The answer to the gun problem

The BBQ Pit
161

Guess that counts me out. Never owned a firearm in my life.

The vast majority (well, okay, a slight majority, but a majority nonetheless) of gun deaths were suicides. And there is a major substitution effect between suicide methods, so take one away and another will take it’s place.

What, and the people who stabbed other people just wanted to see if they were humans or Vulcans?

I am categorically opposed to the death penalty, but keep making ridiculous assumptions. It simply adds to the continuous process of revealing you to be the ill-informed, hysterical pinhead that you are.

I realize this is only a personal opinion, but I just wanted to point out that it is a patently stupid one.

I don’t spend a great deal of time thinking about who I might be superior to. You obviously do. If you’re willing to lay down your life to someone all too willing to hurt you, your family and your loved ones, and make no attempt to defend them or yourself, you are stupid. And a bad person, to boot.

An isolated incident, and accidental to boot. Although it is a tragedy, it is not in any way indicative of what happens when the good guys have guns. What the fuck do you think the good guys won WWII with–Nerf footballs? Moron.

Yeah, like you’re in possession of any facts.

162

Well, since you started calling me names (“clueless”) when I did not do so to you yet, I guess you are already starting out on a moral lower ground. But I’ll come down to your level, ass-goblin. And there are many who believe in firearms ownership and use (such as pepperlandgirl) who are also very opposed to the death penalty - so much so that she hopes to possibly become a capital crime defense lawyer.

I find it puzzling that you would make such a statement. Please don’t take this personally, but are you perhaps insane?

Pretty much irrelevant. What I’m talking about is my earlier post (that you quoted and mis-attributed to Gary, wow, 2061 posts and you can’t figure that “board thingy” out) where I mentioned the concept of societal cost of the freedom to defend your own life. There is a societal cost associated with ALL freedoms, including (horrors!) the freedom of speach - the cost of which manifests itself in your bizarre posts.

I don’t give a rat’s ass about intentional versus unintentional for this debate right now. A large amount of deaths occur due to automobiles, which is a societal cost of the freedom to own and operate them, and to some extent, a societal cost of a freedom of unregulated movement and travel. These are mostly unintentional deaths, and result as the cost of freedoms.

If you simply said that for you, the societal cost of defending your life, taking responsibility for your family, and protecting society itself by your willingness to fight for your country - if you had said that these were all costs that were too high for you, well, things would be different. I would at least have some more respect for your position, although I feel it is very simplistic and misguided.

What you say about “banning all weapons in the World (paraphrased)” sounds like the typical sort of question asked by the uneducated, the very young, or people who have not been in the Real World. Akin to “Why can’t we just give $100,000 to everyone in the World, so no one will be poor? Why can’t I just attach a motor to a generator and get free energy?” And so forth.

Right back at ya’, Sparky.

Of course you can be emotional! Who is telling you that you cannot? The same voices in your head that told you to stand around the airport naked? I would not take their advice seriously, you know…

Well, I could be facetious and say that I DO have feelings for those who wrong me, and that normally they run the gamut from mild annoyance to homicidal rage. But that serves no purpose.

You didn’t answer my questions, of course. Because you either will not be able to, or will not answer honestly, who knows? If someone tries to kill you, you open your arms and help them put the knife in? If someone rapes and murders your mother in front of you, you call them “brother”? Why are you so content to live in a society surrounded by “hired killers”? And, do you NEVER call the police for ANY reason, since that just gives justification to these same “hired killers” that you so dislike?

Yes, let’s talk facts. Are you going to publicly admit you were wrong regarding your “facts” w.r.t. dates of the UT tragedy and the invention of certain weapons? Or will you be a Filthy Little Coward and refuse to admit you were wrong, brushing it aside with more innane and useless points?

163

That, Phil, is so damn funny it is a New Pit Classic if I ever read one!

That, combined with SPOOFE’s “Adriatic Spock” comment has me giggling every time I think of Star Trek.

164

Banning all weapons? Oh yeah. The world was a much more peaceful place before the invention of firearms. Maybe we should get rid of all the rocks and sticks, too. That Mongol Empire was a model of civility. Are you familiar with the names Ghengis and Kublai? How 'bout the Vandals and their king, Genseric of the 5th century AD? And maybe their foes, the Huns? All charmingly peaceful people and nary a firearm between them.

Bullshit.

165

Hey Beer, watch that shit, ok? Some of my best friends are marrow-sucking barbarians.

166

Anthracite: Okay, so I was wrong about when certain guns were invented. (I don’t know anything about guns, I don’t WANT to know anything about them. I don’t want to know about poisons or nukes or how to kill with a knife or with string or…) But spraying the tower with bullets to get that sniper was still a stupid idea, and I wasn’t the first one to say so.

