Microsoft the NSA and you!

Oxygen, Alien,

What makes you think that threatening an assailant with a gun will not similarly result in a raged vindictive thug on a war path? As far as I can see, threatening violence is similar to applying a non-lethal weapon -- in both cases the thug is deterred, and in both cases he may be pissed off enough to come after you when you least expect it.

Violence breeds violence. If you kill some attacker, you may well end up dead when his buddies take their revenge on you, or worse, on your entire family. If you merely stop him, then perhaps he wouldn't be so vindictive as if you tried to kill him and failed. And so on.

As for criminals getting out or not being punished adequately -- that's a problem with criminal justice system, not with guns or lack thereof. For example, in the old west practically everyone was armed, and yet we still had plenty of outlaws running around, murdering and robbing people. If your theory of lethal self-defense really works, then how do you explain that bit of American history?

<hr>

As for making it easier for criminals "to come into your house and take what they want" by removing lethal weaponry from citizens, I couldn't agree more. But I believe you are focusing on the wrong issue. Thing is, one has to be pretty desperate, or else mentally disturbed, to rob somebody to begin with. If the criminals know that every citizen has a gun and is willing to shoot to kill, do you think they will hesitate to shoot everybody inside your house if they actually do break in? Pick the door lock on a dark night, crawl into the bedroom, and boom-bam, no questions asked. You think that would be better than if they broke in, tied you up with rope, took your belongings and left, without actually killing you and your entire family?? Additionally, as forensic science and tracking technologies advance, it is actually becoming harder and harder to get away with crime. I would rather let the criminal rob me, get caught, and be put away -- than having him kill me, then rob me, get caught and be put away.

So yes, I seriously do argue that the citizens are supposed to defend themselves with a stun gun. First you stun him/her, then you call the police and have the criminal taken away. The problem is, stun guns are not very practicable right now, so small firearms still have their place. And to prevent a criminal from killing you in revenge, pass a law that says a life for a life -- if he/she intentionally kills you, they forfeit their own life. No life sentences, no parols -- simple execution.

Actually, if firearms were abolished from civilian use, I would impose a death sentence for merely using a lethal weapon. If someone stabs you, or shoots you -- they automatically get execution, since they made an attempt to take your life. That way, criminals would think twice before using firearms themselves.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited September 12, 1999).]
 
Boris,

Yes what you say does make sense however I don't think it will work
nearly as well as you have in mind.
The old west you had outlaws yes but you will always have those guns or no guns.
If you want my opinion it worked out well in those days because criminals were shot. I'm not so sure there was more crime then than there is now are you?
Do we not have over crowded prisons? What
about the burden on tax payers to keep
prisons running. Estimates of $50 a day
or more to feed prisoners throughout
the country!!!As far as victims buddies
go, I don't think there will be many of those cases unless you shoot someone
in organized crime. Beside,There will
always be criminals using lethal force and it will always come down to who will react first right? The criminal or you.
Guns are collected and a part of our history,sport,and recreation. Once guns
disappear so will this great country as
far as I'm concerned.Maybe I'm wrong but I for one do not want to find out.
Alien
 
Small consolation to my family or me if I'm dead and this goon gets to live seventeen more years while his lawyer appeals.

The Old West you speak of is the Old West of Hollywood. Most people lived peaceful lives. Having lived in Arizona, I had ample opportunity to see many photographs of the Old West, and fewer than half of the people in the saloon scenes I saw were actually packing.

I know I am not the person with the most experience in gangs, but they are a cowardly lot. Obviously this Gomez guy had some important people mad at him or they wouldn't have been coming around for years. I live in a high-crime area and have confronted taggers who were putting their crap on buildings that were under my care. They put up a tough front until they see that you are not about to back down. Most walk away muttering empty threats. For the few that come back, it helps to have superior firepower.

Organized crime is another matter. It's bad for business if you draw too much attention to your activites. No "made man" is going to bother with petty burglaries, and his lieutenants have more pressing matters to tend to. Anybody below that level is only a goon and had better stick to following orders. Believe it or not, these guys tend to their images.

I confess I have had little experience with the Yakuza.

As far as letting them take whatever they want because being alive is much better...

...have you ever been raped?

Forget about the movies that show the strong woman (or man, in some cases) who bounces back and goes on to become the CEO of a major corporation. Most never recover and live the rest of their shattered lives in a prison not of their own making that is far worse than any sentence the perpetrator could get. Although the incident is physically over, the victim gets raped again and again as it drills itself into her or his memory. Death would be merciful, I have been told by one such unfortunate soul.

Having a gun is not proof against crime, but it gives you a better than average chance of walking away from the incident. Just let them have what they want? Many people submit and are shot anyway. For those who get raped, that's the easy way out.
 
I think oxygen has a good point,

Criminals are effectivily bullies, if your a soft target your done for, if your gonna defend yourself by putting a bullet through their head, then they'll think twice about trying to get you in the first place.

There is another side to the coin. I live in Europe, very few people have guns, in England hand guns are illegal and in a country with a population of 55 million there are only 56,000 registered fire arms holders. The police don't even carry guns! Guns make people think their tougher than they actually are, a status simple of power in the ghetto. Remove them from the equation then your society can only become less violent.
 
Mike,

No, they would not think twice. Because until you actually get a chance to pull your gun, they are the ones who have an upper hand. In that scenario (where you are taken by surprise), if you pull you are dead.

As for society becoming less violent through removal of guns, I doubt the claim. Violence exists without weapons just as easily as with them -- it's just that with better weapons violence results in more fatalities, and less justice.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.
 
Mike,

Yes, Oxygen has a very good point.
England is a different country.Having
no guns may work better for them but
ask yourself why people left Europe in
the first place.I'll tell you why,to be in the land of the FREE! Take guns out of the equation in the US and big brother leaves us alone right? I'm sorry but I
cannot believe that and this is my opinion on this issue. I hope my posts
have at least caused people to think seriously about this issue. Many people
see things the way I do up here and I have met a few against owning firearms
but not to many. I take our freedom
very seriously and do not want the
US to become like other countries.

Alien

[This message has been edited by Alien (edited September 14, 1999).]
 
Oxygen,

Rape and robbery are very different, both for the attacker and the victim alike. Some states give death penalty for rape.

As for shooting your attackers, sometimes it is morally better to have a way of stopping them without actually killing them. For example, suppose you chance across a manic psychotic who thinks you are out to kill him and chooses to strike first. Obviously, such a person needs medical treatment much more than they need a bullet in their brain! Suppose you had a brother who tried to rob someone; would you rather have your brother killed or stunned?

As for organized crime -- just think what wonders it would do to outlaw civilian guns. The police would have so much of an easier time then, wouldn't you think? All the while, the thugs caught possessing or using guns would get even heftier sentences.

And as for deterrence, you are lucky that the bad guys knocked on your door and asked nicely, giving you a chance to reach for your piece. In most cases, however, it is not nearly as neat; you usually just get a barrel pressed to your back, or a crowbar to the back of your skull.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.
 
Alien,

Are you currently free to hunt in the woods for anything you wish any time you wish anywhere you wish? Once upon a time, such was the freedom of American settlers; we chose to give up that freedom in the name of conservation and wise resource management.

Are you currently free to marry more than one woman? Yet, such a freedom is enjoyed in certain middle-eastern countries.

Are you currently free to drink at any age, drive at any age, work at any age? No, although all of these 'freedoms' were available just 100 years ago.

Are you currently free to decide whether or not you want to join the army? Yes! And yet, such a freedom was unheard of in the traditional U.S. of A.

"Freedoms" come and go, because they are not all created equal. You commit a fallacy by placing the "right" to bear arms alongside such undeniable rights as the right to free speech, freedom of religion, or the right to life and pursuit of happiness. If we are forbidden from bearing arms, we do not loose freedom. We merely impose a different code of behavior and a more evolved (and consistent!) moral foundation.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.
 
