Violence as Deterrent by AnthonyT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Rue,

I don't believe the issue was the cash, but rather the armed man threatening people with violence in order to take it. For me, the question is also "Where does it end?" Not with one robbery, surely. People who are prepared to perform armed lawlessness infrequently make it a one-time act. Not to mention that successful lawlessness is hardly a disincentive to more of the same. It's rather more an advert to the world that you can put on a ski mask, grab a gun, and get money at will. Or anything else you wish to acquire.

Where does it end? For that robber, it ended in that store, when he threatened people with violence.

The things you show a concern about, Rue, are not the products of an armed society. They are the products of a sick society. I am very much in favor of increasing the good health of our society. I am very much in favor of good education and the early rehabilitation of offenders.

I am even more recently considering the benefits to society of making sure that minimum survival needs are provided for all citizens. Namely food, shelter, and productive labor to all who want it. It is a shard of socialism invading into my libertarian principles, and what I call a 'minimum guarantee.' Essentially, that every human is entitled to this minimum guarantee of what they need to survive.

But I also believe that crime, and especially violent crime that threatens the well being of citizens, needs to be opposed. Actively and immediately. Not for the good of the individual, but for the good of society.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 25, 2009 9:50 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Fortunately no one else was hurt. But this could have ended very differently, with a headline that said Five Killed in Attempted Robbery, Bandit Flees on Foot

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 25, 2009 10:02 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

That is quite correct. There is always the potential for robberies to go horribly awry. Defying a criminal always carries the potential for disaster. This could have ended much worse than it did.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 25, 2009 10:09 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

AnthonyT

Thinking about it further - I don't think the problem is the need for guns. I think it's the breakdown of 'civil' society.

And I can't think of one heavily armed society* that I'd want to live in - Afghanistan ? The Congo ? Somalia ?

Guns simply don't improve the society and make it better, more law-abiding or more considerate.

* Finland's gun ownership rate is far below that of the US. Also, most guns in Finladn are dbl brl shotguns or hunting rifles.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 25, 2009 10:12 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

I have to disagree as well Anthony. I have a lot of hope but also a well earned lack of faith in my fellow humans just on streets and roads, let a lone with another loaded weapon. There are too many that would find too little reason to wip it out and start blazing to display their superior fire power, and by association, their superior knowledge of right and wrong.
Continuing the car analogy, what would be the punishment for drinking and shooting? Considering the level of drinking in this country surely the 2 together would be a disaster. I'm afraid I wouldn't visit many bars.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 25, 2009 10:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I think our hero may have showed poor judgement, although w/o knowing exactly the layout... who was where... it's hard to say. Handguns being what they are you need to be aware not only who is behind your target but who is behind YOU, and everyone else around. Could be people in the takeout lane, in the parking lot or on the busy street as well people in the store. If the place was full of customers I'd want to bean our fearless citizen over the head for endangering others.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 25, 2009 10:24 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Just to weigh in - HOWEVER - I'd trust you to use a gun appropriately, AnthonyT. You don't seem to have the level of angst or bravado that makes the use of guns by other people sometimes questionable. So this is not a "not ever, no one" position, but an opinion of people on the whole.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 25, 2009 10:28 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I understand the concern for bystanders, especially in a busy store. Where I disagree is in regards to the source of the danger. It came, to my eyes, not from the bystander customer, but from the threatening armed robber. It is this gentleman, and no other, who displayed a flagrant disregard for safety. We must remember that one does not point a loaded weapon at anything one is not prepared to destroy.

I agree with Rue, that we have an un-civil society. I'd very much like to see that corrected within my lifetime.

It should be noted, also, that I would have appreciated any resistance to this criminal. The customer might have had a jackknife, two fists, or merely a stern refusal to accommodate the assailant in any way. Even simply telling a robber 'no' counts as a positive resistance to crime and a deterrent to more of the same. Any lack of compliance, while it may be especially unhealthy in the short-term, has (in my opinion) long-term benefits to society at large.

We would not comply with a villainous figure of authority in our government. Why should we comply with a villainous figure of criminal authority? It is not in our best interests. Resistance should be lauded.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 25, 2009 10:32 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Rue,

I appreciate your faith in me. In fact, I enjoy violence in my television shows, movies, and video games, but abhor it in my life. Each gun I've ever owned has been accompanied by a silent prayer. May I never, ever find occasion to draw this on a person. Violence is only ever fun in the make-believe world. I never want to do more than imagine the horror of actually ending a life. I think it would haunt me forever.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 25, 2009 10:43 AM

RIPWASH

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Rue,

I appreciate your faith in me. In fact, I enjoy violence in my television shows, movies, and video games, but abhor it in my life. Each gun I've ever owned has been accompanied by a silent prayer. May I never, ever find occasion to draw this on a person. Violence is only ever fun in the make-believe world. I never want to do more than imagine the horror of actually ending a life. I think it would haunt me forever.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

I agree with ya there, Anthony. I see the need for guns in our society, but don't want to own one in paralyzing fear of what might happen to me or my family because of it.

And by "see the need" I mean that we have the right to legally bear (bare?) arms. I see the need for self defense when others ignore the law for their own benefit. My concern has always been that it is the criminals who get the weapons illegally at will, while law abiding citizens have to go through a whole process to even be allowed to own one. This man at the BK thought he would rule the roost because he'd be the only one with a gun, but he was sorely mistaken. I'm saddened that ANYONE had to die, but like Anthony says, better the one who was breaking the law and threatening to kill others than the poor person at the register. I hope the guy who stood up to him recovers.

How will the law handle the man in the hospital? Should any charges be pressed?

Thoughts?

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 25, 2009 10:57 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I very much hope we are not in the business, as a country, of prosecuting people for opposing violent criminal activity with violence.

However, it has happened before. In this country, and in other countries. I am told in England that if you jab an attacker with your sewing needles while walking home from your knitting circle, you can be charged with a crime.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 25, 2009 11:00 AM

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=37443#687361

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
And by "see the need" I mean that we have the right to legally bear (bare?) arms.

Bare. Only Bears have the right to Bear arms.

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
My concern has always been that it is the criminals who get the weapons illegally at will, while law abiding citizens have to go through a whole process to even be allowed to own one.

The process should be difficult, there being a black market doesn't equate to making legal ownership so easy and lunatic could get one as easily as buying a chocolate bar.

AURaptor advocates child murder:

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
When Pal women start dressing up their babies in suicide pampers, might be a good idea to go ahead and take care of both of them at once, before they have a chance to kill.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 25, 2009 11:22 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I do not mind any reasonable process to purchase a firearm. Reasonable meaning this to me:

1) Everyone should be able to afford it. Any fee associated with the qualification process should be within the means of poverty-stricken Americans, and perhaps even payable with the aid of government assistance.

2) Every law-abiding adult-minded citizen should be able to purchase a firearm. This means if you haven't broken the law, and have the reasoning capacity of an adult, you should not be barred.

3) Mental instabilities/disabilities/illnesses should only factor into the equation if the individual either A) can not reason as an adult or B) represents a harm to others due to the nature of their illness.

4) The process for qualification should be as brisk and efficient as possible, with no artificial padding of waiting periods or other delays. If a person qualifies, they qualify.

5) The process for qualification should be routinely examined to make sure it is not being used as a tool to disallow firearms from the citizenry. Especially the process should be routinely vetted against any political leanings or influence. The basic premise of the process should always be that 'Any law-abiding adult has a right to own firearms.'

6) The process for qualification should include some sort of training for the weapon(s) in question, with a focus on legal use and basic safety. The test to confirm this knowledge should be very basic, and tied especially to item 5.

There are a lot of concessions I'd be willing to make in regards to my right to own and carry firearms. I am prepared to be very reasonable.

My problem has always been those that do not recognize my right, and who wish to enact legislation not as a tool to enable it, but rather as a tool to eliminate it.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 25, 2009 11:35 AM

Ayep, that coulda gone much worse than it did.

What likely happened is that he CCW holder didn't properly cower and the thug got pissed off about it, cause most folk who have one are well aware of things like risk to bystanders and legal implications - the required classes handle all of that, you see ?

If he had INTENDED to draw and fire initially, he'd have done so before words were exchanged - in a situation like that it's completely legal and tactically smarter to shoot the bastard in the back unawares, if you plan to shoot him at all, which, so long as he looked like he was gonna grab and go, as you all say, ain't worth the hassle.

So prolly the thug made eye contact and took issue with the guy not being cowed, and the CCW holder realized if he didn't do something damn quick, his life was forfeit to feed some punks ego - so regardless of tactical disadvantage, he played the only hand he had even though it sucked, cause sometimes you gotta do that.

A punk who robs a McDonalds is VERY unlikely to try eliminating witnesses cause there's just too damn many, as opposed to a convenience store often staffed by a single individual, and eyewitnesses and camera footage are entirely sufficient in combination with the average stupidity of such punks to result in their quick capture if you can get the donut munchers off their ass to actually go do it.

And this does illustrate the problem of criminals expecting meek compliance and how they tend to escalate matters because of that expectation.

This was a no-fire in the initial situation, but evolved to one because of the thugs conduct, and the CCW holder managed to take the guy out despite being under fire, and if the thug shot first, likely already wounded and bleeding.

The article doesn't mention it, but there's a substantial possibility the thug shot and wounded the CCW holder and was about to finish him off when he drew and fired back - the security cam tapes would tell if this were the case or not, but I would say it's all too likely.

So looked at from THAT angle, yes, being armed may well have been the difference between a dead civvie and perp on the loose, and a dead perp and wounded civvie.

Just a thought on it, cause some asshole robbing a MickeyD's is a no-fire decision as a general rule.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 25, 2009 11:38 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Many of these restaurant robberies are by former employees, who must eliminate all witnesses...

The injured shooter and his family must now defend themselves from gang retaliation.

All this violence is because the Jewish ACLU took the 10 Commandments out of skools, courts and legislatures, for conflicting with the Babylonian Talmud:

Quote:
Thou shalt not steal.

Thou shalt not murder (self defense okay).

