Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Open Discussions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-10-2007, 05:00 PM   #26
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
David Chalk wrote: View Post
Which would leave on these grounds - an obligation to show that guns are either more or less effective at providing protection than other tools of seld defence, pepper spray, CS Gas, etc
And don't EVEN get me started on stun-guns!
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2007, 11:38 AM   #27
James Davis
 
James Davis's Avatar
Dojo: Ft. Myers School of Aikido
Location: Ft. Myers, FL.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 716
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
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.
Yes it does work both ways, but I would personally rather be free than have everybody watched 24-7.

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
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.
It is controversial, but only because people make it so. Statistics repeatedly show that private citizens' legal ownership of weapons results in less crime. I don't think that this is the reason that the founders of our country gave us this right, though. I think that they wanted to give us the ability to resist an oppressive government, just like they'd finished doing. They didn't have the benefit of seeing crime rates climb in England or Australia after a gun ban, and they didn't know what Hitler would do after confiscating the guns of the citizens.

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
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.
Not as long as "If it bleeds, it leads; If it burns, it earns." holds true for our media. We never hear about the crimes that are prevented by a citizen with a firearm. The media would rather scare us.

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
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).
I don't trust a government that doesn't trust me with a gun.

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
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.
Bows and arrows, knives, swords, all the way back to sharp rocks and sticks have been used to help us kill each other forever. Education, not indoctrination , is the key to making things better. There are still idiots out there that hate people because they're a different color, and I think that their teaching their kids to be the same way is just as harmful as any weapon.

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
No, as a loaded weapon could be taken from me and used against me (or others).
I know by the end of your post that you're not a defeatist and that you won't just roll over for somebody, but people in their seventies who live alone need options. Guns are a (comparativley) cheap way of someone defending theirself when they can't afford high concrete walls and bodyguards. Why even put a lock on the door when they'll just break it in? Why even try to be safe? Because our lives have value, and people don't want to just give up.
Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
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.
and the laws that enabled them to sue suck. Hell, if they had cut their ankle breaking through the window, they could have sued too.

Anyone care to submit a solution to this...?

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
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.
Even guys with AK-47s don't want to get shot with my wife's .22! If there is any threat of being shot, scumbags will look for an easier target. It's not about an arms race on my street.
Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
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.
Thank you.

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
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).
What kind of examples?

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
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.
The SWAT team is called when there's a big problem. A police presence that can take care of business prevents big problems. I know some great cops, but we need to realize that we have no right to police protection. If we call because a murderer is at our door, they don't necessarily have to respond at all. They can't be sued for the crimes they don't prevent, regardless of how many times we call, panicked and fearing for our lives.

Just Google "Do you have a right to police protection?" for a list of cases that show us who we should depend on.
Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
Yes, there are: but a firearm as a means to preserve the peace is a misnomer, and way overrated. IMO, at least.
How do you stop a bad man with a gun, short of making everyone and everything bulletproof? Take his gun? He can get another one. For as long as there is a buyer, there will be a seller. Drugs are illegal, and they are plentiful.

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
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.
That's great, Neil. I'm glad that you're taking responsibility for your safety and protecting the people that you love. What about your neighbors? If they don't know aikido, or can't walk, shouldn't they have options?

"The only difference between Congress and drunken sailors is that drunken sailors spend their own money." -Tom Feeney, representative from Florida
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2007, 12:07 PM   #28
Hogan
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 106
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: 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?....
Source??
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2007, 02:44 PM   #29
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
John Hogan wrote: View Post
Source??
DemocracyNow (amongst many others)

Quote:
At a December 2001 hearing, Attorney General John Ashcroft declared that FBI checks of gun records into foreigners being detained on suspicion of possible connections to the September 11 hijackers would "violate their privacy."
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2007, 03:04 PM   #30
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
DemocracyNow (amongst many others)
Sure... and that was the law at the time (before the Patriot Act). Dem lawmakers were stuttering trying to show that all the laws hampering intelligence agencies and building a "wall" where agencies couldn't share information about bad guys wasn't really their fault. It was their fault, though, starting the with the Church Commission. I watched that crook Bob Torricelli trying to explain why he'd rammed through a law saying that the CIA couldn't have any informants on the payroll that had criminal histories.... thus killing our human intelligence prior to the WTC attack.

