The more anyone contributes to this thread (or any of the last 10 Craig seems to start on the same topic - is some fiendish advertising revenue scam afoot?), the more it's obvious simple solutions miss the point. I noticed a statistical analysis of racial profiling the other day which demonstrated it's actually better to go for random searching in trying to spot terrorists. The key point was that racial profiling is about as much use as searching for the elusive needle in a haystack and thus diverts efforts away from the point it's actually needed at. I think the gun debate suffers from something similar. The answer to gangs and guns is heavy duty policing backed up with jobs, dignity and exile from our communities for those who will not take a proper part - not anti-gun laws - and so on. We should be more particularist. One would, of course, have to be careful about what 'proper' means. Throughout our societies, decisions are being made for the wrong reasons and faulty debates are being touted around to allow this to continue. In the UK, I suspect one becomes liable if one fails to provide comestibles of insufficient quality for the proper enjoyment of burglars whilst they are screwing your property. The reason, Craig, for removing points from kitchen knives in the UK, may well be to avoid law suits from burglars who prick themselves with them. Miles away in logical progression, if we take a look at people in the UK and US who come to criminal attention, we find 90% are mentally disturbed and needed interventions when they were much younger to prevent them criminalising. They didn't get interventions because budgets are too tight - in the UK intervention is a local authority cost at the early stage and becomes a national cost on criminalisation (one of the worst examples of the need for proper understandings of public choice theories I know of). If we could get stuff like this right I doubt we'd need to be much bothered about "guns". Legislation often fails us because it is written by interests so "vested" that the legislation written could never be applied. Human rights apply to Joe and Jenny scumbag, but not their victims and so on. All this "conversation" with a 6ft blue rabbit version of Craig comes from a pretty gentle guy who is primarily a liberal. Much as I would like Craig (or me) to be able to blow away bastards threatening our nearest in our own homes, I prefer a society that has looked deeper than this and outlawed gun possession other than in strictly defined circumstances. I'd go further and stop the idiot violence in films and television, and use more television and film to promote morality (but zoiks - just imagine how this could go wrong). All argument on these matters tends to stop short and lack objectivity. I would hope everyone has gathered I rather like Craig and Chris - in practice there is often a need to shed the skin of argumentative pretences - and, if you like, shoot the burglar. The moral arguments extend far further than any trust I might put in them to shoot the right people for the right reasons (we can't even trust our specially trained cops to do this in the UK). Simply from a utilitarian perspective one can wonder whether Craig saving this family is moral set against all the innocents who die because the US has not become a relatively non-gun type of place like the UK. This said, I still carry a gun on occasion abroad because of my judgement on the risks. I might well buy one if I was a US citizen. The situation is confused and we should be trying to describe it as such. A little ridicule, like running contests guessing at the degrees of redness of Craig's neck or my waistline to the nearest yard, could well promote some deconstruction.
On 4 Feb, 17:00, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > Lee, > Again, all well and good. You keep doing what you do. Not telling > you to stop. Seems like its served you well. I'm not telling you we > should make it a law that you should have a gun in your home and that > you should kill intruders. I'm glad the burglars that came into your > home, without your permission, didn't hurt you, and didn't get hurt in > return. Doesn't sound like you have been so lucky every time, but > thats the risk you take. I for one will not take that risk with my > family, nor with my own life. Your ideals are your ideals, and mine > are mine. I do presume that someone who breaks into my house is there > to do harm. If I have the opportunity of course I will do everything > in my power to avoid shooting them, but not at the risk of my family > being hurt. > > On Feb 4, 9:54 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hey KC, > > > Yes I realise this, what I'm really saying is that this presumption > > that you speak of is that, a presumtion, and a wrong one I belive. > > > And that this fear thing is not a great reason for gun advocates. > > > I have lived 40 years now and I have been burgurld twice during this > > time, in both cases the intruders took stuff out of the house and left > > me and mine alone. > > > Who's to say what may have happend had my father woke up and disturbed > > them, but I'll not assume that me and my family would then have been > > murdered. > > > Also during my 40 years I have had to protect myself and my family and > > often times this involved violence,(I was in fact the boy that carried > > his stabbed dad back home) yet I have never owned a gun and I manage > > to protect my self and my family fine without one. > > > Is fear really the best argument for pro guns? > > > On 4 Feb, 15:22, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Lee, > > > I can understand your personal feelings on the matter. Its very > > > understandable that you could never imagine yourself killing another > > > human being. That is a very good thing, by all means. And most gun > > > owners can never imagine it either. They aren't sitting in their > > > house, watching the clock, just hoping someone breaks in tonight so > > > that they can "bust a cap in their ass". If you think the risk of > > > shooting an "innocent" intruder isn't worth the benefit of protecting > > > yourself from truly malicious intruders, then thats perfectly your > > > decision to make. Someone who is a pro gun advocate is not telling > > > you that he wants to force you to keep a gun in your home and to shoot > > > intruders. He is only saying, leave me alone, let me do what I think > > > is right, which is protecting my life, and my families life. There is > > > a presumption, at least in the state in which I live, that if someone > > > is wrongfully in your home, especially at night, that they are there > > > to harm you. Everyone knows this. Everyone knocks on the door before > > > they go into your home. Burglars who are sneaking around at night in > > > someone's home are assuming the risk that they may be shot. They all > > > know this, and yet they think the benefit of what they will get in > > > that house, is worth the risk of getting shot. So no one is saying > > > you have to keep a gun Lee. We aren't going to try to convince you > > > that its a good idea. We are only saying, leave us alone, let us do > > > what we believe is the right thing to do. > > > > On Feb 4, 5:14 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > And this nicely sums up my stance. > > > > > There are those that will tell you they fell safe carrying a gun, safe > > > > from intruders to their homes, and safe from muggers on the the street > > > > and safe from the tiny percentage of other gus owneres that may go > > > > mental. > > > > > These same people will often tell you that they would kill an intruder > > > > to their house. Now this is the one tha t always gets me. > > > > > Partly I dislike the thought of gun ownership, because I know that I > > > > just could not point one at another human and pull the trigger, to > > > > imagine the mental anguish that I would go through being responsible > > > > for the death of another human, nope, just not for me. Added to this > > > > the reasons quoted for doing so. > > > > > To stop an intruder in your house, you have no idea what they are > > > > there for, whether they are armed or not, but because they have broken > > > > into your house you are allowed to kill them. > > > > > That seems like madness to me, and it worries me greatly that people > > > > cannot see it. > > > > > The very idea of guns to protect from guns, is a ludicrus circle that > > > > will not be broken with that argument. > > > > > On 2 Feb, 16:36, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Ian, > > > > > Its hard to tell who is more scared, it all depends on who is making > > > > > the argument. A couple years ago we had a controversy on our campus > > > > > at the University of Idaho about the right to carry on campus. In > > > > > Idaho you can carry anywhere you want, other than a courthouse. > > > > > However, the Universities have "policies" that say no carrying on > > > > > campus. Universities are state run institutions, and Idaho has > > > > > preemption laws that say the state legislature is the only one allowed > > > > > to legislate gun laws. Anyway, we had a public forum at the > > > > > University where we all got together to discuss the issue. I found it > > > > > interesting that both sides appealed to fear in their arguments. The > > > > > students against conceal carry on campus said that they wouldn't feel > > > > > safe knowing that people were packing guns, the students for conceal > > > > > carry were saying, they didn't feel safe being disarmed on a campus > > > > > where the closest law enforcement is at least ten minutes away, a lot > > > > > of people could get messed up before any law enforcement showed up. > > > > > One girl who was against concealed carry was from the UK, and she > > > > > swore that if we were allowed to carry on campus that she would have > > > > > to drop out of school. It turned into a pissing match over who was > > > > > more scared. Your experience is probably derived from the fact that > > > > > many people own guns because they are scared. They would be scared > > > > > with or without guns, but it is the fear that drives them to > > > > > purchase. So it isn't the gun that causes the fear, the gun is just a > > > > > result. > > > > > > On Feb 2, 9:16 am, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > 2009/2/2 Slip Disc <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > I was staggered to see how many people actually gave away the only > > > > > > > real protection they have. > > > > > > > You demonstrate perfectly the great irony at play here. People who > > > > > > own guns, > > > > > > in my experience, overwhelmingly feel less safe that those who do > > > > > > not own > > > > > > guns. > > > > > > > Single gun theory, my friend. > > > > > > > Ian- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
