And that comes down to social infrastructure, opportunity, and hope.
If I promise that you will always always always have the right to keep and
bear arms, can we have socialized college level education for high school
graduates with a 3.0 or better GPA who perform 20 hours a month of community
service, and universal general health care services (no specialists, no
elective medical, no cosmetic), all paid for with a 5% increase in the
income tax?

On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Neil,
> I agree with you there.  The biggest issue is a social issue.  Guns
> are not conscious, like you said I proved (although I don't know how
> or when).  People are conscious.  We have societies with loose gun
> control laws and low gun crime, societies with strict gun control laws
> and low gun crime, societies with loose gun control laws and high gun
> crime, and societies with strict gun control laws, and high gun
> crime.  Since it appears that the correlation between gun control laws
> and gun crime are mere correlation, there must be something else going
> on.  That something else involves a social problem.  I have guns, and
> I've never used them in an illegal manner, nor will I ever.  The
> bloods and the crypts have guns, and they most assuredly will use them
> in an illegal manner.  I grew up with good discipline, I'm suspecting
> they did not.  Maybe that is where the focus of solutions should be.
> Focus on the reason for the behavior, not on the means in which they
> act out.
>
> On Feb 2, 12:22 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to