|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
 Posted - 03/29/2002 : 19:09:40 [Permalink]
|
Garrette> I'm glad you agree on the gun-control issue :)
Seriously though. You have a person who may cause harm at hand. Now, equip the freak with a gun. Now he can really cause harm. Why run that risk? I recall the foreign exchange student who was shut down a few years ago for ringing the wrong door-bell. You deem that an acceptable loss, so you can have a gun?
Why do you need it?
And I'm against incest between consenting adults for the reason I stated. Because there might be harm or psychological terror involved, I am against it.
On the euthanasia-question: As I wrote I'm for it in the true definition of the word. I don't want elderly people to chose death, on the reason that they feel they've become a burden to society. Yes, it is their decision, but is that truly death with dignity?
But it's true. Some types of wall-paper really makes even me want to consider death.
Lars-H> YES! I want why own thermonuclear missile! :))
I've been so wrong all along. I need to protect myself against other A-bomb owners!
Trish> Okay, so what is the purpose of a gun. It has one purpose: Harm. A knife can be made for a variety of reasons, from peeling a potato to cutting bread. What other uses do guns have?
I do understand the reasoning behind “self-protection” but my point is: With a gun you're more likely to kill someone than without one. If I know of a bad neighbourhood in town, I don't go there. I don't want to risk getting into trouble, even though it's my constitutional right to go there. Or I might like that particular neighbourhood.
On the “N” word issue I agree with Slater. Blacks can call themselves “Nigger” all they want. Any other ethic minority for that matter or sexual one can use the labels, the majority has usually placed on them.
That is definitely not segregation or racism. The words were not invented by them, but by the whites/heterosexuals /(insert other majority). The words are degrading when used by someone outside the particular group. When used by the group themselves it's not.
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
 |
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 19:28:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And I'm against incest between consenting adults for the reason I stated. Because there might be harm or psychological terror involved, I am against it.
That is why I originally said consenting adults. Think brother-sister type of situations. Maybee they have not even grown up together, but they are still related.
Are you standarts for harm and psycholgiacl terror that a sexual relationship might cause only aplieable for people who are related or for everyone in general?
quote:
On the euthanasia-question: As I wrote I'm for it in the true definition of the word. I don't want elderly people to chose death, on the reason that they feel they've become a burden to society. Yes, it is their decision, but is that truly death with dignity?
But it's true. Some types of wall-paper really makes even me want to consider death.
So you are only for a Nice Death when living on would be worse by your own standards?
quote:
Lars-H> YES! I want why own thermonuclear missile! :))
I've been so wrong all along. I need to protect myself against other A-bomb owners!
Damm those Nuke-Contol lobby!
You see it all the time on the news. Someone lives in a bad neighbourhood and wants to acuquire some weapons of massdestruction to protect himself. And zapp! The New World Order comes down on them like a ton of bricks.
|
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 20:14:21 [Permalink]
|
Lars_H> My reasons for being against “incest between consenting adults” is because I'm a little sceptic (No, pun intended) on the consenting issue here. As I wrote above, the father/daughter situation involving a long-term abuse, since before the girl grew up may have conditioned her.
It's true you write “consenting adults”, but I can't take it at “face-value”, if you catch my drift? Because, unfortunately, things are rarely just black or white (which the longs debates over seemingly easy issues around here clearly shows).
I'm not completely sure about what you mean with your other question. If you're getting into questions about paedophilia I'm ready to castrate the perpetrators. If you mean that a relationship between two consenting adults who're not related, might not really be consent for whatever reasons we need to discuss the reasons.
“So you are only for a Nice Death when living on would be worse by your own standards?”
Ehrg! To a certain degree I think it's difficult for any of us to discuss a topic without viewing it from our own standards. I don't see coercion or force to be only physical in nature, although that's the most obvious kinds. There are all the social, economical and psychological kinds of coercion, that go by more or less unnoticed.
If person A takes a gun and shoots his dad to get rid of the elderly home-bill that's murder. But if person A keeps telling his dad how much it costs, and how he can almost not afford it, to a point where daddy decides to opt for euthanasia, what is that?
Yep. All power to PFNCL (Peoples Front against the Nuclear-Control Lobby. Not to be confused with the PFPNCL or the FPNCL)! :)
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2002 : 16:58:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Trish> Okay, so what is the purpose of a gun. It has one purpose: Harm. A knife can be made for a variety of reasons, from peeling a potato to cutting bread. What other uses do guns have?
I do understand the reasoning behind “self-protection” but my point is: With a gun you're more likely to kill someone than without one. If I know of a bad neighbourhood in town, I don't go there. I don't want to risk getting into trouble, even though it's my constitutional right to go there. Or I might like that particular neighbourhood.
Omega,
I might not have a choice in where I live, because I can afford to live no where else. I also might not have the choice in where I work, because I am unable to find work elsewhere. I might not have the choice in where I shop, because I shop where I live.
However, I do have the choice and right to feel 'secure in my person.' Last year, at least three women (that I'm aware of) were raped in state or county open space parks. These are heavily used areas. The concept that I may actually have to use a weapon to shoot something besides a person is not that far fetched either. Jefferson Co White Rock Open Space Park has signs posted periodically throughout the park letting you know how to deal with cougars.
However, if someone is intent on causing me harm you postulate that I should allow him to do so with no resistance? Huh? No, I'm going to make damn sure the idiot is dead if I have a gun in my hand. Why? Yes it causes harm, but the option is harm to someone intent on harming me or harm to me by someone intent on harming me. Um, I don't have to let anyone hurt me. If I am in fear for my life or the life of another, I am allowed to defend myself and whomever else I happen to be around. To suggest otherwise is to say I am allowed nothing more than the position of being the victim and subject to anyone with more muscle mass than I. You are saying basically that I must go through life subjecting myself to another if they are stronger? You see the gun, know the gun is a weapon capable of harm, and assume that is the only intent and purpose in owning one. My intent in owning a weapon is not harm, my intent is self-preservation. If that means harm to another then so be it. I don't have to allow myself to be subject to harm if I have the means to prevent harm.
The first weapon is awareness of the situation, the second is generally my cell phone, and only as a last resort would I use a weapon. But understand, that the second I point a weapon at someone I feel is a threat, I will pull the trigger with an understanding of the consequences of my actions.
I'm not paranoid, I don't actually carry a weapon with me all the time, though when I worked downtown I did carry a Tazer. Of course, there was this little problem I had of finding needles on top of my car and I was walking alone after dark. That is the situation where I am aware that I could have placed myself in personal danger, hence I carried a weapon, in self-defense.
You would rather I put myself in a dangerous situation where I have no protection? This seems to be what you are saying, that I should allow myself to be a victim. I can't and I won't.
---
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
<i>No Sense of Obligation</i> by Matt Young |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2002 : 17:57:11 [Permalink]
|
Trish> If I knew there were wolves and/or cougars in a wood, and those animals could pose a threat to me I would stay out of the wood. I don't see the need to shoot hapless animals, just because I happen to invade on the private territory.
“However, if someone is intent on causing me harm you postulate that I should allow him to do so with no resistance? Huh?”
I would like you to point to where I said that, please.
“No, I'm going to make damn sure the idiot is dead if I have a gun in my hand.”
How would you measure the threat in question? What happens the day you kill someone who weren't actually threatening you? Would you count that as a casualty of no gun-control?
Roth's Firearms and Violence (NIJ Research in Brief, February 1994, found at http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/guns/gun.viol), he points out the obvious dangers:
-Approximately 60 percent of all murder victims in the United States in 1989 (about 12,000 people) were killed with firearms. According to estimates, firearm attacks injured another 70,000 victims, some of whom were left permanently disabled. In 1985 (the latest year for which data are available), the cost of shootings--either by others, through self-inflicted wounds, or in accidents--was estimated to be more than $14 billion nationwide for medical care, long-term disability, and premature death. (Editor's note: the number of gun victims has increased since 1989 to 15,456 gun homicides in 1994. Source: FBI UCR report.)
-In robberies and assaults, victims are far more likely to die when the perpetrator is armed with a gun than when he or she has another weapon or is unarmed.
I can understand the need to protect oneself in a potentially dangerous part of town, the strong intent not be scared to go grocery-shopping or victimised in any other way. But to me the solution is not arming every freaking one of us. It's dealing with the actual problem. Namely crime.
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2002 : 09:42:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I would like you to point to where I said that, please.
The way I read that weapons are only for injuring people. They can also be used for self-defense. If you would say that I should not have a gun to use for self-defense then the default of that statement is I should be the victim.
quote:
How would you measure the threat in question? What happens the day you kill someone who weren't actually threatening you? Would you count that as a casualty of no gun-control?
Let's see, if someone breaks into my home, that is a threat to my safety and the safety of my family. See, the threat has to be determined and there are factors for determining threat. Does the person have a weapon? Does this person pose an immediate threat to me or those with me? I also pointed out that a weapon is a last resort. However, I have been taught that if I pull a weapon on someone to pull the trigger. It's a judgement call, it'd also be advantageous if the reasoning holds up in court. I'm also fully aware of the potential ramification if I misjudge the situation. It's a judgement call that I will have to make when and if the situation ever presents itself.
quote:
-Approximately 60 percent of all murder victims in the United States in 1989 (about 12,000 people) were killed with firearms.
If a person is intent on committing a crime gun control may not solve the problem. Gun control laws currently only prevent a person with a known record from purchasing a weapon. This wouldn't however prevent me from travelling 40 minutes to East Colfax and purchasing an unmarked, unregistered .38 for $20. Gun control laws only regulate the citizen who has not broken the law.
quote:
According to estimates, firearm attacks injured another 70,000 victims, some of whom were left permanently disabled.
Again, gun control only regulates the citizen who is able to legally purchase a weapon. This does not prevent the criminal from purchasing a weapon. Again, those intent on doing harm will find a way.
quote:
In 1985 (the latest year for which data are available), the cost of shootings--either by others, through self-inflicted wounds, or in accidents--was estimated to be more than $14 billion nationwide for medical care, long-term disability, and premature death.
Accidental shootings are sadly preventable. Three moves to load and chamber a round. Safety devices to prevent pulling the trigger. Heavier trigger pulls. Locking the weapon away with the rounds stored in a separate location. These are educational problems, not a problem with the weapon itself. Owning a weapon is a responsibility that should be taken seriously.
quote:
(Editor's note: the number of gun victims has increased since 1989 to 15,456 gun homicides in 1994. Source: FBI UCR repo |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2002 : 11:17:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
On the “N” word issue I agree with Slater. Blacks can call themselves “Nigger” all they want. Any other ethic minority for that matter or sexual one can use the labels, the majority has usually placed on them.
That is definitely not segregation or racism. The words were not invented by them, but by the whites/heterosexuals /(insert other majority). The words are degrading when used by someone outside the particular group. When used by the group themselves it's not.
That is not what I said at all.
First the word "Nigger" is a Black corruption of the "White" word negro.
Secondly a word is a word is a word. Words exist independently of the person speaking them. That's how we communicate-- if you say a word or I say a word it has the same definition. If a word is degrading then it is degrading onto itself.
To declare that I can say a word because I am of one race--but you can't say the exact same word because you are of another race is RACISM plain and simple.
No different than if I said because you weren't the same race I am you can't drink from the water fountain that I do.
If the word "nigger" is degrading then it is degrading no matter who voices it. If it is not degrading out of the mouths of some then it is not degrading Period. The rules that apply to some races must apply to all.
-------
It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.
----Eusebius of Nicomedia,
The Preparation of the Gospel
Edited by - slater on 04/01/2002 11:20:20 |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2002 : 17:43:09 [Permalink]
|
Trish> No. The default is to deal with crime. That which might make you a victim.
You then take a situation in which someone breaks into your home and obviously a threat. Again I point to that case were a foreign-exchange student was shot for ringing the wrong door-bell a few years ago.
The gun-owner viewed him as a threat, due to crime in the neighbourhood.
You may misjudge the situation and are willing to take the consequences of a bad call. What about the person you shot?
No, like with abortions you can't make guns illegal. But you can start to avoid a massive distribution, which will make it possible to buy an illegal gun somewhere 40 minutes form where you live. With no strict gun-laws gun will circulate and almost everyone will know how to get one.
We have very strict gun-control laws here in DK, and frankly I have no clue where to go and get one. It doesn't mean there are no guns, but they are far easier to trace.
Those intend on doing harm will find a way, yes. But guns are very lethal ways of doing harm. Why not tear-gas spray to protect yourself?
“Again, to my concept of self-protection. That is why, once the decision has been made to bring a weapon into a situation, the person (victim) who brings in the weapon had better pull the trigger, and when they do, they had better shoot to kill.”
So you'd respond to a situation you don't know the outcome off with killing? I think that's pretty scary. Especially for the “foreign exchange students”.
I'm not telling you not to go out in the suburbs. If you'd read my post I said, that if I knew a forest had dangerous wild-life I'd consider carefully going in there. And not arm myself to shoot at anything that “violates” my “right” to go wherever I damn want to. I don't particularly want to baseball a cougar or shot-gun a bear. I have a choice. They don't.
Sick animals or foxed with rabies or what have you, are a different matter. It's peculiar how you keep interpreting anything I say (or well, rather, write :)) in extremities. Where do I write you should sit home and worry? Is that some default again? Is there no-where you can go and feel safe without being armed?
If so I'm more worried about society than ever before.
I can't own a weapon here in Denmark. I've never felt the need to or wanted to either.
Slater> If you can't see the difference between a black person saying “nigger” and someone else, then I can't help you. Because to me it is. Is it also sexist when a woman calls herself a “bitch”?
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2002 : 10:57:58 [Permalink]
|
Omega,
The decision to use a weapon is a judgement call. The person in Florida, made a bad judgement call, especially considering the holiday. Colorado laws state that I have to tell the person to leave and if the refuse I am within my rights to shoot. They have to be inside my home, not my yard. That is the difference between what happened in Fl. The gentleman had no business thinking that he was being threatened, the person was outside the home, not inside, it was Halloween night, kids are ringing doorbells. That person acted irresponsibly. Unfortunately, there are people that act that way with motor vehicles, we can't legislate against moronic thought processes.
I don't want to ever have to point a weapon at someone and have to pull the trigger. My point is, if it becomes necessary as a last resort. If someone has broken into my home, I'm single, I'm a mother of an 11 year old girl. Yeah, I'm going to shoot if necessary to stop someone who has broken into my home. I can't and won't be a victim in that scenario, not if I don't have to be.
quote:
So you'd respond to a situation you don't know the outcome off with killing? I think that's pretty scary. Especially for the “foreign exchange students”.
You're building a strawman. I'm not going to shoot someone who comes onto my property. That's the difference. Read what I've said regarding CO laws.
As to gun control laws. The reason I brought up what happened to my brother's supervisor (I knew there was a reason - just by the end of typing I'd forgotten), the person who shot him could be tried under Federal laws for gun control. However, to my knowledge there have not been any individuals tried under the Federal gun control laws, which would make breaking these laws a Federal crime, with time served in a Federal prison. Enforcing the laws currently on the books would go much further than making new laws that won't get enforced either. That's why CO reinstituted a CBI back-ground check instead for purchase of a weapon. The CBI check is actually more thorough and would have prevented people from purchasing weapons and killing family members in that fashion. You know what the problem was, the tax payer didn't want to pay for it until three little girls were shot by their father, who would not have been able to purchase a handgun with a CBI background check.
The laws are there, Omega, they need to be enforced. More laws on the books won't make a damned bit of difference if no one enforces them.
As for wild animals, I'm also a hunter. I enjoy venison. However, the elk herds in areas that are restricted for hunting have rampant problems with sick animals. There are in some areas no natural predators for these animals. In Estes Park CO, the elk herds are so large Rocky Mountain National Park can no longer support the numbers of elk present. But no hunting is allowed. So the animals become sick and die. The deer equivalent of 'mad cow' is running through some herds because these animals would generally be pulled down by a natural predator - but they aren't because hunting isn't allowed. So these animals suffer and die. During the flooding in Fl a couple years ago, there was a huge protest against Wildlife Management shooting deer. Their legs were rotting because they were stuck in the water with no place to go. Should they also be left to suffer?
As for the predators that are out there, if it becomes a choice between me and the predator I will choose me. That does not mean that I intend to shoot every animal I see. A threat has to be posed first.
I have to accept the consequences of my decisions. If someone poses a threat to me and my family, yeah, I'll have to pull the trigger. But that person will have posed a 'threat'. Like the time this |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2002 : 14:22:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Trish> No. The default is to deal with crime. That which might make you a victim.
You then take a situation in which someone breaks into your home and obviously a threat. Again I point to that case were a foreign-exchange student was shot for ringing the wrong door-bell a few years ago.
The gun-owner viewed him as a threat, due to crime in the neighbourhood.
You may misjudge the situation and are willing to take the consequences of a bad call. What about the person you shot?
No, like with abortions you can't make guns illegal. But you can start to avoid a massive distribution, which will make it possible to buy an illegal gun somewhere 40 minutes form where you live. With no strict gun-laws gun will circulate and almost everyone will know how to get one.
We have very strict gun-control laws here in DK, and frankly I have no clue where to go and get one. It doesn't mean there are no guns, but they are far easier to trace.
Those intend on doing harm will find a way, yes. But guns are very lethal ways of doing harm. Why not tear-gas spray to protect yourself?
“Again, to my concept of self-protection. That is why, once the decision has been made to bring a weapon into a situation, the person (victim) who brings in the weapon had better pull the trigger, and when they do, they had better shoot to kill.”
So you'd respond to a situation you don't know the outcome off with killing? I think that's pretty scary. Especially for the “foreign exchange students”.
I'm not telling you not to go out in the suburbs. If you'd read my post I said, that if I knew a forest had dangerous wild-life I'd consider carefully going in there. And not arm myself to shoot at anything that “violates” my “right” to go wherever I damn want to. I don't particularly want to baseball a cougar or shot-gun a bear. I have a choice. They don't.
Sick animals or foxed with rabies or what have you, are a different matter. It's peculiar how you keep interpreting anything I say (or well, rather, write :)) in extremities. Where do I write you should sit home and worry? Is that some default again? Is there no-where you can go and feel safe without being armed?
If so I'm more worried about society than ever before.
I can't own a weapon here in Denmark. I've never felt the need to or wanted to either.
Slater> If you can't see the difference between a black person saying “nigger” and someone else, then I can't help you. Because to me it is. Is it also sexist when a woman calls herself a “bitch”?
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams
The difference between DK and here is that here, gun ownership has been encouraged. There already exists by the illegal gun trade a ready supply. Making new laws which restrict legal gun ownership makes the problem in the US worse. What works for one country will not nessessarily work for another. By and large in the US, crimes perpetrated with weapons are done by multiple repeat offenders. By selecting one case in Texas where a homeowner shot an unarmed confused exchange student, you ignore the cases where a gun owner defends themselves against armed assailants. For instance, in Chicago an elderly woman was a victim of a home invasion. One of the two assailants threatened to rape her and slapped her around with his gun while his partner was tossing another room. She was able to retrieve her gun and kill the armed assialant and hold the other assialant at gunpoint until the police were able to arrive. There is also a story from Chicago where a pit bull attack dog got loose and was mauling a seven year old girl. The girl's uncle retrieved his handgun and killed the animal in time to prevent the animal from killing the girl. In bo |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2002 : 18:04:41 [Permalink]
|
Trish> Okay, let me see if I understand your POW correctly. To you owning a gun is one thing. What people with sometimes “moronic though-processes” do with it, is something entirely different?
You reason based on the laws in the state you live in, and your sensibility and responsibility. I speak against free gun-ownership based on situations like the dead foreign-exchange student.
You keep bringing up an example, where someone has entered your home, and pose a threat to you and your daughter.
Am I to understand, that you'd not bring a gun with you outside your house then?
Again:
““Again, to my concept of self-protection. That is why, once the decision has been made to bring a weapon into a situation, the person (victim) who brings in the weapon had better pull the trigger, and when they do, they had better shoot to kill.”
So you'd respond to a situation you don't know the outcome off with killing? I think that's pretty scary. Especially for the “foreign exchange students”.”
Because as I read it you're saying, that if you bring your gun outside your house, and happen in a situation that you(!) deem a threat to you, you will pull the trigger?
I do realise that living in an area with a high crime-rate can be extremely stressful. I would prefer dealing with the crime-issue, instead of arming everyone. I tried today walking down the street and imagine what it would be like if just about everyone could possible be carrying. I didn't like the prospect.
So is it essentially a “protest” of sort against idiots, who want to intimidate hapless strangers, who just happen to walk by on the street? I can understand that sentiment, if it's the case.
Then to the gun-laws: Yes, they need to be enforced, but that's not really my issue. We discuss whether or not there should be ANY. (To me laws should be enforced or they don't make sense.)
Wild-life: I think we're going off in two different directions. It seems to me your think I'd be ready to shoot (or something :) ) anyone harming an animal. That is not the case. I'm saying that walking into a forest with potentially dangerous animals is… dangerous. And I'd consider it carefully instead of saying: “It's my right. I'll bring a gun.” Sick or wounded animals should get help. Animals with rabies and so on and so forth should be shot. That's just not my job, but the job of the wild-life people taking care of the woods.
“If someone poses a threat to me and my family, yeah, I'll have to pull the trigger.”
That is you. Maybe you are perfectly capable in any situation to keep your cool and more or less objectively evaluate a situation and possible threat. And only use a gun as a last resort. I don't view you as particularly trigger-happy from what I read around here.
But not everyone is like that, and I point to the foreign exchange student again.
Valiant Dancer> Yes, I can see the large amount of weapons in circulation as a problem. And I must readily admit to not knowing how to get the guns out of circulation again.
Perhaps the real problem here is not as much gun-ownership as the face of crime, so to speak. Exceedingly violent crimes are not unheard of here in DK, but rare. Which might be why I'd rather not have guns in circulation to make it easier for the criminally inclined to get their hands on.
In a basically violence-free society it wouldn't really matter to me if anybody had a gun or not.
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
