Why do you have guns? Part V

Status
Not open for further replies.

buzz_knox

New member
Hey, someone had to do it!

I never got to answer the question. I own guns because:

1. I enjoy shooting.
2. I have loved ones I am honorbound to defend and a firearm is the most effective means.
3. I couldn't look at myself in the mirror if I didn't come to the aid of an innocent person in imminent danger of his or her life and, as said before, a firearm is the most effective piece of rescue equipment designed for that task.
4. Because it is my right!
 
I don't have much time but I just want to say a few things.

I think that the world will be a safer place through the teaching and practice of non-violence. You think the world will be a safer place through the teaching and practice of violence. That's an honest disagreement. That doesn't mean you guys are right.

On the topic of what I would do in a situation, Ledbetter and others are absolutely correct. In a moment of rage or terror, I'm not sure what I would do. In a rape situation, it's possible I would "go crazy" and try to hurt the other person. It would not, however, be a rational decision which I would be proud of. Saying I can't predict what I will do is absolutely true but neither can you predict what you will do if you walk in on your wife having an affair. How are you _absolutely_ certain that you wouldn't reach for your gun if it's never happened to you? That's one reason I would never have a gun around.

On the thread drift of parents, I said very clearly that I think male (and female) role models are very important for a child. I don't want to get into the societal reasons for that too much since I think we agree. I don't think that having a _parent_ of either gender is crucial. That's been proven in statistical studies and it is supported by everyone I know who was raised in same-sex households. The people I know who were raised by gay parents are all at least as "well-adjusted" and normal as everyone else.

The black community suffers from a lot of problems and a lack of male role models is one of them. So is crack. So is institutionalized racism and inherited poverty. Let's not forget all the economic and cultural pressures on young black men in our rush to pin the blame on something other than US society.

ps - Ledbetter, is that a reference to Huddie Ledbetter (aka Leadbelly)? :)
 
I've stayed on the sidelines throughout this debate, but some of Folkbabe's assertions are just so far out of touch with reality that I must respond. Harshly, I'm afraid.

I think that the world will be a safer place through the teaching and practice of non-violence.

And how exactly do you plan to communicate this philosophy to those who use illegitimate violence? You know, the predators that have existed since time immemorial, even before we had guns?

You think the world will be a safer place through the teaching and practice of violence.

Some violence, like it or not, is necessary. Or do you think tyrants and murderers should be treated with compassion and mercy?

That's an honest disagreement.

No, it's Folkbabe being smug and snippy. IMNSFHO.

How are you _absolutely_ certain that you wouldn't reach for your gun if it's never happened to you? That's one reason I would never have a gun around.

Exactly. You know that YOU can't be trusted with a gun, so you think WE can't be trusted with guns.

FWIW, I've been in the situation you describe. I didn't go for my gun. Why? Gee, maybe because I have enough self-control and intelligence to realize that responding to the situation with lethal force would have been WAY over the top. Imagine that, a gun owner with a brain.

Folkbabe, you're pushing the limits here. May I suggest that you back off?
 
Ledbetter is my real name. Although I am a fan and own Huddie's (pronounced Hoodie) recordings, I don't know of any family connection with the writer of such songs as "Goodnight Irene," "Rock Island Line," "Christmas Day" and "Ella Speed."

Huddie was "discoved" by Alan Lomax in a Texas penitentiary where he had been sentenced as the result of a homicide. At Lomax's urging, Texas Governor Pat Neff pardoned Huddie after years of confinement, upon hearing him sing and play the 12-string guitar.

I urge anyone not already familiar with the recordings of my "namesake" to give him a listen. There are even incidental references to handguns in some of his songs ;).

The Rock Island Line is a mighty good road.
The Rock Island Line is the road to ride.
The Rock Island Line is a mighty good road.
If you want to ride, you got to ride it as
you find it get your tickets at the station
For the Rock Island Line.

Ledbetter


[This message has been edited by Ledbetter (edited May 25, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by folkbabe:
I think that the world will be a safer place through the teaching and practice of non-violence. You think the world will be a safer place through the teaching and practice of violence. That's an honest disagreement. That doesn't mean you guys are right.[/quote]
Violence: Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing.

That is not what "us guys" are talking about. We are talking about using "Physical force" to stop violence.

We don't believe, as you seem to, that there is anyway to stop an event of violence that is happening right now without the use of force.

I think many of us will agree with you that passive force (protesting, human chains, etc it is still force for you are inflicting your beliefs on others against their will) can affect peoples views and actions over the long term.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by folkbabe:

In a moment of rage or terror, I'm not sure what I would do. In a rape situation, it's possible I would "go crazy" and try to hurt the other person. It would not, however, be a rational decision which I would be proud of. Saying I can't predict what I will do is absolutely true but neither can you predict what you will do if you walk in on your wife having an affair. How are you _absolutely_ certain that you wouldn't reach for your gun if it's never happened to you? That's one reason I would never have a gun around.
[/quote]

How am I absolutly certain? One, because I know what I will kill for. Two, I married someone despite being cheated on, and knowing about it, before the engagement. Though I would not do that again...an issue of trust that I learned the hard way. Three, if you don't know what you would do with a gun when angry should you have a car or drivers lic either? A car is far more dangerous than any handgun [based on physics and statistics, they are more powerful and they kill more people at least in this country].

[This message has been edited by Glamdring (edited May 24, 2000).]
 
I have been in situations of extreme mental distress and anger. I had access to knives, my fists, and yes, even firearms. No-one is dead. No-one was even attacked during those most awful moments. I did indulge in some yelling.

Man is not the only animal that rapes (mentioning this because it's about the most heinous thing I can think of), and infanticide is quite common in many of the "higher" species.

I'm not quite certain I understand your position, so kindly help me: you are willing to use force, but not (deliberately) deadly force? I do recall you saying that you would resist if you were attacked. So "some" force is okay, but more is not? Your sole delineation being (seemingly) the taking of life? This due to our divinity...which is not housed in our body...and not capable of being destroyed! Why am I missing your point, here?

That "god consciousness", if present in a rapist, must be screaming in horror at the random, psychotic and unfocused hate being diffused. Now, I can understand a human subverting that part of themselves, however sad such choice may be- but explain to me, again, how refusal to defend life is right, good and correct.

I have changed my viewpoint of so many things in my short 28 years. I now believe in ways so fundamentally opposed to who and what I was...

Let's do this: explain a medical operation-say, cancer removal- in terms that remove violence from the action. Then, feel free to instruct me as to how that is different from my conscious decision, should I be placed in the situation, to take a life to save other innocent lives. If you can honestly do so, it may be time (again!) for me to change what I feel to be a deepseated, logical, and ultimately, universal truth; that we are ultimately sacred, and the preciousness of innocent life must be preserved at all costs.

Regards,

John


[This message has been edited by Spectre (edited May 24, 2000).]
 
Jesus tried to teach the world Folkbabe and they killed Him!
I agree with you on teaching children to be non-violent but I disagree about teaching them to be food for a human predator.
BTW, football,basketball,hockey,WWF will need to be dissolved as well.
OBTW,my wife just read your post.I can not write her responce because Rich will be mad on me.The rest of you would be ROTFLYAO.
 
"You think the world will be a safer place through the teaching and
practice of violence."

Whoa now, you are making some great leaping assumptions here. Who is practicing violence? Preparing for violent attack in the real world is far from "teaching and practicing violence". Admitting and understanding that bad things happen is far from practicing violence. Preparing ahead is far from training violence. If it is then having a fire extinguisher in my kitchen and a spare tire in my car are "preparing for violence".
You choose to hope that it never happens to you and not think of what you might do if it happens ("I'm not sure what I would do. In a rape situation, it's possible I would "go crazy" and try to hurt the other person").
We choose to realize that it could happen, and prepare ahead and think of what we will do if it does.



And here we have the crux of the matter:

"How are you _absolutely_ certain
that you wouldn't reach for your gun if it's never happened to you? That's one
reason I would never have a gun around."


