Why do you have guns -- Part 2

[sbryce]

The thread was locked as I was composing my answer, so I'll start part 2.

1) Why do you feel you want/need to own guns?

I am like Colombe. Guns are not a passion for me. The right to keep and bear arms has become a passion, because of my interest in guns. My own interest in guns started out at a conference where a minister asked the question, "If a man broke into your home and attacked your wife, what would you do about it?" That got me thinking. It also got my wife thinking. What clinched it for me was John Lott's research that shows that when more responsible, law-abiding citizens own guns, crime rates drop. My primary reason for owning a gun is to increase the number of responsible, law-abiding citizens who own guns, thus decreasing the number of people willing to risk committing violent crimes in an armed society. I'm into shooting because if I own the gun, it does me no good if I can't use it.

Though I don't yet own guns that specifically serve these purposes, two other reasons I might add to the list as I add to my collection would be 1) a recreational opportunity for myself and my kids. 2) I don't trust a government that wants to disarm its citizens. If citizens have the tools to fight back against a government run amok, the government is more likely to keep itself within its proper limitations.

Beside my desire to own guns, my interest in the subject of guns in general is due to their significance in history. Much of what has happened in history is the result of armed conflicts and the outcomes of those armed conflicts. By understanding guns, we can understand the tactics used by various armies at various times in history. To paraphrase Jeff Cooper (I wish I had his exact words), if you don't understand guns, you don't understand fighting. If you don't understand fighting, you don't understand war. If you don't understand war, you don't understand history. If you don't understand history, you might as well run around with a bag over your head.

2) If your primary reason for gun ownership is self-protection, what else would make you feel more secure?

My neighbors owning guns. It is like a big shell game. Gun, gun, who has the gun? If the odds don't favor the criminals, maybe they will look for another line of work with fewer inherent risks.

3) What do you think are the causes of violence in your community?

a) The post modern worldview that would just as soon destroy human life as preserve it. There isn't really any reason not to. In fact, death and dying can be viable solutions to man's problems.
b) The existentialist worldview that makes violence a matter of personal opinion. It is neither right nor wrong, but just a personal choice.
c) The humanist worldview that makes man the center of all things and does not acknowledge a higher power of any kind who can hand down moral absolutes.
d) The materialist worldview that views people as just so many piles of hamburger. Killing a person is no different than, say, pulling weeds or swatting flies.


------------------
Those who carried materials did their work with one hand and held a weapon in the other, and each of the builders wore his sword at his side as he worked.
Nehemiah 4:17,18

 

[Dennis]

Sorry, sbryce. The first thread was way over 100K.
-----

1) Why do I own guns?

1a) I believe our Founding Fathers were pretty bright fellows. Given the state of
the art communication in their day, I’m impressed that many of them were fluent in
Greek and Latin. I am intimidated at their grasp of history and human nature.

Compare those great men with the buffoon politicians of today - snake-oil
salesmen. There is less integrity in our entire federal government than in the few
who signed the Declaration of Independence.

Those brilliant men who set this country free understood that a government must
be kept under control. A government - any government - is at best a necessary
evil.

They formed a federal government with three branches - any two of which can
completely overrule the third. Checks and balances.

They gave us trial by jury and Jury Nullification to ensure citizens could not be
punished unfairly and/or unconstitutionally. More checks and balances.

They confirmed not only the Right, but the Necessity of an armed citizenry - the
militia. Virtually all able-bodied men of reasonable age were charged with
defending this Republic from all enemies - both foreign and domestic. And the
domestic enemies our Founding Fathers feared most were government tyrants.
Therefore, our Founding Fathers said the Natural Right of the people to keep and
bear arms shall not be infringed. The greatest of the checks and balances.

I own guns because it is my obligation as an American.

1b) I am an EMT-Basic with some good ambulance experience.

I have seen the result of drunk, drugged, or just plain vicious men beating women
so badly their own Mothers could not recognize them.

I have seen the result of rape, multiple rapes, and torture.

I am married to a woman I love. I have three daughters, three sons-in-law, a
grandson and a granddaughter. I will protect each and all of them to the very best
of my ability. I will do whatever it takes to ensure none of my kin every suffer the
horrible pain and degradation suffered by those who can not, or will not, defend
themselves or their loved ones.

I do not have the physical ability to defend my loved ones, or yours, without a
viable tool.

I own guns because it is my obligation as the defender of my loved ones and others
who can not defend themselves.

1c) Firearms are tools and (to some small extent) toys.
- In my case, guns are tools, primarily for personal defense.
- But tomorrow I will be at the firing range with a former officer I served for
several years. I respect him. I enjoy being with him as we shoot at the range,
improving our skills, competing against each other, and sharing our time. He’s a
good man. He is a gentleman. I’m proud to know him. It will be a good day.

I own guns because they are fun!
-------

2) If your primary reason for gun ownership is self-protection, what else would
make you feel more secure?
- A government of honorable people with integrity who remembered the term
“public servant”. A government truly of the people, by the people and for the
people.
- A citizenry which understands how and why this nation was born and would
dedicate itself to the standards of our Founding Fathers.
- A government which “enabled” the citizenry rather than “disabled” the citizenry.
We should reward initiative, integrity, labor and success rather than punish all
aspects of industrious behavior. We should help people who need help but
encourage one and all Americans to be productive and mission oriented rather than
so incredibly self-serving.
- Fewer, simpler, more reasonable laws prohibiting acts rather than items.
- Less militarization of law enforcement.
- A court system that follows the laws rather than creatively circumventing the will
of the people.
- Truth in Sentencing. Elsewhere on this board is a reference to a criminal
sentenced to 10 years. He served 47 days, was sent to another state for rehab,
which kicked him out for bad behavior the day before he killed an innocent person.
- Total abolishment of all gun laws. Guns are tools. Punish criminal activity - not
material items. The operative phrase is “shall not be infringed”. It means what it
says.
- Reinstate Jury Nullification! Disbar any judge who falsely contends we must only
judge guilt under the law and not question the law. It is WE - the citizens - who
are in charge here.
-------
3) What do you think are the causes of violence in your community?
A plethora of mutually supportive signs of decay.

- Parents who create children through negligence, ignorance, and total lack of
concern for the child created.

- Parents who are parents in name only. Pre-occupied with “winning as many toys”
as possible, they soothe the meager remnants of their conscience with phrases such
as “for the children” and “quality time”. These parents are absentee parents who
see their kids only during a meal in front of the television before the kids go to bed.

- Many Americans have lost their sense of values. God, Honor, Country have
become Money, Whatever it takes, and the Country Club. Personal responsibility
too often has been greatly replaced by blame shifting.

- We have no leaders, no heroes, no goals, no values. When a hero appears, we
immediately destroy him in the names of Truth and Full Disclosure. We permit
nothing and no one to be a goal or a roll model. Therefore we have no goals and
we don’t know our rolls. We simply float along, hoping we’ll win the lottery - a
fool’s game. Long-term planning too often consists only of “How long can we put
off this bill before we’re in trouble?”

- We no longer extend to our neighbor the Rights and Privileges we demand for
ourselves. If I want to pray in public, you can’t because your religion is different
than mine. If you want an abortion I fight you because of my beliefs.

- We proselytize incessantly but fail to acknowledge the one universal rule found
(though worded differently) in nearly every religion or philosophy,
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

- We believe we are educated, but we know much less than the scholars of
yesteryear.
- We believe we are knowledgeable, but we haven’t yet learned how to get along
with each other.
- We believe we are superior to all other peoples, but we have lost our integrity,
our industriousness, our families, and our nation.

And this all will get worse. And it might not get better.

 

[folkbabe]

Dennis - yeah, i had noticed that from some other discussions but thanks for the note anyway

Ok, Arrel:
First of all, the post & my response mostly deal with gun control. Gun control is not my primary interest (otherwise I would have posted in "legal/political") but I did touch on it. What I am most interested in is the root causes of violence, community work, and in better serving/understanding the needs of gun owners. Anyway, my answers to the questions are my personal opinion and are not indicative of our program or what I am working on in community. In other words, I don't believe in ever using deadly force but that isn't neccessarily the position nor is it at all the focus of our program. I don't want to get into a debate over this but I am certainly willing to answer your questions. Note that on many of these topics I posted more extensively on the Ms. Boards in response to people's questions.

1) That's easy. No.

2) I don't believe it is every ethical to take human life. I believe that it is ethical for a person (men can be raped) to physically struggle with an attacker but not to do something which will result in the death of another person.

3) The link didn't work for me. However, I will say that all the statistics I've seen show considerably lower numbers of gun deaths per population in Britain than in the US.

4) There are a number of factors which contribute to gun deaths. Poverty, drug use/abuse, and culture are important factors. DC has a very high drug addiction rate and high levels of poverty.

5) No, I believe getting the hell out of the house etc is the most effective way to deal with the situation. Other than that, it depends on the situation.

6) I don't think anyone has the right to take another human life.

7) I don't believe ownership of small arms are an effective or moral answer to tyranny.

8) This is a two part question. First of all, I don't agree with the studies that say firearm ownership reduces violent crime. Second, I don't believe using firearms on people is moral so that sortof defeats their usefulness as a self-defense tool. Third, I don't think the US politicians or media have a specific plan regarding the disarming of citizens. I don't think the present small arm ownership in this country is an effective threat to the government anyway so disarmerment isn't neccessary. They control through propaganda not force.

9) See 2.

10) I have MAJOR problems with the US media. I don't think they provide a diversity of viewpoints or in depth analysis. They present fluff, period.

11) I don't support door-to-door searches for guns.

12) see 2, also, widespread availability of weapons means "criminals" can also get them easily.

13) see 8.

14) I support addressing the reasons why so many people end up "violent criminals".

15) First, I don't support anyone living behind walls or having armed guards (see 2). Second, I don't understand what you mean by "Can you understand why tolerance pushed beyond a limit of fairness leads to justifiable anger?". Do you mean why you are annoyed at our "leaders"? In that case, yes, I do. Yes, I think it is indefensible politicians surround themselves with armed guards (see 2). No, of course a politicians life is not worth more than anyone elses (although it may be in more danger).

16) The conglomeration of the media and the way the corporations act as if they own OUR airwaves is an issue I've worked a lot on. It's off-topic, but if you're interested in my opinions, I posted a bit on the Ms. Board about it (I don't remember where). I suspect the reason the media is biased is because they genuinely support gun control but that doesn't mean they have the right to control OUR airwaves.

17) See 2, but also the way the question is worded is misleading. If a criminal buys a gun from a store he/she will have the same waiting period as the wife (as will the ex-spouse which might give him a chance to cool off). If the wife buys a gun on the street she also will have no waiting period.

18) See 2.

19) See 2, and no, I don't think the society would deteriorate to "utter lawlessness". If we build a society that values life and is just then we won't have as many people breaking laws.

20) No, because swimming pools have a purpose other than taking life (as, it can be argued do guns but sport/collecting reasons aren't why most people in my area have guns). Also, I'm not neccessarily advocating for a total gun ban which these questions seem to be implying.

21) See 2. (these questions seem a little repetetive considering I'm not going to take human life anyway)

22) See 20.

23) Car manufacturers have been sued when cars are sold without needed safety mechanisms. The gun lawsuit (at least in my town) went after the fact that certain guns are disproportionately used in crimes and therefore the manufacturer was negligent in continuing their selling practices. I don't neccessarily agree with this legal position however.

24) No, obviously. See above posts on anyone's right to use deadly force. Anyway, I suspect the exemption applies to security guards not just anyone with money or jewellry. That doesn't change my answer but it might other people's.

25) Um, I suspect the reason I'm supposed to care about this distiction is the arguement of National Guard as state militia. I don't support the militarized national guard any more than I do the US military so I guess it doesn't apply to me.

26) I believe the arguement is that the national guard is the modern form of the militia. However, I really don't care about this debate. I think if we're gonna ban firearm (and not that I'm not neccessarily advocating this) then we should do it by mounting a challenge to the existance of the second amendment not by trying to circumvent it.

27) I don't believe in ANYONE taking human life. Yes, that includes the police, national guard, military, etc. Yes, that means I don't think they should have their fancy toys (be that small arms or bombers) I obviously don't believe in the police using excessive force.

28) See above!

29) no, and see 26.

30) see 2.

31) No, see someplace above done seriously, I'm more interested in other things than gun control but I personally don't support killing other people. That pretty much sums up all my above answers.

 

[Juan Hunt Greer]

Being a VERY poor typist (hunt & peck) as well as the fact that most things have been well covered, I am only going to address one thing, really. In many places thoughout your posts, You state that You do not believe in anybody taking another human life for any reason. I'm afraid that that is one viewpoint which I don't think I could ever understand. Self defense is the most basic level of MORAL action of which we are capable. When attacked with deadly means and intent, there is seldom any recourse other than the choice of fighting back with deadly force, or simply giving up and dying. If You are willing to take that position/choice, then I am afraid that You are beyond being a "sheeple", that You are actually at an evolutionary dead end. crankshaft

 

[Arrell]

Folkbabe,
Respectfully dear, so don't get me wrong. Let me get this straight, under no circumstances would you use deadly force. You wouldn't use deadly force to protect your life or the life of an innocent child? Possibly your own child?

Okay for the sake of argument, say a man intent on raping a young girl in her early teens, had her stripped and pinned down in an alley and you had the chance to use his gun that he just layed down on the ground, to shoot him. You wouldn't shoot?

A man much larger and stronger than anybody you have ever seen, breaks into your apartment, you investigate, find him in the kitchen, and he attacks you, you have an opportunity to grab a butcher knife and sink it into his chest. Will you take it?

Armed resistance to tyranny is what this Nation is founded on. You wouldn't support armed resistance to oppression and tyranny? What if the government wanted to do away with the First Ammendment to the U S Constitution, or the Fourth or the Fifth for that matter. Would you support resistance?

You seem like a civil disobedience kind of person to me and that will get you no where. The powers that be won't even listen to you. They will just throw you in jail. Civil disobedience won't work in this climate.

Arrell

 

[folkbabe]

I'm a pacifist. I don't think it is moral to take another human life, no matter what. This is a personal position based largely on my belief that "there is that of god in every person." In a rape situation, I would do whatever I could to help the person (this might include physically grappling with the attacker, getting help, etc) not including taking life. I consider my position to be one of stregnth because it means I am recognizing that there are not black & white good guys/bad guys and because it allows me to resist without losing the high moral ground. Non-violence leads to creative solutions and positive change instead of violence which just becomes a negative cycle. (sorry about the slogans, I've been working on a few to many non-violence & conflict resolution programs recently )

On the topic of resistance, we just had this discussion on the Ms. Board. http://www.msmagazine.com/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000450.html
to quote myself:
1) Shooting cops, even in response to police brutality, is the fastest way I can think of (perhaps short of assassinations) to turn the general public against your cause. It also gives the establishment an excuse to stomp you very hard and people will think it is justified. When you reply with violence to violence you lose moral authority. Unless you're already strong enough to simply overthrow the system you're not going to get very far by giving the system an excuse to crush you at the same time you alienate the general public. Besides, individual cops are not the enemy. Acting as if they were just divides the working class.

2) Small arms are not a very effective means to overthrow the system. They may function as an effective means to harass the establishment (which is essentially how they were used in Somalia against US troops) but if you're actually trying to take over the center of power you ain't gonna defeat their tanks/helicopters/bombers with a couple of submachine guns.

Civil disobediance / non-violent direct action is the only way to effectively fight for change because anything else and you're not going to be around very long. Armed rebellion is not, IMHO, an effective way to build a new society because when you form armies to fight in your armed rebellion you are setting up heirarchical structures. What you end up with is just a new boss. Also, the technological divide between the people and the government is much greater now than it was during the war for independence.

 

[chink]

folkbabe,

you don't have to kill people or be able to kill people just because you are using a gun for self defense or because you own guns. a lot of gun shot wounds don't kill. shots the the leg, arms, lower part of the torso, most of those will not kill as easily as they do on tv. I now own 5 guns and never intend to shoot a living thing. just paper and cans. that brings me a great sense of satisfaction

If you were/are in my area I would be happy to take you out to the range so that you can expereince the what joying bring me and no doubt many of the people that reside here.

------------------
It ain't mah fault. did I do dat?
http://yellowman.virtualave.net/

 

[Hal]

folk:
There is no such thing as Gun Violence. It ain't even good English. You talk against propaganda, yet use the terms of propaganda? There is violence, a human attribute, and there are guns, inanimate objects. It's really a very silly term. How's this sound?
Pool Violence.
Match/Gasoline Violence.
Car Violence.
Ladder violence.
All of the above are involved in far more homicides than guns, but just don't have the *ring* that gun violence does.

RE: Gun deaths in other countries;
Also another trap. With fewer guns, there are of course fewer gun deaths.(really another misnomer)Look at the total number of homicides and include suicides as is done in US statistics. You will find the numbers are pretty much equal. Violence isn't constrained by the tools available.


RE: Toys of destruction. (ie:guns and bombers) Please! Don't belittle the actions that remove what you supposedly hold sacred by referring to weapons as toys. None of my guns are toys. 6 million Jews were shown the door by men with evil in their hearts, and a belief in an evil government. I doubt any of them felt they were being held by men with toys.

I admit, I admire you for the courage of your convictions. I disagree with a number of your points, but give you due respect for having the sand to be straightforeward. I believe you share many of the goals of the members of these forums as far as society is concerned. Violence is the disease, not the tools that are used to spread the disease. Guns aren't even a symptom of the disease.

Lastly, you may be very surprised at the number of "older" people on the internet. Us oldsters and semi-oldsters have more free time than the youngsters do. E-commerce is targeting the 50 and above catagory for that very reason.(I'm only 48, but close enough since I got an early start )

In answer to your original questions:
1.) What msot everybody else said.
2.) Pretty much what's been said.
3.)Easy one! Same as every other community!
neglect

 

[George Hill]

http://home.att.net/~superspy/translat.htm

 

[foxfire]

folkbabe,

First off: Welcome to TFL!

Tho, we may agree to disagree, it's always good to hear from someone who can coherently express their thoughts, to those of us who are 'endlessly preaching amongst ourselves, here in the choir'.
I respect your views.

In answer to the original question:
Because I still can...for now
But I fear that someday soon, I won't...





------------------
...defend the 2nd., it protects us all.
No fate but what we make...

[This message has been edited by foxfire (edited May 19, 2000).]

 

[Glamdring]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by folkbabe:
I'm a pacifist. I don't think it is moral to take another human life, no matter what. This is a personal position based largely on my belief that "there is that of god in every person." In a rape situation, I would do whatever I could to help the person (this might include physically grappling with the attacker, getting help, etc) not including taking life.

On the topic of resistance, we just had this discussion on the Ms. Board. http://www.msmagazine.com/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000450.html
to quote myself:
1) Shooting cops, even in response to police brutality, is the fastest way I can think of (perhaps short of assassinations) to turn the general public against your cause. It also gives the establishment an excuse to stomp you very hard and people will think it is justified. When you reply with violence to violence you lose moral authority. Unless you're already strong enough to simply overthrow the system you're not going to get very far by giving the system an excuse to crush you at the same time you alienate the general public. Besides, individual cops are not the enemy. Acting as if they were just divides the working class.

2) Small arms are not a very effective means to overthrow the system. They may function as an effective means to harass the establishment (which is essentially how they were used in Somalia against US troops) but if you're actually trying to take over the center of power you ain't gonna defeat their tanks/helicopters/bombers with a couple of submachine guns.

Civil disobediance / non-violent direct action is the only way to effectively fight for change because anything else and you're not going to be around very long. Armed rebellion is not, IMHO, an effective way to build a new society because when you form armies to fight in your armed rebellion you are setting up heirarchical structures. What you end up with is just a new boss. Also, the technological divide between the people and the government is much greater now than it was during the war for independence.[/quote]

Hmm non violent resistance. I do not understand that concept. Picture Gandi in Nazi or Soviet controled country. Have you ever researched what real oppression is like? Do you have first hand experiance of pysical or sexual violence?

As to small arms not being effective against governments. I sugest Che Guevara's "Guerrilla Warfare". If you don't know who Che is you need to find out. Or consider Viet Nam the VC side vs US government (with US's hands tied behind back but still B 52's naval bombardments, etc. vs. light infantry for the most part with some artillery and a little armor and the US had air superiority which is THE main concern according to our doctrine).

Mao Tse Tung prior to WW II. Or consider many South American countries now.

Have you looked at the Jewish fight against the Nazis in the ghettos? I don't have that link bookmarked but I am sure several people here do. I need to dig it up in my email.

As to the statistics for other countries vs the US. I did a research project on that in college that was funded in part by a research grant. There are many methodological issues when comparing crime statistics. Are the laws the same, are the reporting methods the same, etc. I stuck to murder rates because there was less confusion on what murder is/was. But there are still problems. Example in the UK they seem to exclude homicides that are related to the Troubles from murder statistics.

Does infantcide count? Does abortion? If government or others using guns to keep people from eating (ie starving them) does that count?

The only accurate way to compare stats between countries is when a research groups using the same techniques for data collection surveys "equal" areas in two different countries. Then at least if they are honest the data is collected the same way. Still leaves the problem of what areas you are comparing.

Your comment: "...you are setting up heirarchical structures." I believe you mean hierarchy (I hate typos! I make plenty of them ). And replaceing one boss with another. That may be but if the structure is different it may well allow for a better life for all? Hitler was replaced by "another boss" based on a hierarchy but I think it was an improvement.

As to losing "moral authority" you lose all authority when you are dead. I strongly suggest you read the novel "Starship Troopers" by Robert Heinlein, not the movie!!! Heinlein was addressing this issue thru much of the book, which of course appeared not at all in the movie.

[This message has been edited by Glamdring (edited May 19, 2000).]

 

[Arrell]

Furthermore Folkbabe, my liberal friend,

My kids won't be playing with your kids. If and when you have children, I suggest that you inform the parents of any children that may want to play with your kids at your house that you will not defend their kids with any degree of efficiancy ( I know, run on sentence). See how many playmates that your kids have after that.

As for moral high ground, my dear, I suspect that you don't subscribe to any one "religious" belief. I really wasn't going to go there but since you brought up morals...God ordained self defense; Luke 11:21, and Luke 22:36. And several more verses, but you get the drift. Thou shat not kill is correctly interpreted thou shalt not commit murder, Matt 19:18. Our morals come from the Judeo-Christian belief system, they are not some man made set of rules. Life is a gift from God, and He dosen't want us to stand around an be violated and killed.

See, we play nice. It is good to have someone of differing opinions, who is not an instigating troll, once in a while.

Arrell

 

[RWK]

Folkbabe,

In the first, now-closed thread, you were kind enough to state: "ps - thank you very much JimFox and RWK for your lengthy and informative responses." I appreciate your sincere desire to learn what motivates the gun-owning community. I wish to add a brief comment re pacifism.

I respect your view, although I do not share it. Simply stated, I believe I have a duty to protect myself, my family, and my nation and its citizen from evil. This is not mere rhetoric or idealism; I spent over twenty years in uniform as a Naval officer, serving in peace and war, in the United Sates, overseas, and at sea.

What I learned during that lengthy and arduous service is the world -- most unfortunately -- has much evil, immorality, and crime. This can be as localized as the individual one-on-one felonies that plague our society or as massive as the Soviet and Nazi regimes' murder of millions of innocents.

In almost all cases along this sad continuum, however, these selfish criminals recognize power -- and the willingness and ability to use it effectively. What stopped the Fascists over fifty years ago, what defeated Communism a decade ago, and what stops criminals from preying on individuals today is identical: Realization that their unlawful and anti-humanitarian acts will be severely punished.

Unfortunately, pacifists want it "both ways":
> They want to live in a society that benefits (e. g., liberty, freedom, and justice) from the "law enforcement" activities provided by the police, the military, and individuals who put their lives in jeopardy.
> However, they are unwilling to make equal sacrifices for our collective security.

 

[Bob Locke]

What Dennis said in the second post.

[This message has been edited by Bob Locke (edited May 19, 2000).]

 

[Gopher .45]

1) Why do I feel you want/need to own guns? As an option for protection. Before having a family, my first option was to vacate the problem area. With my family, my first duty is to see that they vacate the problem area. For this reason, we own firearms, but also cell phones, fire extinguishers, first aid kits, etc. If the issue is interpersonal violence, a gun provides an option to neutralize the threat until my family is safe. The same goes for the fire extinguisher. It is there so that small fires might be dowsed, but also just to open a path out of the house so that we can get safely away. I am a big fan of "The best defense is to not be there." Oh, and the adults are proficient with all the important equipment, cross-trained. Mom is responsible for the kids when Dad isn't around to be responsible for Mom and the kids. No chauvanism intended. I just grew up where the father takes care of everyone else first. The kids aren't big enough for any of this yet.

2) Since my primary reason for gun ownership is self-protection, what else would make me feel more secure? As soon as funds permit, I will have a stone castle, moat, and a 007ish escape pod.

3) What do I think are the causes of violence in your community? Kids hopped up on drugs. Adults hopped up on drugs. People who want what I got but they aren't willing to work for in a legal manner.


[This message has been edited by Gopher .45 (edited May 19, 2000).]

 

[scud]

Goverment check & balance.

[This message has been edited by scud (edited May 19, 2000).]

 

[Stephen Ewing]

Just one thought on pacifism: Sometimes you don't get to decide if anybody dies. Only who dies.

Steve

 

[RikWriter]

folkbabe, just so you won't think that your pacifist position is merely untenable to fundamentalists, I am an agnostic and I think it is ridiculous as well.
folkbabe, humans are NOT gods. Humans are animals, primates to be specific, and have the inclination to be just as violent as any chimp you see at the zoo. If you walk around with your head in the clouds expecting some rapist or crackhead to respect your pacifism, all you'll be doing is selecting yourself out of the gene pool...which means your enlightened tendencies won't spread very far.
folkbabe, let me set you straight on a myth of which you seem enamored: that human life (or life in general) is precious. Human life may be precious to you, but it doesn't mean spit in the real world. People die every day in myriad horrible ways, people are discarded like garbage. Life in the real world is full of suffering and death...Mother Nature is not some beatific goddess looking out for us, she's a cold-hearted witch that doesn't care if children die or innocents suffer.
If human life is precious to you, affecting "high morals" won't preserve it...only fighting for it will preserve it. Some of the most TRULY enlightened people to ever walk this earth knew that.
Life is a struggle...each individual life and the very process of life. To pretend it is some fairyland Peacable Kingdom where the lion will lay down with the lamb and rapists will suddenly see the light when confronted with pacifist victims is basically suicide.
You seem like a nice person...it would be shame to see you throw away your own life like that. It would be doubly a shame to see you throw away the life of someone who doesn't share your unrealistic pacifism by refusing to help them to the best of your ability.
I am sorry if I am coming across as harsh in this reply, but I think it's important you really consider the ramifications of this philosophy of yours.


[This message has been edited by RikWriter (edited May 19, 2000).]

 

[jeffer]

Short and sweet, I like to shoot--target shoot.
If the time comes to defend my child and I do nothing I would want to die myself.

 

[Oleg Volk]

I used to be a pacifist because I did not think there was anything for which I would kill another or subject myself to the possibility of getting killed.

I am no longer a pacifist because I later realized that some people (my family and friends, for me) are worth defending with my life and with utmost severity to the attacker. I agree that others might not share my view and wouldn't much mind if they do not defend themselves (and would not defend them out of respect of their views). I also hope that pacifists would extend the same courtesy to me.

Human life is precious IF that human is not preying on others. The momemnt a human ceases to respect life and liberty of another, they become mere dangerous predators in my eyes, subject to the same measures as any aggressive rabid animal threatening me or mine.