“Having a gun wouldn’t have kept you from being mugged.” Not necessarily true. If people were not prohibited from carrying their own means of protection, then there would be a lot less people willing to risk their lives for a walletful of money.
And I disagree that the perpetrator was no longer a threat to me. What was to prevent him from deciding that, in order to be sure he gets away, he should now turn around and shoot me? Sure, the odds are low that he will, but in my opinion ANY chance of my death at the hands of a criminal when I am innocent is justification enough for me to eliminate all possibilities of the threat against me.
I understand what you are saying about accidental shootings, or one where, in your opinion, the criminal should have been allowed to escape. However in my opinion, the number of TRULY accidental deaths (thief in Austin doesnt count, all he had to do to stay alive is stay out of someone else’s stuff) is far outweighed by those of innocents killed by criminals who intend to use violence to their advantage.
But, it might help keep you and me safer from being mugged, Robb. First of all, we’d be in no further danger from that mugger. Second, potential muggers would be deterred because of worry that you and I might be armed and that we might shoot them.
Concealed carry laws are great for those of us without guns. We get the enforcement benefit without the cost. bother and risk of actually having a gun.
Or the mugger will shoot first and take your wallet later. I’d prefer to only visit the Old West via the cinema.
I’m concerned that Texican seems to prefer a world where criminals risk their lives even for the most petty of crimes. I daresay that the history of jurisprudence in the Western world shows that we moved away from this notion. It seemed to me that we’ve attempted to create some proportionality between a crime and its sentence.
Though, at least one person prefers disproportionate punishment.
“Though, at least one person prefers disproportionate punishment.”
No, my preference is to increase my chances of survival to as near 100% as possible. That other guy lost his rights IMO as soon as he decided to try and make me his victim.
Part of our crime problem is the lack of a perception of true risk on the part of the perpetrators. Career criminals know that if they are caught, they will do a few years or so in the company of their friends who are already on the inside. The only thing they fear is death, and they hold us ordinary, law abiding citizens in contempt because we have been trained to not protect ourselves, but instead to hope for the police to do it for us.
Then you’ll have ot explain this to me; I must be thick. How is
obvious hyperbole? If you refuse to retract “obvious” hyperbole, then neither should you use hyperbole (obvious or not) as the foundation of your argument.
Then you’ve changed your claim. What you did claim is just above. You said (and I re-quote) “that kind of self-defense could hardly have entered anyone’s mind at the time.” Or was it not a claim, only hyperbole? In which case why do you now belabor the point and attempt to defend it? If it were nothing more than hyperbole would the logical response not be to simply label it as such and be done with it?
I think you are trying to bullshit me and I’d be ever-so-grateful if you’d desist. It would be nice to know, in advance, just what claims you are making in good faith and which are going to be shrugged off later as “obvious hyperbole,” so that I could target my responses to only the true and not waste time with the remainder of your post.
So, yeah. It is, as you say, equally consistent with the usual milita rationale as it is with self-defense. The entire passage shows a great concern with defense against military invaders, but likens their plunder to that of a Highwayman. Hardly something Paine would have done in a popular periodical unless the metaphor had broad appeal. This shows there was concern at the time with criminal activity and what methods might be effectively used to reduce the threat of such. Locig then tells us that your claim, hyperbolic or not, “that kind of self-defense could hardly have entered anyone’s mind at the time,” to be without basis.
But I’m not sure why I bothered with any of this. I shouldn’t have to respond to hyperbole. Would that I knew it were such . . .
And I’m still looking for a source for the Washington quote. I’ve several volumes of the writings of George Washington at home. I’ll peruse those this evening.
You’d like to be judge, jury, and executioner. Victims of violent crime react in different ways. I’ve seen other reactions.
Have you ever fired a gun? If so, have you ever missed the bullseye? Would you think it funny if I gunned you down as you fired a gun at your mugger? I bet you’d find it funny when the guy across the street then shot me.
Jeez, UncleBeer, I apologize if you took me as being 100% serious and literal-minded when I wrote the following:
The point being that, yeah, you can shoot a guy with a flintlock, but they’re not exactly the most practical criminal-stopping weapons on the planet. And I still haven’t seen anything that shows people in the 19th century thought much of firearms when they thought “crime prevention,” much less that that was on the minds of the people who drafted and passed the Second Amendment.
That Thomas Paine quote (if indeed it is Paine–the intro says that’s questionable) sure ain’t gonna get you there in context (though I thank you for providing that context). As the title of the piece (“Thoughts on Defensive War”) makes clear, the writer is talking about weapons for their usefulness in fighting and preventing war. The mention of “the ruffian” is a reference to England, as when the essay earlier equates “the Highwayman” with “the ministry.” Basically, the thesis is that England’s out to take our property, so we’d better be armed to prevent it.
