Bowling for Columbine

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by John D Harris: I just love the bastardization of the language, it's not Vigilantism to stop a crime in progress, infact there are laws on the books that make it a crime not to try to stop crime. Vigilantism is seeking revenge outside the law for a crime or action AFTER it has been comitted. Now here's the hard part for people to admitt there are some people that need to be killed, it ain't pretty, it ain't nice, it is.

Isn't that actually considered to be excessive violence by law? Even if you are carrying a pistol around in public for God knows what kind of moronic and paranoid-driven reason, why not try to shoot the guy in the leg or arm just to take him out, instead? I'm sure there's something in American law covering this bit, as is the case in Europe...

And to explore Oblivion's example a little further, what if you are the witness of petty theft (a guy robbing an old lady's purse or something), would you pull out your pistol and shoot the criminal just the same, in some sort of strange misconception of actually *stopping* a crime, while actually committing perhaps the worst crime of them all instead?

[Timber Loftis]

In the US you can defend against force with an equal or lesser, but usually not greater, force. The categories of force are deadly and non-deadly. Also, you can respond to another in distress as if it were you in most instances -- called "defense of another" rather than "self defense."

If the attacker has a deadly weapon, such as a knife, you can respond with a deadly weapon, such as a gun. In many states, you will have to "retreat" if you have the option. Nothing requires you to be a marksman and only hit a limb, though. Take a pistol -- or rifle -- and try to pop a few rounds through a 25-ft. pistol target. It ain't easy. It would be quite a draconian legal requirement to make someone hit specific parts of an assailant's body.

The self defense laws in the US are about as good as they can be, IMO. I don't like the "must retreat" BS -- I shouldn't have to run from an assailant before I'm allowed to give him a third eye. The recent cases I've seen regarding the law in some European countries make me think the criminal has been given too many rights against the victim on the other side of the pond.

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: If the attacker has a deadly weapon, such as a knife, you can respond with a deadly weapon, such as a gun. In many states, you will have to "retreat" if you have the option. Nothing requires you to be a marksman and only hit a limb, though. Take a pistol -- or rifle -- and try to pop a few rounds through a 25-ft. pistol target. It ain't easy. It would be quite a draconian legal requirement to make someone hit specific parts of an assailant's body.

True, but if you're weird enough to carry around a pistol "just in case" in public in the first place, you'd expect that person to be more than qualified to handle it responsibly, or at least knows how to aim; or perhaps that's just my perception of it. No one is helped by some hack who is as much a danger to the potential victims as he is to assailant.

[ 03-04-2004, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Davros]

Originally posted by Oblivion437: Please, do argue it. Don't pull a Wellard and cop out.

Grow up please. Crap like this post added nothing to the debate.

Edit to add some more - I look forward to your explanation about how this post advanced your cause against gun control as opposed to making you appear all sulky and petulant.

[ 03-04-2004, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Davros ]

[Oblivion437]

Originally posted by Grojlach: Isn't that actually considered to be excessive violence by law? Even if you are carrying a pistol around in public for God knows what kind of moronic and paranoid-driven reason, why not try to shoot the guy in the leg or arm just to take him out, instead? I'm sure there's something in American law covering this bit, as is the case in Europe...

No it isn't. Especially if the person who so received said (literally) explosive force is in fact comitting armed robbery, and pointing a loaded gun at someone's face while threatening them could be considered attempted murder, and it certainly does fit the bill for assault charges. All that added in, what did the clerk do to deserve to die, or even be harassed in such a manner? Did he deserve it for being a clerk and not a rich demagogue? Also, if Moore is right, then Concealed carry is a VERY good idea. If in fact there are so many damn murders and crazies are roaming the streets, why shouldn't the law-abiding be willing to protect themselves? Also, other than concealed carry, there's open carry, but that has tactical and cultural disadvantages.

And to explore Oblivion's example a little further, what if you are the witness of petty theft (a guy robbing an old lady's purse or something), would you pull out your pistol and shoot the criminal just the same, in some sort of strange misconception of actually *stopping* a crime, while actually committing perhaps the worst crime of them all instead?

Killing someone isn't the worst thing you can do to them. You could take away their dignity. All of it. You could then take away their freedom. Then take away all security. I suppose at that point, with all sacred (including family, also destroyed in the process of destroying someone's security) things to them gone, they'd be better off dead. However, if someone did do all these things io another individual, it can be most assured, death is too kind a fate for them. They have done something so sadistic and horrid that there's no justification. A slow and torturous existance for the next ten thousand years is on the ticket, but too expensive. Just let them rot in prison till the day they die. That too is expensive. The US has a VERY high prison population.

Davros, are you not the kettle calling the pot black? Jesus Christ man, he cops out and says he's above arguing with me. That strikes me as vaguely insulting and to use your language, petulent and sulky. To respond to such a thing in an adult manner (as shown with Wellard) is a waste of time. Might as well sink to their level, kick 'em once or twice below the belt, and get back on the podium. Now, while you're nitpicking at something irrelevant, howabout YOU make a post relevant to the actual topic at hand before you wave the bloody shirt.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Oblivion437: Please, do argue it. Don't pull a Wellard and cop out.

Why? Your mind is already made up and you have made wildly wrong statements and conclusions while lacking a whole lot of key information.

Besides I don't particpate in these discussions to argue nor to belittle other people's perspectives. That seems to be your game and therefore it would be beneath me to reply to your remarks. Give it up. I would only humilate you by pointing out specifically your erroneous conclusions.

[Chewbacca]

I changed my mind.

Originally posted by Oblivion437: Well, keep your faith, but faith allowed a vast people to be subjugated for 1000 years. Faith doesn't do a human mind good. You can conjure up invisible men in the sky all you like. But if you're dead, and the thief has the loot, it doesn't much matter in all practicality.

I don't believe in invisible men in the sky. Prove that faith doesnt do a human mind good. Show me the money.

I think ABSOLUTE pacifism is a stupid idea as it eliminates that most terrible and sometimes (though very, very rarely) necessary solution of violence. That last sentence renders you a hypocrite. You won't commit violence, but you will have someone/something do your dirty work for you? That's even lower than someone who bulldozes their way through life. At least they don't have any false pretenses of some higher morality. At the very least, I know where to shoot first if I should ever break into your house.

My dirty work? Hmmm. If some jackass gets his balls bit by one of the dogs, its not my fault. Being well trained means they won't randomly attack someone. If they follow their instinct to protect me, the lady, or the home, it's not like I put them up to it, now is it? And while my hypothetical attacker is busy with several hundred pounds of angry dog, I'm free to choose my course of action. Since the particular path of pacifistism I practice includes martial arts disipline, I know my hypothetical attacker will be far more scared than me, and that I have the advantage in self-control and expirience.

As far as false pretensde of higher morality, what makes you think I have those? Where did I say my morality was better or worst than anyone elses. Certainly any honest person's, pacifists or not, morality is better than a low-down murdering thief.

Basicially your just slinging insluts where you can, particularly at anyone who doesn't see the world through the same narrow slit you do.

You don't know me and can only pretend to judge me.

BTW How many armed attackers have you threatened, shot, or killed?

[Azred]

Originally posted by John D Harris: I just love the bastardization of the language, it's not Vigilantism to stop a crime in progress, infact there are laws on the books that make it a crime not to try to stop crime. Vigilantism is seeking revenge outside the law for a crime or action AFTER it has been comitted. Now here's the hard part for people to admitt there are some people that need to be killed, it ain't pretty, it ain't nice, it is.

I started to write an overly verbose argument countering your point vis-a-vis vigilantism, but I won't. It will suffice to say that I don't bastardize words and we'll leave it at that. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

It might be a crime to fail to attempt to stop other crimes, but the average citizen cannot be expected to face down someone wielding either a knife or a gun because the risk for injury is too great.

I agree with you that there are some people who deserve to be killed. That person's loss is usually everyone else's gain.

[Davros]

Originally posted by Oblivion437: Davros, are you not the kettle calling the pot black? Jesus Christ man, he cops out and says he's above arguing with me. That strikes me as vaguely insulting and to use your language, petulent and sulky. To respond to such a thing in an adult manner (as shown with Wellard) is a waste of time. Might as well sink to their level, kick 'em once or twice below the belt, and get back on the podium. Now, while you're nitpicking at something irrelevant, howabout YOU make a post relevant to the actual topic at hand before you wave the bloody shirt.

LOL - bemused am I - bemused indeed [img]smile.gif[/img] .

In case it has escaped your attention (though I am not sure why it should have)I have been contributing to the thread. Not by argung with you because I realise the futility of changing the concrete set of opinions that you cling to and defend with all too much abuse and irreverence to others.

No, instead I posed a series of questions for Night Stalker and am awaiting his replies (which he has made promise to make [img]smile.gif[/img] ) so that I might continue that discourse. There has been no need for either myself or NS to sink to the levels of mutual disrespect that you seem to hold for many contributors to this thread despite the fact that we obviously come from different camps. I challenge you to look back through the thread for signs of disrespect between the NS and I. That is an example that I think you could learn just a little something from.

[Oblivion437]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: I changed my mind.

Shall we delete all our posts in the previous, nonsensical act of arguing over nothing? I should, it would save the forum some bandwidth.

I don't believe in invisible men in the sky. Prove that faith doesnt do a human mind good. Show me the money.

Faith can do good, bad and nothing. Like many things, there's a number of variables on how it's brought about in the person and then how it's applied that affect each situation. Like I said, faith in something bigger won't keep someone from raiding your house. We have historical examples of faith being a BAD thing. The middle ages being the most prolific and often quoted example. Then there's all those cult suicides and murders (like the Solar Temple) which were motivated by faith... Then there's all the good faith does like mission hospitals, instilling a sense of the societal in early man. However there's more bad, and then the good, and so on and so forth.

My dirty work? Hmmm. If some jackass gets his balls bit by one of the dogs, its not my fault. Being well trained means they won't randomly attack someone. If they follow their instinct to protect me, the lady, or the home, it's not like I put them up to it, now is it? And while my hypothetical attacker is busy with several hundred pounds of angry dog, I'm free to choose my course of action. Since the particular path of pacifistism I practice includes martial arts disipline, I know my hypothetical attacker will be far more scared than me, and that I have the advantage in self-control and expirience.

How does your dog, in principle at least, killing or seriously injure the attacker vary from you doing it yourself? You do understand that you're legally held responsible for the dog's behavior, right? Having an enforcer do the dirty work, that is, violently restraining him, freeing up your options so what you do is not in direct contravention of your morality, is highly hypocritical. I wish I could get a decent enforcer and have him do all the work. You also admit that you employ martial arts, defensive or no, it's resistance. Sorry man, you don't qualify for pacifism. Ghandi did, but you don't.

As far as false pretensde of higher morality, what makes you think I have those? Where did I say my morality was better or worst than anyone elses. Certainly any honest person's, pacifists or not, morality is better than a low-down murdering thief.

You have the pretense of thinking that you are, or were at some point a pacifist, when you in fact never were anything of the sort. You get to keep going on thinking you're better than everyone else who actually defended themselves through the force of arms, but you're not. No, a person's morality isn't always better than another's. At least the Low-down murdering thief's morals are intellectually consistent. Not so for most of the people they'll rob. Are they wrong, are they doing something that I too disagree with? Yes they are. Their morals are practically anti-moral. Read wiseguy for a picture perfect description of the sort of person I'm talking about. At least they're not going to play a morality card under hypocritical pretenses, like the Soccer moms do to their children, or children right back to their parents. That's something you learn growing up. You learn how to be hypocritical, how to lie and how to be decent for your own purposes. We learn all these things, but if our parents do right, the gaps are filled with the right reasons to do things.

Basicially your just slinging insluts where you can, particularly at anyone who doesn't see the world through the same narrow slit you do.

I'm not slinging insults. If I were, the banned words would have been in the post at least half a dozen times. I have this bad habit of slinging around obscenities when I get angry at someone. You haven't made me angry, I just wonder about your thinking. Also, I don't see the world through some narrow slit. I think in rather grand and panoramic terms about life, death and everything in between. As I sit here, I wonder if some other schmuck in the universe is doing the same thing I am, or if I could be spending my time better on studying something.

You don't know me and can only pretend to judge me.

Am I really judging you, or your arguments? Your point of contention was hypocritical. If I were judging you I would say something like,
"I damn thee sinner! I cast thee into hell for all eternity!" However I'm not one to believe in God and I'm also not one to cast such final judgement on others. I'm just peeling apart the arguments like oranges.

BTW How many armed attackers have you threatened, shot, or killed?

I happen to have the luxury of living in a rural community, where the varmints are the most dangerous things... Not many armed attacks for miles and miles. I happen to be quietly nonsocial, and I thusly can avoid those problems. I avoid a problem so I don't have to employ a solution, but I've already selected the one that suits me the most.