Aha! Speaking of "finding the light", I think we just found it! And, don’t think yourself special, there are way too many pacifists and anti-gunners that feel the way you do. Here is what it comes down to:

YOU do not trust YOURSELF not to reach for a gun in a moment of rage. Well then, we see why you are so adamant about pacifism. You are on the borderline of committing mass murder when you have an emotional moment. And, you project your feelings into other people and assume that since this is something you could see yourself doing, then it must be true that other people could "snap" and have this happen to them.

This continuing thread is like a session with a psychologist. It took a lot of talking and a passing moment for you to subconsciously slip and reveal how you really feel and what really troubles you.

You see, the people that always want to ban guns are the ones that do not trust THEMSELVES with guns. When you really keep asking them WHY they want to take MY gun away (as a good law abiding citizen), when it really comes down to the bare bones, they feel that they cannot trust themselves with a gun, so they don't trust others with a gun.
They tell us that they "don’t carry a gun in their car because they don’t trust that they will never get so pissed off in traffic that they will shoot someone".

Well, guess what? I will NEVER shoot someone over a traffic incident.
I will NEVER shoot someone in a jealous rage.
A gun present does NOT make me someone that I am not. A gun does not CAUSE me to kill. You may feel that you cannot control yourself enough to keep from murdering someone if you have a gun present, but that is your own mental imbalance and you are projecting that onto others.

In the light of that fact, I can see why you practice adamant personal pacifism and why you do not want to have a gun around. SINCERELY, I COMMEND YOU FOR REALIZING YOUR WEAKNESSES AND BEING MATURE ENIOUGH TO ACCEPT THEM and work around them. I urge you to not keep any weapons around if you feel that you cannot control your emotions.

I on the other hand, am extremely mentally stabile, and no, I will NEVER reach for my gun I in a moment of passion. Most people here are old enough to know themselves well enough to answer that question for themselves.

Most of us, including myself, have been in situations where we have found a spouse cheating etc, and I have not ever reached for a gun as an option.

Having a tool handy does not make you anything. Having a hammer does not make me a carpenter. Having a gun near me does not make me what I am not. In fact, it does not make me anything because it is an inanimate object. I am not a murderer and no amount of guns, knives or martial arts will ever make me a murderer. On the other hand, a murderer is still murderous with or without the tool. With or without a gun, kitchen knife, gallon of gas, automobile, bare hands, baseball bat etc etc, a murderer is still murderous and capable of murder.



I am not murderous nor capable of murder in any situation, ever. I am also not capable of hurting people unless it is absolutely neccessary to preserve life or limb. In that respect I am an absolute pacifist.
You, on the other hand seem to embrace pacifism because, possibly, you do have a thread of extreme violence within you that you subconciously realize could be unleashed by an emotional moment.


So, with all due respect, who is the real pacifist here? I can tell you that myself, and all the people here that I know very well, could not and would not unleash any type of deadly force except for the work of saving innocent life.





[This message has been edited by CassandraComplex (edited May 24, 2000).]
 
Folkbabe, I'm having enormous difficulty writing that off to mere poor expression.

I do NOT stand for the "teaching and practice of violence." I find the assertion that I do to be quite rude indeed. It also appears to be a strawman, and thus incompatible with "honest" disagreement.

"An armed society is a polite society." With apologies to Robert Heinlein, that is probably the best response I can make to such an attack by an unarmed pacifist.

Which brings us to why so many of us have been armed and angry, yet remained legal. We understand consequences. Nobody carries a weapon around without a great deal of consideration. Panic if you wish, but realize that we are very responsible about finding out beforehand under what legal and moral circumstances a firearm may be introduced to conflict resolution. And the drawbacks even when absolutely correct on all grounds.

Steve
 
folkbabe, you're slipping out of orbit, I fear ... ;)

I agree with a number of the comments above, and especially with CassandraComplex:

1. "You think the world will be a safer place through the teaching and practice of violence." Wow. I can see where you believe this, based upon your extreme pacifisim. But I would ask that you try to see the distinction between violent coercion and self defense - your statement is way, way off base. Violent coercion and self defense bear little resemblance. I teach my children to eschew violence and aggression ... they are to respect other people, their feelings and their property. They are taught to not initiate force. However, they are also taught that self defense is one of their fundamental human rights. As a parent, the first goal is to keep your kids alive and healthy, and allowing them to be beaten by every bully that comes along is absurd. I realize there are many people like you. But, we have a different philosophy, and we demand that others respect our right to self defense.

2. "How are you _absolutely_ certain that you wouldn't reach for your gun if it's never happened to you? That's one reason I would never have a gun around." I can't prove it right now, but I've heard this enough that I too am now convinced that this is one of the reasons for the vast gulf between aggressive pacifists and pro-self defense folks. I honestly believe there is this significant, shared psychological aspect among the anti-self defense movement ... they literally do not trust themselves, and they therefore want to infringe upon our fundamental human rights. Fascinating, IMHO. We need an honest psychologist / psychiatrist to do a study on this phenomenon.


To be frank, I think much further conversation on this topic is pointless. I find your pacifism to sound more and more ... well, immature. folkbabe, you're clearly an intelligent person. But, I'll wager that you are either quite young, and / or you've led a very sheltered life. Your sophisticated ideas about human interaction will someday collide with reality, and for your sake, I hope you're wearing a seat belt.

In the meantime, please don't dissuade women from defending themselves ... your advice could seriously injure or kill someone, and you won't want to confront that reality. And, I'd put off having children as well. If you're not prepared to defend them with your life (including whatever it takes to terminate a lethal threat), then IMHO you are not prepared to be a mother. Harsh words certainly, but this isn't just intellectual theory, folkbabe ... this is life and death.

Regards from AZ


[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited May 24, 2000).]
 
I think the responses to folkbabe have, in the main, been appropriate. I'll only add that it takes only one to start violence. It takes two to stop it--or one clear victor.

I'm a fairly peaceful sort. I had my last fight in high school, in 1951. I have no desire to take anybody's life. I would have regret if somebody of evil intent and action stood where I was about to shoot.

But to willingly shun preparations for defense of one's self or family is moral cowardice of the lowest order. To be a willing victim is an ultimate immaturity.

Regards, Art
 
Ok folks, first of all, the "teaching and practice of violence" was in response to a number of people telling me that the world would be a safer place if people killed their attackers. To me, they are trying to "teach" me to use violence and advocating the "practice" of violence. I consider using deadly force to be violence.

Second of all, my second paragraph was an attempt to explain the absurdity of people saying "you don't know what you'd do if you were in Raped's shoes". I was pointing out that if you can say that I'd go back on everything I believe in then I can say you would also. Yes, I'm not _absolutely sure_ what I would do in that situation. There is also a slight possiblility of my turning into a frog. :) Can you all really tell me that you are 100% sure of what you'd do in every situation? If you are then you are lying to yourselves because we can never be 100% sure of anything. When I say I know that I will never take a human life I'm speaking for everything short of 100% sure. I'll never have a gun around because I'd have no practical purpose for it plus in that fraction of a percentage chance I'd turn into a frog I don't want myself killing someone. :) When people pointed out I could never be 100% sure of anything I agreed that they had a point but showed how absurd it seems when I applied it to other people. I wasn't trying to say any of you would actually shoot your wife. It was the first example that popped into my head because it happened fairly recently in my area. It's possible I could take a human life. It's also possible I could turn into a frog then a magic prince. Get it? :)

Alright, I'm not trying to force my views on anyone else. I already said that. The reason we're even discussing my views is because some people asked me questions and I felt bound by politeness to answer and to correct misunderstandings of what I'd written. My last post was written hastily and I'm sorry if people felt I was personally attacking them. It wasn't my intention.

Anyway, yes, I think tyrants and murderers should be treated with compassion and mercy. They're still human beings. I never said I was trying to remove guns, I said I was teaching peace. If you think it's that hard to talk to someone just because they've used violence then I'm surprised. A friend of mine growing up's father used to beat on him. Then, he got off alchohol. Violence stopped. I have lots of other stories. More to the point, are you saying that _no_ rehabilitation or intervention can work? That's not my point of view.

Glamdring says he knows what he will kill for. So do I. It's just that my answer is never. Why is my answer less "believable" just because it is different?

Spectre - I will always defend life. I spend my life doing it. I'll probably never make much money in my life because of it. (community work doesn't pay really well) I just have a different way of doing it then others. By the way, this is getting into thread drift on religion again, but I don't consider the inner light to be seperate from the body. I won't extinguish that spark of divine life from another person. I draw the line at taking a human life. Removing a cancer is not taking a human life.

That's right JHS, they killed jesus because he represented a threat to their establishment and their beliefs. To quote Woody Guthrie, Yes if Jesus were to preach like he preached in Galilee they would lay Jesus Christ in the grave. Does the fact that he didn't try to kill his oppressers make him a less noble person?

I'm prepared for what would happen in a rape situation. Depending on the situation, I might run, call for help, physically struggle, talk with my attacker, or other options. I wouldn't kill my attacker.

Anyway... Ledbetter certainly was a darn fine musician :)
If you ever go to Houston, boy, you better walk right
Well, you better not squabble & you better not fight
Cuz the sheriff will arrest you & he'll take you down
And the judge will sentence you, you're penitentiary boung

Let the midnight special shine its light on me
Oh let the midnight special shine its everlovin' light on me


[This message has been edited by folkbabe (edited May 25, 2000).]
 
folkbabe,

You might talk with your attacker? No disrespect, but are you serious????

BTW, if I am able, I'll kill my attacker and yours.

You're welcome.
 
I've talked my way out of pretty bad situations before. I mentioned them earlier. (the guys pulling guns on my friend and me and also the guys hassling/assaulting my friends and me.) It depends upon your reading of the situation.
 
Jeff, you make some further excellent points about the issue.



85% of people surveyed that had saved another person in a dire situation were found to be gun owners. What does that tell us about the mentality of gun owners? What does that tell us about their value for human life and their willingness to risk their own life to save another? Again I ask, who is the real pacifist and real lover of life?


Gun owners as a whole have merely accepted the fact that bad things happen and bad people exist. They prepare ahead for these bad things and bad people.
A gun owner is more likely to have things like jumper cables in their car, a full size spare, a fire extinguisher, a working flashlight etc. Why? Because they accept and prepare for bad things that happen.

A gun owner is more likely to risk his/her own life to save another, while everyone else stands there and watches. Why? Because the gun owner type has thought ahead and planned. When the bad event happens, they have thought out what they would do, and they don't stand there in shock. They value human life and they value helping people in need so much, that they have prepared mentally ahead to help the innocent, and they ACT when life and limb are in danger even if it means risking their own life.

Who is the real pacifist? I consider myself an extreme pacifist. I do everything in my power to prepare to help others and myself when bad things happen. I could never hurt another person unless it was an absolute must. I value other people's lives and my loved ones so much that I am willing to take measures to prepare ahead for bad things rather than hope that they never happen and wonder what I would do if they did happen. That is real-world pacifism and a real LOVE for innocent life.




[This message has been edited by CassandraComplex (edited May 25, 2000).]
 
"I think that the world will be a safer place through the teaching and practice of non-violence. You think the world will be a safer place through the teaching and practice of violence. That's an honest disagreement. That doesn't mean you guys are right."

Well, you've got the disagreement wrong. I agree that teaching and practicing non-violence is a good thing. Most people would.

The operative word is most people. Some people are violent. Period. I would only use force to protect myself or loved ones from one of these violent people. I would never do violence to someone except in defense. There's a world of difference between that and thinking "...the world will be a safer place through the teaching and practice of violence."

Defending yourself is not being agressive. Its survival and there is nothing wrong with that.

The next time somebody kicks in my door, I might be home. If he sees me and runs there will be no violence (except for the violence he did to my door). If he sees me, runs, and grabs the vcr on the way out, there will be no violence. If he sees me and comes at me, I will defend myself until he stops at which point I will stop too.

I don't expect to change your mind, but the disagreement is about defending oneself from violent people (which are a reality, like it or not), not advocating the use of violence to make the world a better place.
 
folkbabe said:

"Does the fact that he (Jesus) didn't try to kill his oppressers make him a less noble person?"


Don't even try to sell us that Jesus was a Pacifist.

You will unleash an educating that you will very much wish you had not begun.
That last statement is less a threat and more a warning of what will happen on this thread if that can of worms is opened by yourself.

Jesus was and is no Pacifist. Possibly by Cassandra's definition, yes he was, but by your warped definiton, Hell no! (sic)
 
Folkbabe,
I DID walk in on my ex-wife having an affair. I simply walked away. That required no violence since I was not threatened. Funny thing is when somthing like that happens instead of rage, I was filled with fear, and elation. I was glad to see her go, but afraid of what my future would hold. I was rightly afraid after being "RAPED" by the family court system.
Sectre: Man is NOT the only animal who rapes. On my small farm here, I have about 60 chickens. If you have ever seen how the Roosters chase the hens, and corner them, or witness the chicken pro-creation process, you wouldn't call it anything but rape :D

I believe folkbabe is half right. Non-violent, non-cooperation holds the best future to assert change. This is why the Constitution was set up to insure trial by jury (jury nullification), and the taxation system was based on a head tax imposed on the states, not the people. The power for funding the Government rested with the states and the people. The civil war placed the first cracks in that philosophy, and the Income tax coupled with automatic payroll deduction totally destroyed most American's ability to rule over their government. So now we are left impotent to practice non-violent, non-cooperation. The genious of the ORIGINAL constitution was in its simplicity, and how it divided up powers so well.
My opinion on the Black community isn't that drugs and crack caused the breakup. Drugs and crack and violence are symtoms of the root problem. It is a self medication problem from what I've observed. Shameful how it has got that bad. I also observe the breakup of the Black nuclear family happening just a little after the initiation of Johnson's "Great Society" and the beginnings of the Welfare State. We could bicker over the causes, but we can do nothing to fix it. The Black community will have to fix itself. The first place to start is by rebuilding their families. If nothing else, the persecution they suffered over the decades served to forge them into strong families. Once the general persecution ended, and the Government started paying women to have babies without fathers, it all went to hell quick. (Please note that these are just personal observations. I am not a sociologist.) The white community isn't too far behind the blacks in family degredation.
I think there are simple truths that are there for all to see. One of them is that the OPTIMAL setting for a child is in a two-parent, heterosexual, committed relationship ie: marraige. The next I would think would be a two parent homosexual committed relationship, and then followed by a single parent with no committed relationship. Again, just my observations.
As for non-violence, as long as you can bear the burden that your philosophy demands of you, then great. But at some point, non-violence becomes cowardice. Ghandi had the courage unmatched by most modern men. He was willing to be beaten with sticks, and shot at to prove his point. He did not back down though, and he displayed courage. A few Viet Nam draft dodgers appeared to be doing it for the right reasons. They too had courage. But for those who fled the country to avoid the consequences of their actions, they were cowards. We should've never let them back in. There is truly a fine line between courage and cowardice; in both war and peace.
A violent criminal is practicing cowardice in most cases. To meet a personal, violent attack without resistance is nothing short of a sin. You are practicing cowardice in the highest degree.
A forceful responce to violent cowards tends to reduce the amount of times you will be forced to use force simply for the fact that you no longer are an easy target for somebody who wants to prey on you.

Amen.

------------------
Find out just what the people will submit to and you've found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows or with both.
The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.
Frederick Douglass, Aug 4 1857
 
Ho hum. I never said Jesus was a pacifist. I said he didn't try to kill his oppressers. Please point out to me where he did. I am geniunely curious to know how two people can read the bible such totally different ways. (although it's been known to happen before with respect to other things :))

luv n light

ps - I think we've already established that I consider everyone to be human beings and some other folks consider those who have committed certain acts not to be human beings but "predators". Showing more pics to isn't gonna change that. :)

pps - by the way, the judges around here tend not to allow the word or idea of jury nullification to be mentioned in front of the jury. Is that the case other places as well? It's a pretty serious issue in a lot of the political trials because jurors say "I wish I didn't have to convict but the judge told me I had to if I thought the person had committed the crime."
[This message has been edited by folkbabe (edited May 25, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by folkbabe (edited May 25, 2000).]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top