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

That last was removed especially for politicians. It makes Mossad's job easier.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 25, 2009 11:58 AM

Follow up thoughts...

Quote:
I very much hope we are not in the business, as a country, of prosecuting people for opposing violent criminal activity with violence.

Hope in one hand, spit in the other - one of the reasons I am so rabid about this is the amount of trouble I've gotten into ever since the age of eight for acts which were *CLEARLY* pure self defense.

In fact, when I was fourteen I attended a school that had an automatic suspension policy for both people involved in a fight, and when Ian decided to take a swing at me for not being as much a wrestling fan as he was, I made the active choice to shove my hands in my pockets and take the hits till the teacher and the assistant administrator, who was standing in the doorway at the time, pulled him off.

And they STILL suspended me.
(My mom blew a gasket about it too, since in front of two official witnesses, and a class of sixteen kids, I got suspended for BEING HIT.)

The vilification of self-defense in this country is downright appalling, and has lead to increased crime and social violence.

That said....

Quote:
1) Everyone should be able to afford it. Any fee associated with the qualification process should be within the means of poverty-stricken Americans, and perhaps even payable with the aid of government assistance.

Many pro-CCW folk can put you in touch with someone who will teach the classes for free if you happen to be poor, and a few times the fellow classmembers have passed around the hat to each other to cover the permit fees.

As for the weapon itself, both Bersa and Taurus make inexpensive models of respectable quality especially designed for CCW.

Quote:
2) Every law-abiding adult-minded citizen should be able to purchase a firearm. This means if you haven't broken the law, and have the reasoning capacity of an adult, you should not be barred.

Actually, I'm of the mind that if you have "paid your debt" to society and did not commit a violent/weapon-related crime in the first place, you should not have that right revoked in the first place.
We have this damnable tendancy to punish someone FOREVER, once they've been convicted of a crime, which in a society with so many often ridiculous laws they all but trip over each other, is a very real possibility when a person cannot live a normal life without violating several each and every day.

Quote:
4) The process for qualification should be as brisk and efficient as possible, with no artificial padding of waiting periods or other delays. If a person qualifies, they qualify.

This is another thing I am grateful to Jennifer Granholm for, when MI initially went right-to-carry, that is exactly what they did, and it took her actions to force them to stop doing this.

Quote:
5) The process for qualification should be routinely examined to make sure it is not being used as a tool to disallow firearms from the citizenry. Especially the process should be routinely vetted against any political leanings or influence. The basic premise of the process should always be that 'Any law-abiding adult has a right to own firearms.'

Jim March has been especially helpful in exposing that particular problem, you can find some of his stuff and reference work on the net even now.

Quote:
6) The process for qualification should include some sort of training for the weapon(s) in question, with a focus on legal use and basic safety. The test to confirm this knowledge should be very basic, and tied especially to item 5.

Usually there is, most CCW classes are actually pretty good, and the more advanced classes are worth their weight in gold if you live in a place where you're likely to NEED your weapon and unable to move away.

I am fairly reasonable too, but like you, Anthony, I find myself at loggerheads with those who's admitted intent is to eventually deny the right entire by restricting it out of existence.

In a sad irony, kind of an echo to the discussion at hand, my Colt Mustang has finally reached a point where it's no longer reliably serviceable due to age and use, and must be retired - imma use the shadowbox I built for the Radom to put it on display, with the firing pin removed.

Have a Bersa Thunder on order, but it breaks my heart to have to put my old friend on the wall like that.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 25, 2009 1:27 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
And by "see the need" I mean that we have the right to legally bear (bare?) arms.

Bare. Only Bears have the right to Bear arms.

Nope. Try again.

Oh - are "bear arms" anything like "buffalo wings" or "chicken fingers"?

I had enough chicken fingers for lunch to make up two chicken hands! :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 26, 2009 12:41 AM

RIPWASH

And speaking of "Bear" arms . . . .

http://www.bustedtees.com/secondamendment

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 26, 2009 1:06 AM

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=37443#687361

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Nope. Try again.

Oh - are "bear arms" anything like "buffalo wings" or "chicken fingers"?

I had enough chicken fingers for lunch to make up two chicken hands! :)

Heh, yeah I think I got that all arse about face. I'm going to blame being Dyslexic. You know Dyslexia is an anagram for daily sex.

AURaptor advocates child murder:

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
When Pal women start dressing up their babies in suicide pampers, might be a good idea to go ahead and take care of both of them at once, before they have a chance to kill.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 26, 2009 2:43 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yup, I think Frem's reading of the situation is about right. The CCW was prolly feeling cocky, simply BECAUSE he had a weapon. Thinking to himself: HA! I'll bet he doesn't know what I"M carrying! So he doesn't act sufficiently cowed... in fact, he gets into a verbal altercation! At that point he DOES have to shoot because its like the OK Corral. Could have been prevented if the CCW-holder could have faked being scared.

Now, the question is: SHOULD he have acted intimidated? My answer, given the crowded situation and the busy time of day/ location was: YES. He stupidly put many lives at risk besides his own. Yeah, he might have been practicing quick-draws and been an expert, but it's not just HIS shots he has has to think about.

