Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 08:21 PM by OneTenthofOnePercent
because guns, even the one that harmed him, can be used for self defense - a natural right.
Think about it... without those evil guns what would happen to that mother and her 11yr old son if they criminals happened upon them? A mother and a child probably don't stand much of a chance in combat/defense against henadful of middle-aged male assailants. VERY Rarely do young boys or women beat grown men in physical combat and even less often when outnumbered. Should they just submit to the will of the criminals? We have read numerous stories about criminals dispatching of victims even when they complied. Surely, logic suggests one should not lay faith in someone commiting an act of violence and crime against them.
The firearm is the best leveler of all time. It's the one tool that puts elderly ladies on the same level of force as murderers, rapists, and theives. This story is living proof of that fact - an 11yr old boy was able to run off grown men attempting to attack his mother.
Please... elaborate how the defensive use of firearms or the people who champion for the right to lawfully bear them are connected with child pornography? You're fucked up in the head, you know?
8. "the assailants had (guns) and were thus emboldened to commit their crime"
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 08:50 PM by OneTenthofOnePercent
I suggest that you, nor anyone, besides criminals can possibly know what motivates them to commit this crime. Many criminals commit grievous acts of violence without guns. Some without any weapons at all. Certainly history shows us this scenario is not only possible but a common occurrence. I feel it's just as likely that criminals need no emboldening whatsoever to commit heinous crimes. Perhaps correlating the number of guns out there to the violent crime rate might be a good start.
If you want us to buy your explanation of inanimate objects emboldening people... prove it.
They were merely present in the situation. The CRIMINALS decided to commit the act of violence. Are you of the belief that, if not for those evil iddy biddy widdle guns, these criminals would be law abiding upstanding citizens?
If you want to claim that "guns embolden criminals"... then prove it. You use the concept all the time... should be easy you to prove so quit dodging. You brought the statement to the debate and it's your responsibility to provide proof.
21. Shares, think about it. All I ask is simple honesty.
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 11:30 PM by TPaine7
If two average adult men wanted to have their way with an 11 year old boy and an average woman who they knew were alone in a house, which scenario would be more likely to embolden them?
a) Current America, where they could be met with deadly armed defense by gun(s) wielded the woman, the boy, or both? b) A "gun free" America where neither the men nor the family had guns?
Don't dodge or ignore this, sharesunited, just answer honestly. Which would be a safer, more emboldening environment--in your honest judgment?
Two more questions, sharesunited: c) Do you think that the gun emboldened the boy in his defense of his mother? d) Do you think he would have been equally emboldened and successful if the scenario had been gun free?
A and C are my choices as well. But my answer does not rely on a false and imaginary world.
You posit a world in which:
11-year-old boys with access to guns don't shoot siblings and playmates with them
I realize that 11 year old boys do sometimes shoot siblings and playmates, but the rate at which they do so is very small, is declining even as the number of guns increases, and is a small fraction of the number of kids who die from poisoning or drowning in pools or tubs. Guns are only singled out to support an agenda.
You posit a world in which:
Ex-husbands don't shoot their kids to get revenge on ex-wives
But guns are by no means necessary for a father to kill his kids. A father can just as easily strangle his kids with his belt (think belt control) or with his bare hands. There is a near infinite number of ways a criminal lunatic can kill his kids. What evidence makes you think that a man deranged enough to kill his own children to spite his ex-wife will be deterred by a lack of guns? (I am assuming that you are trying to prevent the children's deaths, not the children's deaths BY A GUN.)
You posit a world in which:
Strangers with guns don't get the jump on moms at ATMs and in parking lots.
If someone is following mom in a parking lot or a parking garage would she be better off with or without a gun? In a "gun free" world, would mom be better if her assailants used crossbows? How about if they boxed her car in with another and used baseball bats? Do you actually think it is hard for the average man--USING HIS MUSCLES ALONE--to get the jump on the average mom in a parking lot or as she stands at an ATM?
If you agree that the world is more complicated and the risks more variable than your multiple choice dichotomy, then you must be asserting that this is all still worth it and for the best.
The world is more complicated than my multiple choice dichotomy. (My multiple choice dichotomy simply applied your public policy preferences to the OP's scenario, it was not intended to encompass the complexity of every situation.)
But you are right, I am asserting that the right to keep and bear arms and the right to self-defense is still worth it and for the best. That is the crux of our disagreement.
I appreciate your honest and forthright answers. I have no choice but to respect your post.
Edited on Mon Jan-18-10 09:03 AM by OneTenthofOnePercent
You commonly espouse the view that guns embolden criminals. This is a statement you have been bringing to the table for quite some time. Quit evading and Prove It.
Surely, some statistics should show or suggest that firearm availability is correlated to the rate of violent crime. Perhaps some other studies or research show the connection between firearm availability and the emboldment of criminals.
It's a viewpoint you brought to the table and the onus is on yourself to establish it's veracity. That's how debates work. Until you establish veracity, your argument is worthless.
18. I see an internal contradiction in your arguments, sharesunited.
sharesunited Sun Jan-17-10 06:02 PM Response to Reply #9 11. I have no criticism for the boy and his mother whatsoever.
sharesunited Sun Jan-17-10 06:54 PM Response to Reply #13 15. ...
Reducing proliferation is an absolute good.
Reducing proliferation before the family's gun was purchased would have put them at the mercy of criminals. The criminals could have done whatever they wanted--robbery, assault, rape, torture, dismemberment, kidnapping, murder.... Whatever they wanted.
Now the point that many miss is that the guns didn't give men that ability. Two average men against a 11 year old boy and his mother could usually accomplish the same things with their bare hands, assuming that the intended victims were unarmed.
The default position of gun control activists, you included, is that it is the duty of decent people to suffer robbery, assault, rape, torture, dismemberment, kidnapping, murder or WHATEVER THEIR CRIMINAL ASSAILANTS WANT TO DISH OUT. The alternative--arming themselves for defense of self and family--is much worse, according to gun control. Therefore, by your former position, it would be morally incorrect for people who don't currently own guns to continue proliferation--to arm themselves--it is their moral duty to remain unarmed. To be consistent, then, you must either condemn the boy and his mother or allow proliferation.
Which is it?
(I am hoping to welcome you to the side that supports the victims, the side that doesn't disarm them in the face of criminal aggression.)
22. I don't blame proliferation on people who want to defend themselves.
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 10:47 PM by sharesunited
The blame rests with manufacturers and sellers of guns and ammo. And of course groups like the NRA.
Scarcity will affect the allocation of personal resources one chooses to direct into guns and ammo, because they will become more expensive.
If you're really feeling afraid and vulnerable, it will be worth it to you to expend what it takes to obtain what will now be collectibles. If you're really desperate to impose your will on others, then this too will require a greater investment on your part, and more effort in identifying a provider.
The operative principle behind encouraging scarcity is that the likelihood of having a gun wrongfully pointed at you will be reduced. Because guns will become more dearly held as heirlooms and objects de'art and sentimental symbols of a bygone era.
Ammo likewise and even more so.
Just as Morgan silver dollars used to circulate in commerce and now are hoarded, treasured, and kept safely stored instead of deposited into vending machines.
23. The evidence does not support your operative principle...
at least not in any meaningful way.
I concede immediately that if you removed all guns from the world tomorrow, gun deaths tomorrow would be exactly zero. (At least gun deaths early in the day would be zero. By tomorrow afternoon all bets would be off.)
The problems with your operative principle are legion. First, you cannot deprive the American people of guns. Neither can the President. Or the Congress. Or the Supreme Court. Or a combination of the three. It's politically and practically impossible.
We are not Europe, nor will we be reduced to European standards of criminal coddling except temporarily in enclaves like the District of Columbia and Chicago.
Second, as guns have increased crime has decreased. This shows that there is no ironclad principle that more guns = more crime or that less guns = less crime.
Third, lack of guns would embolden criminals, as illustrated in post 21.
Fourth, there are other weapons that are readily made to terrorize criminals. Some are even made in prison--a more restrictive anti-gun and anti-weapon environment than probably even you would favor in general society.
I'm glad you don't blame proliferation on people who want to defend themselves, sharesunited. I'm surprised to see that we agree on something like that. Unlike you, I blame ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL proliferation exclusively on those who willfully or carelessly give, lend or sell guns to bad guys.
26. Yet another problem with the scarcity model--think of Rush Limbaugh and Paris Hilton
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 11:32 PM by TPaine7
Yet another problem with the scarcity model is that the rich will be proportionately far more armed than the poor. Upper middle class and rich, well educated, powerful people are more likely to be armed now. Scarcity would make it less possible for the poor--the people most at risk for home invasions, rapes, murders, assaults, etc., to be armed.
IMNSHO, making guns unnecessarily expensive is reprehensible.
Not that it is your intent, but a scarcity policy would ensure that the young black man who has struggled his whole life to survive and live an honorable life doing honest work--the young black male with a perfect criminal record who is one of the most vulnerable members of our society wouldn't be able to have a survival tool to defend his family. The same policy would ensure that Rush Limbaugh and Paris Hilton, those pinnacles of human decency and achievement, could each have an arsenal.
16. So we agree that those who have to survive in this world, who possess guns, and who use
them defensively are not to be criticized.
Welcome to humanity, decency, and a measure of clear thinking.
Now if you could only see that we have not seen fit to arm people with guns and ammo--both existed before any of us were born--you would be well on your way to being free of the gun control reality distortion field.
The things you need to work on grasping next are
1) Society CANNOT disarm criminals--they can MAKE knives, crossbows, clubs, guns, bows, etc. Criminals make weapons in prison. 2) Society MUST NOT attempt to disarm the innocent. It has no legitimate power to disarm the innocent as it cannot protect them. It has no right to ask them to sacrifice their lives "for the common good."
As the number of guns and / or the liberality of legal self-defense with guns has increased, the crime rate has plummeted, not only in DC, but in other locales as well. And cumulatively, throughout the US. I respect your right to your personal religious views, but that doesn't mean they have any basis in reality.
Faith-based public policy is like faith based bridge building. No one has the right to condemn others to die for their religion. That family has a right to arms.
He's right. You can't disarm criminals. All we're trying to get you to do is see is that your radical anti-gun laws would hurt only law-abiding citizens. That's what happens when you trade freedom for safety.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.