagine if they could get their hand's on guns rather than stones and firebombs.

CavemanJ - saying that anti-gun supporters are responsible for things like Columbine is utter rubbish, and you know it. Guns being so readily available has to have some bearing on the situation. Without anti-gun lobbyists you reckon the event would have gone unreported? I hope you don't really believe that.

[Regurge]

I've read most of the gun debate threads and the thing that strikes me is this: The anti-gunners seem to feel threatened by anyone with a gun, including law abiding citizens.

As if you give the average persom a gun and he'll say "gee, now there's no reason NOT to rob that convenience store, or blow away that pesky neighbor. This gun makes it so easy".

The vast majority of people these days play by society's rules and are should be allowed to live their lives freely.

Then there are those few who make it their business to prey on others. It is these people that must be watched and regulated, or removed from society altogether.

-Regurge aka the pilot formerly known as Spinout


[This message has been edited by Regurge (edited 10-05-2000).]

[CavemanJ]

 

Originally posted by Dowding:

CavemanJ - saying that anti-gun supporters are responsible for things like Columbine is utter rubbish, and you know it. Guns being so readily available has to have some bearing on the situation. Without anti-gun lobbyists you reckon the event would have gone unreported? I hope you don't really believe that.

It would have been reported.
It would not have been sensationalized.
That's what all the constant interviews and reports and everything else ad nauseum about the victims were about, sensationalizing the incident to try and give the anti-gun people more ammunition.
And along came all of the copy cats, who were looking to get thier 15 minutes of fame.

But it's all moot until the anti gun people can answer this question:
When is the last time you saw a gun jump up off a desk and kill someone on its own?

[Toad]

 

Originally posted by Igloo:
Caveman, you misunderstood my post.  He was drawing parallels between cars and guns.  I showed the difference.  You cannot logically draw parallels between the two.

Really? You cannot draw parallels between cars and guns?

Are they both inanimate objects designed by man to serve as his tools?

Have they both been of great use to man throughout their existience as tools?

Can either a car or a gun "act" without input from man?

Can an inanimate car or gun be "good" OR "evil" all by itself?

Can MAN use these tools for "good" or "evil" by acting irresponsibly, without the permission of the particular inanimate object?

In 1997 in the US, were guns involved in 32,436 deaths, while CARS were involved in 41,967 deaths, resuling in very similar "deaths/per" percentages?

(Deaths per Gun: .00016, Deaths per Vehicle: .00021)

Are MOST cars and MOST guns in the US totally uninvolved in violent deaths?

Is it a very, very small % of the existing cars and guns that ARE involved in violent deaths?

Can both cars and guns are used by people BREAKING THE LAW and that this MISUSE can result in violent death?

I see all these parallels and more.

It seems that some people just cannot accept the fact that a PERSON is ultimately responsible for all violent crime.

It's so easy to place the blame on an inanimate object. It requires no thought, it requires no unpleasant facing of reality. It's simplistic problem solving with no problem solved at all.

The statement "guns were designed to kill" is simply a fallacy of logic; it's a "red herring." A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.

The fact that guns were designed to kill may in fact mean that they are a poor design. After all, Man designed cars and they kill  more efficiently than do guns! But neither of these considerations has anything to do with gun control.

FACT: In 1997 (and statistics are almost the same for any year you wish to choose) 99.99984% of the existing firearms in the US were NOT used in violent crime. Wouldn't it make more sense and be much more efficient to devote our attention to the .00016% that are? (Project Exile and Project Ceasefire)

FACT: In 1997 (and statistics are almost the same for any year you wish to choose)9,531 MORE people died as traffic fatalities than as gun fatalities. Incredibly, 38.6% of these deaths were alcohol-related. Even more incredibly, DUI is NOT a Felony in 27 of our 50 states! In 19 of the 23 states that DO class it as a Felony, ONLY the 3rd or 4th Offense within 10 years is a Felony!

Now THAT is a crime!

 

[wrench]

 

Originally posted by Dowding:
I say again - capital punishment should not be dished out to anyone for burgalry. Let's say for sake of argument that the 16 old had not been shot, that they over-powered Martin and tied him up (without harming him). They turn the place over and escape. Eventually the lad is nicked for the crime and is sentenced to a jail term. Who's to say he would not be rehabilitated (which is one of the key ideals behind prisons in this country), and becomes a worthwhile member of society - doesn't he (or anyone else) deserve that chance?

I suppose that is where we will never see eye to eye.

You see in your little scenario, the only WILL taken into account is the boys (crimminals). The will of the citizen is not considered. You expect him to bend to the desires and will of the gang of boys. If he is hurt or even killed while they do their bidding, your judges and juries will dole out punishment (rehabilitation).

