The Heroic Gunslinger Fantasy

[CabinetMaker]

:doh: The 21' foot rule exists as a reminder not to be a one trick pony in regards to self-defense...Not as a total repudiation of the firearm as a defense tool.

This is why I can't do this argument anymore...The whole thing turns into a bloodbath of emotional pabulum, character assassination, old wives tales, and just plain stupid. lain:

HThat was rather my point. A great many people think that since they have a gun they are invincible and safe. The 21' Rule should serve as a reminder that self defense goes far beyond just carrying a gun. Hence my position about being properly trained to carry a gun in public.

 

[Granite]

Obviously. Do you honestly think everyone who owns a gun is necessarily part of what people seem to mean by the term death culture? Don't the murderers in the death culture use other weapons besides guns? Knives are used in murder more often than rifles and shotguns combined but we don't hold the knife culture responsible for that.

I'd say overall there is considerable overlap between the two.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Or, a woman alone in her bedroom and a male intruder appears?

Where do you keep your gun and how is it stored?

 

[TomO]

Interesting...From the New Yorker:

Thresholds of Violence. How school shootings catch on.

Schroeder: “Why would you dispose of your family? What, what have they done?”

LaDue: “They did nothing wrong. I just wanted as many victims as possible.”

 

[chair]

Where do you keep your gun and how is it stored?

Interesting question.

In the years that I kept a weapon at home, it was kept locked in a cabinet, and the ammo was kept separately. But, to be honest, it wasn't meant for personal defense in the sense that people are talking about here.

When in the military, the weapon was always with me. Under my pillow when sleeping, believe it or not.

 

[TomO]

Interesting question.

In the years that I kept a weapon at home, it was kept locked in a cabinet, and the ammo was kept separately. But, to be honest, it wasn't meant for personal defense in the sense that people are talking about here.

When in the military, the weapon was always with me. Under my pillow when sleeping, believe it or not.

:sigh: Unfortunately, with the advent of the "Home Invasion" (We used to call it "bum-rushing" before it got popular.), keeping one with you is the only way to counter this threat.

....But I would not advocate "pillow storage" even though I am glad that it worked out for you. :chuckle:

 

[chair]

:sigh: Unfortunately, with the advent of the "Home Invasion" (We used to call it "bum-rushing" before it got popular.), keeping one with you is the only way to counter this threat.

....But I would not advocate "pillow storage" even though I am glad that it worked out for you. :chuckle:

When your weapon (we never called it a "gun") really has to be handy, you don't go anywhere without it.

In a home situation, especially with kids around- you want that thing locked up.

It seems that the fear of "Home Invasion" is blown out pf proportion.

 

[TomO]

It seems that the fear of "Home Invasion" is blown out pf proportion.

:think: Oh, it's quite the rare occurrence indeed...Kind of like winning the lottery.

That's the thing about a lottery though; someone is going to win it sooner or later. lain:

 

[Yorzhik]

Your mischaracterization of my position. Magic doesn't happen, science does.

But your proposal, that psychologists can predict the future behavior of crazy people is exactly magic. Even the psychologists you propose to perform this magic would agree it's magic.

Yes, it shows that we can and do reasonably remove rights in certain situations.

Right, when it can be done justly. What you are proposing is unjust. Removing a persons right to self defense before they've committed a crime.

By your logic, we can declare people with certain skin color to be non-human.

Of course we do because the Bill of Rights is not from God, it is from the People of the USA.

Which is why your proposal is evil. According to God, we cannot declare people to be non-human because of the color of their skin although the *people* can, and have in the past, done exactly that evil. It wasn't that people doing this evil couldn't accomplish it, it was that it couldn't be done justly regardless how utterly legal they could make it.

You are foolish if you think a gun is the only means of self defense. Look at the 21' Rule closely.

And here is another foolish idea you have. Guns are not the only means of self defense and I've never said otherwise. But guns are a means to instantly turn most defenseless people into people able to defend themselves.

It is the best we have so that is where we start. And make it better.

Starting with a bad foundation will only result in a worse institution.

You are going to have to explain this one. It has nothing to do with what I asked.

Perhaps more context will help: Matt7:9 Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!

I have already discussed this above.

You proposed magic above.

It is the place to start because psych evals can indicate a probable future.

As someone that admits you don't know anything about how they perform this magic... it's magic to you and you cannot possibly know if the future they predict is probable or not. You've extended your blind faith into an institutional injustice for all of us.

Not in the case of guns, there is nothing wrong if doing so protects both society and the person.

You've already admitted you don't know if it will protect society or not. Your tyranny knows no bounds.

Who would you shoot? I would start with those people to protect them from you.

You make no sense. Could they get a knife within 21' of me?

Somebody with a knife standing 15' in front of you can kill you before you can finish drawing your gun.

Irrelevant. Just because someone has a means to defend themselves does not mean they will always be successful.

And there is one more thing. Your proposal can predict which people will commit themselves to a knife attack that will thwart a gun defense. So we should incarcerate those people by your logic.

Ah, but you don't get to say whether you get the gun or not, the People do. That is the difference. If you are going to carry a gun in public, the public's right to know that you can be trusted with a gun outweighs your right to carry in public. That is the point that you fail to grasp.

No. I get that you think the people are God. You've been saying it consistently post after post. What you don't grasp is that a right to defend one's self comes from God, and God supersedes the desires of the people.

 

[chair]

:think: Oh, it's quite the rare occurrence indeed...Kind of like winning the lottery.

That's the thing about a lottery though; someone is going to win it sooner or later. lain:

Yes. But lottery tickets are not free- which is why it is not worth buying them, ynless you view it as a form of entertainment.

Keeping a gun in your house is not free either. It costs money, and there are real risks involved.

 

[aikido7]

Well jest look-a dose Muslims...

Here comes da little guy that's always in the right and keeps on a-comin' :

Why it's Li'l George Bush!

 

[aikido7]

...But lottery tickets are not free....

I have stated over and over again that I will not buy another lottery ticket unless I win.

 

[CabinetMaker]

But your proposal, that psychologists can predict the future behavior of crazy people is exactly magic. Even the psychologists you propose to perform this magic would agree it's magic.

Again, this is your straw man. I never said that a psychiatrist can predict the future. They can say that this schizophrenic hearing voices that are telling him to kill should not have a gun.

Right, when it can be done justly. What you are proposing is unjust. Removing a persons right to self defense before they've committed a crime.

I do not see prevention as unjust at all.

Which is why your proposal is evil. According to God, we cannot declare people to be non-human because of the color of their skin although the *people* can, and have in the past, done exactly that evil. It wasn't that people doing this evil couldn't accomplish it, it was that it couldn't be done justly regardless how utterly legal they could make it.

God did not create guns, we did. Thus we can regulate our creation.

And here is another foolish idea you have. Guns are not the only means of self defense and I've never said otherwise. But guns are a means to instantly turn most defenseless people into people able to defend themselves.

Guns turn most defenseless people into targets. Having a gun with you and not knowing how to use it appropriately for the situation you are in means the gun is not a defense weapon, it is actually a liability.

Starting with a bad foundation will only result in a worse institution.

It is a far better option than arm everybody and let God sort out the dead.

Perhaps more context will help: Matt7:9 Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!

Nope, still not working. I asked you to post the scriptures where God says it okay for us to kill others to protect our stuff.

You proposed magic above.

Nothing magic about it. Conversation and observation and training leading to an informed guess about possibles risks a person represents to themselves and/or society.

As someone that admits you don't know anything about how they perform this magic... it's magic to you and you cannot possibly know if the future they predict is probable or not. You've extended your blind faith into an institutional injustice for all of us.

What they do is not magic. What they do is talk to people and listen and observe. Criminal profilers do this for a living and their profiles help catch criminals. My proposal is to try to catch them before they kill your kid.

You've already admitted you don't know if it will protect society or not. Your tyranny knows no bounds.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Your model of arm everybody isn't working so well right now so why would arming more people make it work any better.

You never responded to a point about American history. There was a time when many Americans in the west open carried. Many towns had laws stating that when you came into town you had to check your guns with the sheriff. If having everybody armed all the time is such a good idea, why did so many towns outlaw it?

You make no sense. Could they get a knife within 21' of me?

Absolutely. With no problem at all. If you are carrying for protection, where is your? Concealed? How long does it take for you to pull it? Is a round chambered? As chair noted, if that gun is not immediately accessible and ready to fire it is not a defense weapon.

Irrelevant. Just because someone has a means to defend themselves does not mean they will always be successful.

True enough.

And there is one more thing. Your proposal can predict which people will commit themselves to a knife attack that will thwart a gun defense. So we should incarcerate those people by your logic.

As I have never once advocated incarcerating people your argument is based on your own straw man. Also, I have never said we would test everybody for everything. I have said that if you want to carry a gun in public, open or concealed, you need to be trained and tested to do so.

No. I get that you think the people are God. You've been saying it consistently post after post. What you don't grasp is that a right to defend one's self comes from God, and God supersedes the desires of the people.

No, I never said that the people are God. Yet again you create a straw man to argue against. Still waiting for you to show us where God said we are to kill in self defense.

 

[Yorzhik]

Again, this is your straw man. I never said that a psychiatrist can predict the future. They can say that this schizophrenic hearing voices that are telling him to kill should not have a gun.

Really? Just people that openly threaten to murder other people are the only people that will lose their right to defend themselves? Gee CM, these are the people that you need professionals to figure out they threaten murder?

I'm guessing you mean different schizophrenics. The ones only the professionals can figure out if they are dangerous or not. And if that is true, then these same professionals would, according to you, only remove someone's right to defend themselves because they figured out, with no prior crime, that the client will kill someone *in the future* if they are allowed to have guns.

I realize it is hard for you to follow what you are saying, but being as vague as you are it's not hard for you to confuse yourself.

I do not see prevention as unjust at all.

Yes. Preventing people from exercising their rights before they commit a crime is unjust.

Think better for once. If everyone were in prison, like North Korea for example, then by your logic the state is being just because they are only doing it "for prevention."

Guns turn most defenseless people into targets. Having a gun with you and not knowing how to use it appropriately for the situation you are in means the gun is not a defense weapon, it is actually a liability.

You'll need some extraordinary evidence to back up this claim.

It is a far better option than arm everybody and let God sort out the dead.

No it isn't. There are far less dead by arming everyone. Had the victims been armed in mass shootings, there would have been less dead.

Or, said another way, look at all the mass shootings and tell us about all the armed people that failed, nay, became a *liability*, because they were armed.

Nope, still not working. I asked you to post the scriptures where God says it okay for us to kill others to protect our stuff.

We are talking about self defense, right? The passage covers using a gun for self defense, and if you can find any quote where I talk about "stuff defense", then point it out. If you cannot point to that, then admit you are being deceptive.

What they do is not magic. What they do is talk to people and listen and observe. Criminal profilers do this for a living and their profiles help catch criminals. My proposal is to try to catch them before they kill your kid.

Even criminal profilers only provide clues so the police can get real evidence of a crime before they arrest someone. No one ever gets arrested based solely on a profile. And violating someone's rights based on a profile is just as evil.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Violating someone's rights based on a possible future crime is something we should never try.

Your model of arm everybody isn't working so well right now so why would arming more people make it work any better.

Really? How many armed people were at any of the mass shootings?

You never responded to a point about American history. There was a time when many Americans in the west open carried. Many towns had laws stating that when you came into town you had to check your guns with the sheriff. If having everybody armed all the time is such a good idea, why did so many towns outlaw it?

No. The real question you should ask is if they got away with violating a person's rights, then how did they not turn into tyrannical little fiefdoms? There are some complex reasons, and they have to do with people being allowed to carry arms in 99.999% of everywhere else. Checking one's gun was only for the part of town that included the bars and brothels. And, interestingly, most gun murders were confined to these gun free zones. Oh, wait, that's not interesting because gun free zones are where most mass murders happen.

As I have never once advocated incarcerating people your argument is based on your own straw man. Also, I have never said we would test everybody for everything. I have said that if you want to carry a gun in public, open or concealed, you need to be trained and tested to do so.

Same would go for knives. The only difference is that knives are so available, one must be either incarcerated or monitored to stop murder by knife. According to your logic, we need to have a psych eval for someone that would threaten murder with a knife because a knife trumps a gun closer than 21' or 15' feet.

No, I never said that the people are God. Yet again you create a straw man to argue against. Still waiting for you to show us where God said we are to kill in self defense.

Only God grants rights. If people take them away, and do so under the banner of justice, those people have declared themselves to be God. Do I need to number it or do you get it?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Really? Just people that openly threaten to murder other people are the only people that will lose their right to defend themselves? Gee CM, these are the people that you need professionals to figure out they threaten murder?

I'm guessing you mean different schizophrenics. The ones only the professionals can figure out if they are dangerous or not. And if that is true, then these same professionals would, according to you, only remove someone's right to defend themselves because they figured out, with no prior crime, that the client will kill someone *in the future* if they are allowed to have guns.

I realize it is hard for you to follow what you are saying, but being as vague as you are it's not hard for you to confuse yourself.

Nothing you said here changes anything I have said. If you want to carry a gun in public you must be trained and tested. Part of that training would include a phsyciatrit evaluation to evaluate a persons stability and motives for carrying a gun. This would protect them as well as protecting the public.

Yes. Preventing people from exercising their rights before they commit a crime is unjust.

Stopping a person from sinning is unjust. Interesting point of view. I don't agree.

Think better for once. If everyone were in prison, like North Korea for example, then by your logic the state is being just because they are only doing it "for prevention."

Inflamatory rhetoric and straw men make no points. I have never said to incarcerate anybody and the presidents already exist to limit rights.

You'll need some extraordinary evidence to back up this claim.

Only one example is needed. I'll look for one come Monday.

No it isn't. There are far less dead by arming everyone. Had the victims been armed in mass shootings, there would have been less dead.

Or, said another way, look at all the mass shootings and tell us about all the armed people that failed, nay, became a *liability*, because they were armed.

Or more dead. I find it hard to believe that if everybody in a class room whips out a gun and starts shooting that there would be fewer dead.

We are talking about self defense, right? The passage covers using a gun for self defense, and if you can find any quote where I talk about "stuff defense", then point it out. If you cannot point to that, then admit you are being deceptive.

Yes. And if you define self defense as protecting your stuff then that is included. So please post for us the versus where God says we are to kill in defense of self or stuff. You assert that it is a God given right. Show us where God bestowed the right.

Even criminal profilers only provide clues so the police can get real evidence of a crime before they arrest someone. No one ever gets arrested based solely on a profile. And violating someone's rights based on a profile is just as evil.

And they build those profiles based on snippets of information left at a crime scene. They learn by interviewing criminals in depth. What would they find if they spoke to a person directly before that person sinned?

Violating someone's rights based on a possible future crime is something we should never try.

I disagree with you. Based on your comments in thus thread, people may need as much or more protection from you than we need from them. Your whole position is solidly heroic gunslinger.

Really? How many armed people were at any of the mass shootings?

1, sometimes two. At a shootout in LA a number of years ago there were two shooters and a large number of police returnin fire. How many guns do you want around your family if you are out on the town and a gun fight breaks out? Who do you want to be holding those guns?

No. The real question you should ask is if they got away with violating a person's rights, then how did they not turn into tyrannical little fiefdoms? There are some complex reasons, and they have to do with people being allowed to carry arms in 99.999% of everywhere else. Checking one's gun was only for the part of town that included the bars and brothels. And, interestingly, most gun murders were confined to these gun free zones. Oh, wait, that's not interesting because gun free zones are where most mass murders happen.

If I had wanted to ask that question I would have asked it. I asked the question I wanted answered and you avoided it. I predict that you will not ever answer it.

Same would go for knives. The only difference is that knives are so available, one must be either incarcerated or monitored to stop murder by knife. According to your logic, we need to have a psych eval for someone that would threaten murder with a knife because a knife trumps a gun closer than 21' or 15' feet.

No, I am limiting it to guns specifically because of a guns unique ability to kill a great many people in a short time from a long distance.

Only God grants rights. If people take them away, and do so under the banner of justice, those people have declared themselves to be God. Do I need to number it or do you get it?

Still waiting for you to post the scripture God says to kill anybody that scares or threatens us.

 

[TomO]

lain: BTW...In case anyone was wondering, this is where this thread came from. I'm not surprised.


http://www.thenation.com/article/combat-vets-destroy-the-nras-heroic-gunslinger-fantasy/

 

[Granite]

lain: BTW...In case anyone was wondering, this is where this thread came from. I'm not surprised.


http://www.thenation.com/article/combat-vets-destroy-the-nras-heroic-gunslinger-fantasy/

I find it unintentionally hilarious when Christians solemnly trot out the "consider the source" argument.

Uh, you should talk, guys.

 

[TomO]

I find it unintentionally hilarious when Christians solemnly trot out the "consider the source" argument.

Uh, you should talk, guys.

Once again...I'm not surprised. :yawn:

 

[Yorzhik]

If you want to carry a gun in public you must be trained and tested. Part of that training would include a phsyciatrit evaluation to evaluate a persons stability and motives for carrying a gun. This would protect them as well as protecting the public.

Sure it would. And there's no way psych evals to limit rights before any crime is committed could go wrong.

If everyone were in prison, like North Korea for example, then by your logic the state is being just because they are only doing it "for prevention."

I have never said to incarcerate anybody and the presidents already exist to limit rights.

You didn't understand what you said. I was responding to what you are repeating here, and logically a prison state is also allowable by the logic you are using.

It doesn't matter that you may or may not like people to be incarcerated, if the state decides incarceration is the limit on the rights required to make society and them safe, as you say, the precedent has been set.

Only one example is needed. I'll look for one come Monday.

No. One anecdote is not what is needed. What is needed is a wide body of evidence that, in general - "Guns turn most defenseless people into targets. Having a gun with you and not knowing how to use it appropriately for the situation you are in means the gun is not a defense weapon, it is actually a liability."

Sure, there are a lot of instances where a person with a gun that thought they would have it for self defense tried using that gun and made things worse. What you need to do is support your statement about "most defenseless people."

Or more dead. I find it hard to believe that if everybody in a class room whips out a gun and starts shooting that there would be fewer dead.

Or the first person that shoots the attacker would end the shooting. The fact remains: Had the victims been armed in mass shootings, there would have been less dead.

Or, said another way, look at all the mass shootings and tell us about all the armed people that failed, nay, became a *liability*, because they were armed.

We are talking about self defense, right? The passage covers using a gun for self defense, and if you can find any quote where I talk about "stuff defense", then point it out. If you cannot point to that, then admit you are being deceptive.

Yes. And if you define self defense as protecting your stuff then that is included. So please post for us the versus where God says we are to kill in defense of self or stuff. You assert that it is a God given right. Show us where God bestowed the right.

I provided the passage. Self and stuff are not the same. You provide the quote where I said "self defense" is "stuff defense."

If you can't provide the quote, admit you are being deceptive.

And they build those profiles based on snippets of information left at a crime scene. They learn by interviewing criminals in depth. What would they find if they spoke to a person directly before that person sinned?

So admit that no one is arrested based solely on a profile.

Violating someone's rights based on a possible future crime is something we should never try.

I disagree with you.

Perhaps people will see your position more clearly if they understand that a persons rights can be limited based on a psych eval. The obvious next question would be, if one right can be limited by a psych eval, then the precedent is set that all rights can be limited by a psych eval.

Based on your comments in thus thread, people may need as much or more protection from you than we need from them. Your whole position is solidly heroic gunslinger.

And you're a tyrant. Besides, how do you know I'm not a heroic gunslinger already?

Really? How many armed people were at any of the mass shootings?

1, sometimes two.

I'm calling BS. Cite where there were 1, sometimes 2, people packing heat at Umpqua, Aurora, or Charleston. In fact, cite the 1 or 2 people from the complete list of mass shootings over at MotherJones.

No. The real question you should ask is if they got away with violating a person's rights, then how did they not turn into tyrannical little fiefdoms? There are some complex reasons, and they have to do with people being allowed to carry arms in 99.999% of everywhere else. Checking one's gun was only for the part of town that included the bars and brothels. And, interestingly, most gun murders were confined to these gun free zones. Oh, wait, that's not interesting because gun free zones are where most mass murders happen.

If I had wanted to ask that question I would have asked it. I asked the question I wanted answered and you avoided it. I predict that you will not ever answer it.

So you don't read passed the first line.

No, I am limiting it to guns specifically because of a guns unique ability to kill a great many people in a short time from a long distance.

Not only have you been supposedly "proving" how knives are more dangerous than guns in very common situations, but nothing in your precedent limits rights violation by the state to guns or other rights.

Still waiting for you to post the scripture God says to kill anybody that scares or threatens us.

Scares? or Threatens? Which is it? They aren't the same. I'm talking about threatening lives, and you seem to be adding "scaring."

I already posted scripture that supports the right to self defense. Are you asking me to supply scripture to support the "right" of someone to kill a person that scares them but does not threaten them?

 

[Granite]

Once again...I'm not surprised. :yawn:

The last thing you ever said of value on this subject was "Bite me, clown" if only because it summed up the gun lobby in three words.