Thank you for providing at least cursory explanations. I do believe, though, you oughta take all those things for what they’re worth but never close your mind to other explanations.
Literature is my area of expertise, along with history. Michael Ondaatje, in his novel “In the Skin of a Lion” had a quotation that read:
“Never again will a story be told as if it were the only one.” and thats true.
Nothing terribly difficult to grasp in those explanations, especially:
So with some basic terms of reference, why’s this story the only one?
Thats a wonderful way to go thru life I suppose. I can’t do it though. If I could say “I’m not paying heed to his personal experience because he’s not an expert, but he must pay heed to mine because I am” I suppose all my troubles would be solved.
Thank you for providing at least cursory explanations. I do believe, though, you oughta take all those things for what they’re worth but never close your mind to other explanations.
Literature is my area of expertise, along with history, and philosophy. Michael Ondaatje, in his novel “In the Skin of a Lion” had a quotation that read:
“Never again will a story be told as if it were the only one.” and thats true.
Nothing terribly difficult to grasp in those explanations, especially:
So with some basic terms of reference, why’s this story the only one?
Thats a wonderful way to go thru life I suppose. I can’t do it though. If I could say “I’m not paying heed to his personal experience because he’s not an expert, but he must pay heed to mine because I am” I suppose all my troubles would be solved.
So do I! However, being an expert doesn’t mean you’re invulnerable to being wrong. I don’t know if you’re right or wrong, to be fair. I do know, I think you have to be more open minded than “Black/white, its on the continuum, there’s only three factors, and all things being equal”
ESPECIALLY BECAUSE I am not a constitutional lawyer, nor do I see you making a claim to be, and thats what this debate is surrounding. I’ll grant you, you’re knowledge of firearms, their defensive use, and etc, is extensive and I even think you’re right, but I read the big quid pro quo as being “If you know what you’re doing with the gun in the first place”.
The argument I was trying to introduce was “If the assailant knows squat about guns, just how to point and shoot, is a gun your best defense? Is a gun necessary?” Your answer seems to be categorically “A gun is nearly always the best defense” and I think your biases might be blinding you to other possibilities. Once again, subjectivity (as much as I hate appealing to it) raises more quesitons than answers.
So that all being said… I’ll grant you the point “A gun will be the best defense against an aggressor who’s broken into your home, w/ or w/out a gun, far and away better than your fists.” with the proviso “providing you know how to use it right” and ask you: Where does the 2nd amendment fall, then? Where do I get training? Should the government regulate training? Should a person who is totally able and trained to use a firearm effectively be registered as such? Why do we proceed with an understanding of the 2nd amendment which assumes “All things being equal” when they’re clearly not?
I never made the claim I couldn’t be wrong. I just won’t accept just personal experience. Provide some reference materials on the subject written by people who have done the research. Personal experience becomes a pissing contest. “I’m a better expert than you” “No, I am, I have 7 stripes and 3 badges, you have 6 stripes and 2 badges” “Ahh, but my badges have gold borders, yours have silver, so I am better” “But I have been in more fights” “Ahh, but mine were against rabid dope-dealing bikers” “Ahh, but mine had knives” “Mine had bazookas!” Etc ad nauseusm. Personal experience can make for good examples, and secondary evidence, but primary evidence has to come from real experts who do real research. Provide reference material written by people who have done the research and I’ll read it. Somebody here proved me wrong on bullets vs. arrows. I am more than willing to admit I am wrong, all you have to do is prove it.
If by bias you mean reading research on the subject, yes I am biased. I am also biased towards Hawking’s theory of wormholes much more than I am biased towards “Joe at the Pharmacy’s” theory of wormholes, because Hawking is an bona fide expert who did lots of research. Joe isn’t. Is Hawking necessarily right? No, but I won’t say he is wrong, unless I am willing to do the research myself.
To tie this to self defense, I have done some research using my dojo and my students, on the effectiveness of guns, knives and fists. I have done research using scenario based training to determine how people react in certain situations and how we can learn to plan and react better. So, I got into a debate with Peyton Quinn once online. I felt justified in doing so, because at least I have done some of the work to support my case. It ends up he has done more work, and torpedoed me with overwhelming evidence, not just his personal experience. I learnt a lot from the encounter.
