Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,456 posts)
Sat Dec 31, 2011, 04:48 PM Dec 2011

The context for self-defense

"...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

- A right to life implies a right to self-defense.
- Failing to plan for your own defense is irresponsible.
- Since time began, man has developed tools to make his work easier. A firearm is a tool.
- It is nothing more than common sense to choose the best, reasonably priced tool for any job.

Start the New Year off with logic and common sense.

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine

71 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The context for self-defense (Original Post) discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2011 OP
Mahatma Gandhi had this to say about self defense and defense of family... spin Dec 2011 #1
I have read this. discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2011 #3
But, you spin because he speaketh not about guns. Hoyt Jan 2012 #14
Ah, but Gandhi did speak about firearms... spin Jan 2012 #31
He did not speak of firearms in public -- The comments you improperly cite were about MILITARY arms Hoyt Jan 2012 #35
No - it covered all arms including guns, swords, bow and arrows hack89 Jan 2012 #41
Not anything in there from Gandhi, but nice try. Hoyt Jan 2012 #42
It was the law that Gandhi was condemning. nt hack89 Jan 2012 #43
But, not because he or any individual was "deprived" of guns. He was talking about British depriving Hoyt Jan 2012 #44
Read the damn law - the text is right there. You are wrong. nt hack89 Jan 2012 #45
I suggest you read what Gandhi was referring to when he made that comment. Hoyt Jan 2012 #47
Here let me help you a little. Hoyt Jan 2012 #48
The Arms Act specifically talks about civilian gun restrictions hack89 Jan 2012 #54
But, that is NOT WHAT Gandhi was talking about. Do some real research rather than relying on Hoyt Jan 2012 #59
So why is he talking about the Arms Act?nt hack89 Jan 2012 #60
There are none so blind... ;) n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #49
I can't tell if that's sarcasm or something else... Pacafishmate Jan 2012 #46
You are attempting to shift the debate to one involving carrying firearms in public... spin Jan 2012 #50
Here's another quote by Gandhi... SteveW Jan 2012 #51
Assuming they need dispatching. In any event, glad to have you protecting society with your guns. Hoyt Jan 2012 #52
"Playing Jesus?" A. L. Webber hired better actors for that. SteveW Jan 2012 #57
I was hoping you'd start the New Year off with some rationality on this. Hoyt Dec 2011 #2
I wasn't planning... discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2011 #4
He did. That's the part you can't stand. n/t DissedByBush Jan 2012 #6
Bravo! discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #7
Sure, the only "rational" ones are the 4% of population who can't venture out without a gun or two. Hoyt Jan 2012 #10
The rational folks... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #23
That view of "freedom" reminds me of right wingers "bombing Iraqis for peace." Hoyt Jan 2012 #37
When might you... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #39
"Start the New Year off with logic and common sense. " rl6214 Jan 2012 #9
No No No...having the means to defend yourself and loved ones is mean, hateful, and impolite. ileus Jan 2012 #5
You should learn better ways of "defending" yourself, if you really honestly think you need it. Hoyt Jan 2012 #11
That post should really have had a drink warning. ManiacJoe Jan 2012 #12
Such as, Hoyt? BiggJawn Jan 2012 #13
why limit yourself with an inferior response? ileus Jan 2012 #15
I don't think the 96% of people who walk outside without a gun see it as "inferior" response. Hoyt Jan 2012 #18
If you would, please... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #19
Just not good for society. I know you don't care, but it's a fact. Hoyt Jan 2012 #20
I am aware... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #22
No "fact" there unless you can somehow prove to us it is indeed a "fact" rl6214 Jan 2012 #33
I just don't think guys like this are what we need more of. . . . . . Hoyt Jan 2012 #40
Thank you for clarifying. ManiacJoe Jan 2012 #55
Ah, that old trick again -- they aren't a member of "gun culture" once they get caught in crime. Hoyt Jan 2012 #58
Sorry... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #61
You were probably "grandfathered in" or provided life-time membership upon first caressing a gun. Hoyt Jan 2012 #62
ALRIGHT! discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #63
I believe that it is the "Deny facts and lie about it" club. oneshooter Jan 2012 #64
Yay! discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #65
"caressing a gun" rl6214 Jan 2012 #68
What's not good for society one-eyed fat man Jan 2012 #69
That tells us that if the 4% go thru all that trouble to be able to carry rl6214 Jan 2012 #32
No, it indicates a small percentage of population is desperate to have a gun with them always. Hoyt Jan 2012 #66
"desperate"? rl6214 Jan 2012 #67
Okay... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #34
"That ought to tell you something about how rational public toting is." Simo 1939_1940 Jan 2012 #56
Me, not as much, but ObamaFTW2012 Jan 2012 #16
Maybe not your mom, but a lot of folks that age have no business carrying a gun. Hoyt Jan 2012 #21
To a point, I agree ObamaFTW2012 Jan 2012 #26
Hopefully the "indirect" effects of gun proliferation will not screw others. Unfortunately it will. Hoyt Jan 2012 #27
..."indirect" effects of gun proliferation... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #28
More guns are like more chemical pollution. Gun proliferation = more guns available to wrong folks. Hoyt Jan 2012 #36
In answer - discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #38
You ignored... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #70
No matter how many times.... We_Have_A_Problem Jan 2012 #71
Please elaborate. NT ObamaFTW2012 Jan 2012 #29
Glad that I'm lactose intolerant rather than factose intolerant. Simo 1939_1940 Jan 2012 #30
Tooting ruders toting. nt SteveW Jan 2012 #53
Well said, Happy New Year. rl6214 Jan 2012 #8
Thank you and surely the same to you and yours. :) discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #17
One never sees the claim that arsonists are emboldened by matches or lighters, friendly_iconoclast Jan 2012 #24
+1 :) n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #25

