Roger Waters notes that kids who wrote poetry in your day were also not popular, singled out and held up for ridicule, and that the old ways were best, old chap. The biggest brute who smashes the most noses in Rugby will be the one who gets the girl, no? Collective punishment is an expression of pack mentality, where the alpha still reins supreme, and pack mentality is exactly what is so often the source of acts of violence, since individual morals often give way in the face of the will of the herd. This day and yours are not so disconnected, my friend.
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 2:22 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > Britain is a place where we have idiots who talk about snapping knife- > points off to defend cabbages in the kitchen and samurai swords on > sale in order that "collectors" can hang them over the mantel piece of > their social housing. The laughter stops when one realises the people > who allow both situations make decisions that end up with decent cops > shot in front of their families. Craig has proved yet again that guns > appear not to be conscious, no doubt Chris agrees and a whole shed- > load of useless figures have been thrown about. As usual it is not > easy to compare like with like and no one shows any sign of real > statistical analysis - identifying relevant populations, samples, > techniques, questions and doing iterative work. We are short of facts > and long on people claiming them and getting offended. > Amongst one thing I'd like to know is how many of the people getting > killed by guns are worth giving a second thought to. There clearly > are some, and also clearly more of such in mega-numbers in military > ventures. Much further down the line from this posturing I also > wonder whether heavy policing (maybe on the Japanese model?) might get > into the idiot, illegal issue of guns and other violence. Kids who > disrupted classrooms in my day were not popular and held in check by > their peers, who did not want to suffer the inevitable collective > punishment. Much in this area eventually comes down to compromise and > the need for control beyond legislation. > > On 2 Feb, 19:03, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > > That's crazy! I didn't know that! Here is a link to the texas law. > http://www.self-defender.net/law3.htm > > Idaho does not have a law like that. And the texas law appears to be > > limited to intruders in the night. I would argue that the rationale > > behind the texas law is still supported by the original purpose of > > protecting the individual when the individual has a reasonable fear > > for his life or serious bodily harm. If someone comes onto your > > property in the night time to take your things, its very likely you > > will be unable to ascertain whether that person is armed or not, this > > creates a very dangerous situation for you, and the state is willing > > to find a self defense situation here. > > > > On Feb 2, 11:56 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I agree that deadly force should only be used to protect life and > > > bodily harm. However, in Texas, it is legal to protect property with > > > deadly force. This is why Joe Horn didn't go to jail for murder. I > > > recommend against it. I'd rather be out a few thousand dollars worth > > > of 'stuff' then deal with the publicity and hounding involved in > > > killing someone. I must say I prefer having the option to protect my > > > property with deadly force. I hope the thieves keep this in mind as > > > well. > > > > > dj > > > > > On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > gruff, > > > > I don't know what you mean by the forum turning political and > > > > moralist. I thought we had a pretty good discussion going. > > > > And I wanted to add to your self defense discussion. (this is fresh > in > > > > my mind because I'm studying for the bar exam) Self defense can only > > > > be obtained by using reasonable force. Reasonable force is > determined > > > > by looking at what force is being used against the defender. If the > > > > person is coming at you with fists, and is about the same size as > you, > > > > then you can't pull a gun out and shoot them, this would be > > > > unreasonable. Also, you can't use deadly force to defend property. > > > > Sometimes people get confused about this because self defense is > > > > obviously viable in a home invasion situation. However, the > rationale > > > > behind the home invasion self defense is that you are protecting your > > > > life and your families life, not your valuables or your physical > > > > home. When someone invades your home, there is a presumption that > you > > > > have a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury. > > > > I think its important that we understand the self defense defense > when > > > > having a gun discussion, because it often turns into straw man > > > > argument about people protecting their belongings by deadly force and > > > > how human life is more precious than worldly goods. So thanks for > > > > bringing it up. > > > > > > On Feb 2, 10:54 am, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> How did a forum on guns turn so political and moralist? > > > > > >> Fact: The U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled last year that the 2nd > > > >> Amendment covered every citizens' right to own and possess a gun > > > >> except those legally so prohibited. > > > > > >> Fact: In the vast majority of crimes committed with guns, those guns > > > >> were acquired illegally -- usually theft or purchase on the black > > > >> market. > > > > > >> Fact: There is no way to prevent tragedies such as Columbine other > > > >> than the family, friends and authority figures seeing the devolution > > > >> of the perpetrator's mental condition before the tragedy and > treating > > > >> him or her. > > > > > >> Fact: Anyone who wants a gun can lay their hands on one, legally or > > > >> illegally. > > > > > >> Fact: In most states in the U.S. -- the only country I can speak for > > > >> with some credibility -- self defense is a viable defense in the use > > > >> of a weapon against another -- but only until the threat is removed > or > > > >> quashed. In other words, if someone breaks in your house and when > you > > > >> confront them they turn and run, the threat is removed and the > > > >> resident no longer has the availability of self defense as a defense > > > >> should he (or she) shoot the intruder in the back. In other words, > > > >> self defense is only viable while the threat exists. Once the > threat > > > >> is removed, self defense is no longer viable. > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
