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 09-09-2007, 10:14 AM   #1
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Gun Crimes

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle2409817.ece

Although I tend to agree with Bill Clinton... rising gun crimes tend to be demographic.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 11:17 AM   #2
Mark Freeman
Dojo: Dartington
Location: Devon
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,220
United Kingdom
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle2409817.ece

Although I tend to agree with Bill Clinton... rising gun crimes tend to be demographic.

Mike
Interesting article, but I'm not sure how much I can agree with a man who cites a fictional character's experiences ( Dr Watson ) as one that should be taken wholely seriously.

I think some of the replys given by members of the public were a little more balanced.

Personally, I thought the taking away of the rights of indidividuals to own a hand gun was outrageous. At the time it was very difficult to legitimately own one, you had to be a recognised member of a gun club and be police checked to a great degree. The number of shootings by legitimate hand gun owners was virtually zero.

My guess is that the vast majority of people in the UK do not want to posess a firearm of any sort, and we'd rather nobody else had one either.

Unfortunately, illegal firearms are not that difficult to obtain for those that really want one. However, I and many like me, would have no idea how to go about laying our hands on one.

I'd rather we worked on social cohesion, eliminating the criminality associated with drug distribution ( taken into the hands of govt - taxed heavily as alchohol tobacco ), education, and very severe sentencing for unlawful posession. I think the majority of gun crimes in this country are due to drug related 'turf wars', and people getting caught in the crossfire.

I just can't get my head around the concept that flooding the world with deadly weaponry makes it a safer place. But then I live in rural Devon where the only thing that gets shot is the occasional rabbit

regards,

Mark

Success is having what you want. Happiness is wanting what you have.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 12:44 PM   #3
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Mark Freeman wrote: View Post
Interesting article, but I'm not sure how much I can agree with a man who cites a fictional character's experiences ( Dr Watson ) as one that should be taken wholely seriously.
It's known as a rhetorical point; not meant to be taken literally.
Quote:
My guess is that the vast majority of people in the UK do not want to posess a firearm of any sort, and we'd rather nobody else had one either.
Similarly and in actual fact, the vast majority of people in the UK wanted to unilaterally disarm in the face of Hitler's rising threats.
Quote:
I'd rather we worked on social cohesion,
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ide..._of_diversity/
Quote:
eliminating the criminality associated with drug distribution ( taken into the hands of govt - taxed heavily as alchohol tobacco ), education, and very severe sentencing for unlawful posession. I think the majority of gun crimes in this country are due to drug related 'turf wars', and people getting caught in the crossfire.
Actually, the problem is that the old views of ethics, respect, and responsibility have been liberally triviallized. You now have some pretty bad people in your country who didn't wind up being grateful for your patronage.
Quote:
I just can't get my head around the concept that flooding the world with deadly weaponry makes it a safer place. But then I live in rural Devon where the only thing that gets shot is the occasional rabbit
I often think that in the olden days, maybe they were smarter due to experience than we are today with our theorizing..... we didn't think everyone would be our pals just because we handed over our country back then.

Best.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 02:06 PM   #4
ChrisHein
 
ChrisHein's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido of Fresno
Location: Fresno , CA
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,645
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Firearms make the weak equal to the strong, and old equal to the young. Being against equal distribution of firearms is being against equality. A fine idea for Fascists, but for the rest of us...

  Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 03:33 PM   #5
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Chris Hein wrote: View Post
Firearms make the weak equal to the strong, and old equal to the young. Being against equal distribution of firearms is being against equality.
Only if equality = the ability to harm others, equally.

Personally, I don't measure equality along a scale of one's ability to do violence.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 04:38 PM   #6
ChrisHein
 
ChrisHein's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido of Fresno
Location: Fresno , CA
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,645
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
Only if equality = the ability to harm others, equally.

Personally, I don't measure equality along a scale of one's ability to do violence.
How bout to keep others from doing violence to you?

  Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 04:57 PM   #7
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Chris Hein wrote: View Post
How bout to keep others from doing violence to you?
If this were the number #1 concern for equality, I'd say that you have a point. In any case, equality is better served in insuring that all ppl have it, rather than arming yourself.

Considering the downsides of gun ownership (increased injury to others, etc), however; I'd also say that owning a firearm is hardly a qualifier, for equality. I am far, far more concerned about the inequalities of economics, race, and governmental interference on my civil liberties, than I am about owning a weapon that can just as easily be used against me in a struggle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 05:15 PM   #8
Mark Freeman
Dojo: Dartington
Location: Devon
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,220
United Kingdom
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
It's known as a rhetorical point; not meant to be taken literally.
I know, I was just taking a cheap shot

Quote:
Similarly and in actual fact, the vast majority of people in the UK wanted to unilaterally disarm in the face of Hitler's rising threats.
We have thousands of years of history over here. Monarchies have jostled for power, revolutions have taken place, Empires have been built and lost, Wars have been commonplace. It would be more interesting to use any of the other 'mistakes we have made' illustrations to your point, than the lead up to WW11. [/quote]

An interesting article, Made alot of sense to me.
I guess that things will just play out as they will. They may be statistically correct in their findings, and we need to take notice of this type of research. But, right or not, I see the great multicultural cities of the world, just carrying on as they've always done. People will carry on moving to them because of the wealth that they can generate there. I mean, how, if they are correct that we need less diversity to be somehow better, would you de-diversify somewhere like London or New York?

Quote:
Actually, the problem is that the old views of ethics, respect, and responsibility have been liberally triviallized. You now have some pretty bad people in your country who didn't wind up being grateful for your patronage.
Both of our countries have those.

Quote:
I often think that in the olden days, maybe they were smarter due to experience than we are today with our theorizing..... we didn't think everyone would be our pals just because we handed over our country back then.
I agree with the first part, but I don't get the handing over our country back then bit, What does this mean?

The UK spent the better part of last century 'giving' countries their 'independance' after 'aquiring' them in our period of Empire. I am not sure we've ever 'handed over' our country though.

Mind you if you mean that we have handed over the country to the ruling political elites to do with us what they will, then I guess you are right.

In moments of optimism, I fantasize that the common man will realise that our salvation is in collective self interest, and that enough people have a collective 'kick up the butt' to start making better choices.

regards,

Mark

Success is having what you want. Happiness is wanting what you have.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 06:51 PM   #9
ChrisHein
 
ChrisHein's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido of Fresno
Location: Fresno , CA
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,645
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
If this were the number #1 concern for equality, I'd say that you have a point. In any case, equality is better served in insuring that all ppl have it, rather than arming yourself.
Some people are born big and strong, while others weak and sickly. And youth has the advantage physically over the old. Those are inequalities. If insuring that all people are equal is your goal, then arming everyone is a sure way to even out those differences.

Quote:
Considering the downsides of gun ownership (increased injury to others, etc), however; I'd also say that owning a firearm is hardly a qualifier, for equality. I am far, far more concerned about the inequalities of economics, race, and governmental interference on my civil liberties, than I am about owning a weapon that can just as easily be used against me in a struggle.
The "downsides" to owning a fire arm are no different then the downsides of owning a vehicle. In fact many more people are killed yearly by automobiles then firearms. We justify owning vehicles because they make our lives more livable. Why would you not justify something that is just as necessary in a crisis situation?

If fear of "governmental interference on your civil liberties" is a concern of yours, how is letting the government take away your right to defend yourself helping your plight?

  Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 07:13 PM   #10
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Mark Freeman wrote: View Post
We have thousands of years of history over here.
Yes, but you don't have thousands of years of history, Mark, unless you're older than I think. This arrogation of wisdom based on the fact that you can simply trace your forebears is strange.... particularly since you make it a point not to adhere to their mores or disciplines.
Quote:
I mean, how, if they are correct that we need less diversity to be somehow better, would you de-diversify somewhere like London or New York?
Better yet, examine the components of your diversity and see what each is really contributing to your idea of "civilization". Civilization is tenuous, indeed. It's like stacking a house of cards.... so easy to lose. Look at all the continuously failing "cultures" and "civilizations" around the word, as we speak. Do you think that introducing their "culture" enables the stability of, say, Liverpool or Manchester? Read of any downturns in Liverpool and Manchester's quality of living over the last decades, Mark? Granted, I'm baiting the hook, fairly obviously, but surely you don't think that somehow a trendy watchword like "diversity" is going to make everyone turn out to think like you do on the good days, do you? See the conceit?
Quote:
The UK spent the better part of last century 'giving' countries their 'independance' after 'aquiring' them in our period of Empire. I am not sure we've ever 'handed over' our country though.
You did "hand over" a few, though. And look at how many have been able to handle a stable society and how many have not. The interesting question is whether you, for instance, "helped" the people of Sierra Leone by turning over the government to them or whether you doomed a lot of people to death by thinking you were doing them a favor. Look at it from both sides about what "doing good" actually means and it's interesting.
Quote:
In moments of optimism, I fantasize that the common man will realise that our salvation is in collective self interest, and that enough people have a collective 'kick up the butt' to start making better choices.
Of course you fantasize that. You're a Leftist and you think that if you just give them enough money, everyone will act just like good Christian white-people are supposed to act. That is the absurdity of the Left and the liberal Democrats. Don't get me started on how the Far Right thinks pretty much the same absurdity, when you cut to the chase.