spin

(17,493 posts)
1. Mahatma Gandhi had this to say about self defense and defense of family...
Sat Dec 31, 2011, 07:33 PM
Dec 2011
I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.
http://www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/phil8.htm


Gandhi’s Satyagraha and a Federated World Order

Glen T. Martin

Like most philosophers of nonviolent social change, Gandhi never repudiated all use of force. He believed it was morally acceptable and pragmatically important for Indian soldiers to fight on the side of the British in World War One.iii He declared that if one lacked the courage to stand against injustice by nonviolent means, one should acquire the force of arms. Worse than using force is cowardice – refusing to stand against injustice out of fear: "I have been repeating over and over again," he writes, "that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by nonviolently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor."iv For Gandhi, bodily life, as well as complex social life, occasionally required himsa. Ahimsa should not become a fetish that made practical functioning an impossibility.v

The perspective here should be clearly distinguished from the idea of violence as a "last resort," often appealed to by the defenders of violence as the final option when all else has failed, opening the door to militarized organized violence in defense of freedom or in revolutionary opposition to an oppressor. For Gandhi, nonviolence means an activation of a universal potential of our humanity, the realization of the deeper selfhood within us that we all share. Ahimsa, like satyagraha, means that ourselves and our institutions must be focused on clinging to the great Truth of our common humanity and our universal human situation.

If we do this, then any use of force will necessarily be premised on the minimum necessary to protect everyone involved. Under democratic government, a civilian police force could be trained in the minimum use of necessary force, protecting both the individual arrested and all bystanders. Gandhi stresses that the crucial element here is the intention behind the use of force. The necessary minimum use of force can never be militarized or directed toward intentional harm of a perceived "enemy." "The essence of violence," he declared, "is that there must be a violent intention behind the thought, word, or act, i.e., an intention to do harm to the opponent so-called."vi An individual defending his or her family or civilian police seeking to arrest a person might use the minimum necessary force with the non-attached love (agape) of the New Testament or the karma yoga of the Bhagavad Gita – that is, without hatred or malice that desires to inflict suffering on a perceived enemy....emphasis added