When you feel anger, you are feeling AGAINST someone, not FOR them. (There is a difference between anger and sympathy.) He wishes you harm, you wish him harm. I see no difference between the two of you. You’re both wrong for what you wish. I don’t care who started it.

I never said I would not try to defend myself. I would use non-lethal means. If I fail, I’ll probably die. But I’ll die for what I believe, that killing is wrong.

Who said I could not be emotional? PLD told me not to speak if I had nothing reasonable or intelligent. Well, on other threads, (use the Search Engine) I did exactly that and it did no good. Frustrated, I vented my emotions. Besides, as some bright guy said, we aren’t Vulcans. We have feelings. I was trying to appeal to them, to “the better angels of our natures,” as Lincoln put it. I thought that by demonstrating my anger, I’d show that your cold-blooded, unemotional way of looking at the problem was dead wrong. We’re talking about killing people. It disturbs me that you’d do that and feel no remorse, no sense of loss.

You and PLD: “I’m against the death penalty; however, I believe people should be able to kill in self-defense. Therefore, people should be allowed to own guns.” So, individuals may kill, but not the state? Please explain the logic in that belief. Why is one form of killing acceptable but not the other?

PLD: You said that most deaths by firearms are suicides; Cites, please. (You claim the fact; therefore, it is you who must produce the evidence.) Besides, what difference does it make? Should we not make it MORE difficult for people to kill themselves? I suppose you have no feelings for those who commit suicide, right? If you do, is it contempt or sympathy?

If you do not own a gun, how would you defend yourself? What is your reason for not owning a gun if you think it’s all right to do so?

UncleBeer: I am not so naive as to believe that eliminating guns will eliminate all murders. Humans are a violent race; we were violent long before we invented guns. (We are SO violent, I sometimes wonder if we ethically and morally deserve to live. But we show promise of shaking off that killer instinct and I go on, hoping to see it come about.) Yes, I do know about world history. I am frequently appalled by the depths of human depravity.

Anyway, a lack of guns would make it harder to commit those murders. Ever try killing someone from twenty feet away with a knife? Or with any other weapon that is not a gun? How many people can actually use a bow and arrow? Or are capable of learning how? A gun is a coward’s weapon. You can kill with it in such a way that your victim would never know who did it. (Yes, I know there are other ways to kill in secret. I’m against those things too, remember?)

I realize this is difficult for some people to fathom, but I really despise people who kill with weapons other than guns as well. But I don’t wish to kill any of them. It would make me no better than they; it would make me as evil as they. GET IT? The worst humans of all are those who wish another would die. I am an elitist; some people ARE better than others, and it’s because they choose to be.

American police officers: I DO consider them hired killers. I have little respect for them. I would call on them if the situation called for it, but I’d regret it. It would be a case of choosing the lesser of two evils. I would hope that they not kill anyone and would complain bitterly if they did so.

When the Allies won WW2, it was another case of choosing the lesser of two evils. (Or do y’all think the Allies were saints and angels? Remember, history is written by the winners and people tend to forget the bad things they did to win.)

Enough for now.

167

Addendum, jab:

I don’t think too many Americans have forgotten about Dresden and Nagasaki. By and large, however, we “justify” our actions either by pointing out how awful the other guys were or resorting to “greatest good” arguments.

War, IMO, is just pure-d evil.

But war is not the topic here, I think–individuals are. Specifically individual ownership of weapons designed to kill.

168

Is this the same Lincoln whose Union troops slaughtered tens of thousands of Confederacy troops at Gettysburg? Why would you cite him on this matter?

Why are you making this assumption, that there would be no remorse? I consider self-defense, to the point of fatal methods, a moral imperative. If someone is threatening the life of my wife or another family member, I consider it my duty to defend their life, to the point of killing the aggressor. That does not mean I would derive pleasure from it. It means I value the life of my wife and my family more than I do the life of a stranger who would threaten them.

Because states are not individuals. Because it is immoral to deny individuals the right to defend themselves using the tools that aggressors will likely wield against them. Because capital punishment has no deterrent affect on crime.

I cited the relevant CDC numbers in a thread in GD and, honestly, have no intention in looking them up a second time. To the best of my recollection, of 35,000-odd firearms deaths in 1994 (the latest year for which they had figures) 1,300 were accidental, 17,000 were homicides, and 18,000 were suicides.

I do not believe that suicide is immoral. Although I would prefer people did not have to sink to that level of despair, I also see no compelling moral arguments against suicide. If I suspected someone was intending to commit suicide, I would try to dissuade them.

jab, you may suppose whatever you want. It has no bearing on reality, nor do I feel compelled to conform to or agree with your suppositions.

I am not required to justify my gun ownership decisions to you. I do find it hilarious that you would chide me for not owning a gun, despite your wish to ban them all.

Do you believe homosexuals should be permitted to marry? If so, why have you not married a homosexual? Do you recognize the existence of rights which you have no intention of exercising?

