Thread: Gun Crimes
View Single Post
Old 09-10-2007, 04:56 PM   #25
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Re: Gun Crimes

Michael Varin wrote: View Post
What a shame. How easily could the worst of 9/11 have been prevented if the cockpit crew had been armed, with a randomly seated armed security guard in the cabin?
Could've...would've...should've. It's all speculation. You have no idea, for instance: if there WERE armed guards in the cockpit of the planes, if the hijackers would have found something to deal with them, as well. In short, you're dealing in speculation.

Once again, the government infringing on people's rights (self-defense in this case) causes more harm than good.
Did you know that the FBI was NOT allowed to investigate gun-ownership of the hijackers because it would interfere with their right to privacy, and to bear arms? It works both ways.

Michael Varin wrote: View Post
I'm curious, Neil. What is your first hand experience with firearms? Have you ever learned how to properly handle and fire a gun? What about guns repulses you so much? (By the way, if you don't want to own a gun, I have absolutely no problem with that.)
Very little. I had some experience with BB guns on a target-range when I was a kid: that's about it. And no: I don't want to own a gun; but neither do I want to take away someone else's right to own one, either...even tho I find the "right to bear arms" one of the most controversial and contentious of the Bill of Rights.

At this time! When is the right time to take away civil liberties?
In the midst of a long, carefully thought-out debate in a climate free from emergencies or strife, amongst all sectors of society. In other words, this may never happen.

It never ceases to amaze me that people who are concerned with losing their civil liberties fail to recognize that guns in the hands of the citizens (it helps if they are informed and used to exercising their rights) is one of the largest obstacles for tyranny.
No, not by a long shot. One of the largest obstacles to tyranny is the freedom to speak your mind. THAT is the first liberty to go.

THAT, followed closely by repression of women's rights (check, it's one of the first official mandates of all tyrannies; but they usually disguise the fiat as something more all inclusive).

Hunter Lonsberry wrote: View Post
Id rather have a firearm than a live blade personally, and I've got about 10 years of kendo and iaido experience. Depending on if it is a shotgun or handgun, it may be more maneuverable in tight quarters like inside a building.
Well, that's you...not me. I've had more than a score of years' experience in martial arts: and even if I had gun-training--I might feel less twitchy about guns in general; but I doubt I'd feel different about their impact upon society.

Displaying a firearm doesn't mean that a firearm has to be shot. Simply displaying it may be enough that people have second thoughts. A mugger (usually) displays his weapon, he doesn't shoot you or stab you in order to get you to give over your money. Maybe he would have killed people. maybe he wouldn't, but it would have been a defensive use, and he likely wouldn't have been beaten.
Then, in this case: a toy-gun (or one with blanks) would have done the job, just as well.

Sure, but again, you are assuming that a firearm has to be fired, to be effective for defense. However, situations like this, where the police can't come to help and you are on your own do occur. If for whatever reason you can't get out of such an area (injury, sick relative, all routes blocked) you wouldnt feel safer with one, assuming proper training?
No, as a loaded weapon could be taken from me and used against me (or others).

Some states have castle doctrine, IE when someone enters your house, you don't have to retreat, you can shoot them. Pretty harsh.
And some burglars in OTHER states have sued (and won) against people protecting themselves IN THEIR OWN HOMES, with firearms. It all depends upon what state we're referring.

this isn't commercial flying on Delta/AA. Alaskan law requires it.
This doesn't make the skies any safer, IMO. Just more likely that someone will get shot.

I'd feel FAR safer if the US weren't the #1 seller of small arms in the world; or if we decided that we had to invade the heart of the Middle East in order to control the flow of oil.

Failing that, I see little rationale that using the same logic we approach in our foreign policy (that is, the one with the biggest weapons wins, and can tell everyone else what to do, and how to behave) in our daily lives and commercial security will make life noticeably safer.

You might disagree, and I respect that. I even respect it so much, that I would fight to preserve a civil liberty, of which I don't personally value.

I realize you might not be a pilot, nor live in New Orleans post Katrina, nor likely lived in LA during the riots, but these are just a few situations I can think of where having a firearm would be useful.
In the surface, I disagree with these examples. But, I CAN see certain examples where owning a gun might be justified (but not by me, personally).

I disagree. Asides from their status as authority figures with arrest powers, one of the reasons people don't mess with cops is because they carry firearms, and usually appear in superior numbers. Same for the National Guard. When they are called in to restore order, they aren't carrying sticks, they are carrying M16s. Unlike the UK, the US has a high rate of gun ownership, and without the police being armed, they would have no way to restore civil order.
Nope, I disagree, least, in quantity. Sure, there OUGHT to be specially armed police units who go after the "armed and dangerous" crowd: but you can make a very good argument that the arming the average patrolman causes more harm, than good.

I think that Sean Bell; Amadou Diallo; and many, many others who met the wrong end of a police revolver, might well agree with me.

I'm not out there looking for a scenario straight out of Red Dawn, but wanted to point out that there are scenarios where a firearm would be useful.
Yes, there are: but a firearm as a means to preserve the peace is a misnomer, and way overrated. IMO, at least.

Chris Hein wrote:
If you see yourself as a victim. You will always see guns as "evil". You can only imagine people more powerful then yourself using their weapons to take advantage of you. This is the victims mentality.

If you are not a victim you can see firearms are just another tool. No different the kitchen knives, cars, or matches.
Absolute nonsense. Kitchen knives, cars or matches were NOT designed to harm, or injure. Guns are designed for nothing else.

And I am not a victim, because I see guns as easily misused. This is called putting words (and thoughts) into my mouth. Someone who comes into my house with intent to harm will find very few victims awaiting him. They won't find any guns, but this does not mean that s/he can just walk into my space, without worries.

Last edited by Neil Mick : 09-10-2007 at 05:03 PM.
  Reply With Quote