Boris,

If we are forbidden to bear arms we do not lose freedoms? Do you have any proof
of what you say. Are you saying what I have been talking about does not make sense,faulty logic? You said freedoms come and go so does that mean eventually
we are going to lose what we have now?
Please reread my last post again.

Alien
 
Alien,

What I am saying is that there is a big difference between one right and the next. We may loose the freedom to arm ourselves to the teeth; however that does not mean we could ever give up the freedom for free speech. If we loose certain lesser freedoms every now and then, it <u>does not</u> mean that we will eventually loose ALL freedoms. In fact, even as we lose some old 'freedoms', new freedoms are gained every day as well. For example, the Civil Rights movement gave non-whites a whole lot more freedom. Certain democratic initiatives aimed at giving everyone an equal chance in life regardless of their family legacy are also aimed at increasing freedom.

Freedom, in a very broad sense, is an ability to determine one's own destiny, and not be prevented from achieving one's dreams by some artificial external factors out of one's control. In that light, the right to bear arms does not at all affect freedom; it is merely a right legislated into existence by Congress. And as it once outlawed alcohol, the Congress could just as easily outlaw guns -- and in either case the cause of freedom does not suffer.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited September 14, 1999).]
 
Boris,
Ok,I hope your right I just don't feel
we will be free if firearms are taken away. You cannot compare guns to alcohol
because its hard to defend oneself with alcohol like it would be hard to drink a gun.

Alien
 
The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... Hmmmm... There are those who believe that these rights would be severely hampered if a gun was pointed at them... There are others who believe that these rights would be severely hampered if they were not allowed to point a gun in self-defense... However, if a disproportionate number of the masses increasingly use the gun in an illegal, destructive or murderous manner, then the freedom of the majority of citizens would probably be better served if the availability of guns were legally restricted. (Afterall, living a life with an ever-increasing chance of being shot to death at any given moment at the whim of another, and having to carry a gun at all times in an effort to be ready to try and defend myself against such an attack, does not seem like freedom at all to me). It all seems to come down to "a more reasonable balance of power". Just my humble opinion.
 
Truestory,
Yes, it may be better in that respect
but what about big brother and our way of life?
 
Alien,

I can understand your concern.

My life is an open book, so to speak. I have also employed what some might consider big-brother tactics in my line of work. Those that I have employed, I have found to be reasonable and necessary. So, I am not really concerned about big-brother unless it is taken to an extreme or the results are used in an extreme or inappropriate manner. I believe that extremism is the danger. Reasonableness and moderation are the keys for me.
 
Boris-You have a good point about spontaneous acts of violence. I have been subject to attempted ambushes. I feel fortunate that such tries were only of the knife and lead-pipe variety. My karate came in handy at those times. Had there been firearms present, I probably wouldn't be here right now. Of course, I could have just handed over the cash, but thugs around here will just shoot you anyway.

Mental patients, of course, shouldn't be wandering around. What to do when one suddenly jumps and you have no time to react a la Mel Gibson? Well, if my life is in danger, I'm not going to worry about this guy's mental health too much. I do have an advantage in having learned a few hand-to-hand maneuvers that are most effective when struck from the back (unless that strike goes to the base of your skull, in which case you've had it). I try to keep my approach to self-defense as realistic as possible. I am not invulnerable. But I refuse to rely on the government to protect me when they can't keep an eye on themselves. On that note, I suppose that prevention is the best way to go. My instructors all told me to stay aware of your surroundings, (although that doesn't keep my butt from getting kicked when I play Half-Life Deathmatch). If for any reason someone in a crowd (or anyplace) stands out, stay clear. This doesn't mean the guy with flourescent hair. This refers to the fidgety person who looks around nervously, or the person who seems to just show up wherever you happen to be. Sure, it could be he just doesn't like crowds. Sure it could be that you and he just happen to have business in the same locations. But pay atention to that little voice, the one that says "take another street", or "watch that person". Better to look paranoid than posthumous.

P.S.: That little voice actually did save my life at the Great America Theme Park. That kid that fell of the Drop Zone...well, that was almost me in that seat, and it might as well have been. I knew him. (Nothing to do with firearms, but a good example of paying attention to your instincts.)
 