I don’t, personally, find hate any more redeeming a quality than the desire to kill. Really, I don’t.

169

Fair enough, I also agree that spraying the tower with bullets would most likely be a bit out of control…

When you put things in a different way, like you are with this, and are not sounding so “hateful” towards those who wish to have every means to defend themselves, I understand better what you real intent is. And I appreciate it more.

Perhaps I have given you the wrong impression. I would feel some remorse if I did actually kill someone in self defense, but admittedly not that much. I would not set out in self-defense to puposefully do as much damage to my attacker as possible, or even kill them. However, if things get tight, my personal view is that I have a fundamental natural right as a biological organism to defend my own life, and that right supercedes in my mind the right of my attacker to retain his or her life.

You are confusing me with someone else - I used pepperlandgirl as an example of someone who believes in self defense, but not the Death Penalty. Without putting words in her mouth, I will explain my position - I am in favor of the Death Penalty for certain crimes and situations.

Well, let me answer, not for phil but in my words. I believe that each of us has a fundamental right to control our own lives, or deaths. If one wishes to end their life this should of course be discouraged, especially as it is a “final” decision with no appeal for a second chance. While the effort of making it more difficult for people to accomplish this is admirable, I agree with phil and others that those who are committed to the task will find a way, and do so.

I agree that firearms make it easier to kill. But this goes back to my societal cost view. Since we apply different values to this cost, we will never agree on this.

BTW, as an aside - the bow and arrow was long considered a “coward’s weapon” by the French for a long time. Which cost them dearly at Crecy and Poitiers.

But here’s where you are losing people, where it really seems that you equate the woman her kills a rapist in self defense with a Ted Bundy.

Well, I won’t call you hypocritical on this one - seriously. Since the police do serve other functions that you could justify are almost entirely non-lethal in their potential.

Well, are there not situations in real life that also fall into the lesser of two evils category? How would you feel about a woman who shoots and kills a rapist in her house? About a battered woman who kills her husband in self-defense after he tries to kill her?

170

Well, since my named was invoked in this debate, I think I will put forth my two cents.

It’s like this. I would prefer it if all murderers could be apprehended, and kept in a max-security prison for life, and never face the DP. I would prefer it if I didn’t have to kill anybody. But I swear to God, if anybody threatened my Jim, I would do everything in my power to stop them, including kill them. If simply calling the police would stop them, then I would do that. If kicking the person in the nads would stop him, I would do that. Killing would be the very last option, but I would do it. Now obviously, I feel that prison is enough for convicted felons, including murderers, in the long run. But in that split second, when it’s kill or be killed, I’ll choose to kill.

Secondly, jab, I don’t understand you. You won’t kill, you don’t like policemen, you don’t like wars. So you are an extreme pacifist. Your stance is that nobody should be protected from the people in the world who wish to cause the other’s harm? I believe that you are truly dillusional. But I must admit, it must be nice to live in a world where everybody is happy, and loving, and nobody would cause another damage. Of course, when you grow up Sweetie, you will realize that the world doesn’t work that way.

171

I’ll tell ya what, Chuckles, why don’t you tell us how you plan about going about this? How do you figure we can enforce such policy on every man, woman, and child, including those willing to ignore and break such laws? And further, how do you propose that we get all other countries in the world to enact and rigorously enforce such laws as well?

Betcha can’t, me bucko.

So until you can assure me that all the sociopathic nutcases in the world don’t have any guns, or any access to guns, whether they be legal or illegal, I’ll like to keep my lil’ handgun handy, thank you very much.

Don’t get me wrong… I sure as hell wish I had zero need for guns, either, as far as defensive purposes go. But even then, I would probably still like to have one (target shooting is an excellent recreational activity, and I recommend it for everyone). Then again, if recreation was the only purpose guns had, I doubt that you’d have any objection…

172

I think he understands it’s not a realistic goal, SPOOFE.

Yup. He said as much. You quoted it.

173

Got to admit, I don’t get the whole ‘everybody should have guns so we can protect our families’ argument.

Unless you trail around after your kids all day with your trusty AK47 or whatever, there’s no way you can protect them 100% of the time. They, on the other hand, are spending 100% of their time in an environment where any random stranger on the street or in their school might have both a grudge against society in general and an automatic weapon.

In the long run, wouldn’t your families be safer in a society with fewer guns and those in the hands of more responsible people?

174

There really ISN’T that argument. If anyone voices that notion, they’re in the minority. The majority of the argument is “Just because you don’t like guns doesn’t mean you should take everyone else’s away.”

Most definitely. And you know what? That’s exactly what we (me, Pepper, Anthracite, PLD, Unclebeer, the friggin’ NRA) have been advocating the whole time. Take guns away from those who misuse them. Do not take guns away from those who do not misuse them.