Liberals have this thing about not wanting to be able to track criminals so that the criminals' rights won't be violated (forget the victims, you know... in fact, hide the statistics about victims and you won't have to do anything about them at all).

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2007, 03:07 PM   #31
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
James Davis, Jr. wrote: View Post
Yes it does work both ways, but I would personally rather be free than have everybody watched 24-7.
Freedom does not necessarily equate to gun ownership. Gun ownership can be considered a freedom: but there are other freedoms more important to yours, truly.

Quote:
It is controversial, but only because people make it so.
Wrong. It's controversial because we're talking about the right to own a weapon that can easily cause accidental damage. Also, guns in 1789 are not the same animals, as guns in 2007.

Quote:
Statistics repeatedly show that private citizens' legal ownership of weapons results in less crime.
Uh huh. Let's see 'em.

Quote:
I don't think that this is the reason that the founders of our country gave us this right, though. I think that they wanted to give us the ability to resist an oppressive government, just like they'd finished doing.
true.

Quote:
They didn't have the benefit of seeing crime rates climb in England or Australia after a gun ban, and they didn't know what Hitler would do after confiscating the guns of the citizens.
Anyone can play with these sorts of statistics to prove one's point.

Quote:
Bows and arrows, knives, swords, all the way back to sharp rocks and sticks have been used to help us kill each other forever. Education, not indoctrination , is the key to making things better. There are still idiots out there that hate people because they're a different color, and I think that their teaching their kids to be the same way is just as harmful as any weapon.
You're completely ignoring the role of guns in extending injustice in various national foreign policies. As a global force, guns hardly make the world safer, now does it?

In the past two decades, our production of small arms has soared, as have our profits and business. Is this making the world safer?

I don't know about you: but I feel a lot LESS safer now, than I did in the '90's.

Quote:
I know by the end of your post that you're not a defeatist and that you won't just roll over for somebody, but people in their seventies who live alone need options. Guns are a (comparativley) cheap way of someone defending theirself when they can't afford high concrete walls and bodyguards.
Guns are also a comparatively easy method to accidentally blow the head of the hapless mailman, visiting nephew, or yappy dog next door, should said elderly-person mistake the noises for something more dire.

Quote:
Why even put a lock on the door when they'll just break it in? Why even try to be safe?

Because our lives have value, and people don't want to just give up.
You know something? I'm beginning to notice something about pro-gun post'ers. They seem to have an obsession with spinning these tales about eevel home-burglars, young sociopaths and the like. And, funny, but I always end up picturing a Wild West Main Street, where the baddies are at one side; the good guys are at the other, a la OK Corral.

Newsflash...it's almost NEVER like this setup. There's chaos, a lack of information, sometimes poor lighting, etc.

More guns in the equation mean more stray bullets, to hit innocent bystanders. Why can't you pro-gun types ever acknowledge this possibility?

Quote:
Even guys with AK-47s don't want to get shot with my wife's .22! If there is any threat of being shot, scumbags will look for an easier target. It's not about an arms race on my street.
There goes that "Wild West" scenario again, raising its ugly head.

What if it were at night; the baddies had already sneaked into the house; your wife alone; she hears a noise and fumbles for her gun, but the baddies get there first, knock the gun away and are REALLY mad that she tried to arm herself? It's equally possible.

Quote:
What kind of examples?
Understand, that I am not a proponent of enacting anti-gun laws. For me, this is still an open question, and I don't intend to have it answered, here (as, I have read all these arguments before).

But, around the late '90's I lived in a nasty area of SF. I was told that it used to be a LOT nastier: gangs roaming around shooting at innocents because they wore the wrong color that day, etc. The gangs were thinning each other out (or going to jail): but the story also is that local homeowners armed themselves and ran the gangbangers out of the neighborhood. Maybe they did: or maybe it was just gang-attrition. I don't know, but I do keep an open mind on the subject. It could be both, or either.

Quote:
The SWAT team is called when there's a big problem. A police presence that can take care of business prevents big problems. I know some great cops, but we need to realize that we have no right to police protection. If we call because a murderer is at our door, they don't necessarily have to respond at all. They can't be sued for the crimes they don't prevent, regardless of how many times we call, panicked and fearing for our lives.