The concrete world in which we live requires that we deal effectively with dangerous institutions like militarized nation-states, dangerous forces like terrorism, and occasionally dangerous people. The task is to deal practically and justly with all these dangers without ourselves sinking into the cycle of violence and the corruption that it often entails. It requires not only personal clinging to truth but the conversion of our institutions to fundamental satyagraha as well. http://www.radford.edu/gmartin/Gandhi.and.Federation.art..htm


Firearms have a place in a list of tools to be used for legitimate self defense. It may be quite possible that if a person has the training, the skill and the physical ability he/she may be able to stop an attack without the use of lethal force. Obviously this would be preferable. However there are circumstances in which there is little choice but to use lethal force such as a firearm. Fortunately in many such situations the attacker will run when he finds himself faced by an armed individual who is willing to resist.

spin

(17,493 posts)
31. Ah, but Gandhi did speak about firearms...
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 08:45 PM
Jan 2012

I used to issue leaflets asking people to enlist as recruits. One of the arguments I had used was distasteful to the Commissioner: 'Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look back upon the Act depriving the whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.'
-- Gandhi, Mohandas K. "Mahatma", An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, tr. Mahadev Desai, Part V., Ch. XXVII

This was during World War I. The "Arms Act" to which Gandhi refers was the Indian Arms Act of 1878, which, through its provisions granting the goverment unlimited arbitrary power to forbid possession of any and all arms by anyone or everyone, in practice meant nearly complete disarmament of the population.

This quotation should not be taken as a denial of Gandhi's lifelong emphasis on the paramount importance of Ahimsa (avoiding harm). It can however be taken as a clear statement that denying people the right to possess arms for their own defense is inconsistent with belief in Ahimsa, which permits the use of force, even deadly force, in defense of self or others. And this quotation cannot be taken to show that Gandhi liked arms or approved of their use -- he would view his personal feelings on such matters as utterly irrelevant to the question of whether the government should forbid their possession....emphasis added
http://www.anesi.com/q0055.htm



Ahimsa

Ahinsa ... is a term meaning to do no harm (literally: the avoidance of violence – hinsa). The word is derived from the Sanskrit root hins – to strike; hinsa is injury or harm, a-hinsa is the opposite of this, i.e. non harming or nonviolence.[1] [2]

It is an important tenet of the Indian religions (Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism). Ahinsa means kindness and non-violence towards all living things including non-human animals; it respects living beings as a unity, the belief that all living things are connected. Indian leader Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi strongly believed in this principle.[3] Avoidance of verbal and physical violence is also a part of this principle, although ahinsa recognizes self-defense when necessary, as a sign of a strong spirit. It is closely connected with the notion that all kinds of violence entail negative karmic consequences.

***snip***

Self-defense, criminal law, and war

Hindu scriptures and law books support the use of violence in self-defense against an armed attacker.[34] They make it clear that criminals are not protected by the rule of ahinsa.[35] They have no misgivings about the death penalty; their position is that evil-doers who deserve death should be killed, and that a king in particular is obliged to punish criminals and should not hesitate to kill them, even if they happen to be his own brothers and sons.[36]

According to some interpretations, the concept of ahinsa as expounded in the scriptures and law books is not meant to imply pacifism; war is seen as a normal part of life and the natural duty of the warriors.[37] In the second chapter of the Bhagavad Gita Krishna refutes the pacifist ideas of Arjuna and uses various arguments to convince him that he must fight and kill in the impending battle. According to this interpretation of the scriptures, face-to-face combat is highly meritorious and fighters who die in battle go to heaven.[38] The apparent conflict between pacifistic interpretations of Ahimsa and the just war prescribed by the Gita has been resolved by some individuals by resorting to allegorical readings. Some of which are based on Theosophical interpretations and were notably represented by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi,[39] who made clear throughout his life and his own commentary on the Gita that it was "an allegory in which the battlefield is the soul and Arjuna, man's higher impulses struggling against evil."[40]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa[./div]
 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
35. He did not speak of firearms in public -- The comments you improperly cite were about MILITARY arms
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 08:16 AM
Jan 2012

the British used to rule/oppress India.

You guys will go to any length to protect your precious guns.
 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
44. But, not because he or any individual was "deprived" of guns. He was talking about British depriving
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 12:25 PM
Jan 2012

India of its military -- Army, Navy, etc.

Besides all that, interesting you'd pick someone assassinated/shot.
 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
47. I suggest you read what Gandhi was referring to when he made that comment.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:00 PM
Jan 2012

Do your research somewhere besides a right wing gun Web site.
 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
48. Here let me help you a little.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:07 PM
Jan 2012

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn."

According to http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi this is from a leaflet urging Indians to serve with the British Army in World War I, Part V, Chapter 27, Recruiting Campaign.


I guess you have to throw out those t-shirts with Gandhi's often misquoted words that you have been proudly wearing to promote your love of guns and the "gun culture."

hack89

(39,171 posts)
54. The Arms Act specifically talks about civilian gun restrictions
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:31 PM
Jan 2012

it also specially states it does not apply to the military.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
59. But, that is NOT WHAT Gandhi was talking about. Do some real research rather than relying on
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 04:07 PM
Jan 2012

BS on various right wing gun Web sites.
 

Pacafishmate

(249 posts)
46. I can't tell if that's sarcasm or something else...
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 12:48 PM
Jan 2012

Yes, I will go to any length to protect my constitutional rights. If you would not do the same then you are a fool.

spin

(17,493 posts)
50. You are attempting to shift the debate to one involving carrying firearms in public...
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:12 PM
Jan 2012

You post:


He did not speak of firearms in public -- The comments you improperly cite were about MILITARY arms


I would remind you that at that time in history people regularly carried firearms in public.

My mother, for example, carry a LadySmiith .22 cal revolver in her purse which she used to stop an attack by a man who rushed her as she was walking home from work. This was in the 1920s in Pennsylvania.

Laws prohibiting concealed carrying of handguns without a permit are, in most of the United States, relatively recent. While some statutes from before the Civil War did address concealed carrying, they did so by outlawing it entirely, rather than by setting up a system whereby concealed carrying would be lawful only with a permit. These antebellum statutes usually had no exemptions for sheriffs or other peace officers, even when on duty. [1] During the 1920s and 1930s many states adopted "A Uniform Act to Regulate the Sale and Possession of Firearms." This model law, adopted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and supported by the National Rifle Association, prohibited unlicensed concealed carry.
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/ShallIssue.htm#c1

If you read the fictional novels about Sherlock Holmes by Arthur Conan Doyle you will find numerous mentions of firearms carried by both the detective and his sidekick Dr. Watson.


Holmes brandishing a weapon

While firearms figure in many of the detective's adventures, perhaps Holmes' and Watson's most spectacular "in the line of duty" shooting occurred in The Sign of the Four, where Holmes, using his Metropolitan Police, and Watson, with his service Adams, fired simultaneously at the pygmy Andaman Islander, Tonga, from the deck of one moving steam launch to another, in challenging lighting conditions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Conan_Doyle

I mention the novels merely to point out that carrying handguns in public was not unheard of in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in England. Holmes and Watson probably had carry permits.

Here's a quick review of gun control in England in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.


Gun politics in the United Kingdom

***snip***

The Gun Licence Act 1870 was created as a revenue raising measure; it required a person to obtain a licence if he wanted to carry a gun outside his own property, whether for hunting, self-defence, or other reasons. A licence was not required to buy a gun. The licences cost 10 shillings (about £31 in 2005 terms), lasted one year, and could be bought over the counter at Post Offices.

Pistols Act 1903

The Pistols Act 1903 was the first to place restrictions on the sale of firearms. Titled "An Act to regulate the sale and use of Pistols or other Firearms", it was a short Act of just nine sections, and applied solely to pistols. It defined a pistol as a firearm whose barrel did not exceed 9 in (230 mm) and made it illegal to sell or rent a pistol to anyone unless they could produce a current gun licence or game licence; were exempt from the Gun Licence Act; could prove that they planned to use the pistol on their own property; or had a statement signed by a police officer of Inspector's rank or above or a Justice of the Peace to the effect that they were about to go abroad for six months or more. The Act was more or less ineffective, as anyone wishing to buy a pistol merely had to purchase a licence from a Post Office before doing so, which were available on demand over the counter. In addition, it did not regulate private sales of such firearms.

***snip***

1920 Firearms Act

The Firearms Act of 1920 was partly spurred by fears of a possible surge in crime from the large number of guns available following World War I and in part due to fears of working class unrest in this period. "An Act to amend the law relating to firearms and other weapons and ammunition", its main stated aim was to enable the government to control the overseas arms trade and so fulfil their commitment to the 1919 Paris Arms Convention.[17] Shootings of police by militant groups in Ireland may also have been a factor as Britain and Ireland were at that time still in union with each other and the Act applied there too. It required anyone wanting to purchase or own a firearm or ammunition to obtain a firearm certificate. The certificate, which lasted for three years, specified not only the firearm but the amount of ammunition the holder could buy or possess. Local chief constables decided who could obtain a certificate, and had the power to exclude anyone of "intemperate habits" or "unsound mind", or indeed anyone considered to be "for any reason unfitted to be trusted with firearms". Applicants for certificates also had to convince the police that they had a good reason for needing a certificate. The law did not initially affect smooth bore guns, which were available for purchase without any form of paperwork. The penalty for violating the Act was a fine of up to £50 or "imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months", or both.[18]

The right of individuals to bear arms had previously been (in the words of the 1689 Bill of Rights) "as allowed by law". The 1920 Act made this right conditional upon the Home Secretary and police officers, and transformed the right into a privilege. A series of classified Home Office directives defined for the benefit of chief constables what constituted good reason to grant a certificate. These originally included self-defence.[18]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom





SteveW

(754 posts)
51. Here's another quote by Gandhi...
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:27 PM
Jan 2012

"Taking life may be a duty…. Suppose a man runs amok and goes furiously about, sword in hand, and killing anyone that comes in his way, and no one dares capture him alive. Anyone who dispatches this lunatic will earn the gratitude of the community and be regarded as a benevolent man."

The Hindu, 1926

Next time someone runs amok, I'll leave it to you to argue about weaponry; as for me and most others, dispatching the lunatic by whatever means would be the responsible course of action.
 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
52. Assuming they need dispatching. In any event, glad to have you protecting society with your guns.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:29 PM
Jan 2012

And playing judge, jury, Jesus and executioner.

SteveW

(754 posts)
57. "Playing Jesus?" A. L. Webber hired better actors for that.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:55 PM
Jan 2012

Please learn the diff. between self-defense and all that other stuff you mentioned.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
2. I was hoping you'd start the New Year off with some rationality on this.
Sat Dec 31, 2011, 07:36 PM
Dec 2011

The "tool" concept and all ain't a good start.

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,456 posts)
4. I wasn't planning...
Sat Dec 31, 2011, 07:46 PM
Dec 2011

...specifically to end the year addressing a case of irony but okay.

Thanks

Have a great New Year.

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,456 posts)
7. Bravo!
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 01:27 PM
Jan 2012

Another quote from Paine: "Virtues are acquired through endeavor, Which rests wholly upon yourself. So, to praise others for their virtues Can but encourage one's own efforts."

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
10. Sure, the only "rational" ones are the 4% of population who can't venture out without a gun or two.
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 04:05 PM
Jan 2012

Don' think so.

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,456 posts)
23. The rational folks...
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 06:40 PM
Jan 2012

...stand in favor of rights and freedom. Freedom doesn't mandate carrying in public. Freedom permits each individual to make his own choice.

It would be accurate to say that CC is unpopular. It is not wrong nor is it indicative of a problem.

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,456 posts)
39. When might you...
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:58 AM
Jan 2012

...postulate something specific about which laws should be passed or changed and how? These repeated pleas for new laws and how you FEEL about gun crime are just a bunch cry-baby whining. Make your point and be specific.

 

rl6214

(8,142 posts)
9. "Start the New Year off with logic and common sense. "
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 01:45 PM
Jan 2012

I'd say he did.

You're the minority here.

ileus

(15,396 posts)
5. No No No...having the means to defend yourself and loved ones is mean, hateful, and impolite.
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 08:33 AM
Jan 2012

"Take me away from all these guns!"

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
11. You should learn better ways of "defending" yourself, if you really honestly think you need it.
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 04:06 PM
Jan 2012

BiggJawn

(23,051 posts)
13. Such as, Hoyt?
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 04:11 PM
Jan 2012

OK, I'll step in it and leave myself open.
What "better ways" of defending myself and my family are we talking about here?

Knives ain't all that great for somebody old and slow.

ileus

(15,396 posts)
15. why limit yourself with an inferior response?
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 04:29 PM
Jan 2012

That would just be reckless and irresponsible putting yourself at a disadvantage when your life of the lives of your loved ones are on the line.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
18. I don't think the 96% of people who walk outside without a gun see it as "inferior" response.
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 04:59 PM
Jan 2012

Only 4% go through all the effort to get a permit to carry a gun into public parks, restaurants, churches, coffee shops, etc. That ought to tell you something about how rational public toting is.
 

rl6214

(8,142 posts)
33. No "fact" there unless you can somehow prove to us it is indeed a "fact"
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:11 PM
Jan 2012

other than that it is just an opinion.

ManiacJoe

(10,136 posts)
55. Thank you for clarifying.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:05 PM
Jan 2012

Unfortunately, you seem to be confusing criminals with the law abiding.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
58. Ah, that old trick again -- they aren't a member of "gun culture" once they get caught in crime.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 04:04 PM
Jan 2012

According to you guys, someone who carries "legally" for years -- but then blasts away at innocent folks -- can't be used as an example of gun owners/carriers gone bad and why more and more guns in society are bad.

This guy was a "law-abiding gun owner" -- in a law-abiding pose -- who later misused his weapons. Then, he became a criminal. At that point we are supposed to act like it didn't happen and all is fine in the a world where more and more folks buy guns, carry guns, play with guns, practice shooting guns to kill, etc.

oneshooter

(8,614 posts)
64. I believe that it is the "Deny facts and lie about it" club.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 05:38 PM
Jan 2012

He is a charter member, and President for life.

one-eyed fat man

(3,201 posts)
69. What's not good for society
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:52 PM
Jan 2012

Is fucking criminals who are free to rob, rape, steal, sack, loot and pillage unfettered and unencumbered. You are dead set that no one interfere with their criminality. We should all just throw ourselves on their mercy, or failing that wait however long it takes for the cops to respond to come and draw chalk outlines around our bodies.

You do not give a shit about the acts of criminals, they get a pass. You are only concerned that those who are not criminals give up their guns so that you can feel better.

I finally figured out why. You are content to take your chances. You feel whatever choices you make for self defense are the only true correct and beneficial to society choices.

We understand that as a master of yubiwazi you can cripple or maim with your bare hands, provided the criminal is in arm's reach.

You find it reprehensible that someone who chooses differently might be able to defend themselves more efficiently than you. Their choices must be railed against, and you do. Everyone should be as defenseless as you choose to be. It's not fair they don't have to submit to the same criminal depredations you do.