175

Um, how exactly do you “protect your family” with a gun anyway? If it’s locked up in a safety cabinet, it won’t do much good against an intruder who takes you by surprise. If (God help us) it’s loaded and readily accessible in a household with young children, surely the danger of accident is far greater than any protection against crime it may offer.

As it happens, that’s exactly where I DO plan to move before long (though I think I’ll pass on the hot tea … warm beer is more my style). This is one of the many aspects of American culture that have forced me to make this decision.

176

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t?

I don’t understand why you think there’s only one solution… why can’t you have a gun, not locked up, in a house with children? Our household managed to do that quite well… all the guns were kept (unloaded, though the clips for the handguns were ready to go) in the closet. And there were eight kids in the house (my parents were fuck-machines…).

Now, how many gun fatalities do you think we had? Zero. How many gun accidents do you think we had? Zero. How many mishandlings of firearms do you think we had? Zero. In more than two decades. Why do you suppose this was, hmm?

177

Luck.

It only takes the one slip–even a long-time shooter can leave one chambered. And a three-year-old is old enough to have seen on TV how to load a gun and shoot it, but is not old enough to understand why he shouldn’t.

It’s not something I ever want to see again.

178

You create your own luck by education, training, and discipline. Tragic accidents will always happen, but their probability of occurance can be tremendously reduced, even almost eliminated. I would return to my societal cost point, but I don’t know if there can ever be an agreement on the acceptable level of cost.

179

Does one have to agree with everything another person did or said before one may quote that person? Another poster here (Demise) has a Jefferson quote about the right to own guns in her sig line even though Jefferson also believed women whould not be allowed to vote or engage in politics, something Demise does NOT agree with at all.

I admire Lincoln a great deal, but he made decisions I’m not comfortable with at all - suspending habeas corpus and recommending that blacks leave the USA and set up a colony in Central America come to mind. In saving the Union, he made many errors, but that’s looking back with 20-20 hindsight, right?

Should a person be perfect before he is worthy of being quoted? If so, we would be unable to quote anyone.

I assume most people would not do something for which they would be remorseful later. Guilty criminals who have been found to show no remorse nearly always receive the maximum. We want people to show remorse when they do something wrong, to show that they have come to realize what a horrible thing they have done. You say you would do this and yet show remorse; what this means to me is that you know it’s wrong, but that you would do it anyway.

Which is exactly what appalls me. All human life is of equal value. Anyone can be reformed. If a criminal has not been reformed, it’s usually OUR fault, not his. (Of course, some criminals don’t want to change. But I don’t think the solution is to kill them.) Why? Because our prison system is designed to punish, not reform. Why? Because people don’t want to spend the money. (I hope you can see how this is all related.)

I agree with that last statement. But why is it wrong for the state to execute a single person, but it’s all right for the state to go to war and kill thousands, if not millions? Was it all right for the Allies to bomb Dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Tokyo and other cities, thereby killing thousands of elderly, ill and young? What were they guilty of? It had to be worse than murder if it’s all right to kill all of them but not one lone murderer.

Glad to hear it. Now why not deprive them of the most-likely-to-succeed means of doing it?

I just find it a bit hypocritical, is all. “All of you may own guns, but don’t expect ME to.”

I’m not gay.

Of course. I’m not an illegal drug-user, but I’m on record on this board as being in favor of legalizing them. Now, this why I think there’s a difference between legalizing drugs and banning guns:

Drugs harm only the users.
Guns harm people other than the users. (Except for suicides. But while the act may not be immoral, not doing enough to stop it is immoral.)

I don’t despise people who merely wish to kill; I despise those who ACT on those feelings.

180

Thanks. Yeah, I wasn’t expressing myself too well that day, was I? I suffer from clinical depression and I was having a particularly bad bout that day. But I’m feeling MUCH better now. (Did you know depression is a form of anger?)

See my above reply to dennison.

I am an atheist. I also believe evolution is how we got here. Theoretically, I should agree with you. But I don’t. Maybe there is an evolutionary reason for this. Maybe a reluctance to kill has a genetic origin? Maybe I just didn’t inherit the killer instinct? (I don’t have the killer instinct even when I play cards. I don’t want to devastate my opponent. Just winning is enough.) And in an earlier, less-civilized time, I’d have been dead long before turning 43? Or is it cultural influence? I can’t say for sure. Can anyone?

Sorry about that.

Have you posted your reason why on any of the death penalty threads? I don’t think it serves a deterrent at all because nearly every murderer believes s/he’ll get away with it. I believe in preventing murders more than I do in punishing murderers. This does NOT mean I don’t believe in punishing murderers. But that is for another thread, another time.

Agreed. But someone who kills himself because it’s physically easy to do so is just as dead as someone who is more committed to the task.

I would feel profoundly sad for her. And wish that she could have found a better way.