Here’s a fuller version of that quote, which makes it pretty much undeniable that Paine is talking about the arming of nations, not the use of guns to shoot muggers in the back:
Still, I’ll be happy to see what you can round up on George Washington.
Don’t be so snide minty. It’s unbecoming. Tell me this, just how many of your posts in this thread consist entirely of hyperbole? Which of them are “obvious hyperbole?” I’ve no way of knowning. And just what do you think hyperbole adds to a debate anyway? Is this one of your tactics in the courtroom? Do the opposing attorneys use this method? I think not. If all you have to add is hyperbole, maybe it’s best you add nothing.
Anyway, I merely assumed (and it seems logical when in a debate to assume that one’s opponents are making actual claims and substantiations and refutations) that you were making a claim in your first paragraph and providing a “folksy” amplification or extrapolation (an extrapolation that is ad absurdium I should note but maybe that’s the hyperbole) in your second paragraph and I’m still not sure I believe that it was intended entirely as hyperbole as you now claim. In fact, I’ll say it plainly. I very strongly believe otherwise. I believe, despite your protestations of innocence, you made a rash and ill-advised claim and are now trying to backtrack without admitting error.
I also could have predicted pretty much what you’d say about the context of the Paine quote. I contend that while on the face of it, it is about citizens arming themselves against foreign invaders, it also shows exactly that which you deny. That the founders indeed had concerns about criminal activity and that they believed private ownership of firearms were a good and valid defense against that activity. The thing uses the Highwayman as a metaphor. Surely such an expert in hyperbole as yourself should also recognize the literary device of metaphor. And for a metaphor to be valid, especially in a popular periodical, it has to have a frame of reference. It makes little sense to create such elaborate metaphors when they’d be unintelligble to the audience.
Simply because you don’t think you see context doesn’t mean it’s not there. I think there’s ample contextual justification to draw the conclusions I’ve made. It appears we are at impasse.
18th century, not 19th century.
You’re welcome. I provided context since it was the honest thing to do even though I could predict your reaction. If only you would debate in good faith, too. Making claims and later labeling them hyperbole is disingenous. I don’t appreciate being led down that path.
Beer, why is it that every time you and I meet in one of these threads, you end up accusing me of posting in bad faith? It’s really obnoxious.
Ryan, in case you didn’t notice, that bit of text you quoted directly followed the simplistic comment that it parodied. In light of that, I haven’t got the slightest idea what you’re complaining about, or why you decided to reappear after lo these many months to make yet another non sequiter nitpick.
Minty, in this case, it does seem like bad faith. You seemed to base your argument, that self defense wasn’t even a consideration, on the fact that firearms of the time were useless for that. It didn’t seem hyperbolic whatsoever - it was the core of your argument.
Rather than either provide evidence for the assertion or do the honest thing and retract it, you claim it to be hyperbole, which no one here really believes. I don’t think you always act in bad faith, but in this case, it seems like you are.
“Would you think it funny if I gunned you down as you fired a gun at your mugger? I bet you’d find it funny when the guy across the street then shot me.”
I’m not sure I understand what your point is. If I shot at someone mugging me, why would you be shooting at me, or your neighbor at you? Had I done something to you, or you to your neighbor? Or are you pretending that all of a sudden everyone is going to start shooting at each other?
This sarcastic strawman dismissal does nothing for your credibility. I explained why your actions appear to suggest that you acted in bad faith. To simply dismiss what I say without addressing it, saying that I’m just accusing anyone I disagree with of bad faith, seems to further indicate bad faith on your part. I never did that - I explained why your actions seemed to indicate bad faith - and I’ve been been in plenty of arguments with people I disagree with - you included - without accusing them of bad faith.
Trying to characterize me as someone who is merely dismissing someone I disagree with is unfair, and evasive. I explained why your actions indicated bad faith - why not respond to that, rather than saying “oh well anyone you disagree with is acting in bad faith!”?
Because then you would be breaking the law and endangering other people. If I had a gun and saw that you were shooting in anything that even remotely felt like my direction, your reasoning of not becoming a victim allows me to kill you before you kill me. Then, I would be shooting and endangering someone else’s life, therefore entitling that person to kill me.
You were a victim the moment he pointed a gun at you. You want to kill the guy who made you a victim, but killing him won’t alter your status as a victim. It appears that you hope to co-opt the judicial system by killing the criminal yourself.