Armed America

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Congratulations. So, obviously if someone finds themselves being mugged or raped, they must have "placed themselevs in that position", and it must be *their* fault. Pretty classic case of "blaming the victim".
...

No, a classic case of "blaming the victim" is trying to put an end to welfare, after all, welfare recipients are just a lazy drain on society, right MaggieL? And when you kill somebody that you *thought* was going to *mug* you or *rape* you, but actually wasn't going to, would it then be the *victim's* (the dead person) fault?

Carrying a gun does *not* *ensure* that you won't be raped or mugged, *does* *it*? Avoiding *trouble* is a more *civilized* way of living than putting yourself in *harm's* way packing a gun, *hoping* that you won't *have* to kill somebody, or *actually* killing someone. Then again, I *suppose* there are some people who *look* for trouble.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

A "gun control freak" will disarm you so *someone else* can shoot you--or otherwise assault you--with impunity. A "gun ownership freak" thinks you should be allowed to decide for yourself whether you will have the ability to defend yourself if that happens. You're a hell of a lot safer from a legal gun owner than you are from a criminal.

Of course, if you're currently in a jurisdiction where the state has already disarmed the law-abiding, it's rather academic. Where are you, again?

I dont (and won't) have a gun, so I'm not worried about someone taking it away. But someone without a gun isn't going to be very likely to shoot me, either. Simple logic, maggie - someone with 30 guns is a teeny tiny bit more likely to shoot me than someone without any, simply by the fact that the person without them CAN'T. Talking the two extremes here, that is. Now, the mugger down the street with a Colt .45 is a LOT more dangerous than the reasonable, sane person with fifteen different kinds of assault rifles, but... thats a different matter.


In Taiwan, there's madatory military service at 20, but no private gun ownership... or at least, veryveryvery little, if any. But crime is almost non-existant here -- maybe a holdover from the fact that only 20 or so years ago, this was a military dictatorship? Beats me.

[Undertoad]

Simple logic, Ibram - someone with 30 guns is a great deal more likely to protect you than someone without any, simply by the fact that the person without them is at a great disadvantage.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Ibram

I dont (and won't) have a gun, so I'm not worried about someone taking it away. But someone without a gun isn't going to be very likely to shoot me, either...Beats me.

Yes, "beats you" might very well be what happens. I understand from a friend with first-hand expereince that gender-variant people are not well-tolerated in Korean culture.

You say you "don't (and won't) have a gun"...I was wondering if your government would even let you have one. If not, your desires in this issue are rather moot.

http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/nati...2331911990.htm

Apparently according to this article, it's actually possible for a private South Korean citizen to have a gun, assuming he pays off....I mean...*convinces* the cops he can see, isn't crazy and doesn't have a criminal record.

Originally Posted by Korean Times

If one wants to buy a gun, the shop sends the item to the police station. The buyer goes under thorough examination, such as eye examination, mental check, criminal record check, and must answer other questions. After the potential buyer’s records are cleared, the police hands the item to the buyer.

But the example you cite of the mugger and the reasonable, sane person isn't "another issue", it's exactly the issue you should be concered with. The mugger is particularly dangerous to you as long as he is better armed than you are. The reasonable sane person might concievably come to your aid if you're attacked by the mugger.

Of course, if the government has disarmed the sane person, and not the mugger, you probably can't expect much help.

I'm always amazed by the people who seem totally bemused and comforted by the fact by the fact that "if there were no guns they couldn't be shot", when it seems quite clear to me that there has never have been "no guns" since the moment guns were invented, and that imaginary state seems quite likely to stay imaginary. Furthermore they seem to be quite unable to picture how a gun might serve them rather than threatening them. Since only the cops and the bad guys have guns on TV, that must be how the real world operates...

Wouldn't it make sense to concentrate your strategies on situations that actually might happen? Of course, if your government won't let you defend yourself, maybe your time actually is better spent rationalizing why that is somehow A Good Thing. even though as far as I can see, it isn't.

[Hippikos]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Legal use of deadly force, even though it is accordance with the law on Justification, is not "executing a sentence". And yes indeed, you rely on your own judgment, and thereafter your actions are subject to the judgment of a court.

It is executing a sentence. It's your sentence when you decide to use your gun. There's no judge, no jury, just you and your gun decide whether someone is guilty and should be punished with the death penalty. That's Wild West to me, not modern civilization.

Simple logic, Ibram - someone with 30 guns is a great deal more likely to protect you than someone without any, simply by the fact that the person without them is at a great disadvantage.

That's the catch 22, you need the gun because the other one has. At the end everybody has a gun meanwhile looking suspicious to the other in case he uses it.

[busterb]

Guns don't kill people, Chuck Norris kills people!

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Yes, "beats you" might very well be what happens. I understand from a friend with first-hand expereince that gender-variant people are not well-tolerated in Korean culture.

You say you "don't (and won't) have a gun"...I was wondering if your government would even let you have one. If not, your desires in this issue are rather moot.

http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/nati...2331911990.htm

Apparently according to this article, it's actually possible for a private South Korean citizen to have a gun,
...

Maggie, last I checked, Taiwan is different than Korea.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Simple logic, Ibram - someone with 30 guns is a great deal more likely to protect you than someone without any, simply by the fact that the person without them is at a great disadvantage.

Unless the person with 30 guns shoots you, or you accidentally get caught in the crossfire, or there's and accidental discharge that kills you. Then you'd have been safer if the person had no guns.

[Ibby]

Yeah, uh... that would all be really interesting, maggie, if I was in Korea.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Yeah, uh... that would all be really interesting, maggie, if I was in Korea.

Mea culpa. Googling too late at night. And too much news from that benighted peninsula of late. I don't want to make a Korea of it. :-)

So...checking on *Taiwanese* gun laws, apparently you folks are not anywhere near as well-off as the South Koreans.

Originally Posted by Time Magazine

Taiwan has some of the toughest gun-control laws in the world. Private ownership of firearms is largely outlawed; people convicted of illegally making, transporting or selling guns can face the death penalty.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...674823,00.html

And yet your per-capita homicide rate is apparently higher than the US, and homemade guns are considered a significant problem.

Not seeing anything about a "crossbow violence" problem, though... :-)

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Unless the person with 30 guns shoots you, or you accidentally get caught in the crossfire, or there's and accidental discharge that kills you. Then you'd have been safer if the person had no guns.

You seem to live in a world full of hypotheticals. How do you live with the constant danger that your neighbor will hit you with his car? Surely it should be confiscated.

You're in more crossfire danger from the criminal; as a local gangsta told a reporter friend of mine when asked why there was so much collateral damage in Da 'Hood, his answer was "Because none of us can shoot, and we're all high". It's really hard to stay proficient with a weapon you're not allowed to own.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

It is executing a sentence. It's your sentence when you decide to use your gun. There's no judge, no jury, just you and your gun decide whether someone is guilty and should be punished with the death penalty. That's Wild West to me, not modern civilization.

No, it's not a sentence. It's legal use of deadly force...whether I do it or a cop does.

Self-defense is not a "punishment". If a person attacking me survives my defense, he'll still be criminally liable for his actions, and subject to trial and punishment by the judicial system. If my defense was a "sentence", that would be double jeopardy.

Is it really your position that I have no right to self-defense? I find that appalling. If your allegedly "modern civilization" abrogates my right to defend myself if attacked, I'll take the "Wild West", thanks.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

You seem to live in a world full of hypotheticals. How do you live with the constant danger that your neighbor will hit you with his car? Surely it should be confiscated.
....

Like your hypothetical that you need a gun to protect yourself from crime. How do live with the constant danger that your neighbor will rape you with his penis or mug you? Surely you should shoot him before he does.

I was just responding to the hypothetical that someone who owns 30 guns would be more likely to protect you. I think it would be more likely that a gun causes injury to an innocent person than "protect" a person. Have you ever "protected" someone with your gun, Maggie?

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Simple logic, Ibram - someone with 30 guns is a great deal more likely to protect you than someone without any, simply by the fact that the person without them is at a great disadvantage.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

2. Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and reasonable: terrorist acts that shocked the civilized world.

Tell me what part of the World is not civilized? Then tell me how they found out about 9-11?
What was the first civilized nation? When was that?
Does that hyperbole sentence, that sounds like a newspaper headline, prove that the "civilized world" contains no violence? That the "civilized world" never goes to war? The civilized world never approves of executions? Get real.

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Have you ever "protected" someone with your gun,

Have you ever used your life insurance?

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Willingly becoming peaceful IS being civilized. Resolving conflict non-violently IS civilized.

Removing arms by legislation is force... you will have to do it at gunpoint. You will be the gun toting fanatic saying you want to have the guns, via the cops, just not anyone else... sound familiar?
You want a police state... there are plenty you can move to.
There is NOTHING civilized about a police state.

BTW, it bothers me that you have continued to use that quote as long as you have for your sig.
It was a bad, and way out of character, moment for me.
I abhor name calling and it is extremely rare for me to do so... I think you will agree with that.
I have said nothing until now because I definitely deserved for you to use it, as it was uncalled for, regardless of how far you pushed.
However, you have had it as a sig beyond what I feel is tactful.

Why can't I spell definitely without spell check getting it... it is not a difficult word to spell?

There was nothing in my last post worth discussing?