Posted on 12/31/2012 5:26:33 PM PST by sagar
Happy new year! And my rant follows:
Guns will never be "safe", neither are they designed to be. They are designed to kill, safety switch notwithstanding. My right to own gun is so that I can kill those who dare to take away my rights. That kind of power gives me, a mere individual, the power to defend myself and those dear to me. The "bigger" the gun, the bigger protection I have against those who wish ill on me.
This might be controversial, but...
A fully automatic weapon gives me a chance against a dozen of those who wish to take my rights away.
A handful of grenades give me a chance against multiple hordes of those who wish to take my rights away. A grenade launcher gives me a chance against multiple of those groups that are far away.
A turret will give me a fighting chance against a small army of ill doers.
I just cannot think of how guns or other infantry weapons are bad. Those misusing the guns are bad, so why not tackle the source?
1. Lock up the violently mentally ill. These people need to be quarantined from society. This include those who could "snap" at any moment. They usually have long history, so nobody is asking for a witch hunt.
2. Do not parole those who have already murdered. They have demonstrated what they are capable of. Let them rot.
3. Implement a very strong psychological evaluation of children who are transforming into future murderers. The little monsters grow up to be murderers. Stop the growth. May be even correct them, if possible. True "correctional institutes" are required here.
4. Get rid of current "correctional institutes" and introduce life-time hard labor for all violent criminals. Let companies use the labor, so no need to outsource low-skilled manufacturing to communist china.
guns can never be safe. neither can automobiles, motorcycles, or crossing the street. the thing is that are they safer than NOT having guns?
I can’t seem to find a flaw with your reasoning.
I agree with most of your provisions. Number 4 has some problems. I don’t mind enforcing hard labor on inmates. The reality is that that forced labor sometimes takes work away from, undercuts, legitimate private contractors. I was involved in a State Capital renovation that required that a certain percentage of the work had to be completed by the wood shops in the prison. I had to do all the drawings, layout, engineering etc that was then shipped off to the prisons so that their taxpayer funded machines could do the (at that point) easy stuff. Just another tax that goes unrecognized.
“guns can never be safe. neither can automobiles, motorcycles, or crossing the street. the thing is that are they safer than NOT having guns?”
I think that is an invalid argument because automobiles et al are not designed to kill. Guns are designed to kill.
I have a gun that is designed to shoot nails into walls. I have another gun that shoots staples too. I have yet another gun that shoots tape onto boxes. Can’t ever say that bows and arrows were ever designed to perform those tasks . . .
BTW, life isn’t safe and never will be either.
I believe that you do not understand the meaning of gun safety. Of course, guns are meant to kill their intended target, but they must be constructed and handled in a way that does not endanger the shooter or those not designated as targets. Gun safety operates on a premise that the operator is a rational human being and can distinguish between targets and innocent bystanders. Lunatics are not a part of the equation and are beyond the reach of good gun design or prudent operating procedures.
All guns should be handled and operated in a safe manner, and a gun owner who doesn’t embrace that notion is a moron.
While I agree the mentally ill NEED to be locked up safely...I am afraid of WHO will determine WHO is mental.
Cuz you all know we’d (FR) be labeled as such.
I’m afraid this is another slippery slope, a foot in the door...it could be the cynic in me, who knows.
Disagree. We do not have a clue how to do this. Most of our psychology bears a closer resemblance to witchcraft than science.
Good point but ‘hard labor’ is even more effective when it does not involve anything productive. The French had a system where convicts rode something akin to an exercise bike. Had to ride so many miles per day to get fed. Produced nothing which denied the convicts the satisfaction of productive work.
Attributed to one Marco Kloos...not sure of the source but Highly appreciate the sentiment.
why the gun is civilization.
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as
Life isn’t safe, no one gets out alive. Excellent point though. Lots of things in life are not safe, cannot reasonably be made safe. Heck the appeal of some sports is precisely this risk - think rock combing, parachuting, mountain biking, skiing, boarding, etc. Or consider machine shops, various chemical or industrial facilities... They cannot be rendered safe. Risks can be reduced through safe procedures and guidelines, but ultimately if you screw up, mishandle things, people get hurt or die. Same thing with the shooting sports and home defense. When you follow good practices, everyone is safe, except those who need to be threatened...
****A fully automatic weapon gives me a chance against a dozen of those who wish to take my rights away. ****
When “they” come for mine, the homemade concertina wire comes out and I hit them with a homemade flamethrowers. The Krispie Kritters can’t blame that on gun violence! ;-D
why the gun is civilization.
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
why the gun is civilization.
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
I am at a loss to think of a way a firearm can be constructed to inherently not endanger a non-designated target.
The final (and only) safety involved with a firearm is a person responsible enough to not use the machine for an evil or unintended purpose.
I expect if you were to visit Front Sight or any of the other fine shooting schools your idea of who is responsible would take a remarkable turn.
Do yourself and those around you a favor and invest (and it is an investment in your future) in some quality training on the safety and usage of firearms.
When you do and come back to read the comment you left there will be a ‘face-palm’ moment for you. I hope you can take it in a spirit of fun.
Happy New Year .. whatever your proclivities.
i don’t ant inmates doing anything like this. working people need jobs, and the state is always making more and more laws to turn innocent people into criminals, so i can see how this could be abused by government and private prison companies.
Couldn’t agree more...but it’s been over 12 years since the story I related occured, so I fear the horse has long since left the barn.
To paraphrase an 0bama cabal member: the power of persuasion or vice versa—choose, as we can do either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.