 

rl6214

(8,142 posts)
32. That tells us that if the 4% go thru all that trouble to be able to carry
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:10 PM
Jan 2012

that they (we) aren't the problem.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
66. No, it indicates a small percentage of population is desperate to have a gun with them always.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 06:47 PM
Jan 2012

And, most don't have much of a reason except they are in the "gun culture" and think a bogeyman is behind the trees.
 

rl6214

(8,142 posts)
67. "desperate"?
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 08:36 PM
Jan 2012

That would mean that it is something difficult, which it isn't so there is no desperation there. Look the word up in the dictionary and get back to us.

I don't fear a gun like you and the anti-gun zealots do so I don't worry about your "bogeyman". When you grow up, get back to us on that also.

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,456 posts)
34. Okay...
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:51 PM
Jan 2012

...never mind what I asked in #19. You seem unable or unwilling to make the effort. I highlighted four steps in the OP which conclude that using a firearm for self defense is reasonable.

If you can't show the logic in what you believe, at least try shooting a hole in what I said.

Simo 1939_1940

(768 posts)
56. "That ought to tell you something about how rational public toting is."
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:17 PM
Jan 2012

1) Unassailable statistics from Florida and Texas prove that citizens who possess concealed carry permits are extremely law abiding.

2) You've been given proof that a person is more likely to be assaulted away from their home than within their home.

Now you say that you have no problem with firearms kept within the home, but throw tantrums about concealed carry. And you have the audacity to accuse anyone else of being irrational?!
 

ObamaFTW2012

(253 posts)
16. Me, not as much, but
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 04:30 PM
Jan 2012

what about the elderly and the handicapped? How should an 85 year old widow (like my wife's grandmother) defend herself? Or maybe my best friend's mom, who suffers terribly from MS? What about my cousin, who is stuck in a wheelchair after being hit by a drunk driver? Should I suggest they learn martial arts, or maybe tell them to just run away when confronted?

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
21. Maybe not your mom, but a lot of folks that age have no business carrying a gun.
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 06:08 PM
Jan 2012

If one can't see well enough, process info fast enough, is prone to misinterpreting things, etc., through age -- you take their keys away if they won't give them up voluntarily. Need to do same with a gun. Did so when my father-in-law, who retired from Air Force with over 25 years and from police with 23+ years, starting having hallucinations, seeing ghosts, etc. He didn't like it, but better than having him accidentally shoot my wife who was carrying for him.

Again your mom may be sharp as a tack (hope so), but if my mom were still alive I certainly would not encourage her to carry in public. She was also smart enough to limit exposure to high crime areas and I did most of her errands.

So, what's your reason for carrying?

Oh, and let's not forget all the elderly ladies who have taken out folks like Loughner WITHOUT A GUN. Now, that is impressive.
 

ObamaFTW2012

(253 posts)
26. To a point, I agree
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 07:47 PM
Jan 2012

there are plenty of old folks who lose their awareness and motor skills, and some who suffer dementia (a horrible thing to see happen), and for those individuals it is the right thing for the family to take their guns away. But there are many who do not lose awareness, nor lack the motor skills needed for basic marksmanship, nor suffer from dementia, and therefore they deserve to exercise their right as much as any other citizen.

My reason? It's simple, really. I am a husband and a father. I have an obligation to protect and defend my family to the best of my ability. I also have an obligation to provide for them, and thus an obligation to make sure I am around for as long as possible to do so. I carry a firearm (amongst other tools) to give myself the best odds in dealing with any possible threats that may find me and my family.

Hopefully, I will die an old man who carried a gun every day but never needed it.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
27. Hopefully the "indirect" effects of gun proliferation will not screw others. Unfortunately it will.
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 08:25 PM
Jan 2012

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,456 posts)
28. ..."indirect" effects of gun proliferation...
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 08:28 PM
Jan 2012

Where are you getting this stuff?

How do you reason gun sales will "screw up" others?

