|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 7, 2018, 05:01 PM | #26 |
Junior Member
Join Date: February 6, 2018
Posts: 7
|
I appreciate all the input from you. And I also feel grateful for the (relative...) respect you feel towards each other and don't lash out at each other as I have seen in many other places.
While I feel that I know what kind of society I would like to see and how it could be made, and in that I include the right of every person and citizen to be able to defend himself and his family, I also feel that it's VERY difficult to have such world view where I live, with the almost impossible and irrational fear that most people seem to feel towards guns and weapons. It seems that the worst places for these tendencies actually are in the countries that ought to be most grateful for weapons. The countries that have managed to keep a peace for a relatively long time. But the citizens have been dozing off in their material comfort and illusional safety brought by a Strong State that makes you believe that it will keep you safe no matter what. But we need to remind ourselves that the basic safety and security must come from ourselves, not from an outside party. But with the exception of the need to keep together to fend off unfairness and people with ill intent. I just need to ventilate my mind a bit from these unreasonable ideas that seem to perpetuate even in the US that everything should be controlled by the State, "becuase it's good for you"... Ok, enough of the rant. Time for bed in my time zone... |
February 7, 2018, 05:45 PM | #27 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||||
February 7, 2018, 05:47 PM | #28 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
This thread is not intended to be a discussion of knife or acid attack laws. Going further down that road will lead to infractions.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
February 7, 2018, 06:01 PM | #29 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
|
If you are going to cite John Lott be prepared to address some of the issues with his research related to accusation he fabricated data.
|
February 7, 2018, 07:07 PM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,192
|
As long as everyone gives up their guns including criminals, security forces, the police, the military, those protecting politicians, and the politicians I’m willing to give up mine. If guns are inherently evil and dangerous than entrusting them to anyone seems to be a logical flaw
|
February 8, 2018, 05:06 AM | #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,313
|
Quote:
Nope. Still not gonna. P.S. I suspect you were just having fun with me anyway. |
|
February 8, 2018, 07:18 AM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,288
|
johnwilliamson:
Quote:
The casual reader will think "Hmm,John Lotts work is flawed and discredited" but they will not do the research to dig up and read the back story. It resembles a fake news cheap shot. I'm not inclined to do research to validate something that you have not validated yourself. And please,no "Google it" I request that you google it,post who made the claim,what the claim was,etc. or I'm afraid I must dismiss your comment as "fabricated data" |
|
February 8, 2018, 11:24 AM | #33 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 1,850
|
Quote:
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin |
|
February 8, 2018, 11:48 AM | #34 | |
Junior member
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
|
Quote:
The basics show up in his wikipedia article. It has been covered here before. If someone is too lazy to look up the details that is not my problem. There are pages and pages. Really, anyone at all interested in the RKBA discussion should be aware. Bring up John Lott to an educated anti-gunner and you'd better be prepared for them to try and jam it back down your throat. Many of the other posters in this thread who posted are aware of his work. I considered suggesting his work. My guess is the others decided not to for the same reason I didn't. They would prefer not to drag his baggage into any arguments. Most people don't believe he performed an extensive survey, lost all records of it in a series of events, can not remember the names any of the graduate students involved in the survey, none of those graduate students were willing to come forward on their own, etc. Whether he did it or not, it is a big pile of baggage that contaminates all of his work. His decision to register a pseudonym claiming to be a prior student and defend himself believing the faux anonymity of the internet would protect his true identity was just foolish early internet folly. Laughable, but also forgivable. Fraud in research is more common then many want to believe, especially fabricating or simulating expensive and time consuming test/survey results. Lazy grad students sometimes fabricate results without their employers knowledge. Sometimes people pay to attach their names to research or come to be attached by some other agreement and really have nothing to do with the research, then get burned when the person performing research gets lazy. I sat at lunch with several faculty of a research institution one afternoon where they openly discussed how they were manipulating their current research in order to receive funding for continuation research when it was done. Mostly by choosing clearly incorrect statistical methods. One of those 'do they realize I am here at the table?' moments. Research was their job. They needed to make sure that at the end of their current project they had a lead in to another project in order to pay their mortgages. Last edited by johnwilliamson062; February 8, 2018 at 11:57 AM. |
|
February 8, 2018, 12:43 PM | #35 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 2,483
|
HiBC:
Quote:
Ordinary_Guy, you ask if "a pro-gun society brings about a safer and just society". To your main inquiry, I would say that: 1. No society is perfectly just nor perfectly safe. 2. Allowing ALL citizens the capability to use the most efficient means to defend themselves and their family members when confronted by unsafe or unjust situations (whether criminal / ad hoc or institutional) creates a baseline expectation of all citizens that they can control their own lives and that to some degree the community they build and inhabit is beholden to them and they are not dependent on a society that might be hostile to them. I'm painting in broad strokes, but I'm trying to point out the fundamental empowerment that firearm ownership entails. Not everyone might feel that they need that type of empowerment; fair enough. Not always is that type of empowerment required to be exercised in any society:true. However, a society that feels its citizens are capable of owning and responsibly using that type of basic empowerment would seem to have a higher regard for the value and capabilities of each of its citizens. This level of appreciation of the value of each citizen would seem a good foundation for ordering a just society.
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time. |
|
February 8, 2018, 01:28 PM | #36 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,846
|
Quote:
I think a pro-gun attitude allows for a safer and just society, but it takes more than that to actually create and maintain that society. Just as it takes much more than an anti-gun attitude to create an maintain a safe and just society. Studies are wonderful things, but both sides do them, both sides come up with results that support their viewpoints, and both sides attack the other side's studies as inaccurate, incorrect, and irrelevant. I think the only "study" that matters in this argument is the study of history. One doesn't have to even look deeply, its there to be seen, our entire history has been one of armed men oppressing unarmed men. Guns, or swords, or clubs or just disparity of force, those are a matter of technique. Anyone who thinks that simply removing guns from the equation makes us safe is #1) ignoring the brutality that happened during of thousands of years where the sword, spear, bow, and axe were the tools, and guns didn't even exist. And, #2) they ought to go spend some time in a prison, (where there are no guns other than in the hands of the guards), and see how safe they feel there. Its not the tools that matter, its the people using them. Firearms do not guarantee a successful result. What they provide is the opportunity. You can't use as gun if you don't have one. But having a gun doesn't mean you will win, it means you might. Sure, its a slogan, but its still true, "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away". And who shows up when the police to get there? People with guns!!! If guns aren't a good thing, why do the police have them??? There is almost nothing on this earth that cannot be put to an evil use by the mind of man. Evil is not a concept that ought to be ascribed to an inanimate object.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
February 8, 2018, 01:41 PM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,192
|
Guns and the monopolization of the use of force by the government have something in common: when they are used by good men and women for the betterment of society they are fine. When they are used for evil intent they are not.
I don't like monopolization of anything. |
February 8, 2018, 01:47 PM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2009
Location: Back in a Non-Free State
Posts: 3,133
|
__________________
Simple as ABC . . . Always Be Carrying |
February 8, 2018, 03:21 PM | #39 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,457
|
Quote:
If an individual has a right to speak, even when he is offensive, and to employ really effective force in his defense, and to travel and associate more or less as he pleases with the consent of others, a collection of those individuals may recognise that and act accordingly. That has a lot of implications for society. A good friend is greek, big and genuinely dangerous with his hands. As a young man, he vacationed in the islands doing things young men do and fighting in bars (discoteques). He was horrified to learn that americans can carry firearms. "But then if I start a fight over a girl, the other guy could pull out a gun and kill me!" (as if it never occurred to him not to hurt someone).
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; February 9, 2018 at 06:34 AM. |
|
February 8, 2018, 04:01 PM | #40 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
Quote:
That's funny. An abomination to gun-control types |
|
February 8, 2018, 09:04 PM | #41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,192
|
The “normalization of extreme violence” is not new. As late as the civil war military battles were picnic destinations allowing one to sit in the hills and watch. Public executions, often gruesome, were once public spectacle. While you may be right regarding technological advancements nearly every revolution carried out by commoners was done at a major technological disadvantage.
It’s not new. Your strategy is likely a good survival strategy but you underlying commentary ignores at least some historical narrative |
February 9, 2018, 05:48 AM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 29, 2005
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 1,934
|
Who cares what part of the gun owning crowd go armed all the time, or whether it suits any demographic dreamed up, by anyone.
I was born in the UK, in 1935, lived 3 years in Sydney Australia, and 30 years in Toronto, Canada. As a US Citizen, I carry always, I shoot well, taught that skill for 25 years. Working on the Doors of Clubs in Liverpool England for 5 years, got into lots of fights. Here is my view on your request, I could care less about why people think it's a good idea to go armed. Just so long as it is my right to carry my fully loaded Glock 19 every day! Sixteen rounds of 147g Ranger T! Do I quiver in fear, as I go about my business? Why would I, I am armed. Countries where you have not got that freedom? I have been there, ain't going back. |
February 9, 2018, 06:20 AM | #43 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Last call to stay on topic.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
February 9, 2018, 02:58 PM | #44 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by manta49; February 9, 2018 at 03:11 PM. |
||
February 9, 2018, 05:23 PM | #45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 1,850
|
manta we can argue all day about your views on how unsafe it is to live in the USA and the superiority of the UK model, but that is not the topic of this thread.
My having the ability and right to defend against a violent attack does not make the threat of violence more likely. It simply increases the chance of me and mine surviving a lethal attack. This notion that law abiding citizens with guns is part of the prevailing violence that plagues the US and most everywhere else in the world is nonsense. It is far easier to blame guns and focus on "gun control" laws than address the causal problems that will not go away by taking my guns. And for the record manta I don't live in fear. I live in a statistically very safe location. I carry a gun every day because as OldMarksman mentioned in another thread 'it is not the odds, but the stakes.'
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin |
February 9, 2018, 05:51 PM | #46 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
As for of topic it was inserted in post 10 and not by me. Last edited by manta49; February 10, 2018 at 06:59 AM. |
|
February 10, 2018, 09:09 AM | #47 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 29, 2005
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 1,934
|
Manta.
As a scouser, I never go to the North, Belfast is a No-No for me. Dublin always. No, still fresh IRA Slogans on the Gable ends. The troubles are still just below the surface. Or so I have been told. We here in Florida can obtain a CCW license, quite easy, the crimes committed, enough reason to take away one of those Licenses, are few and far between. I first heard that statement "An armed society, is a polite society" was from a transplanted South African in Toronto, many years ago. I believe it. Last edited by Brit; February 10, 2018 at 09:20 AM. |
February 10, 2018, 10:05 AM | #48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
Just came across an article from 2016 that speaks rather clearly to the issues in this thread. It’s at https://ijr.com/2016/01/510415-10-ch...n-perspective/
Strong recommendation for taking a look, as it gives some very interesting global perspectives. K Mac and Manta especially might find it useful. pax |
February 10, 2018, 10:55 AM | #49 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
As for a armed society is a polite society i don't buy that, i am sure there are plenty of polite unarmed Americans. |
|
February 10, 2018, 11:02 AM | #50 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
I will give it a read. I don't think lots of guns in a country makes much difference to crime or murder rates one way or the other. It will make a difference to what is used to murder people, murders with firearms will be higher but the overall murder figure per year will remain similar.
|
|
|