Best.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 07:16 PM   #11
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Chris Hein wrote: View Post
Some people are born big and strong, while others weak and sickly. And youth has the advantage physically over the old. Those are inequalities. If insuring that all people are equal is your goal, then arming everyone is a sure way to even out those differences.
If violence were the default mode of opening social discourse in this country, again: I might be inclined to agree with you. But since it isn't, I'm inclined to feel that there are far more pressing issues to equality, than the prosiac idea that arming oneself makes one "equal."

Quote:
The "downsides" to owning a fire arm are no different then the downsides of owning a vehicle.
Well, I'm not too crazy about the need to own one of those, either. I'd far, far prefer to live within the means of my bike.

But, since I would need to drive my car far more than I'd need to shoot someone, let's just say that this statement is apples vs oranges.

Quote:
In fact many more people are killed yearly by automobiles then firearms. We justify owning vehicles because they make our lives more livable. Why would you not justify something that is just as necessary in a crisis situation?
Sorry, but I have yet (thank whatever fates, martial training, whatever) to encounter a crisis situation where a gun would help me out of it.

However, I CAN imagine a universe of crisis situations caused by OWNING a gun, not the least of which involve kids, theft of said gun (leading to a mistaken ID upon discharge), etc.

Quote:
If fear of "governmental interference on your civil liberties" is a concern of yours, how is letting the government take away your right to defend yourself helping your plight?
Ah, now: this is a completely different topic. Government interference. Up to this point, you have been providing rationales as to the need to own a gun (none of which I agree, as I mentioned).

Since we're on a different subject, my opinion is this: I don't WANT the gov't to take away a SINGLE civil liberty, at this time...and that includes guns--even tho I don't personally like guns, or plan ever to own one.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 08:32 PM   #12
dps
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,282
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
Sorry, but I have yet (thank whatever fates, martial training, whatever) to encounter a crisis situation where a gun would help me out of it.

However, I CAN imagine a universe of crisis situations caused by OWNING a gun, not the least of which involve kids, theft of said gun (leading to a mistaken ID upon discharge), etc.
CAN you imagine a situation that a gun would help you out?

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

Quote:
David Skaggs wrote: View Post
CAN you imagine a situation that a gun would help you out?

David
Emptied of bullets: using the handle to pound nails, with?
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 10:08 PM   #14
HL1978
Dojo: Aunkai
Location: Fairfax, VA
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 429
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
Sorry, but I have yet (thank whatever fates, martial training, whatever) to encounter a crisis situation where a gun would help me out of it.
It doesn't take much imagination to think of situations where it would be very desirable

Here are a couple:

New Orleans. Post Katrina before the return of the police and national guard. Oddly enough, the police disarmed lawfully armed people inside their homes, ones who could use them for self defense as they weren't outside looting.

1992 riots in LA. 53 people died, dozens were beaten. You don't think Reginald Denny might have been better off if he had a firearm in his truck?

You are a pilot and go down in bear country miles from civilization.

Of course if you don't live in the inner city, and you live out in the suburbs or countryside, you are less likely to be in an area where gun violence predominantly occurs. On the other hand, the above situations where civil order has broken down, or you are out in the wilderness, firearms are a very useful tool.

Last edited by HL1978 : 09-09-2007 at 10:12 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 11:45 PM   #15
Gernot Hassenpflug
Dojo: Aunkai, Tokyo
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 319
Japan
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Equality only has meaning in discourse where people have an "equal" understanding and respect of such; or people have the power somehow or other to enforce their idea of equality on one another to a mutually-acceptable compromise distance. After all, equality by definition cannot be absolute. It is also, by definition, not compatible with results in the real world (i.e., the idea of equality does not refer to equal results).
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2007, 12:03 AM   #16
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Hunter Lonsberry wrote: View Post
It doesn't take much imagination to think of situations where it would be very desirable

Here are a couple:

New Orleans. Post Katrina before the return of the police and national guard. Oddly enough, the police disarmed lawfully armed people inside their homes, ones who could use them for self defense as they weren't outside looting.
I'm not sure how firearms would help, here. Sure, there were cases of looting, but it's been shown to be overblown. Personally in such cases, I'd rather have a good bokken, handy...but a live blade works, too.

Quote:
1992 riots in LA. 53 people died, dozens were beaten. You don't think Reginald Denny might have been better off if he had a firearm in his truck?
How many ppl might he have killed, in the ensuing gun-battle?

All the proposed scenarios imply a "Wild West Main Street" background, where the bad guyz are dressed in black, waiting at one end.

In reality, stray bullets kill innocent bystanders, too.

Quote:
You are a pilot and go down in bear country miles from civilization.
But, I'm NOT a pilot, and I doubt the FAA would look to kindly upon my packing my Smith & Wesson along with me, for my next flight, if I were.

Quote:
Of course if you don't live in the inner city, and you live out in the suburbs or countryside, you are less likely to be in an area where gun violence predominantly occurs. On the other hand, the above situations where civil order has broken down, or you are out in the wilderness, firearms are a very useful tool.
Yes, they can be. Their usefulness as a means to restore civil order is, IMO, vastly overrated.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2007, 04:21 AM   #17
Dirk Hanss
 
Dirk Hanss's Avatar
Dojo: Aikidoschule Trier
Location: Merzkirchen
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 471
Germany
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Chris Hein wrote: View Post
How bout to keep others from doing violence to you?
So you are telling us, that fire-armed street gangs are keeping their 'counterparties' from doing violence?

With fire-arms there is only one way to stop violence. You have to shoot first - and you have to hit or even kill them. That means you do not only have to buy a weapon, you have to train to draw fast and shoot precisely and probably the bad ones do it more than the 'good normal citizens'. So it is not equality at all.

There is some logic behind the idea that some people might not try to do people harm, if tere is a significant chance to receive a bullet in one's head. So there might be less crime - in numbers. On the other hand, if someone wants to get your money and had to fear fire-armed reaction, he would not even risk to threat you. He would knock you down or even kill you and then look for anything useful.

There an older idea, that armed citizens would be more difficult to suppress by a junta. In effect the idea does not work either.

Best regards

Dirk
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2007, 06:15 AM   #18
Michael Varin
Dojo: Aikido of Fresno
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 567
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

I fear this post may get lengthy.

This is a most critical issue. Unfortunately, many take a stand based on emotion without taking the time to see how all the pieces fit together. If their stance on the issue is well thought out and they still fall on the side of "gun control," they automatically reveal themselves as anti-rights.

Quote:
Mark Freeman wrote:
Personally, I thought the taking away of the rights of indidividuals to own a hand gun was outrageous. At the time it was very difficult to legitimately own one, you had to be a recognised member of a gun club and be police checked to a great degree. The number of shootings by legitimate hand gun owners was virtually zero.
It's good to hear you were outraged, but in the situation you describe individuals had already lost their right. What they had was a privilege.

The danger of confusing rights and privileges cannot be overstated. I hear people talking about "rights" all the time, but they clearly lack an understanding of what a right is, and where they come from.

A right is something that you don't have to ask permission to do, and has no conditions or limitations. On the other hand, a privilege is something that requires permission, and can be revoked at any time. Rights pre-exist any governments or other groups. They are expressions of the nature of man. All rights can only be understood through property, the most basic of which is the individual's own body.

Quote:
Mark Freeman wrote:
I just can't get my head around the concept that flooding the world with deadly weaponry makes it a safer place.
It's not about "flooding the world with deadly weaponry." It's allowing humans to live in freedom that makes the world a safer place. Owning weapons is just a part of that.

Quote:
Chris Hein wrote:
Some people are born big and strong, while others weak and sickly. And youth has the advantage physically over the old. Those are inequalities. If insuring that all people are equal is your goal, then arming everyone is a sure way to even out those differences.
This is true, which is why guns have been referred to as the great equalizer; however we have to be careful when we start to talk about "equal." Absolute equality is not achievable nor is it desirable, and our attempts to get there would be just as criminal as they would be futile. Equal rights, equal laws, but not absolute equality.

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
Considering the downsides of gun ownership (increased injury to others, etc), however; I'd also say that owning a firearm is hardly a qualifier, for equality. I am far, far more concerned about the inequalities of economics, race, and governmental interference on my civil liberties, than I am about owning a weapon that can just as easily be used against me in a struggle.
Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
However, I CAN imagine a universe of crisis situations caused by OWNING a gun, not the least of which involve kids, theft of said gun (leading to a mistaken ID upon discharge), etc.
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.)

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
Since we're on a different subject, my opinion is this: I don't WANT the gov't to take away a SINGLE civil liberty, at this time...and that includes guns--even tho I don't personally like guns, or plan ever to own one.
At this time! When is the right time to take away civil liberties?

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. Look at the actions of Stalin, Hitler, or countless others.

Quote:
The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press. -- Thomas Jefferson
Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
But, I'm NOT a pilot, and I doubt the FAA would look to kindly upon my packing my Smith & Wesson along with me, for my next flight, if I were.
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? Once again, the government infringing on people's rights (self-defense in this case) causes more harm than good.

-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 09-10-2007, 07:25 AM   #19
Taliesin
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 82
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Interesting Debate

The Civil Liberties argument - that there was/is no legitimate basis for withdrawing the entitlement to own a gun. This is an argument based by both sides of the relative advantages to society as a whole on banning/allowing gun membership. In other words it all comes down to the virtues or otherwise of gun control

The arguments both for and against Gun Contol are based on their effectiveness for self defence against general harm.

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
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2007, 08:44 AM   #20
HL1978
Dojo: Aunkai
Location: Fairfax, VA
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 429
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
I'm not sure how firearms would help, here. Sure, there were cases of looting, but it's been shown to be overblown. Personally in such cases, I'd rather have a good bokken, handy...but a live blade works, too.
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.

I'm not sure how many murders occurred in New Orleans post Katrina, but when cops are looting (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN2DmtIm6Qo) on film, I'm not sure how much they would be able to do to help me or my family.

Quote:
How many ppl might he have killed, in the ensuing gun-battle?
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.

Quote:
All the proposed scenarios imply a "Wild West Main Street" background, where the bad guyz are dressed in black, waiting at one end.

In reality, stray bullets kill innocent bystanders, too.
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?

Some states have castle doctrine, IE when someone enters your house, you don't have to retreat, you can shoot them. Pretty harsh.

Quote:
But, I'm NOT a pilot, and I doubt the FAA would look to kindly upon my packing my Smith & Wesson along with me, for my next flight, if I were.
this isn't commercial flying on Delta/AA. Alaskan law requires it.

http://amd.nbc.gov/safety/library/alsehb.pdf
http://www.atlasaviation.com/Aviatio...nginAlaska.htm

for general aviation, they don't really care as much about it. The pilot can do far more damage with their plane, than firing a small firearm from a plane. Commercial is different, and after 9/11 pilots can carry if they are trained.

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.

Quote:
Yes, they can be. Their usefulness as a means to restore civil order is, IMO, vastly overrated.
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.

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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2007, 11:50 AM   #21
ChrisHein
 
ChrisHein's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido of Fresno
Location: Fresno , CA
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,645
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

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.

  Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2007, 12:40 PM   #22
Taliesin
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 82
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Chris

Most of us have grown out of the 'it can't happen to me' philosophy of life - it's a shame you aren't one of them.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2007, 01:37 PM   #23
Hogan
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 106
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Mmmmmmmmmm.. GUNSSS..

  Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2007, 03:07 PM   #24
ChrisHein
 
ChrisHein's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido of Fresno
Location: Fresno , CA
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,645
United_States
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
David Chalk wrote: View Post
Chris

Most of us have grown out of the 'it can't happen to me' philosophy of life - it's a shame you aren't one of them.
"It can't happen to me", you mean like, "no one will ever come into my house to do me harm"...

  Reply With Quote
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
Offline
Re: Gun Crimes

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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).

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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).

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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).

Quote:
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, again...at 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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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

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 12:51 PM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2016 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2016 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