There may be other factors at work. It could be the robber was high, and unpredictable. It could be that a reasonable reading of the situation was that the robber was prolly going to shoot ANYWAY (Although if you're planning to commit mass murder seems like you would show up with something more than a handgun) and the CCW-holder deliberately put the focus on himself. So, as I said, other factors may be at work. But I suspect this was some CCW-guy with quick-draw skills who was ready and willing to escalate the situation.

And as I said: it could have turned out much different, and very badly. It COULD have turned into the kind of incident that anti-gun people would have used ad-infinitum to prove why universal gun ownership DOESN'T work. And ultimately, while people should be able to defend themselves. the presence of guns BY THEMSELVES do not create a civil society.

So, the next question is: If guns do not improve society, do they actively cause it to deteriorate? Do they foster "the Myth of Redemptive Violence", or can you have a civil society AND widespread gun ownership at the same time?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 26, 2009 3:59 AM

Siggy,

For the record, I utterly, completely disagree with your logic regarding that - for the same reason I completely disagree with the premise of crap like Bruce Almighty or other anvilicious faery tales of the same ridiculous type.

Handing power to someone does NOT *instantly* change them into a wild eyed maniac, in fact, it often doesn't do it at all, especially if it's contrary to a persons basic nature to begin with - it may, over a great period of time change their attitudes slightly, but that's about it.

Now, from the starting point of someone decent enough and law abiding enough to go through the painful gauntlet of CCW training and permit issue that ridiculous myths like this have spawned, you are NOT going to wind up with some wannabe gunslinger* - this is simply the identical inverse of the hero-myth you and I both spend so damned much time wishing we could debunk, and therefore I find your premise factually incorrect.

Especially since the statistics regarding CCW involved shootings do not in any way, shape or form bear out the biased and contrived conclusion you are going for here, despite massive cherry picking and distortion on both sides of the issue.

The Miami police, after review of the tapes and eyewitness accounts, not only called this one as a completely righteous shooting, but Officer Jeff Giordano is on public record stating that his action "may have saved lives", which given general police bias against CCW, most *especially* (and justifiably!) against those who do so foolishly, seems to bear out that the CCW holders actions were a justified act of self-defense rather than attempted vigilantism.

That being said...

Quote:
And ultimately, while people should be able to defend themselves. the presence of guns BY THEMSELVES do not create a civil society.

THAT conclusion I do agree with, but I daresay the complete vilification of self-defense, or even refusal to cower *enough*, something you yourself just did in the former post - has a lot to do with creating an UN-civil society.

Whether a society is civil or not really doesn't have a damned thing to do with weapons at all, I personally do not subscribe to the belief that an armed society is necessarily a polite one - because that has far more to do with core beliefs, upbringing, and social-moral values than it has to do with anything else, and yet, creating a deliberate amount of victimhood is just begging for someone to exploit it, not just violently, but as we are sadly witnessing point-blank at this time, often socially or economically as well.

Guns have nothing to do with a civil society one way or the other.

Quote:
can you have a civil society AND widespread gun ownership at the same time?

Sure you can, the problem isn't guns, and in fact isn't even related to them - as I am quite often pointing out, it rests within the sociopathic nature of the society we have created, and just how twisted and warped it's "values" happen to be.

Most folks who apply for and obtain a CCW permit have to some degree already overcome many of those twisted values by substitution of better ones, and one reason I am so very supporting of the training classes as a requirement for it - *is that they weed out, quite effectively, the type of rambo-wannabe gunslingers you seem to assume having a CCW instantly turns anyone into regardless of who they were in the first place.

You are allowing fear of a mere tool, an inanimate object to cloud your judgement here, I do believe.

Image courtesy of http://www.a-human-right.com
Used with permission
All images on this site and high-quality printable files are available for use by other pro-RKBA organizations.
All rights properly reserved to Oleg Volk.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 26, 2009 5:15 AM

KWICKO

Quote:

Heh, yeah I think I got that all arse about face. I'm going to blame being Dyslexic. You know Dyslexia is an anagram for daily sex.

Honestly, I couldn't tell if you had a brain-fart, or if you were just screwing with us on purpose! I thought it was pretty damn funny, still.

Although, technically, we DO have the right both to bear arms AND to bare arms. I don't think we have the right to arm bears, though.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 26, 2009 5:17 AM

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=37443#687361

I think Bears should have the right to bear arms in their bear arms, but not bare arms, because shaving bears is wrong.

AURaptor advocates child murder:

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
When Pal women start dressing up their babies in suicide pampers, might be a good idea to go ahead and take care of both of them at once, before they have a chance to kill.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 26, 2009 5:33 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

FREM- To rebut your argument
First of all... people being people... you can't universally say that "nobody" who goes through CCW training would go vigilante. On the face of it, that's an erroneous and biased statement.

Secondly, I DID allow that other factors may have been at work, and even presented several scenarios where he would have not only been justified, but would have been an absolute hero. So I don't think my view is as biased as you claim.

Third- Since when did YOU suddenly start believing a police assessment of any sitiation?

I personally would like to review the tape myself, altho I doubt it will be made available. Then we could all be discussing obervation instead of just speculating what "might" have happened.

Given that we could argue ad infinitum about might-have-beens (since we don't have much solid information to go on except a newpaper article and a police statement) I suggest we turn our attention to "guns in society" in general, and whether they are a stabilzing, violence-inciting, or irrelevant factor.

One immediate observations: All guns aren't equal. Handguns are only good at one thing: personal, immediate intimidation (either offensively or defensively). They won't protect you from wiretapping, or joblessness or war. They're no good at "mass murder" and certainly aren't useful for hunting. So when we talk about "gun" ownership, and what "guns" are supposed to do for (or to) a society, we should be careful to discuss what KIND of gun.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 26, 2009 6:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

BTW- research shows that there is no such thing as "cathartic" violence. Although the person may feel an immediate release, violence (even just yelling at someone) begets anger, and makes later violence more likely.

Also, we HAVE to look at the media. In "Myth of Redemptive Violence" the author repeatedly provides examples of our media saturating us with that myth, from Popeye/ Bluto through Chuck Norris. Clearly, he assumes (and rightly so, as this is backed by research) that exposure to violent images enhances violent response. More to the point, since there is no COUNTERVAILING message ... in fact, all of the other possible options (running, negotiating, taking collective action) are either not presented or specifically shown to be unsuccessful... we "know" that violence is the solution 'cause it's been drilled into us as a basic assumption.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 26, 2009 8:11 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

So, one man stood against the dark, and WON.

Yet we debate the rightness of it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 26, 2009 8:37 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
So, one man stood against the dark, and WON. Yet we debate the rightness of it?- Wulf

Yep!

(Oh, were we talking about Jesus??)

Got a problem with that, Mr. "I believe people can rule themselves" Wulf?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 26, 2009 8:46 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Got a problem with that, Mr. "I believe people can rule themselves" Wulf?"

Thats my point. A guy shoots a robber, and he is RIGHT to do so. The people CAN govern themselves.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 26, 2009 8:50 AM

STARTROOP

Just a point of clarification, hand guns are useful in a hunting sense as a backup weapon or for a coup de gras. This scenario has happened to me more than once where a shot hasn't cleanly killed a larger animal (in one case a moose and in another an elk) and it is still alive when you come up on it. In both cases the animal was thrashing around and using a knife to kill it quickly would have been very dangerous. Letting the animal suffer and die slowly really isn't humane. Using a high powered rifle like a 30-06 at close range firing into the ground is dangerous due to richocette. A fatter, lower velocity handgund round is much safer for me and the result is much more humane. We can argue the issue of game hunting on another occasion ;-)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 26, 2009 9:31 AM

HKCAVALIER

Hey everybody,

I'd like to make an observation: Anthony T. advocates gun ownership. This is an individual decision and he makes his case. But the folks who oppose gun ownership make the imaginative leap to a society where everyone has a gun. In all their arguments, we go from the current level of ownership straight to total saturation of the population with firearms, as if the government just mailed 'em out to us with our tax returns. Anti-gun folks argue against this wacky fantasy world instead of discussing whether or not they themselves, as individuals, want to own a gun and why. Lotta rampant control-freakism in this thread, seems to me. Lotta people presuming to know what's good for everyone else and gettin' hysterical about what could happen if the "wrong people" were to listen to Anthony's argument. Hello, the wrong people already have?

Signy seems to think it's somehow important to point out that not all people seeking a CCW permit would be responsible with their guns. Um. So, because some vanishingly small percentage of folks would be irresponsible, that means what exactly? There are plenty of ways for irresponsible people to get guns--seems going through the process of aquiring a CCW permit would be a self-selecting process for a slightly more responsible crowd.

Me, I don't imagine I'll be running out to buy a gun any time soon. I have no reason to believe that I will need one. I'm willing to deal with the consequences of not participating. If the proverbial shit were to hit the fan, if the jack boots started coming door-to-door, I'd likely hook up with some friends of mine out in Idaho who know their way around firearms, or light out for the rez, but I would hesitate to get a gun myself.

In my own experience, no one carries a gun without being afraid. And as Kyle Maclachlan would say, "Fear is the mind killer." My strongest argument against a professional police force is that it makes being afraid a profession. People tend to get better at what they're paid to do, so police/soldiers will get more and more fearful the longer their job requires them to be ready to kill people.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 26, 2009 9:31 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Got a problem with that, Mr. "I believe people can rule themselves" Wulf?"- Signy

Thats my point. A guy shoots a robber, and he is RIGHT to do so. The people CAN govern themselves.- Wufl

First of all, I have issues with what the man did, considering all of the other people around. In some circumstances it would have been the exact WRONG thing to do. And, it could have been handled differently. I just saw (literally) on TV about an incident in LA where one cashier called 911 while the other cashiers/ servers simply stalled the robber until the police came.

And I disagree with YOUR defintion of "govern themselves". YOU think that it means shooting robbers?? Defending yourself with a gun? Rule of fang and claw? There's a LOT more to self governance than self defense, Wulf! IMHO, until people can learn to govern themslves.... personally and individually... they will never learn to govern themselves collectively. And YOU want to shut off discussion, 'cause it's either Wulf's way or the highway? Hmmm... not a good start for "self" governance, is it? You can seem to neither govern your anger, nor are you willing to extend the right to "self governance" to others. (Which means, among other things, allowing others to express opinions different from yours.)

I will say this quite bluntly but with all due respect: You're a nascent fascist. You might want to look a little more closely to your OWN self-governance before you start telling others what they should or shouldn't do.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 26, 2009 9:45 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Signy seems to think it's somehow important to point out that not all people seeking a CCW permit would be responsible with their guns. Um. So, because some vanishingly small percentage of folks would be irresponsible, that means what exactly? There are plenty of ways for irresponsible people to get guns--seems going through the process of aquiring a CCW permit would be a self-selecting process for a slightly more responsible crowd

I think you're making too much of what was a minor point on my part, HK. I was simply rebutting Frems' point that ALL CCW'ers are automatically responsible.

My real point is the question whether guns are "the answer", "the problem", both, or neither (irrelevant). I'm leaning towards the "may be part of the problem or irrelevant" simply because... just as incarceration hasn't seemed to deter crime, neither will widespread gun ownership. Something else is at work. I dont' know if its the media, a culture of greed (captalism), the myth of redemptive violence, dependence on religion, or fluoride in the water

... but something is seriously awry with our society and I dont' see guns solving that problem.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 26, 2009 9:50 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

It's interesting to note that I currently live in Arizona, a place where it is literally legal to walk around town with a sixgun (or any other gun) strapped to your hip. I enjoy knowing that the citizens of this city have that right.

However, it's a right I don't exercise. In my experience, walking around with a gun on a holster tends to make people nervous. They don't know who I am, or what my intentions are, and in this PANIC NOW society, they'd have to imagine the worst. The only place I strap on my guns in an exposed holster is in the middle of the wide desert, when I'm shooting at villainous aluminum cans far outside of city limits.

It's important to me that the people around me feel at ease and comfortable. As soon as I have the disposable income, I'll be getting an Arizona concealed weapons permit to replace my expired Florida concealed weapons permit. I'm clearly not in a big rush to do so, though, considering that I've been here since 2004 and haven't done it yet.

On the subject of carrying a gun=fear... I'm not sure. Maybe.

But only if you make carrying a flashlight=afraid of the dark

And

Having a Jack in the Car = afraid of being stranded with a flat

Lawgivers have reasonable cause to 'fear' resistance, and are responsible to carry the tools of their trade.

Non-Lawgivers have their own reasons to 'fear', though using the term fear makes one think of stark raving mad paranoia, and I'm not convinced that's the case.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 26, 2009 10:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
The only place I strap on my guns in an exposed holster is in the middle of the wide desert, when I'm shooting at villainous aluminum cans far outside of city limits.

Can Murderer!

AnthonyT admits can murder:

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
The only place I strap on my guns in an exposed holster is in the middle of the wide desert, when I'm shooting at villainous aluminum cans far outside of city limits.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 26, 2009 10:17 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

LOL!

Unrepentant, too. ;-)

You're all right, Citizen.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 26, 2009 10:22 AM

Don't you try to butter me up!

AnthonyT admits can murder:

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
The only place I strap on my guns in an exposed holster is in the middle of the wide desert, when I'm shooting at villainous aluminum cans far outside of city limits.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 26, 2009 10:41 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

AnthonyT admits can murder

I knew he was no good.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 26, 2009 10:46 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

I know, Sig.

(Funny name btw) You think guns are "icky".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 26, 2009 11:11 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Actually, I own one for home self-defense. (Shortest-posible but still-legal barreled shotgun). Used to own a 22 and liked to go plinking. Doesn't mean I think guns are "the answer" tho.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 26, 2009 11:25 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

BTW, the name is a character from CJ Cherryh's Downbelow Station, which has a lot of weird parallels with Firefly

Quote:
The book is set in Cherryh's Alliance-Union universe during the Company Wars period, specifically late 2352 and early 2353. The book details events centering on a space station in orbit around Pell's World (also known as "Downbelow") in the Tau Ceti star system. The station serves as the transit point for ships moving between the Earth and Union sectors of the galaxy.Space is explored not by short-sighted governments, but by the Earth Company, a private corporation which becomes enormously wealthy and powerful as a result. Nine star systems are found to lack planets suitable for colonization, so space stations are built in orbit instead, stepping-stones for further exploration. Then, Pell's World is found to be not only habitable, but already populated by the gentle, sentient (if technologically backward) Hisa. Pell Station is built. The planet is nicknamed "Downbelow" by the stationers, who also start to call their home "Downbelow Station".

When Earth's out-of-touch policies cause it to begin losing control of its more distant stations and worlds, it builds a fleet of fifty military carriers, the Earth Company Fleet, to enforce its will. This leads to the prolonged Company War with the breakaway Union, based at Cyteen, another hospitable world. Caught in between are the stationers and the merchanters[1] who man the freighters that maintain interstellar trade.

Set in the final days of the war, Downbelow Station opens with Earth Company Captain Signy Mallory and her warship, Norway, escorting a ragtag fleet fleeing from Russell's and Mariner Stations to Pell. Similar convoys arrive from other stations destroyed or lost to Union, leading to an enormous crisis. The flood of unexpected refugees strains station resources. Angelo Konstantin, Stationmaster of Pell, and his two sons, Damon and Emilio, struggle to cope with the situation. Fearing Union infiltrators and saboteurs, Pell dumps all the refugees in a Quarantine Zone, causing massive dislocations of Pell's own citizens.

Signy Mallory... SignyM

That's ME!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 26, 2009 12:01 PM

Siggy, Yah, I came on a little strong, just wanted to turn it around a little cause you did as well.

To me, and most folk who carry - this would be a no-fire decision, cause there's just so much that could have gone badly wrong, but alas, we weren't there to see the particulars, and as you say, it's unlikely us peons would get to see the tape.

And the reason I mentioned the police claim, despite me having little to no respect for the Police in general, and Miami's in particular, is that when you have some of the most "anti" folk around agreeing that it was a righteous shoot, chances are that it probably was.

Quote:
I was simply rebutting Frems' point that ALL CCW'ers are automatically responsible.

Ack, not the point I wanted to make, lemme clarify - someone who's run the gauntlet of training and permit issue is GENERALLY a more responsible sort than the average joe.

Quote:
but something is seriously awry with our society and I dont' see guns solving that problem.

This is where we DO agree, mind you, I do believe vilification of self-defense plays a role, but it's not in the end a major one.

We got bigger problems than that to be solving within our society to heal it's ills - something I deal with on a regular basis by trying to get to the root of the problem and pour some balm on it.

In the end, the weapons themselves are irrelevant, imho.

Anthony

Quote:
Having a Jack in the Car = afraid of being stranded with a flat

To me that's the whole POINT of carrying, same reason you have a smoke alarm, fire extinguisher, spare tire, etc...

A handgun, or pistol is primarily a close range defensive weapon, best used to cover your ass till the cavalry arrives.

And back to Siggy-

Wise choice for home defense, if I hadn't found such a good deal on the massive overkill that is Forquet, I likely would have gone the same route - still might, cause that horror is just too damn much weapon for the purpose, and despite my hillbilly upbringing, I do not subscribe to the too much ain't enough theory of firepower or horsepower.

Forquet is DEFINATELY a Hey Y'all, Watch THIS!" moment at the range.

And ironic that you also read Cherryh - one of the things that helped spark my concept of reviving a clan/tribal system socially was reading her Foreigner series, because the Atevi system of Man-Chi seems theoretically better able to limit conflict and stabilise a society than our own does, and it really does strike me as very tribal in nature.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 26, 2009 12:25 PM

SIGMANUNKI

It always amazes me how much you Americans want the old west back. It stuns me that you can't see what carnage would ensue should that happen. Especially, when examples abound in your country and in fact, this story is one of them.

Seriously, one dead and another seriously injured over possibly a few hundred dollars?!?!? Is that really worth it?

An armed society is NOT a polite society. An armed society is a society in a state of perpetual fear. The fear of being shot over something trivial. Seriously, just imagine how many people would get killed over cutting someone off with the road rage that's in your country.

----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 26, 2009 1:32 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I think a lot of the reason that the Wild West is romanticized so much is because in some cases it really was a more polite society. Wild West movies always depict bloody violence, because they are action films after all. But the shooting violence of the real Wild West could be neatly catalogued in a tome or two. Barring warfare or revolution, this same thing could probably be said of Victorian England, or most western countries at the time. It was an age when people seemed to hold life in higher regard, and when people seemed to have more manners. (Though this is debatable depending on what sorts of things offend you.) There were probably great and horrible miscairrages of justice back then, too, but this doesn't stick in the popular memory (unless you are of Mexican, Chinese, or African American descent, in which case the stories of injustice are probably carried on in family tellings.)

For most people, the Wild West was much more Little House on the Prairie than it was Deadwood. As I said before, you could write a couple books about Wild West gun violence. You could scarcely fit modern reports of gun violence into a single building.

An armed society is patently not a polite society merely by virtue of arms, though I do believe in a society where everyone is equally armed, fear of immediate reprisal will tend to keep most folks in line. Historically, criminal massacres have centered on armed thugs killing unarmed folk. I seem to remember a town in Florida where some Good Ole Boys came by and massacred the African-American citizenry. The citizenry had few arms. Their assailants had many. But even the few citizens who had arms and means of defense also had cause to fear the law. They could potentially be brought up on charges or even lynched with the silent approval of Law Enforcement for the 'Crime' of defending themselves and their families against 'White' folks. The situation may have been different had the town been both Armed and secure in the ideals of Justice.

Someone has said above that an armed society is a society where everyone is afraid. I'd like to point out that we live in a society right now where everyone is afraid. That is what law enforcement is about. Fear of a ticket keeps you driving at proper speeds. Fear of jail keeps angry people from defacing property, or punching one another. Or, in some cases, stealing things and murdering folks. Fear of consequences keeps about 80% of the populace in line. 10% wouldn't do bad things even if there were no material consequences. 10% have poor impulse control, and would do bad things even though there are potential future consequences. Security Cameras and Guards and Alarm Systems exist to keep 80% of us in line. At least that's what Loss Mitigation told us when I worked at Radio Shack.

Of the 10% who have poor impulse control, their impulse control improves with their nearness to consequence. "Possibly getting arrested later" is a poor inhibitor. "Not putting your hand on the stove because you'll be immediately burned" is an excellent inhibitor. Walking into a room full of armed people and robbing them is at least as immediately dangerous as putting your hand on a hot stove, and so it is an excellent inhibitor, in my opinion.

But there ARE better inhibitors. A polite society isn't bred from the end of a gun. It starts with the children, and if we truly want a polite society, we may wish to listen closely to some of Frem's ideas about how to treat kids. It's easier to build something right the first time than to try to re-engineer it later. People are easier to influence on the ground floor.

Even in the politest society, though, there will be gents who don't function properly. Some of them can be deterred with the prospect of immediate consequence. The rest must actually encounter that consequence. By all means, employ every possible measure to engineer a more polite society. But please don't entertain the idea of disarming the Just while the Unjust are brought up to specs.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 26, 2009 2:22 PM

Thank you, Anthony.

I do dispute that 80% figure though, I think it's lower than that for the same reason most folk won't pocket a pack of chewing gum while picking up groceries - it's simply beneath our human dignity to do so, and a petty, malicious act barred far more by our own conscience than any threat of consequence.

Author Eric Flint, in the introduction to the Baen Free Library, makes the same point regarding online E-books, and history since it's inception has proven him and the late Mr Baen utterly, completely correct on the subject.
http://www.baen.com/library/

The first is a simple truth which Jim Baen is fond of pointing out: most people would rather be honest than dishonest.

He's absolutely right about that. One of the things about the online debate over e-piracy that particularly galled me was the blithe assumption by some of my opponents that the human race is a pack of slavering would-be thieves held (barely) in check by the fear of prison sentences.

Oh, hogwash.

Sure, sure — if presented with a real "Devil's bargain," most people will at least be tempted. Eternal life. . . a million dollars found lying in the woods. . .

Heh. Many fine stories have been written on the subject! But how many people, in the real world, are going to be tempted to steal a few bucks?

Some, yes — precious few of whom, I suspect, read much of anything. But the truth is that most people are no more tempted to steal a few dollars than they are to spend their lunch hour panhandling for money on the streets. Partly because they don't need to, but mostly because it's beneath their dignity and self-respect.

The chances of running up against one of that tiny percentage that will never have respect for any rules or consequences, on any given day, is actually quite small, but over the course of a lifetime cumulatively becomes a substantial possibility of occuring at least once.

And when it does, for mine own, I prefer to have a stronger argument at hand than someone elses moral outrage.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 26, 2009 3:05 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Quote:
(unless you are of Mexican, Chinese, or African American descent, in which case the stories of injustice are probably carried on in family tellings.)

Native Americans didn't fare well, either, of course. In fact, since you mentioned Little House on the Prairie, Laura Ingalls and her family (along with the other settlers) were actually squatters on Osage land in the series' titular book. If you're interested in learning about that, a more complete review of the book in relation to Native Americans is here:

http://www.oyate.org/books-to-avoid/littlehouse.html

Quote:
Even in the politest society, though, there will be gents who don't function properly.

Ladies, too. It's not as though violence is unique to men, although I'm of the mind that the way our society has constructed masculinity vs. femininity is a big factor for why men are more likely to commit violent crimes, particularly with guns. And perhaps the higher average levels of testosterone don't help, either, but since people aren't slaves to their biology and women can have high levels of testosterone, it's not a good explanation, IMO.

As far as the news story in the OP goes, I side more with SigmaNunki - risking death in the case of a few hundred dollars is not a decision that seems wise to me. On the other hand, this

Quote:
Any lack of compliance, while it may be especially unhealthy in the short-term, has (in my opinion) long-term benefits to society at large.

makes sense, too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 26, 2009 3:16 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

How can I have forgotten the most maligned of all?

Apologies.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 26, 2009 4:44 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Doesn't mean I think guns are "the answer" tho.

And there's yer problem right there(not your problem, SignyM. "The" problem).

There is no "the answer". Or, to paraphrase Mencken, "For every complex problem there is a simple solution. And it is wrong."

Guns aren't the answer. Taking guns away isn't the answer. Jailing all criminals, or letting them all go, isn't the answer. If the answer was simple we'd have figured it out by now. We're not dealing with 'good guys' and 'bad guys'. We're dealing with 300 million individuals who each have different things that set them off or calm them down. You got folks who will kill over a perceived insult, and others who wouldn't ever use force to save their lives. One size does not fit all.

If I were the Ruler of Everything, I'd probably enforce the Golden Rule or the Non-aggression Principle, but that's not likely (however, if you wish to declare for me Ruler of Everything, that'd be fine

). In the meantime, I suspect that we're going to have to hope for ideas that chip away at the edges of the problem.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 26, 2009 5:00 PM