Just Google "Do you have a right to police protection?" for a list of cases that show us who we should depend on.

How do you stop a bad man with a gun, short of making everyone and everything bulletproof? Take his gun? He can get another one. For as long as there is a buyer, there will be a seller. Drugs are illegal, and they are plentiful.
And, they are much, much more plentiful, thanks to foreign policies and gov't'l corruption. Crack cocaine was largely introduced into the US in the late '80's thanks to GB 1 and the Contra connection. I don't see why the reliance of weapons as international policy also plays into the increasing violence in our communities.

Quote:
That's great, Neil. I'm glad that you're taking responsibility for your safety and protecting the people that you love. What about your neighbors? If they don't know aikido, or can't walk, shouldn't they have options?
Yes, my neighbors would just LOVE me, should I pop off a few rounds to save their lives, but accidentally shoot their kids in the process...

Last edited by Neil Mick : 09-11-2007 at 03:10 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2007, 05:39 PM   #32
James Davis
 
James Davis's Avatar
Dojo: Ft. Myers School of Aikido
Location: Ft. Myers, FL.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 716
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post

Uh huh. Let's see 'em.
If you think I'm a liar, just say it.

Now why the heck would I bother to cite any statistics when you'll just say something like
Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
Anyone can play with these sorts of statistics to prove one's point.


Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
You're completely ignoring the role of guns in extending injustice in various national foreign policies. As a global force, guns hardly make the world safer, now does it?
You are correct in that I'm ignoring the global impact of guns, for the moment. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about trusting my neighbors to go get their background checks and own a gun legally.

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
In the past two decades, our production of small arms has soared, as have our profits and business. Is this making the world safer?
Not as long as there are "leaders" who go about terrorizing the people of other nations and "leaders" who do nothing to stop them.

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
I don't know about you: but I feel a lot LESS safer now, than I did in the '90's.
I'm old enough to carry a concealed weapon, so I actually do feel safer.

I was beat down and robbed by seven guys and came away with a fractured face when I didn't have a pistol. I wasn't allowed to carry one.

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
Guns are also a comparatively easy method to accidentally blow the head of the hapless mailman, visiting nephew, or yappy dog next door, should said elderly-person mistake the noises for something more dire.
Yeah. We should take their cars away, too.

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
You know something? I'm beginning to notice something about pro-gun post'ers. They seem to have an obsession with spinning these tales about eevel home-burglars, young sociopaths and the like. And, funny, but I always end up picturing a Wild West Main Street, where the baddies are at one side; the good guys are at the other, a la OK Corral.

Newsflash...it's almost NEVER like this setup. There's chaos, a lack of information, sometimes poor lighting, etc.

More guns in the equation mean more stray bullets, to hit innocent bystanders. Why can't you pro-gun types ever acknowledge this possibility?
It can happen. There, I acknowledged it.

Newsflash...I'm aware that it's "almost never like this setup". You're the one who "always ends up picturing it".

I'm aware that there's chaos, poor lighting, lack of information, and often only a split second to make the decision to fire. I've had the training.

Want me to spin a tale, since I have such an "obsession" with doing so? How about after a hurricane, the power goes out and a family has a generator. A group of people think that they'll just gang up on the family, beat them down, take their food, and leave them with nothing unable to call for medical attention. It happens. Don't tell me that it doesn't.

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
What if it were at night; the baddies had already sneaked into the house; your wife alone; she hears a noise and fumbles for her gun, but the baddies get there first, knock the gun away and are REALLY mad that she tried to arm herself? It's equally possible.
You're right. She should just give herself up.

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
Understand, that I am not a proponent of enacting anti-gun laws. For me, this is still an open question, and I don't intend to have it answered, here (as, I have read all these arguments before).
So there's no point in our talking, then? True, our discussion isn't going to solve the world's problems. I'm gonna speak my mind anyway, regardless of how I or my beliefs are ridiculed.
Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
But, around the late '90's I lived in a nasty area of SF. I was told that it used to be a LOT nastier: gangs roaming around shooting at innocents because they wore the wrong color that day, etc. The gangs were thinning each other out (or going to jail): but the story also is that local homeowners armed themselves and ran the gangbangers out of the neighborhood. Maybe they did: or maybe it was just gang-attrition. I don't know, but I do keep an open mind on the subject. It could be both, or either.
Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
Yes, my neighbors would just LOVE me, should I pop off a few rounds to save their lives, but accidentally shoot their kids in the process...
Even so much as the possibility of a gun being in your home reduces the chance of theirs being burglarized. If they know that there's no gun in either home, then it doesn't make their behavior nearly as risky.

"The only difference between Congress and drunken sailors is that drunken sailors spend their own money." -Tom Feeney, representative from Florida
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2007, 10:09 PM   #33
Jim Sorrentino
  AikiWeb Forums Contributing Member
 
Jim Sorrentino's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido of Northern Virginia, Aikido Shobukan Dojo
Location: Washington, DC
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 247
Offline
"A Nation of Cowards"

isa thought-provoking article written by attorney (and former aikidoka!) Jeffrey Snyder. It's at http://rkba.org/comment/cowards.html.

It's one of the best defenses of the right to own and carry weapons that I've read. Enjoy ---

Jim
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2007, 03:11 AM   #34
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
James Davis, Jr. wrote: View Post
If you think I'm a liar, just say it.
You, a liar? Naah! Take the statement at face value: I wanted to see the statistics.

Quote:
Now why the heck would I bother to cite any statistics when you'll just say something like

Ehh...ya caught me.

Quote:
You are correct in that I'm ignoring the global impact of guns, for the moment. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about trusting my neighbors to go get their background checks and own a gun legally.
Given the choice btw walking down the street with unarmed residents, vs walking down one with armed residents: I'd feel safer walking down the former, every time...

Quote:
Not as long as there are "leaders" who go about terrorizing the people of other nations and "leaders" who do nothing to stop them.
Quote:
I was beat down and robbed by seven guys and came away with a fractured face when I didn't have a pistol. I wasn't allowed to carry one.
In your shoes, then: I'd probably feel more the same.

Quote:
Yeah. We should take their cars away, too.
Yes, take their cars away...please! Make them walk down to the corner store, instead of driving.

Quote:
It can happen. There, I acknowledged it.
...and the crowd goes WILD...

Quote:
Newsflash...I'm aware that it's "almost never like this setup". You're the one who "always ends up picturing it".

I'm aware that there's chaos, poor lighting, lack of information, and often only a split second to make the decision to fire. I've had the training.

Want me to spin a tale, since I have such an "obsession" with doing so? How about after a hurricane, the power goes out and a family has a generator. A group of people think that they'll just gang up on the family, beat them down, take their food, and leave them with nothing unable to call for medical attention. It happens. Don't tell me that it doesn't.
Again, you can come up with many scenarios, I'm sure. But, my mind always comes back to the kids playing in dad's closet: finding a gun and deciding to play William Tell.

Quote:
You're right. She should just give herself up.
Nooo...this is called putting words in my mouth.

Quote:
So there's no point in our talking, then? True, our discussion isn't going to solve the world's problems. I'm gonna speak my mind anyway, regardless of how I or my beliefs are ridiculed.
Good. And, I wasn't ridiculing your beliefs. I much prefer you speak your mind, rather than go away.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2007, 03:32 AM   #35
Dirk Hanss
 
Dirk Hanss's Avatar
Dojo: Aikidoschule Trier
Location: Merzkirchen
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 471
Germany
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
James Davis, Jr. wrote: View Post
If you think I'm a liar, just say it.

Now why the heck would I bother to cite any statistics when you'll just say something like


I don't know about, Neil - I don't think that you are a liar, but you definitely misunderstand reading statistics. They do never tell something about cause and results, just about coincidences.
You might get an idea about which is the cause and which the effect, by knowing more about possible functionalities, but you even have to check, which information might have been neglected.
You did not lie, statistics often do it, that is why it would be interesting to see them and the details about collecting the sample.

Just an exaggerating joke to understand, what might happen:
Do you know, how dangerous breast feeding is? I ran a test about all people in the 17th century, who were raised by breast feeding. They are aall dead - 100%! So breast feeding results in death - for sure :!: :?:

Another one that is not clear. If you know some vegetarians, much more oof them might look unhealthy according to your meat-eating friends. - So living as vegetarian is not good for health :?: You might just not know, how many of them were ill and thus switched to vegetarian food. You just might recognise people much easier as vegetarian, when they look unhealthy. So without knowing more about the details and how to raise and filter data, you cannot conclude anything out of this statistic.

Best regards

Dirk
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2007, 05:44 AM   #36
Michael Varin
Dojo: Aikido of Fresno
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 567
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
James Davis, Jr. wrote:
I don't think that this is the reason that the founders of our country gave us this right, though.
James, you sound like a freedom-minded individual, so forgive me if this seems like nit-picking. No one gave us our rights. The founders may have recognized them, they may have been enumerated in the Bill of Rights, but they were already ours and if the Constitution ceases to exist they will still be ours. I think words are important and we must select them carefully, especially when talking about ideas that may be foreign to some (many?).

Quote:
James Davis, Jr. wrote:
I'm talking about trusting my neighbors to go get their background checks and own a gun legally.
Once again, with the behavior that you are describing, it sounds like gun ownership is a privilege, not a right.

Quote:
Jim Sorrentino wrote:
isa thought-provoking article written by attorney (and former aikidoka!) Jeffrey Snyder. It's at http://rkba.org/comment/cowards.html.

It's one of the best defenses of the right to own and carry weapons that I've read. Enjoy
I first read Nation of Cowards in 1994. The first third of the essay is in our dojo booklet that we give to our students.

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
You know something? I'm beginning to notice something about pro-gun post'ers. They seem to have an obsession with spinning these tales about eevel home-burglars, young sociopaths and the like. And, funny, but I always end up picturing a Wild West Main Street, where the baddies are at one side; the good guys are at the other, a la OK Corral.

Newsflash...it's almost NEVER like this setup. There's chaos, a lack of information, sometimes poor lighting, etc.

More guns in the equation mean more stray bullets, to hit innocent bystanders. Why can't you pro-gun types ever acknowledge this possibility?
There was a show I used to watch on Court TV (it might still be on) called Most Shocking. You are easily able to see the difference in how the situations progress when the store-owners/employees have guns (any weapon really) versus when they don't. It is the criminals running away in terror v. major property loss, severe beatings/stabbings all the way to execution style murder. No joke!

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
There goes that "Wild West" scenario again, raising its ugly head.

What if it were at night; the baddies had already sneaked into the house; your wife alone; she hears a noise and fumbles for her gun, but the baddies get there first, knock the gun away and are REALLY mad that she tried to arm herself? It's equally possible.
Are you really concerned about angering people who are assaulting you?

By the way, the "Wild" West was a lot less wild than most urban areas today.

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
Given the choice btw walking down the street with unarmed residents, vs walking down one with armed residents: I'd feel safer walking down the former, every time...
Here is a blog entry that I came across a few months ago:

Why the gun is civilization
Quote:
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.

-Michael
"Through aiki we can feel the mind of the enemy who comes to attack and are thus able to respond immediately." - M. Mochizuki
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2007, 02:11 PM   #37
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
viral individualism

Quote:
Michael Varin wrote: View Post
There was a show I used to watch on Court TV (it might still be on) called Most Shocking. You are easily able to see the difference in how the situations progress when the store-owners/employees have guns (any weapon really) versus when they don't. It is the criminals running away in terror v. major property loss, severe beatings/stabbings all the way to execution style murder. No joke!
No, I'm sure it isn't. But by your own admission, that was TV...a show with an editor and a producer, who decide what runs. Hardly an indicator of reality.

Quote:
Are you really concerned about angering people who are assaulting you?
It was just a hypothetical...

Quote:
By the way, the "Wild" West was a lot less wild than most urban areas today.
True. But my point is that few gunfights are set out like a target range, in the middle of the day, or OK Corrall.

Quote:
Here is a blog entry that I came across a few months ago:
Oh good...a great, big strawman for me to tilt against. And, you've opened a new can of worms for me to wriggle through. Strap in, this could get ugly.

Why the gun is civilization

Quote:
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.
Sorry, but on its face: this is complete nonsense. Human beings deal in a VARIETY of methods besides force or reason. There's also being completely emotive/irrational (and yes, this mode CAN involve a response neither reasonable, nor forceful); not dealing with a person at all (not knowing the language, etc); off the top of my head.

Quote:
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.
Notice how limiting this person's idea of civilization is, that all exchange involves getting HIM to do something for ME.

