I might be against ccw's now...


PDA






twoblink
March 9, 2003, 12:45 PM
I _might_ not believe that ccw and the implimentation of it is a good thing anymore.. (in specific locations)

before someone goes and pulls the fire alarm, let me explain.

First, as a libertarian, self defense is always high on the list, as is privacy, and freedom.

But it seems to me, that one of the elements seldom discussed as far as talking about the anti's, is "mental preparedness". This is what I mean. I think the anti's are anti for a reason; they don't trust themselves with guns. They have a serious lack of self-control and think they would just get themselves into serious trouble if they had a gun on them. Like a person on a diet who would like to ban all cakes and twinkies, so they don't have to exercise self-control, the government will do it for them.

After talking to quite a bit of people here in taiwan, I'm convinced of this fact.. Some people just shouldn't own guns. Guns are not for everybody... I never use to have this line of thinking..

But I do believe that if everybody was handed a gun, and trained, there will still be people who threaten others with it and a lot of bullies who abuse guns. And unlike the current status quo, I think this number will be huge, just as the anti's predict..

The reason is, an anti, armed with a bucket of red paint, has shown that he/she has zero self-control.. They fear YOU having a gun because of projection; they feel everybody is as lacking in self-control as they are. And being without self-control, they need laws to pigpen them in... (as they can't do it themselves)

The problem seems to arise when there's a self-controlled pro gun person living amongst them.

So it seems like the only solution is to segregate... (which I think has already started to happen, at a more alarming rate and advance stage then most realize) Do you remember the Gore-Bush voting picture of the united states? The "Blue" was "Sheeple Country", and the Red was America. It seems then, that the best solution would be to study, on a per capita ~ crime rate system; which regions (blue or red) has more crime. I think the stats will show in fact, more guns less crime.

That said... I think what we must do is just get the "pro gunners" out of the blue spots, and have them go ahead and impliment anti gun laws, anti ccw laws, anti (insert every noun you can think of) and let them create the Brave New World 1984 they want to there...

As of today, I all but agree with them 100%; that if everybody had guns, there would me a lot more crimes; it would be those that otherwise wouldn't/shouldn't have guns committing the crimes..

Yuck, I agree with anti-gunnies on a few things now, I must take a bath now..

If you enjoyed reading about "I might be against ccw's now..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Delmar
March 9, 2003, 12:56 PM
Scrub good.:D
Firearm ownership is just like freedom of everything else-nobody is forcing you to. If you choose to own a firearm, YOU are responsible on how it is handled. It's not a question of requirement to own-it is a right which carries with it some serious responsibility. If a person doesn't think they can step up to that responsibility, it is up to that person to police themselves.
The arguement should be, does the government have the right to charge money for the right of personal defense? I say absolutely not.

Cosmoline
March 9, 2003, 01:03 PM
This segregation is already happening, though I don't think anyone's keeping track of it. Folks here in Alaska who are terrified of firarms simply don't last long. Even our liberal Democracts are pro-gun. Conversely, folks in ********** who get tired of sherrifs inspecting their firearms at the gun range get out of the state and move somewhere more gun-friendly.

In the mean time, very few courts have the courage to even interpret the Second Amendment. Fear and mistrust between the pro and anti gun states grow. The only comparable situation is, disturbingly, the runup to the Civil War.

Sven
March 9, 2003, 01:13 PM
A house divided...

I keep my guns locked up, and trust myself with them. My roomates don't know about them, and I really wouldn't trust them with them.

dairycreek
March 9, 2003, 01:15 PM
Anti's don't trust themselves with a gun! The problem arises when a self-controlled pro gun person is living amongst them. The solution seems to be to segregate ............... It seems to me that your logic is seriously flawed. Are you exhibiting a bit of the old Stockholm Syndrome? Possible?

Waitone
March 9, 2003, 01:22 PM
It has long been my opinion that some people should not have access to firearms PERIOD. Reasons fall into two categories:

1>They don't trust themselves and their own self-control. They should be denied access. Fortunately they typically self-deny.

2>People who objectively are not capable of using a firearm safely. I don't care about their rights. I care about their stupidity, ignorance, carelessness, inattention, and thoughtlessness.

Some people are just plain dangerous, be it a knife or a gun. Those people need to be identified and denied access to anything but crayons.

4 eyed six shooter
March 9, 2003, 01:29 PM
With the background checks in place, people who have convictions for violence can't get a CCW. From what I have seen, the people who get CCW's are usually pretty stable people. The incendents of people with CCW's abusing them is very low. Once again, restricting the ability for the many to carry because a few will abuse the right is not an excuse to outright ban the responsible people from having a CCW. Many more lives are saved by legally carried guns than are lost by people who use their firearms in a non legal manor. Lastly, you can't argue with the stats. Everyplace that has adopted CCW's has seen a decrease in the crime rate. Crooks are afraid of armed citizens.
Good shooting, John K

Blackhawk
March 9, 2003, 01:44 PM
People shouldn't do anything they're not trained and ready for. That includes carrying guns or having children.... :rolleyes:

Don Gwinn
March 9, 2003, 01:51 PM
Yes, it's already happening.

Baba Louie
March 9, 2003, 02:02 PM
I may not agree with what you say...

I believe it was Mr. J Neil Schulman who authored the tome Self Control NOT Gun Control

http://www.pulpless.com/jneil/framedex.html

Kinda sums it up for me.

Those who won't have guns, won't.

Those who will, will.

Criminals as well as poor self control types (kinda redundant there doncha think?).

Not my place to say who can have or do what and who can't.

Long as "they" leave me be, life is good.

Just my take on the matter.

...but I'll defend your right to say it. (I CAN defend it because I CAN, if you get my drift... not that I'd want to interfere in your life should you choose to be helpless in a moment of ill-thought out righteousness)

Adios

Kamicosmos
March 9, 2003, 02:05 PM
My concern with this thread is this:

Who will determine who is responsible enough to have guns? You're suggesting segregation! 1939 Berlin ring any bells here?

Once people start getting an elitist attitude like this is when the problems start. And this attititude is on both sides of the issues, pro or anti.

The feeling in this thread is, they don't deserve the 2nd Amend, because I think they have unresolved issues about firearms.


That is just plain scary, maybe we should ask Big Brother to straighten this out for us....

This is the sort of thinking that they do...it's frightening to see it in this forum.

10-Ring
March 9, 2003, 02:09 PM
Yuck, I agree with anti-gunnies on a few things now, I must take a bath now..

:what: You've gotta perform some form of pennance now too!

twoblink
March 9, 2003, 02:09 PM
dairycreek,

no.. seriously, it really is the pro gun amongst them that "causes" all the problem... If there are no guns around, then how can you tell the immates from the citizens? You can't. Not a weak arguement at all. Maybe they will realize it at that point that they have become subjects, but it's too late then..

The Jews had their guns removed first; then the "all knowing, all wize German government" moved in.

You have no idea how many anti's I've talked to have told me straight now, "Guns are so dangerous, why, I wouldn't even trust them in my own hands let alone the hands of a criminal!!"

Of course, the underlining statement there also means that if guns are made illegal, criminals won't get there hands on it:rolleyes:

Beav
March 9, 2003, 02:14 PM
sounds more like a privilege ;)


/me runs for cover

pax
March 9, 2003, 03:15 PM
Some people are dangerously unable to control their impulses. Such people will do harm to others if they get their hands on weapons of any type. If a society allows everyone to have access to guns, those dangerous people will get guns and will harm or kill some other people before they are stopped.

However.

If a society does not allow common people to have access to guns, tyranny and then genocide follow very quickly on the heels of disarmament. There is no stopping the bloodshed once it gets started, except by even more bloodshed. Either the genocide runs its course and wipes out entire people groups, or other nations step in and shed their own blood to stop the killing. History has shown this over and over and over again, to our great sorrow.

It is too bad that in a free society, some people will be murdered by other people. But it is a small price to pay to avoid having millions of people murdered by other people.

pax

Fire, water and government know nothing of mercy. -- Albanian Proverb

Waitone
March 9, 2003, 03:28 PM
My comments are pointed directly at the relationship between the idealism of a libertarianism (small L) philosophy and hard reality. While I daydream of a truly libertarian culture and hence its government, the hard reality of the situation stands there steadfast and inconvenient. Some people are flat out dangerous in a non-illegal sense. As a responsible governmental official committed to the principals of libertarianism (small L) how do you deal with stark and inconvenient reality?

Hkmp5sd
March 9, 2003, 03:42 PM
"mental preparedness".

The problem is the process of who gets to choose the criteria of "mental preparedness" and who gets to test for it. I'm sure Sarah Brady has a very different definition of the proper mental preparedness for CCW than one you come up with.

If you can justify a single restriction that decides who are and are not covered by the RKBA, you have just opened the door to every gun control restriction anyone can think of.

In dealing with the RKBA, it's All or Nothing. There can be no middle ground.

Delmar
March 9, 2003, 03:54 PM
I think the hard reality of a democratic republic is there are risks involved. The truth is that government can never save the people from themselves, and expects law abiding citizens to do the right thing. Those who don't, whether through ignorance or malice should be dealt with fairly, according to the crime. The enemy of a democratic republic is when you start choosing which people will have rights and who will not.
Not a direct quote, but something Lincoln alluded to that the constitution may fairly be read as all men are created equal, except negroes. Soon, it will read all men are created equal, except for negroes, catholics and foreigners. When it comes to this, I would prefer to immigrate to some place where they make no pretense of loving liberty, like Russia, where despotism can be taken pure, without the base alloy of hipocricy.
Bottom line-if you want liberty, you are going to have to take your chances with everyone. If you want safety, you want a police state.

pax
March 9, 2003, 05:45 PM
Bottom line-if you want liberty, you are going to have to take your chances with everyone. If you want safety, you want a police state.
Delmar,

That's exactly wrong. Police states and states with a disarmed populace are always more dangerous to their inhabitants than free societies are. (See my previous post.)

I am not an idealist; I am a libertarian because I know in my bones that people are often evil and that allowing small groups of people to have the power of life and death over all the other people in a given region will always lead eventually to democide.

pax

Concentrated political power is the most dangerous thing on earth. -- Rudolph Rummel

Delmar
March 9, 2003, 05:50 PM
Then Pax, you completely mis understood me. Let me put it in simple terms: The people have to be allowed to choose whether or not to keep and bear arms as an individual choice, not you, not me, not Sarah Brady, and not the Government. Is that more clear to you?

MitchSchaft
March 9, 2003, 05:51 PM
Bottom line-if you want liberty, you are going to have to take your chances with everyone .

That's exactly correct!
And the ccw system is a farse to begin with. People will carry guns if they're allowed to or not. You can't legislate common sense.

CZ-75
March 9, 2003, 06:01 PM
I don't follow your argument.

Those who shouldn't have guns can get them more easily than the average citizen.

Those that shouldn't carry a gun, will, regardless of the law.

AR-10
March 9, 2003, 06:07 PM
I have to disagree with most of your assumptions, twoblink.

People who are not opposed to gun control legislation hold their opinions for a miriad of reasons. True, there is a minority of true gun haters who do fit the discription you paint of people with little emotional self control. Liars assume everyone is lying. Morally bankrupt people persuade themselves that moral persons are merely prudish pretenders. We all like to feel we are "average" and project our self images onto those around us, expecting them to react as we would.

The deeper truth is that a lot of people are not aquainted with firearms. More to the point, they are not aware of how the rights of gun owners have been eroded over the last seventy year, and they are not bombarded daily with the latest news on every rumor of the next gun banning law to come down the pike.

Some people truly should not own firearms. Who are you or I to decide who may and who may not? If you ever got to know my mother intimately, you would learn such decisions are not so easily made. She scares the willy out of me, but she has been handling firearms longer than I have been alive and has had a carry permit for over a decade. She has not impacted society in a negative way by owning or carrying a firearm.

Experience has shown me that those who get a carry permit and actually exercise it end up being responsible, fairly well trained, law abiding citizens. That's the way it seems to work out in my county, at least. I know of a couple people who have permits that sort of make me shudder. Guess where their guns are. In a drawer somewhere. They don't have the conviction to lug them around all day, let alone go to the range and practice. As such, they don't seem to be a huge threat to the citizenry of my town. In the fifty years or so that folks have been packing in my county there is not one incident I know of that would give the Sheriff cause to regret issuing a permit.

If everyone in my state was handed a firearm and given carte blanche to carry, there would be a rocky year or two as the inept and irrational were slowly disarmed through lawless actions of their own doing. The rest of the population would then either carry responsibly or not carry by their own choosing.

There will always be some stupid people, and they will act accordingly. They are the minority. We should not be expected to organize society to fuction at their level of competence.

Oleg Volk
March 9, 2003, 07:38 PM
Twoblink,

It is tempting to say "stupid people shouldn't be allowed to ....."
Eventually, someone like Janet Reno gets to define stupid and you and I will be covered by the new, improved definition. The cure is far more dangerous than the problems it purports to fix.

Safety First
March 9, 2003, 08:08 PM
It would indeed be scary if we lost our second amendment rights...Because the criminal would not lose his ability to get a gun anyway he could and if he could'nt procure a gun,then he would use whatever weapon he could get his hands on to commit the crime. Lets face it, if someone has murder in their heart then they will commit the crime by any means they can, with any weapon the can obtain. The problem starts in the heart of the man, it has existed since Cain and Able. It has been with us since the beginning of time and will be among us until the end of time, that I am convinced of. I just hope and pray the government does not decide to take away our God-Given right to defend ourself by making it hard for the good folks to obtain weapons to defend themselves from the evil ones..Just a few random thoughts and my 2 cents worth...

Cal4D4
March 9, 2003, 08:35 PM
I like to compare CCW with the trust we show to other auto drivers. Many times you must trust in the basic skill and intentions of the drivers you share the road with. Usually it works out well enough. Sometimes not. The general intention is to have everyone who can drive to have access to driving. High schools groom the kids for driving and thousands of drivers ed schools exist across the country. When violations occur there is a multi tiered means of disciplining and correcting the erring operator.
Gun ownership and possession are written into the very founding documents of this country. At all levels of our public education the larval citizen is discouraged from armed self defense and the 2A heritage is discounted and corrupted by our courts. No education on safe handling of firearms. No basic instruction in the laws of armed self defense. Unlike Jefferson's admonishments to make your rifle your constant companion, the firearm is generally villified and portrayed as a negative in society by our educators. Any personal interest must be pursued without the support of the existing education infrastructure. Most are quite ignorant of safe gun handling. Blame the school boards and their anti 2A agenda. They have failed to prepare our youth for the responsibilities of citizenship in our country.

Stevie-Ray
March 9, 2003, 08:52 PM
You've gotta perform some form of pennance now too! Yes, nothing short of a dozen "Hail John Brownings" and 5 "Our 2nd Amendments."

DMK
March 9, 2003, 09:18 PM
I've got to agree with cal4d4's reference to automobiles.

There are many out there who perhaps should not own cars. There are some who truly are dangerous to others with their 3000 lbs of high speed steel. Yet, they are allowed to drive even if they have a past history of injuring others, even if they have a past history of violent felonies, even though motor vehicles kill more citizens than guns do.

Yet our society still considers a state licenced citizen with a gun too dangerous to walk into a bank or school. Even though this person has passed background checks, has been trained in firearms safety, use and has no history or tendancies toward violence.

Uncle Ethan
March 9, 2003, 09:27 PM
My problem with the segregation idea is that once all the pro- 2nd amendment people are moved out of the Blue areas and those states get rid of the 2nd amendment, they will then begin the assault on the remaining states. If a state has the right to decide which constitutional rights are relevant, then any state can decide whether to allow integration, or paying income tax, or any part of the constitution they disagree with.

A thread was closed by Moderators here because they considered the posts to be discussing ways to subvert the law in California regarding high capacity magazines for Mini-14's. The moderators apparently considered obeying laws enacted to remove constitutional rights to be taking the "HIgh Road." Protesting bad law and "Civil Disobedience" to laws subverting the Constitution are apparently only used by Liberals to protect their rights.:scrutiny:

yankytrash
March 9, 2003, 09:46 PM
I've admittedly not read all the responses to the original dilemna yet, but my take on the thought that everyone shouldn't have guns because they don't think they have the mental discipline to have one, is this:

If everyone had a gun, I mean everyone, wouldn't that very thought command a bit of self-control? I mean it like this: Say I'm one crazy sucker, and you know I'm armed at all times. I know you too be maybe somewhat passive, but you are always armed. The hippy in the corner is always armed. The inner-city youth with the bandana on his head is armed. The old guy on the bench over there is armed. The biker shootin dice in the alley with the chain on his wallet is armed. The MTV kid with the headset waiting for the bus is armed. If they all know that each other is armed, who will rob who? Who will assault whom? Who will antagonize the other?

There is an old saying that I really feel doesn't fit gun owners, but there's a small stretch of truth to it: "Don't tick off the man with the gun." A thoughtless, ignorant statement I know, but who, in the scenario above, is going to rob one of the other people in the scenario, armed with the knowledge that all the people in the scenario are armed, and death will almost certainly result from any felony acted upon? Who will pick a fight? Will anyone of them dare lay their life down for the cheap thrill of a felony? I'd think not. I really, honestly, do. Certainly even the the most lacking in self-control realize that if the victim doesn't shoot back, most certainly one the passers-by will.

I say arm them all - crazy, sane, short, tall, black, white, brown and tan. If we were all armed for the worst, and knew everyone else was, the worst couldn't happen.



When two superpowers go head to head and have their finger trembling over the button, who will push first? If you push the button, you will certainly all die. If you don't press the button, there's a good chance you will live, counting on the other superpower's sanity, no matter how crazy they may talk. When it comes down to your own life, that is what you will choose - life.

Dain Bramage
March 9, 2003, 10:34 PM
I agree with several of the previous posters about CCW not being a dangerous thing. Shall-issue states do show drops in violent crime for various reasons, including people self-policing themselves.

The thing I wanted to respond to was the comment about gun crime increasing if "everyone" was to have a gun.

There have actually been several large-scale psychological studies on the subject. Large groups of people were used. There were minimum physical and mental standards, but by-and-large every socio-economic and racial background was represented.

In such a large undertaking, rules of discipline needed to be in place and enforced. After rudimentary safety and familiarity training, each participant was given charge of firearms and ammunition. They were even required to carry at all times, with loaded weapons. The conclusion of the study showed very few accidents or cases of aggression with the guns. Even after automatic and high-explosive weapons were added to the mix, the results stayed the same.

Of course, I'm talking about the draft Army instituted several times in the last century. You could argue that the system of discipline and having bigger enemies to deal with than each other helped. I say so what? People tend to rise to the occasion, and society is not as bad as the liberals say.

Standing Wolf
March 9, 2003, 10:41 PM
I think the anti's are anti for a reason; they don't trust themselves with guns. They have a serious lack of self-control and think they would just get themselves into serious trouble if they had a gun on them.

Close.

In my experience, people who strive to control other adults tend to be inwardly out of control themselves. They're people who live in fear, ignorance, superstition, self-doubt, self-hatred, compulsion, envy, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. They project themselves outward upon the world, and hate and fear what they see. A thief will always tell you everybody's a thief. A rapist will always tell you his victims deserved it.

Leftists believe their irrational hoplophobia trumps the nation's civil rights. Their belief has nothing to do with reality.

Tamara
March 10, 2003, 12:23 AM
Sorry to hear that they're slowly brainwashing you... :(


Anyway, on to the point...

There're people on this planet that I wouldn't trust with a burnt-out match, let alone a gun, but you know what? It ain't my place to take the burnt-out matches away from them. Sometimes you just have to trust in Mr. Darwin and keep on your toes and hope that the Fates will go on making the world a better place.

Yes, it's a wonder that some people don't die from forgetting to breathe, but until they starve to death by disremembering which end of the spoon goes in their mouth, they're at least easy to spot: they're in that SUV that's weaving down the road 'cause they're talking on the cell phone with one hand and trying to whack their unruly spawn in the back seat with the other...

twoblink
March 10, 2003, 03:14 AM
I'm not for passing of laws that limit who should and who shouldn't.

Tamara, I'm saying that I agree with them when they say THEY shouldn't own firearms and that a firearm is dangerous in THEIR hands...

yankytrash, have you seen "Resevoir Dogs"? 4 people with guns pointed at each other, cold war, position right? The problem is, if you HEAR a gunshot, you will then have no choice but to shoot... We are rational, that's why we own guns.. They are not.. so it seems to me, that "arming everybody" really _IS_ a bad idea.

I think however for the most part, if it's not made illegal, those who are responsible and want to be responsible for the defense of their own persons and families will gravitate towards guns, and those who want a police state, will want a police state.

I don't agree either; I think police states are far less safe then non-police states.

I think the solution really is to vote with your feet. "Mark" a few states as "gone to the dogs" and leave them... Because there are some people who I think won't learn a lesson until they have it their way, and it utterly fails; even if they don't admit it, we can at least expose them for what they are..

They would like to make the PRK into the PR-England... fine... When crime goes up, increase the police and the laws, fine... when that doesn't work, restrict freedoms, fine... Until the PRK becomes Singapore, and they are all atomitons...

twoblink
March 10, 2003, 03:46 AM
There is a HUGE premise that people on THR and America are basing the "An armed society is a polite society" theory on... That I believed as well, until I came to Asia. You all believe that everybody values human life, their own almost always above all else.

The reason I have come to these conclusions is because the people I have seen around me DON'T CARE about their own lives... the stalemate/cold war stuff then doesn't work.

I point a gun at you, you point one at me; if we were both sane people who cared about the preservation of our own lives, I'd say let's put both guns away and walk away.. BUT, if I didn't care about my life, I'd shoot you, and if you were too slow to react, well, too bad. See, it doesn't work if one party is not afraid of the consequences...

Also, I am not advocating that rights to self defense/ 2nd amendment etc.. be taken away. I just think that, that is what will happen, there will be two types of places in America, police like states, and RKBA like states...

no laws needed, this is what's happening.

Oleg, What I fear _IS_ Janet Reno defining things... So I'd much rather have a designated area where the sheeple WANT Reno to define everything for them, the mommy state... And I'll live somewhere else..

rick458
March 10, 2003, 04:37 AM
I have to agree with much of your statements
and I think that the blind WILL congregate to the Mommy states
and the free will congregate in the I will kill you if you try to kill me states, then after the ravenous hourde has eaten all the sheeple and tries to cross the borders we shoot them off the fences:evil:

Pendragon
March 10, 2003, 05:03 AM
twoblink:

You are talking about "rational self interest" - that is what the idea of the armed/polite society is based on.

You may well be right in observing that our gun laws would may create a lot of gun problems over there.

However, a persons right to self defense is not predicated on their countrymen posessing rational self interest :)

They get their rights, wackiness and mayhem ensues - assuming the rights stay in tact, things would equalize eventually.

Marshall
March 10, 2003, 05:36 AM
I agree to an extent!

I'll give you a more basic reason for the problem with Anti's. Once you are old enough to learn fear after birth, whenever that is, you learn and are also taught to fear things that can kill, wound or hurt you. Now, add to this the fact that most people, to some extent, have a fear of the unknown and you have your basis for the problem.

How did you get over your initial fear of guns? You either had a parent/sibling/friend teach you about them or, you educated yourself and became comfortable enough to overcome your fear or uneasiness and buy one!

The vast, vast majority of Anti gun people have never held one in their hand or had anyone teach them about guns. I see these same uneducated people on TV ranting about guns and I promise they have never stepped foot in a forest or, ever gotten any cow dung on their boots either(should say shoes for them).

Deadly weapon = Fear!

No knowledge = Fear!

Now add to that their insecurities, lack of self control and you have a genuine reason that is completely understandable for them to think like they do, although not right. The problem is, just like most things, it's the way they handle themselves and come to be the judge and the "all knowing" on a subject they are completely ignorant and inferior on!

Throw on top of that, the fact that Anti's have a need for power to offset their insecurities and you have what we have today.

I don't see this becoming any better at all! The large metro cities are becoming larger, more kids growing up without anyone taking them into a field with a pellet gun or .22 and, growing up and never knowing what the term "duck blind" means.

The best way to fight these people, outside of the courts, is to do our part in giving them no ammunition to go on, be responsible and safe 100% of the time! Another way to hurt their cause is thru education! Yes, talking, word of mouth and by example! Oh, and a good Bitch Slap once in a while never hurts! ROFL JK JK kinda.

I converted four Anti's two years ago on a deer hunt, haha, Seriously!
I invited three guys from work that had recently moved here from out of state. They were going for the "get away", not for hunting. However, before the week was up, these same anti gun dudes were not only shooting my guns but wanted to take them into the woods hunting!!

Again, fear was overcome and the unknown was now familiar. They are now life long pro gun and are very active outdoorsmen.

I got my eye on two more Anti's for next fall's hunting seasons! LOL :D

Tamara
March 10, 2003, 08:53 AM
There is a HUGE premise that people on THR and America are basing the "An armed society is a polite society" theory on... That I believed as well, until I came to Asia. You all believe that everybody values human life, their own almost always above all else.

You're wrong about two things:

1) I haven't heard cries to freely issue or restrict guns from many folks here. "Leave the laws out of it" seems to be the general concensus. There aren't many gun laws in Vermont, yet Ben & Jerry's-addled registered socialists seem to be refraining from blowing holes in each other.

2) Yes, twoblink, people do care about their lives. Even liberals, even in Taiwan. That's why traffic works and you don't see millions die every day from deliberate games of chicken; because people just want to get to where they're going and not be messed with.

Double Naught Spy
March 10, 2003, 09:40 AM
Well twoblink, I guess that it is good that you don't live here in the states.

I, too, would like to see more highly skilled concealed carry folks, but not at the risk of disarming people who don't have advanced training. For that matter, I would like to see more skilled law enforcement folks when it comes to gun. Heck, I would really like to see folks getting some training in how to drive their automobiles in traffic. 30 years of driving doesn't make one a good driver, necessarily. I am much more concerned about some idiot driver hitting me that some CCW person defending his/her life and injuring me in the process (by mistake). What caliber is a Chevy?

MitchSchaft
March 10, 2003, 10:27 AM
"An armed society is a polite society" = People are scared to die and are too afraid to get into any kind of altercation for fear of being shot and killed.

twoblink
March 10, 2003, 10:43 AM
"An armed society is a polite society" = People are scared to die and are too afraid to get into any kind of altercation for fear of being shot and killed.

That's assuming that people care about their lives.. Many I have met, don't feel their life is worth a whole lot, and so they don't care.

Tamara.. traffic lights DON'T work here... That's the thing I'm trying to tell ya! Ask Skunk, he's been to Korea! They don't work as well as thought... That's why there's pretty much an armed security guard directing traffic at most busy intersections...

People don't blow each other away in Vermont because again, most are "American-minded", they value their own life..

I have decided that I REALLY want to move to a state like that... With that kind of mindset.

twoblink
March 10, 2003, 10:48 AM
"Foreign-born in USA at an all-time high"

According to this report, the number of foreign-born in USA is at an all-time high at over 30 million! Even a slow economy has not slowed the influx much.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12824

This basically says what I am warning; that with such and influx of foreign borns in America (and increasing), the basis of value of life might not be a very good premise to assume.


Pendragon, I wouldn't want to give up any liberties for the attempt to reduce statistics... I have a self-interest in the perservation of my own life, even if the idiots running the PRK down.

Oleg Volk
March 10, 2003, 10:56 AM
Yesterday, a friend who worked in London for several months (and who liked it enough to go back) told us about "soccer riots" which happened at his law firm. People who got drunk and already were belligerent, so they grappled, men, women, didn't matter...and they weren't not teenagers, either.

In the US, the concept of mutual combat is not popular. Starting a fight often means someone might finish it for the originator. Safer for all involved.

Oleg Volk
March 10, 2003, 11:00 AM
that with such and influx of foreign borns in America (and increasing), the basis of value of life might not be a very good premise to assume.


If they don't care about their own lives, then why would they go to the trouble of moving to the US in the first place? :confused:

Zak Smith
March 10, 2003, 12:25 PM
But I do believe that if everybody was handed a gun, and trained, there will still be people who threaten others with it and a lot of bullies who abuse guns. And unlike the current status quo, I think this number will be huge, just as the anti's predict..

The reason is, an anti, armed with a bucket of red paint, has shown that he/she has zero self-control..


It's self-correcting problem.

People who do stupid things with dangerous materials often die.

In this case, anti-social behavior with instruments of lethal force is not tolerated.

-z

Trisha
March 10, 2003, 12:37 PM
twoblink;

I believe most people are inherently good. I believe that most people hold an inherent valuation of their lives and those they love. I believe that, when threatened, most people reflexively seek some (any) immediate and decisive means or mechanism to enact self-defense.

I cast no aspersion nor suspicious predisposition to any unknown to me, albeit that they are strangers. I let their actions and hearts define themselves to me.

I delegate no legitimate responsibility, real or implied, to any civil authority created and monitored by a political bureaucracy to oversee or provide for my personal safety and security; and I do not hold any confidence nor surety that any such in existence will absolve me from having the mental discipline, the physical ability and skill, or the moral imperative and commitment as simply a compassionate and responsible human to interceed in a swift and timely fashion in my defense.

I attain complete calm and derive comprehensive and intense self-actualization (complete with an unshakeable knowledge of my own limitations) as I pursue my own training in self-defense, and I willingly make myself available to others to share said experience so that they too may embark apon the adventures and mandates of procuring a livelihood for themselves and those they hold dear with no vestige of uncertainty, no shadow of politically correct fear of the social predator or the mentally deranged who may at any time or place assail them.

I see and live the reality of my decision to know, train in, and study the art of war with personal weapons common to the arsenal of a free woman as, by my very demeanor, gait, and spoken cadance actively inhibiting the callous and cowardly will of the criminal, whether such be one posessed of a lifetime of such loathsome deeds or the brittle heart of the mentally unbalanced who would act without thought or self-control in any fashion that would create mayhem and even carnage to any around me - for I silently communicate the spirit of one who is purposeful, joyful, aware, and in posession of a united balance of my very being.

I hold no attributes readily communicating any vulnerability. I am completely at peace, and fully awake.

I celebrate this individual mandate being the foundation of this most unique of nations! I welcome any and all to join me and those who share my heart's intuitive need to live the reality of holding liberty dear and precious!

For liberty and freedom are hard-earned individually in coin paid in time and sweat and blood and heart, rewnewed hourly and daily with joy; not a condescendingly bestowed empty sound-byte.

I willl wholeheartedly support and pursue and endorse uninhibited and unrestricted shall-issue concealed weapons carry legislation as long as I draw breath, and those who I walk through the remainder of my days who have shared this enormous responsibility and happy burden will always know my complete trust and be welcome to break bread at my table, even if they are but of an hours aquaintence at the range or bookstore, for they welcome me as if I were indeed blood-bound to them as immediate family, and we are easily recognized anywhere.

We are Americans.

dav
March 10, 2003, 01:08 PM
This thread disturbs me more than most of the political threads.

It is sad, but normal, for government to try to take guns away from their citizens.

I truly hope twoblink is bored and trolling.

Any US citizen should be able to bear arms in defense of self and country UNTIL they prove themselves unworthy by screwing up.

Innocent until proven guilty!

Are there those who should not carry? Definitely. AFTER they prove that by screwing up you take away their right to carry. Not before.

David Row
San Diego, PRK
(NOT moving to escape unjust laws, fighting to correct them)

Poodleshooter
March 10, 2003, 01:08 PM
Regarding segregation.... involuntary segregation is bad, voluntary segregation is good. It's freedom of association. Yes, that includes segregation as Americans think of it. Take a look at what forced de-segregation did to black sole proprietorships. If it had simply occurred naturally w/o government intervention, things would have gone much more smoothly.

Marshall
March 10, 2003, 01:10 PM
OK Trisha, now sign here. _______________. :neener:

Marshall
March 10, 2003, 01:16 PM
Are there those who should not carry? Definitely. AFTER they prove that by screwing up you take away their right to carry. Not before.

Yes, you punish "them" for their actions, "not everyone"!

dairycreek
March 10, 2003, 02:52 PM
But what an interesting, though sometimes disturbing, thread this has been. Congratulations for SOME of the arguments but moreso for the general civility. I have seen threads like this degenerate into anger and recrimination. This one has not. Great. Good shooting;)

MitchSchaft
March 10, 2003, 03:44 PM
That's assuming that people care about their lives..

That's true. If they don't care about their lives, they are generally the ones who are going to be causeing problems in the first place.
Plus, people may say they don't care about their lives, but when you put them in a situation they may prove you wrong.

thrifty7
March 10, 2003, 05:10 PM
The answer lies in the State of Vermont. Go see the blood bath that does not happen when everyone may carry.

Baba Louie
March 10, 2003, 05:13 PM
Don't make me think twoblink.

Been mulling this one over since my first post.

Reading other's thoughts, trying to assimilate it all...or parts of it...

I am a Product of my environment, thats for sure.

When everyone is taught morals and values concurrent with the concept I define as American Liberty, with respect for self and others (at first blush, then ya gotta prove it); then I say, "OK, you might be reasonably sane and fit to interact with others up to and including bearing some form of arm or skill that can not only defend your life (and maybe mine) but one that could also be used in an offensive manner as well; in the hopes that your upbringing and societal mores are as good or better than mine.
(that sentence was almost as long as one of yours, trisha :D )

For the most part, I take this for granted, here in the part of North America called the USA and I erroneously assume that everyone everywhere shares this belief.

And probably, in large part... they do. Sometimes. In someplaces.
Not always and certainly not ALL people(s) (Currently the french come to mind).

Angry youngsters and even immature intellectuals who always know whats best for others need to be watched. If one is in the position to do so, and has a strong desire for spending time doing so, one MAY even initiate/educate/rehabilitate these poor lost souls. After raising two kids, I think I'd rather bang my head into a wall for a couplea hours...but be that as it may...

Success rate?

Questionable at best. Look at American Families and society or what passes for them/it today. Look at non-American cultures for the contrast.

It goes back to the "Who put you in charge today Mr. Omnipotent and why should I follow your rules?"

Some people plan, others are planned on. Some lead, some follow. Very Few march to their own drum (where HAVE I heard that?) without attracting unwanted attention.

Its an interesting hypothesis and fun to chew on, but in the end,
I like the fact that while being nice to everyone (on an individual basis) and while giving them a smile can be good, having a plan and/or the ability to stop (their) aberrant behaviour towards me and mine (how selfish of me) is probably in my best interest and highly practical.

As my dear old dad used to say when he was one of our Boy Scout Leaders, "Leave the world a better place for your having passed thru it... But Always... Be Prepared"

And yes twoblink, there are some people who just cannot play well with others. These are to be shunned and/or not trusted, sometimes regulated, neh?

Adios

Tamara
March 10, 2003, 05:30 PM
having a plan and/or the ability to stop (their) aberrant behaviour towards me and mine (how selfish of me) is probably in my best interest and highly practical.

Quelle coincidence! Me, too!

I'll carry a gun to protect me and mine, you go and pass laws which me (and the bad guys, too) will ignore. ;)

rennaissancemann
March 10, 2003, 05:45 PM
I think you're dead wrong on this one.

When you start attempting to quantify personal qualities such as responsibility, common sense, etc. you start down the same slippery slope that gave us the notion of an Aryan Super Man. When you diminish the rights of one individual, you diminish the rights of us all.

As it pertains to your comments on the value that an individual assigns to his own or another's life and its relevance to an armed society... an armed society tends to remove sociopathic individuals the old fashioned way, one individual at a time.

Nightfall
March 10, 2003, 08:14 PM
If human beings, indeed all living creatures, were one note songs that could easily be divided into two distinct categories and segregated (even voluntarily), we wouldn't have this problem. We could give the people who wanted no firearms to exist their hunk of living area, and we could have ours. But, as everyone here will doubtless agree, nobody is a one note song. Once within their own subgroup, people will begin to disagree on another issue. They will divide again. Then again, and again. There needs to be an ability to live and let live, for people to stop trying to force their feelings and beliefs on others in the form of laws and to let freedom reign. This fact is alluded to in a little document called the Constitution. The right of the People to practice their own religion, to speak their own mind, etc. were guaranteed to Americans, because our forefathers knew that there were far too many different viewpoints and beliefs to create a system of government that would work only in a completely homogenous society. The US government was designed as a system to work for everyone, and to guarantee that you would not be denied basic freedoms, including that of self defense, both from tyrannical government and from those who would rob, kill, maim, rape, etc you. These rights were not guaranteed on a ‘if you fit the description of what we think is good enough to enjoy these rights' basis, but for everyone.

It would be easy to throw up our hands and let so and so group get this chunk of America, and this group gets that chunk. But that isn't what the USA is about, in my opinion. Fight for everyone's right to protect themselves, until they've been PROVEN through violent crimes to be a danger to society. Don't give up states, counties, to anti-gunners who don't care about individual freedom and personal responsibility. Don't let them get away with their form of bigotry that lumps all gun owners under laws that have little effect on crime. Everything from the PRK to Virginia is the good ‘ol US of A, and the ‘experiment' of disarmament has already happened again and again throughout history with horrible results. Let them have their gun free area, and those that live there would learn that lesson in person. But the next generation would forget once that area was gone, and it would start again. Make it known that no area of the US is available for public disarmament, and no area is exempt from the 2nd Amendment. Stripping people of their rights, even where it may be a popular choice is not okay. Popularity nor even a majority makes something right, even to let people see what will happen once again.

Just as it is everyone's right to be armed, so it is to be unarmed. We are a country of liberty, not just of the right to keep and bear arms. Be careful not to force that ‘you need to be armed' opinion on others against their will, or you begin to destroy the fabric of our nation just as the anti-RKBA folks do.

twoblink
March 10, 2003, 10:48 PM
My first comment is to give a thumbs up to THR. You people are great! Regardless if you agree with me, disagree, what I have seen in this thread is civility and a lot of hard thinking on everybody's part, including mine.

None of my opinions are set in stone, and so what I conclude this week might change if there is a nice flux of input from all you people who give great arguements.


you start down the same slippery slope that gave us the notion of an Aryan Super Man

Actually, that is true, except the difference between me and them, they think they are super man, I know I am!! :) Just kidding! The difference between me and them is that I apply things to _ME_ ONLY. They think one way and want to force it on everybody.

I would love for the world to be Christian, as that is my belief, but I won't force it on anybody..

Again, Vermont is not the tell-all tale. People care about their lives there....

inthefork
March 11, 2003, 02:53 AM
If we segregate, the antis will do the same thing they do in anti-gun places now. They blame the places that have guns for their problems.

m16

Oracle
March 11, 2003, 11:12 AM
Twoblink,

I think that you're confusing "not caring about their lives" with simple recklessness. If someone truly didn't care whether they lived or died, they wouldn't take the actions that they do to preserve their lives, such as eating, drinking, finding shelter, etc. Take food away from these people that you say "don't care about their lives" and see whether it bothers them or not. If they truly didn't care, then they would care less whether or not they had enough to eat. However, I don't think that's the case, these people are probably simply reckless, meaning that they don't give much thought to what the consequences of their actions might be.

Now, that puts these people in a totally different category. People who do have some of care about their lives (self-preservation being a difficult instinct to remove), but don't give much thought or care to the consequences of the actions they take. I encounter these kind of people all the time, there may be a greater percentage of them in the population in some asian countries than there are here, but I haven't been to any asian countries so I can neither confirm nor deny that.

So, the question becomes "Does a significant portion of the population being reckless constitute a good reason to deny myself and others the right and ability to protect ourselves?" In my humble opinion, it does not.

I'm with Tamara, though, on this issue. Pass what laws you want to, I'm still going to take what steps I feel are necessary to protect me and mine, regardless of whether those behaviors are deemed "illegal" or not.

DMK
March 11, 2003, 01:48 PM
Twoblink, one of the things that bothers me about your argument is you keep referring to the actions and reactions of people in Asia, while at the same time trying to apply their actions to U.S. laws. Things are a whole lot different here in N. America. On average, folks in the U.S. have a whole different mindset than those from other countries. Even fresh immigrants change their tunes pretty darn quick once they get aclimated to life in these united states.

This kind of thing reminds me of metro folks who make laws that have no relevance in the country or (gasp!) world government. You just can't justify effective laws, rules and regulations for folks a great destance from you based on what you are seeing local.

ball3006
March 11, 2003, 03:03 PM
this post on is that you are discussing this subject with people in Taiwan. When you return to the world, you will not like it in Texas. I determine if I need a gun or not. My grandfather determined when I was ready for my first one and I ran with the ball from then on. In Texas mental health is a critera for a ccw. If you have a record of seeing a shrink you will not get a license. The state mandates you are educated in the knowledge of what is required to ccw and prove that you can handle and shoot a firearm safely and be retrained every 4 years.....chris3

twoblink
March 11, 2003, 11:19 PM
Have you seen Rowland Heights? Have you seen Monterey Park? Alhambra? If you think what I say about "Taiwanese" people aren't relavent to America, you are wrong.. These are the people who are now living in America, and bringing their mentality along with them..

Don't believe me? Think about the phrase "Asian female drivers". Yep...

My friend's mentality in LA, are just like that. They are from Taiwan or Hong Kong. They are now in the PRK, and aiming to make the PRK like Taiwan or HK...

Esky
March 13, 2003, 12:49 PM
Like DMK said:-

On average, folks in the U.S. have a whole different mindset than those from other countries.

This made me think of the suicide bombers- how sad, and almost unbelievable to me, that some cultures can turn their own children into murderous death machines. And yet within those cultures, this abhorrent act is applauded & rewarded. I can't imagine most Americans having this point of view, but a lot of gun control has been enabled because of shootings at schools right in the USA- of kids, by kids. WHY???

I don't for a second think that this was caused by "availability of guns" but by the mindset of the kids doing the shooting. But how did they get this mindset? Where did it come from? I sure wish I knew. Nobody was doing that kind of thing when I was a kid, though I do remember hearing about one kid (high school age) who killed himself... can't remember why he did it, if I ever knew. And I'm sure that I'm not the only one who wanted to "blow up the school" when I was a schoolkid, but that was just a fantasy then, and I knew it; I also knew that the violence on TV (pretty mild & generally bloodless compared to now!) was just fantasy too. I liked playing cops & robbers, but I would never have wanted to kill all my friends & playmates.

Obviously I had (and still have) a different mindset to some of the kids today!

Thanks for a really good thread, lots to ponder here.

Esky
thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken

If you enjoyed reading about "I might be against ccw's now..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!