In the scenario I support, Tony Martin is a free man with a will of his own. A gang of boys foolishly attempts to overpower and subdue him for only they know what purpose. Tony Martin isn't overpowered and subdued. The surviving boys, whose plans and actions, resulted in the death of a friend, are tried for manslaughter. They are then rehabilitated by a guy named bubba for a few years, and required to compensate Tony Martin for any counseling he may need after such a disturbing encounter.

These are very different scenario's, one assumes both parties have free will, the other assumes 1 man must submit to anothers will. Now that isn't a draconian ideal at all is it?

Your commentary on your countrymen is enlightening, and I tend to agree. After all they allowed themselves to be disarmed  

Wrench - clumbsy but clear  

[Naso]

 

Originally posted by Toad:
In 1997 in the US, were guns involved in 32,436 deaths, while CARS were involved in 41,967 deaths, resuling in very similar "deaths/per" percentages?

(Deaths per Gun: .00016, Deaths per Vehicle: .00021)

Toad, are you suggesting the cars are overmodeled ??  

[Sparks]

Dowding and Igloo

How many career criminals and antisocial families must we succumb to before we decide it's time to look after ourselves ??
Dowding - the "boy" you talk about was a known career criminal from a family of the same. These people have absolutely no respect for you or I or our property or well being. A prison term is a risk of their occupation and their occupation is feeding off those they percieve as weak. I refer to my previous post - they have utterly NO respect for anyone else in the society which actually protects them. As far as I am concerned then let the risks of the job fit the profession - if a North Sea oil rig diver dies in an accident in a very dangerous and law abiding role no-one raises a hand and charges the crew cheif with murder, it's a known risk of the job,  - so why do we wring our hands when someone who chooses to invade another persons property and life without regard to the trauma, personal loss or impact of his actions on the victim in any way shape or form meets an untimely end. Your dramatisation "put a hole in him the size of a football.." is typical of the tools used to fire people up to protect the criminals rights and it sickens me. Death is messy - it always is.

I ask you this - how long do you think it would have taken to turn this "boy" into a person who repsects and looks after others - a couple of months in prison - I think not. Take a person from a violent, crime ingrained family and try to re-educate them in the values that we see as acceptable ?? your talking years if ever - and in the meantime we are expected to just accept the criminal behaviour they inflict upon us and actually protect them from us !! . I'm sorry but that is the real sickness in our society.

As for guns in the UK - yes I would like one and before I got one I would go to the training courses and register it and keep in the way I would any other dangerous piece of equipment. I own a circular saw you know and to date I haven't killed anyone with it yet or even had an accident. But a circular saw can be an pretty dangerous weapon...

I am 100% with Toad and Cave on this - the object does not cause the crime - the person in charge of it does.

Oh and before anyone starts on "you live in the UK how do you know", my wife is from rural North Carolina where guns are as much a part of everyday life as lawn mowers and blenders. She was taught gun safety at school and raised by a father who taught her from an early age what a gun could do and how to handle it safely and with the respect it deserves. My father-in-law taught me on moving out to the States how to handle guns and how to shoot safely - why - because they were around. The guns don't kill and cars don't kill PEOPLE DO  - ARROGANT IGNORANT PEOPLE WITH NO RESPECT FOR THEIR FELLOW MAN so why do we protect tehm and punish the victim ????

[This message has been edited by Sparks (edited 10-06-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Sparks (edited 10-06-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Sparks (edited 10-06-2000).]

[Toad]

Go Sparks Go! Tell it brother! The True Gospel now! Responsibility! Accountability! Yeah!

 

Naso, I'm thinking we should have armed our troops with 1975 rusted out Chevy pickups with a cooler full of beer and a bottle of Four Roses whiskey on the front seat and sent them into battle!

 

[Naso]

Oh my, Toad.  

This will violate the START Threaty, this kind of weapons are crime upon humanity.  

[Dowding]

 

I suppose that is where we will never see eye to eye.

True, true.  

CavemanJ - our media sensationalizes everything. Just look at the Gulf War, Waco etc.

Anti-gun people aren't responsible for that - it's the nature of our media.

[CavemanJ]

 

Originally posted by Sparks:
As for guns in the UK - yes I would like one and before I got one I would go to the training courses and register it and keep in the way I would any other dangerous piece of equipment. I own a circular saw you know and to date I haven't killed anyone with it yet or even had an accident. But a circular saw can be an pretty dangerous weapon...

I am 100% with Toad and Cave on this - the object does not cause the crime - the person in charge of it does.

Oh and before anyone starts on "you live in the UK how do you know", my wife is from rural North Carolina where guns are as much a part of everyday life as lawn mowers and blenders. She was taught gun safety at school and raised by a father who taught her from an early age what a gun could do and how to handle it safely and with the respect it deserves. My father-in-law taught me on moving out to the States how to handle guns and how to shoot safely - why - because they were around. The guns don't kill and cars don't kill PEOPLE DO  - ARROGANT IGNORANT PEOPLE WITH NO RESPECT FOR THEIR FELLOW MAN so why do we protect tehm and punish the victim ????

Very well said.  This shows intelligence.  I like the idea of a mandatory training class on safe firearm handling as it would cut way back on the accidents in the home.  I've heard Connecticut, the state I live in, requires people to provide proof they have attended such a course before they can purchase a firearm.  About the only good thing I've heard about Connecticut, at least they got something right.

Your father-in-law sounds like someone I'd get along with just fine, taking the time to teach you about gun safety.  Maybe if more gun owners stepped up and did this, or (in alot of cases I'd imagine) were recognized for thier efforts, maybe the anti-gun crowd would wake up, smell what they're shoveling, and LEARN something instead of forcing thier morals, beliefs, and fears on responsible gun owners.

Dowding, yes, the media sensationalizes everything to some extent.
the Gulf War
Di's funeral
the list goes on and on.
The difference is the anti-gun lobby likes to push the sensationalism of incidents like Columbine to use them as scare tactics, and scare the "unwashed masses" about guns and make them look evil.

Columbine happened because 2 kids had serious problems and no one bothered to see the signs and try to help them.  Society failed those boys, and now blame thier failure on firearms so they dinnae have to admit to failing.  And firearms can't stand up to defend themselves, and we gun owners have all been labeled as crazy nuts by the  media.
I think it should be noted that had those 2 boys not had access to firearms the devastation could have been much worse.  Thanks to all the media coverage of Timothy McVae's (sp?) exploits in Oklahoma City the entire world knows what kind of blast you can get out of fertilizer and fuel oil.  What would have happened had those two concocted something like that and set it up in the school?  Would there even be a school left?

Bottom line is, you can't stop a person who is determined to wreak havoc, short of locking them up or killing them.  And if they haven't done anything before you won't know they need to be watched.  They WILL find something to accomplish thier goal of mass destruction/death and wreak havoc on those they have targeted for whatever reason.

I guess the anti-gun lobby is just gonna sleep through all of the wakeup calls.

[Dowding]

 

...and no one bothered to see the signs... Society failed those boys...

You'll be blaming it on them having a 'bad childhood' next, you bleeding heart liberal!

Wait a minute! That's the accusation that gets levelled at me... now I'm confused...  

The media has alot to answer for when it comes to 'capturing the heartfelt sentiment of the public', or IMO, 'whipping up hysteria' regarding a particular subject. Take Di's funeral. Sure it was tragic and should have been avoided, but millions of people die everyday, after living a life of abject misery. The media seemed to me to give the impression that there was an appropiate emotional response that we all had to share; if you didn't feel that way, then somehow you were an insensitive deviant. It was a good job most people my age did not really care that much about it. It was the same recently over here about paedophiles - they gave the impression that there was some monster in every street. Things just get blown out of all proportion.

Sparks - gun ownership doesn't bother me per se (I don't advocate banning guns outright), but unregistered, unregulated ownership does. The possession of a gun should not be a right, but a priviledge only given to those who are responsible citizens. Run your country how you like, I couldn't really give a rat's ass, but in the UK this is how I would like to see it done if guns were ever to become popular again (which is unlikely).  

[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 10-06-2000).]

[CavemanJ]

registration is the first step to confiscation.

a man with a gun is a citizen, a man without a gun is a subject.

Two truisms for ya  

I personally dinnae believe in registration.  The yellow sheet filled out when a gun is bought is good enough for the ATF to start tracking one down.  When I sell a gun I get the person's name and driver's license # for my records (personal transaction) and I'll offer mine to a person I buy a gun from.

Did you know the ATF started making an illegal database from all of the yellowsheets they have stored?  Yup, getting a headstart on locating guns so they can go take them away from law abiding gun owners to please the crybabies who can not take responsibility for themselves.

[Igloo]

I don't think anyone against guns believes Columbine was purly a gun issue.  The point is, should those boys have been in a country with strict gun control laws, they would have had one heck of a hard time finding automatic weapons.

I'm not against guns.  I am against the accessibilty of getting guns.  If you make it that easy, you cannot expect everyone to be educated about them.

Britian, Denmark, France, Canada...all of these countries have strict gun control laws.  These countries also have low crime rates.  Do you see this as a coincidence?

Everyone in these countries live in a free society.  Nobody has their rights violated for having strict gun control laws.  So, what's the big deal with the US?  As I've said before it's time to join the 21st century with the rest of the free world.

------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York

"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]

[StSanta]

You afraid they are gonna take yer car, cave?

After all, it is just a tool, like the gun.

What about social security number?

StSanta, very much a citizen, not a subject.

------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"