It gets better.

Quote:
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.
You start to notice it right here. It's subtle, but pervasive--this implicit notion that guns somehow "ennoble" the user, yet limits his ability to empathize, as we shall see.

Quote:
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.
Bowl me over with your "stunning" logic. I have been in mor than a few confrontations where the addition of a firearm would have ended badly. Instead, no one struck a blow. Confrontations are ALSO won with guile, quick-thinking, martial training, mediation, non-violent communication, and empathy.

Quote:
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.
Exactly. So, rather than issue a public weapons arming program: I think it much better to start those free community MA classes.

But cutting to the chase, we come to the most revealing sentence in the whole diatribe:

Quote:
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.
What a revelation of cynical sentiment and distrust of people and society, this statement is. He carries a gun because he "wants to be left alone." Really, he's NOT "looking" for a fight, but should one arise, he'll be ready, the ennobled rationalist, to make sure that the playing-field is level (just like OK Corrall).

Throughout this thread, all of you pro-gun types have been providing numerous examples on why guns would be useful in this or that situation, etc. And, yes, some of them I can see.

But, NONE of you have yet to talk about the effect of guns upon a society. OUR society, specifically. This blog shows some of the pervasive dangers of living in a violent gun-happy society (a society addicted to faux-violence, pimped hourly by a corporate, mainstream media)...an oversimplification of human behavior and interaction (people are either to be reasoned with, or dealt with, by force), coupled with a strange dehumanization and separation of oneself, from society.

By owning a gun, the implication is that I suddlenly become a rational person, incapable of letting my emotions guide my actions. I just want to be left alone, isolated from the very society I am trying to supposedly protect.

This narcissistic sociopathy pervades our culture through our media. We see it in movies, we're warned of imminent dangers hourly on TV and radio, our entertainment and upbringing of our kids, in the form of "1st person shooter" computer games.

It even infects our language. It CERTAINLY affects our choice of leaders and foreign policy. Who is more highly lauded in American society, than the gunslinging adventurer of the Wild West, fighting to bring civilization to the wild jungle (cf, John Wayne, any Jerry Brookheimer film, et al)?

Isn't this what the US basically did, in 2003? Thumbed their nose at the "obsolete" UN, walk into Iraq like a rootin' tootin' cowboy: stood tall as our Wild West hero proclaimed "Mission Accomplished," and taunted the Indians to "Bring It On!" Did this behavior in the world make us safer?

To all you people who own guns and it makes you feel safer, bully for you. I am not interested in taking away your right to own a gun: so long as you don't try to pass a law FORCING me to own one. But, funny how all of you like to skirt the elephant in the room, of how guns affect us as a society.

Last edited by Neil Mick : 09-12-2007 at 02:23 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2007, 02:16 PM   #38
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: viral individualism

From Santa Cruz, California, home of "Lost Boys" and the Tie-dyed Capital of the Universe:
Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
Hardly an indicator of reality.
Thanks. Haven't had a guffaw like that one in years!
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2007, 02:32 PM   #39
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: viral individualism

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
From Santa Cruz, California, home of "Lost Boys" and the Tie-dyed Capital of the Universe:
Thanks. Haven't had a guffaw like that one in years!
Coming from someone who finds amusement in where people live...well, no thanks are necessary, Mike.

You must get LOADS of yucks just passing a map on the wall! Not very challenging to my burgeoning career-skills as online comic!
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2007, 03:08 PM   #40
HL1978
Dojo: Aunkai
Location: Fairfax, VA
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 429
United_States
Offline
Re: viral individualism

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post

To all you people who own guns and it makes you feel safer, bully for you. I am not interested in taking away your right to own a gun: so long as you don't try to pass a law FORCING me to own one. But, funny how all of you like to skirt the elephant in the room, of how guns affect us as a society.
There are somewhere around 60-80 million gun owners in the US.

There are about 1500 accidental gun deaths each year (only 143 of which were of age 19 and under in 2004 according to the Brady campaign http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/f.../children.pdf), about ~150 or so from hunting accidents. I'm sure many of these could be prevented with proper storage of firearms (yet locking away/safety locks/ not loaded doesn't help if you need to utilize it for home defense) and education for young children, however the concerns are overstated when more kids drown in pools, die in fires etc each year. Most of the deaths which aren't suicides don't occur in the suburbs, don't occur in the posh neighborhoods in the city, nor in the rural areas. Apparently, in states/counties with liberal carry laws, there has been no statistical increase in accidental shootings, and ~1% of permit holders have their permits revoked on any given year.

