A certain caustic view here would brand Craig as "anally retentive". Frederick Taylor, the scientific management man, actually was, refusing even as a child to play baseball until he had measured the court. But let's not subject our friend to such character assassination by analysis - no doubt we can find easier ways! Anyway, I have a fire extinguisher in my mail box, smoke alarms and an escape ladder. I slept with a gun under my bed for several years. Craig seems to be talking sense here, yet emotions like fear can coexist with sense like this. My partner is hopeless at maintaining anything, happy with the fire precautions and scared I may be attacked even if the precautions are sensible. And there is another notion of fear that involves paranoia which is not addressed here. Sooner or later one can at least consider that it is safer not to possess guns for a community, and that individual rights can make the community as a whole suffer as in the tragedy of the commons. I had reasons for the gun under my bed (sadly there are reasons for the fire precautions too). Craig has stated his on many occasions. It maybe my circumstances were an exception to the rule. I do not keep a gun now and feel this is better than keeping one. What would the particularist accounts be here?
Somewhere, we do need to consider how vendettas end, how people return to peace and so on in deciding what holding weapons is all about. I can say that being unarmed against armed bad guys is very, very scary. I'm probably still traumatised by some incidents - the trauma comes way after the incidents themselves as a rule. Yet I only took up arms in order that (hopefully) there would be a day in which they were not needed. Guns have been given up in Ireland in substantial fashion, and one reason for this is that the cops are capable of doing a better job now than back in the late 60s. Maybe Craig fears a form of peace in which his manly protectiveness is no longer needed (I have no real clue) - I have seen worse reasons, based on loss of identity. The lack of a prospect of a world with sufficiently low levels of violence worries me. On 6 Feb, 17:56, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > On Feb 6, 10:01 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hey KC, > > > First off realise that my comments are as a direct consequence of > > certian comments made by SD. So any questions asked were directed to > > SD and because of what he has said. > > I understood that your comments were directed at SD, however I > responded to them in furtherance of the discussion of whether gun > rights are a good thing or not. Any response you made to SD I assumed > was in furtherance of that discussion, not necessarily personal > responses to SD. > > > > > You don't see the differance in sentiment between calling somebody a > > cockroach and an animal? > > > When the term animal is used to describe somebody it is generaly done > > so to show that I feel that persons actions are not fitting behaviour > > for one human to treat another. > > > To call somebody a cockroach conjures up the image of iradication, to > > call somebody a cockroach would generaly mean that I consider that > > person to be beneath humanity and should be got rid off. Indeed read > > SD's post to which mine was a reply, and tell me that you do not 'see' > > this also. > > I think SD was playing with rhetoric. The same passion you would feel > in calling someone an animal when you disagree with their behavior. > However, if it ever happened that someone did break into your home and > harm you, I think you would think of the most dehumanizing words to > call that person. Even even if that meant calling them a cockroach. > However, that is neither here nor there, this is irrelevant to the > larger discussion. > > > > > Do I think all gun owners are cowards? No I don't belive I said this > > at all. I did ask SD, based on his adimision that he has not actualy > > ever had to use his guns on an invader of his house, also based on > > his comments that 'he has heard...' > > whether or not then that he would agree with me that fear is still his > > motivation for keeping his guns. You'll notice that I used the phrase > > 'So what you are saying then...' > > > I'm not sure how you read this, but it looks to me rather like I am > > asking SD for clarifycation on his point. > > > As to the fear aspect. Again this is really just a repetition of my > > previous question. You state it is about saftey, yet if SD has not > > actualy ever had to use his guns to protect his home, then it is clear > > that up to this point he has not needed to have them. > > > In that case, if he has not needed them, why keep ahold of them? It > > can't be because of the experiances that he has had, it must be > > because of the experiances that he fears he may have one day. > > I have a fire extinguisher in my home. I make sure that its always > charged. I have to check it on a regular occasion. Its a burden, but > I must do it in order to make sure I have a means of putting out the > fire if one should ever occur. I've never had a fire. I've never had > to use it. Do you think I should get rid of it? I wear my seat belt > when I get in my car. Never do I put my car in drive without putting > my seat belt on. I've never been in a wreck. Do you think I should I > should quit wearing it? I could go on and on about the things we do > for safety, but I think you get the point. Just because you've never > had to use a gun, doesn't mean its not a good idea to have one, just > in case. > > > > > To be safe, to feel that you want to keep safe, surly requires a fear > > of whatever it is that you want to be safe from, doesn't it? > > Again, my question was, what you meant by fear. Just because I have a > fire extinguisher in my home, doesn't mean I have a constant nagging > fear that my house is going to burn down. In fact I never think about > it. I don't really think its going to. But there is no reason it > couldn't happen. So I keep a fire extinguisher. I don't fear, I just > know that its possible that a fire could one day happen. So, I guess > what I'm