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
36. More guns are like more chemical pollution. Gun proliferation = more guns available to wrong folks.
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 08:44 AM
Jan 2012

Your love of guns means more gun crimes; more kids shooting friends; more accidental shootings; more spousal abuse with guns; more stolen guns; more unarmed teenagers shot for minor crimes; more right wingers using their guns to oppress; more attempts to pass laws that allow more guns;more Loughners; more school shootings; more gang violence; more criminals shooting people first and asking questions later because the victim might be armed;more crooked gun dealers and private sellers who don't care who buys their guns; ever increased attraction to even more lethal weapons; more unintentional discharges; more guns are used as an excuse for not passing laws because "you'll there are too many guns to get rid or control them all;" more profits for those who trade in guns; less reliance on "non-gun" means of self-defense and awareness; and I could go on and on.

The truth is -- if someone proved guns cause cancer or something worse, there are still those who'd cling to the dang things.

And please don't cite the bull about violent crimes have declined despite increasing gun ownership. Violent crimes may have declined even more without the gun proliferation promoted by the "gun culture."

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,456 posts)
38. In answer -
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:37 AM
Jan 2012

"...please don't cite the bull about violent crimes have declined despite increasing gun ownership."

You brought it up not me.

----------

"Violent crimes may have declined even more without the gun proliferation promoted by the "gun culture.""

And Humpty Dumpty may have been pushed but the law is not about what you want or feel. The first priority of the government should be the protection of the citizen's rights. From Thomas Paine: "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."

----------

"Your love of guns means more gun crimes..."

Your apparent acceptance of the fact which the I cite first, above, from your post conflicts with this claim. Are you confused? You can't have it both ways.

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,456 posts)
70. You ignored...
Tue Jan 3, 2012, 02:09 AM
Jan 2012

...my attempt at discussion. So here goes: Guns are no more "like" chemical pollution than they are like orbiting onion rings. There are some basic no nonsense assholes who are unsafe due to stupidity, recklessness or criminal behavior or any combination of those.

For respectful people there is no unsafe number of guns.

If a concentration of weapons caused injuries and deaths we would expect to the worst effects around the greatest stockpiles of the deadliest weapons, SSBNs for example. We don't!

These contrived reworded bits of propaganda lack logic. Not even a jackalope could jump to some of these bizarre conclusions. The only answer for where some of this outhouse fodder started is pure anal extraction.

Do me a favor, either justify some of this smelly corral carpeting or admit that it's a bad mix of panicked hand wringing and BS.

 

We_Have_A_Problem

(2,112 posts)
71. No matter how many times....
Tue Jan 3, 2012, 11:01 AM
Jan 2012

...you use the random anti-gun phrase generator, your lies will never become truth.

Simo 1939_1940

(768 posts)
30. Glad that I'm lactose intolerant rather than factose intolerant.
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 08:44 PM
Jan 2012

"Gun proliferation" sure has caused a spike in the nation's crime right, right Hoyt?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,456 posts)
17. Thank you and surely the same to you and yours. :)
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 04:41 PM
Jan 2012

I grew tired and frustrated in short order over the statistical contests between the pro-gun and pro-control factions in large part because of my belief that crime is caused by criminals (no kidding, I've seen the pro-control side practically argue against that concept) and that the presence of guns does not cause criminals.

I do not carry open or concealed. I feel more comfortable with my neighbors being armed and carrying, if they choose, than I do giving the government the option to restrict that right.

The superiority of reason is an attribute of freedom just as rights are an attribute of being human. It has been said that Freedom is not free and Einstein said, "Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom."


I trust reason personal freedom above government regulation.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it." - Thomas Paine

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
24. One never sees the claim that arsonists are emboldened by matches or lighters,
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 06:41 PM
Jan 2012

or that obesity is caused by easy access to food. Yet at least one (departed) DUer made similar claims about criminals
and guns...

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»The context for self-defe...