Oxygen,

Well said. That little voice is
probably what tells me theres something not right with whats going on in this country. You brought up an excellent point: how can we trust the government
when they cannot even trust themselves.
Compartmentalized to the extreme noone
really knows half of whats going on.
I've talked to ex-NSA person who kept eye on illegal activities in the Department of Energy he simply stated he's seen it all!
He proved who he said he was. I've talked to others who have delt with or knew about abuses within government. Don't get me wrong we need a governmental system of some sort to keep justice but not one thats running away with itself. People we have a lot of problems and I don't have any answers but I do know we need to correct them so the next generation enjoys the same freedoms that we do now.
I guess I've talked to too many of those
who worked within and seen to much.They are nice people and a lot of what they said I totally agree with.
Boris,
Should we vote no on guns and trust
a large power to take care of us? If they do decide to round us up even though you
do not think it will happen as you have said but haven't commented on it being possible. Well I say if its happened before it will happen again lets face it.
Are we willing to take a chance in hopes of society becoming safer (although I think it won't) to risk enslavement?
Some out there might think I'm paranoid of the impossible maybe I am but just remember what can happen will happen
life has shown me this a few time already.Think about it- seriously.
Alien
 
Alien,

Most American's I speak to always come out with the we're from the land of the free line. But your not free! Your not free to exercise political freedom, your not free to exercise religeous freedom. Your only free to do what the government has decided with what you are allowed to do, and who is always telling you your free, the government. Yes I agree Europe was a different place 300 years ago, but now we have more social freedom in Western Europe than anywhere else in the world.
I'm not just making this up, I work with some Americans. They all tell me the same kind of things. For example, In Holland you can buy Cannabis over the counter in a news agents, In Denmark you can get married if your gay. Just remember Wako, when your goverment shot dead a load of people and sent in tanks because it didn't agree with their religeous beliefs. Don't forget a couple of years ago when your government used troops against a peaceful native American protest. Don't forget until the 1960's back people were not even allowed to vote. Don't forget Vietnam, where your government troops opened fire on more than one occasion on student protesters. It's real freedom I'm talking about, personal choice, a respect for other cultures and not having an over powerful unaccountable government deciding what's good for you all the time.

So the next time your fined for having a beer in a public place, or your fined for J walking, or your fined for parking your car facing the wrong direction to oncoming traffic, or you get a criminal record for smoking a bit of weed, and the list go's on endlessly ask yourself if you really are free and the answer is no your not.

Your only free if you conform, but if you have to conform then surely your not free at all.

Yes there are laws in Europe, but here in Europe we have a thing called a European Court. A country cannot just do what it feels like because the European Law Courts would nail them into the ground.

If you don't believe me pay Western Europe a visit sometime, you may find the experience of feeling relatively safe and secure an eye opening experience.
 
Mike,

When I was refering to our freedom
I wasn't thinking the way you think of it. Of course, I agree with your post
we are not as free as some people believe. As far as Waco, by the way
investigators have found new evidence to reopen the case to support what you've said, and other incidents is the basis
for my belief that we must be protected from big brother. And by this I mean
men dressed in black no warrants who beat down your door and kill or threaten lives. I don't know what you think but I would rather have a 45 than a stun gun.
this kind of harrassment is on the rise.
Innocent people have died for no reason
and I can support that with documentation. Forest officials are carrying machine guns and local sheriffs
are using tanks and the like. As far as Europe goes I'd like to visit sometime
but for now I'll settle for isolated parts of Idaho or the rocky mountains of Montana.In these areas I still feel free
and away from the rat race.


Alien
 
Everybody,

Sounds like we need a government reform much more than we need a right to bear arms. Just think: if our government was fully accountable and wide-open, would not the men-in-black problem be gone as well?

Much accountability in American government has been destroyed in the course of the anti-communist paranoia. I agree that it's about time we began rebuilding it. Might not even hurt to create a couple of new constitutional amendments to forever prohibit black agencies/projects.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top