saying is, it could be fear, but that depends on how you > define fear. I think a more accurate word is that you apprehend the > danger, and provide for it. > > > > > I use the green cross code as I was taugh as a child when I cross the > > street. > > > I can say this is because I want to remain safe whilst crossing the > > road, but that is just semantic playfullness. It boils down to a fear > > of being hit and injured or killed by a car. > > > On 6 Feb, 16:09, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Feb 6, 6:49 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > You see SD what I get most out of this is that your choice of words > > > > clearly show how differantly we view certian subjects. > > > > > 'Vermin','Cockroaches'. > > > > > I may call them criminals, perhaps even animals if I was pissed off, > > > > but I still see them as human. > > > > I don't see the difference between calling someone and animal and a > > > cockroach, they are both non-human. > > > > > So what you are saying then is although you have never had any need > > > > for your guns, you are still scared enough by what you hear that you > > > > will keep them? > > > > I take issue with this. Is this an abstract type of apprehension you > > > are speaking of, or are you talking about all gun owners being cowards > > > hiding in the corner with their hands gripped to their gun? I am not > > > scared of living where I do. I don't constantly look over my > > > shoulder, just to check to make sure I'm not going to be mugged. I am > > > not paranoid. And even though I have a conceal weapons permit, I > > > rarely carry my concealed weapon. > > > > I don't see how this is about fear at all. Its about safety. I could > > > be in an unsafe position, and yet not be afraid. I could be in an > > > unsafe position by living in a high crime area where burglars break > > > into homes every night, and not have a gun. That would be unsafe for > > > me and my family. The only time we start talking about fear is when > > > we talk about the actual event of self defense, and even then fear is > > > probably not the right word to use. A theoretical man who feels no > > > fear, but who can assess a situation as being a dangerous one, and > > > reasonably determines that his life is in danger could use self > > > defense. So, its more accurate to say that when someone reasonably > > > apprehends that their life is in danger, self defense is justified. > > > So, what I'm trying to say is, I disagree, this isn't about fear. The > > > only reason I ever brought fear up was because others brought fear up > > > as a reason to regulate firearms, and I was merely pointing out that > > > that argument cuts both ways. > > > > > So it comes back to fear then. > > > > > I honestly belive that our laws re: protection are fine, I belive that > > > > the concept of 'reasonable force' protects us from becoming the kind > > > > of 'vermin' that you would have us irradicate, and is far more humane > > > > in it's approach, then any law giving you permission to shoot dead a > > > > man for no other reason, then you find him on your property. > > > > Lee, I don't know what your getting at here. America has the law of > > > reasonable force as well. Most states do not justify killing someone > > > just because they are on your property, and that hasn't been the > > > argument here. I don't believe that loss of property is a good enough > > > excuse for killing someone. So we can get off that subject. Even the > > > states that do allow it, if you look at the statute, like the one that > > > was posted on here earlier, it appears that the justification is still > > > really protection of life. The texas statute says you can kill > > > someone who threatening your property, but it has to be AT NIGHT. Why > > > else would they make that distinction, other than for the reason that > > > when people are on your property at night, the chances that they are > > > there to either harm you, or willing to if they have to. > > > > > On 5 Feb, 19:07, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > And over here in the UK, we do not have the right to protect our homes > > > > > however we see fit<<Lee > > > > > > Well I'm sorry to hear that Lee and I guess my views stem greatly from > > > > > the fact that it is different in the US especially here in Texas, > > > > > Arizona and other states that have the Castle > > > > > Law.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine > > > > > > I've never had any problem so far with being around to find an > > > > > intruder or someone robbing the place but I've always had good dogs > > > > > and mostly have monitored security alarm systems when not living in a > > > > > rural area. What I'm hearing as of late, though, is an increase in > > > > > home invasions and bold attempts by criminals to commit crimes. Such > > > > > brazen acts are consistent with dire financial times and will continue > > > > > if counteraction is not taken. People do desperate things in desperate > > > > > times so being prepared is key, I'm glad to have the castle law should > > > > > I decide to purchase a shotgun for protection. I look at it like > > > > > ridding the city of vermin. > > > > > > There are some good point being made as to the unnecessary killing of > > > > > an intruder. My property is surrounded by fencing so anyone on my > > > > > property is obviously an intruder with ill intent. However, I would > > > > > have to feel imminent threat substantial enough to use deadly force. I > > > > > can't just go out and slaughter someone because they are standing on > > > > > my property, that is merely trespassing. If the intruder has a weapon > > > > > and threatens me with it, I have the legal right to defend myself with > > > > > deadly force. I find this to be fair reasoning. Without the castle > > > > > law all the good decent people will be needlessly slaughtered by free > > > > > roaming criminals until there aren't any good people left. It's time > > > > > we take a stance and stamp out the cockroaches of society, > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