My personal opinion is that it makes sense for there to be some gun control. However, before we add more gun control the current laws should be enforced. I think a lot of gun problems would go away with enforcement of current laws.
I think, personally, that the 2nd amendment refers to the establishment of a milita and doesn’t relate to home defense.
I think people should be required to pass a certain degree of training (it should, if I had my way, be courses like those offered by the Lethal Force Institute, but thats probably unrealistic nationally) before being allowed to own a firearm.
I do not neccesarily see this as central to the Second Amendment. Self-Defense is a tangent that sort of popped up out of this regarding whether or not guns were good or bad in everyday use.
At least that is how I am reading this part. Then we went off further about just how useful/not useful a handgun was against an intruder.
That being said…
I do have friends who see the self-defense aspect of firearms owership to be just as central to the Second Amendment as keeping the government in check.
They feel that just as a free people should be able to assemble when and where they want, say what they want to say, worship whatever they want to worship and own private property, they should also be able to defend themselves.
They equate the ability to protect yourself, family and property just as important as all the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The Second Amendment does not say that we have the right to bear arms just to keep our government in check, it just gives us the right to bear arms.
Limiting the the uses of the right to bear arms would be similiar to only allowing free speech on certain topics.
I see their point, but the arguement is complicated enough without it so I generally do not rely on it when I am defending the Second Amendment.
Also, debating the effectiveness of armed self-defense has nothing to do with the right to own a firearms. I think the mainstream press today is doing a horrible job at educating the American public about what is really happening in the world. In fact I almost look at it as a propaganda branch of the government.
But I would never argue to abolish free speech just because today’s media has been corrupted.
Freedom: I have to diagree. I don’t think you can tie defense of free speech to gun ownership. If somebody, other than the gov’t which is clearly covered, is trying to take away your free speech this doesn’t mean that you should or should be allowed to defend that right with force. The notion is, and please take no offense, but barbaric.
Now, if the person is trying to take away your free speech WITH a gun, then the problem isn’t that he is trying to take it away the problem is that he is using a gun to do it. At this point, I think you are justified in using force in return because it is your life that is in jeopardy.
Freedom: Actually, because of my position on several issues (in real life and to some degree here), and other facts that people know about me, revealing my state would make it trivial to find out exactly who I am. I prefer to keep some degree of anomynity. Sorry. I have had trouble with being vocal and being public in the past. It is something I prefer to avoid. Again, sorry.
Both my firlfiend and I have couple of ties to Martial Arts and I was just wondering if your dojo was close.
I am sure you know the joy of “Checking out” another Dojo
It was just a friendly request.
And about the Free speech self-defense thing.
You put a different spin on it than I was talking about.
Totally seperate sel-defense and free speech. Now use the limiting of free speech to certain topics only, as a metaphor, for only allowing the right to bear arms to keep the government in check and for nothing else.
I was not talking about shooting people if they interupt you
I understand, and yes, I do know about checking out a new dojo.
Apologies for misunderstanding your other post.
Now, that understand what you meant, I still don’t agree. I think that the right to bear arms is linked to a well regulated militia. If you aren’t part of a well regulated militia then you have no constitutional right to bear arms. However, again, in my personal view I think people should, but as a matter of the constitutional right, no.
The assumption is that the people are going to be part of the militia. That’s pretty much the way it was back then. That isn’t the case anymore. Personally, I have absolutely no intention of using my gun for the defense of this country. If I were going to defend this country I would want some real military hardware to do it. So, in my view, I don’t see my personal gun as being in conjunction with the countries defense either against external or internal threats. They just aren’t realistically related. I have my gun to defend my life, and my family (to hell with the property, that’s what insurance is for).
IMO, I don’t think there should be a constitutional amendment that states “Personal defense, being a logical and reasonable right of free people, the right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” It is too open. I like some of the gun controls laws, I just wish they were enforced.
Anyway, since I don’t think such an amendment should exist neither do I think the 2nd amendment should be interpreted that way.
Well, your last post in response has done me in. “Stove me in” is what we say up here.
I think the only way I could provide research against what you’re saying is if I got into Philosophy. My first, best, and possibly only defense would be people like Neil Postman, and after that you’d have me on the self-defense aspect anyway.
now… I disagree here…
Whether its written or not, research is nothing more than “depersonalized expereince” and thats a fine line to draw. Someone had enough personal interest to try to study it as objectively as possible. I say, take personal experience for what its worth. I think, too, that dividing evidence as “primary and secondary” is approaching dangerous ground. Better to talk “sources” there. If you were talking historical research, personal experience would count as primary, as would a host of other things, and written research secondary.
That all being said, again, you have me. And its not becuz you offer an understanding of the 2nd that I relate to.
Although that helps.
Freedom, you and Glitch seem to have gotten into a bind that sounds familiar…
to be quite honest, I would too… if there were a huge domestic crisis here in Canada (HAHAHAHA ahem, excuse me thats just plain laffable) and Quebec decided to seperate and take half of my province with it, I’d be lining up to join a (possibly illegal) resistence movement and raising hell. Or I’d like to think I would.
Similarly,if you Yankees got Manifest Destiny on the head again and got a little frisky at the border, resulting in some border disputes and police actions, I would volunteer for service. Maybe.
If anyone tried to forcible take over my home province, I’d have to think seriously about dropping everything and going into service in defense of my “home and native land” to borrow a canuck-ism.
But I’ve no need of a gun. Call me lax, call me less than vigilant. I don;t think I have to worry about that type of uprising. We came close in Canada, the late 60s and early 70s with the Quebec crisis… but by and large, I’d wager most everyone else is as lax and laid back in Canada as I am. Those that aren’t are extremists and members of hate groups; nothing a Canadian despises more than an extremist.
By “personal experience” I mean, this is what happened to me. Proper research combines a lot of personal experiences together and try to find common truths. This is why I view it as a primary source rather than one person’s opinion.
To use your history example, a good historian would never say that something is historical fact based on one person’s account. He would gather as much personal accounts as possible and look for common and consistent events. The more common and consistent the more likely it is to be true.
I find personal experience, as I define it, to be good supporting evidence (much better term than secondary). You kind of like, this is what the experts say, and in these events in my life it happened just like they say, or even in these events if didn’t, I wonder why not? It is this second that leads to new discoveries as we try to match what we “know” to what it doesn’t seen to cover.
I think we do. I find it difficult to call research primary evidence of anything. Its secondary because it has been processed, espcially in the case you offer here…
Proper research indeed tries to find the thread that binds… but it cannot be primary. You mean, of primary importance, of greater trustworthiness, and I agree. Research is valuable because it increases a knowledge base, and in the case of research study in a scientific experiment, say, it will yeild primary evidence/sources, like specific quantities of A and B, or a causal[sic?] relationship. Anything which combines a series of sets of evidences cannot be primary.
nope… he wouldn’t.
Yup, again true. Unless there were no other sources of evidence, and then his sole case would stand as the truth until something refuted it. Which is the way of academia. And regardless, any and all cases are primary sources of information (straight from the horses mouth) and all written, processed stuff is secondary.
YES… exactly. Supporting evidence, of a primary nature. It is semantic.
Which is why I said, be careful of having blinders when it comes to research because, in the long and short runs, research is just as much theory as fact. Any theory fits the facts as good as possible, and the minute the facts start falling out of the theory, you’re in line for a paradigm shift. Falsifying a theory is all it takes, even without a better supporting theory. In some cases, you can see this today … Big Bang, for example… “We know that the Big Bang did not happen like we originally thought, but only after nth milliseconds, and because we have no other theory we’re forced to rely on this false model because it still fits ‘the facts’ better than any other.”
Getting onto your wavelength, regards in the highest,
I have to admit, I’m not the most patriotic canadian in the land. But who is??
I’m newfoundland, born and bred… and unfortunately it shows more often than not. All the same, its Canada’s greater interst to keep the yankees off-balance and thereby draw attention away from their poorly defended cousin to the north.
I have had trouble with being vocal and being public in the past. It is something I prefer to avoid. Again, sorry.