Firearms deaths are tragic, and some are preventable, but the scale of their damage to society is dwarfed by damage dealt automobile deaths, yet we don't see cries from the public for "car control" as in more stringent licensing, requiring drivers to develop better car control skills, retesting the driving portion of the exam every other year, prohibiting cars on the road without ABS or stability control etc.

For suicides, a more effective approach than gun control would be effective treatment of those who need help.

Would outlawing firearms in the US bring down the number of deaths by firearms? Undoubtedly. For those who wish to injure one another would simply start using knives, bats etc (see the rise of knife crime in the UK). Further, given how easy it is for one who has access to a machine shop to construct a firearm on their own, they would still exist. For me, the prevalence of firearms in this country provides an acceptable risk, with acceptable costs, much like we as a society tolerate the risks of highly unskilled and inattentive drivers on our roads for the sake of convenience.

Last edited by HL1978 : 09-12-2007 at 03:12 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2007, 05:50 PM   #41
Mark Freeman
Dojo: Dartington
Location: Devon
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,220
United Kingdom
Offline
Re: viral individualism

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
Not very challenging to my burgeoning career-skills as online comic!
Don't give up the day job yet, Neil

I'm lucky enough to live in a virtually gun free environment, which suits me fine. I've only ever had a gun pointed at me with any threat behind it once, back in 1960, I was 5 and the "big boys" were probably about 10, they certainly made me wish I had been wearing brown trousers at the time . They only had a .22 air pistol but it was a Luger replica, to my young eyes, it was real enough.

I applaud the stand you are taking against the pro lobby, but methinks you are going to be battling for a long time. Your country's love affair with the gun is deep, and the partnership enduring.

There is a big difference between a single / double shot rifle and a modern automatic hand gun some of those things could be quite comfortably called WMD.

There is virtually no pro gun lobby in the UK, and as much as our US cousins try to persuade us that we'd be better off with their system, we will probably just muddle along being approx 90+% gun free. ( those figures are just an educated guess, so no one start asking me to name my statistical sources ).

Come and live in Devon for a while Neil, I know of a good dojo you could practice in, and we'd love to have you Totnes is like a sister town to Santa Cruz, without the surf and the seals ( and the guns ).
It is a bit of an idealistic bubble, but hey, I've lived in a lot worse places, ( the Hillbrow district in Johannesburg to name but one ) I chose this one, mainly cos it's a great place to bring up kids.
I just can't imagine that my life would be enhanced by everyone potentially concealing a deadly weapon, call me dim, but I just can't

It's late over here, I'm going to bed, the only weapon hidden under my pillow to ward of any attackers, belongs to my girlfriend.

regards,

Mark

Success is having what you want. Happiness is wanting what you have.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2007, 06:10 PM   #42
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: viral individualism

Quote:
Mark Freeman wrote: View Post
It is a bit of an idealistic bubble, but hey, I've lived in a lot worse places, ( the Hillbrow district in Johannesburg to name but one ) I chose this one, mainly cos it's a great place to bring up kids.
Well gee.... you've moved into a safe-harbour basically homogeneous northern-european refuge. Sure, that's safe. As long as you don't allow people who don't respect your culture into your haven. But perhaps we can encourage you to believe that if you just give them things they'll be nice to you?

Regards,

Mike Sigman
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2007, 06:30 PM   #43
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Gunheads

Quote:
Mark Freeman wrote: View Post
I applaud the stand you are taking against the pro lobby, but methinks you are going to be battling for a long time. Your country's love affair with the gun is deep, and the partnership enduring.
I'd just wish one gun-enthusiast would make a statement like: "Sure, I own a gun, because there might be some emergency where I might need it, to defend myself. Guns also play an important role in law enforcement.

However, I live in a society which seems to have guns on the brain. We fetishize guns; macho-ize them; consider them extensions of ourselves, the "instant" way to gain "respect" on the street, the great leveller. In reality, guns significantly heighten violence in many social and law enforcement situations where violence might have been otherwise averted.

Guns play an all-too-important symbol in our foreign and social affairs, and enriches an unsavory element of the corporate military-industrial complex."

It makes me think of Nancy Grossman's work, "Gunhead." We Americans have guns on the brain:



Quote:
Mark Freeman wrote:
Come and live in Devon for a while Neil, I know of a good dojo you could practice in, and we'd love to have you Totnes is like a sister town to Santa Cruz, without the surf and the seals ( and the guns ).
Thanks for the invite...I may take you up on it, someday. But, I can't live away from the water and the mountains for very long.

Quote:
Mark F wrote:
It is a bit of an idealistic bubble, but hey, I've lived in a lot worse places, ( the Hillbrow district in Johannesburg to name but one ) I chose this one, mainly cos it's a great place to bring up kids.
Ohh...now look what you did!

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
Well gee.... you've moved into a safe-harbour basically homogeneous northern-european refuge. Sure, that's safe. As long as you don't allow people who don't respect your culture into your haven. But perhaps we can encourage you to believe that if you just give them things they'll be nice to you?

Regards,

Mike Sigman
And I was proceeding so NICELY on weening him off this idea that ppl in a community all think alike!

Don't encourage Mike's provincialism!!
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2007, 06:38 PM   #44
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Gunheads

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
And I was proceeding so NICELY on weening him off this idea that ppl in a community all think alike!
Really? There's no crime in Santa Cruz????? How strange! Just in case there's the tiniest bit of it, what are the demographics?

Regards,

Mike Sigman
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2007, 12:01 AM   #45
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Thumbs up Mike attempts humor

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Really? There's no crime in Santa Cruz????? How strange! Just in case there's the tiniest bit of it, what are the demographics?

Regards,

Mike Sigman
Reading my comment and attaching a relevant response is not just a good idea, Mike...it's called "being rational."

Try it sometime: it'll do you good!
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2007, 12:46 PM   #46
Mark Freeman
Dojo: Dartington
Location: Devon
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,220
United Kingdom
Offline
Re: viral individualism

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Well gee.... you've moved into a safe-harbour basically homogeneous northern-european refuge. Sure, that's safe.
And the problem is? most places outside of the 'inner city' are very similar to here, there may be a correlation between the lack of fire arms and the relative safety, god forbid, that this could be the case.

Quote:
As long as you don't allow people who don't respect your culture into your haven. But perhaps we can encourage you to believe that if you just give them things they'll be nice to you?
Please don't encourage me to believe anything Mike. Us 'Liberals' need little prompting, we collectively just don't know how to think for ourselves do we. We eagerly await a good book from the 'right' to awaken us from our leftist delusions and so to be led towards the light/right.

regards,

Mark

Success is having what you want. Happiness is wanting what you have.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2007, 12:51 PM   #47
Taliesin
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 82
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Mark

You do know that MS is likely to take that as a cast iron 'confession'.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2007, 02:20 PM   #48
Fred Little
Dojo: NJIT Budokai
Location: State Line NJ/NY
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 632
United_States
Offline
Re: Gunheads

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
I'd just wish one gun-enthusiast would make a statement like: "Sure, I own a gun, because there might be some emergency where I might need it, to defend myself. Guns also play an important role in law enforcement. :
How about: "Sure, I own a gun because I and other members of my family have experienced emergencies in which we needed one to defend ourselves."

Nothing so concentrates the attention as the almost universally recognized sound of a round being chambered in a pump-action shotgun.....

Best,

FL
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2007, 03:44 PM   #49
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Gunheads

Quote:
Fred Little wrote: View Post
How about: "Sure, I own a gun because I and other members of my family have experienced emergencies in which we needed one to defend ourselves."

Nothing so concentrates the attention as the almost universally recognized sound of a round being chambered in a pump-action shotgun.....

Best,

FL
You didn't even come close to stating the whole thing, and so it doesn't count...
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 01:19 PM   #50
Taliesin
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 82
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Neil

I appreciate Fred may have been facetious in his thread, but you gave him the opening (although I'm generally in favour of gun control)

Fred

A few more details would be intersting in tjis ongoing debate.
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
the whole competition thing Nick General 26 02-05-2001 08:01 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:14 AM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2018 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2018 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate