Violence as Deterrent

POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Saturday, October 4, 2025 00:35
VIEWED: 6613
PAGE 3 of 12

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

CITIZEN

Thursday, March 26, 2009 11:06 AM

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.

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

SIGNYM

Thursday, March 26, 2009 12:43 PM

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.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, March 26, 2009 1:59 PM

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

KWICKO

Thursday, March 26, 2009 3:15 PM

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.

CITIZEN

Thursday, March 26, 2009 3:17 PM

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.

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

SIGNYM

Thursday, March 26, 2009 3:33 PM

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.

SIGNYM

Thursday, March 26, 2009 4:04 PM

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.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, March 26, 2009 6:11 PM

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

Yet we debate the rightness of it?

SIGNYM

Thursday, March 26, 2009 6:37 PM

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.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, March 26, 2009 6:46 PM

"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.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE