Violence as Deterrent
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Saturday, October 4, 2025 00:35
VIEWED: 6613
PAGE 5 of 12
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
BTW, the name is a character from CJ Cherryh's Downbelow Station, which has a lot of weird parallels with Firefly
Quote:Signy Mallory... SignyM
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.
That's ME!
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 t
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
The non-aggression principle seems very sound:
"The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, anticoercion principle, or zero aggression principle) is a deontological ethical stance associated with the rights-theorist school of the libertarian movement (consequentialist libertarians do not base their libertarianism on it[1]), is an axiom of some forms of anarchism, and also held by many political conservatives, traditionalists and natural law theory. The principle of non-aggression exists in various forms in the faith traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as well as Eastern philosophies such as Confucianism.[citation needed] It holds that "aggression," which is defined as the initiation of physical force, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property, is inherently illegitimate. The principle does not preclude defense or retaliation against aggression.
The non-aggression principle typically includes property as a part of the owner; to aggress against someone's property is to aggress against the individual. Thus, the principle leads to the rejection of theft, vandalism, murder and fraud. When applied to governments, it has been taken to prohibit many policies including taxation and the military draft. When taken to the logical conclusion, individualist anarchists argue that it calls for abolition of the state itself and protecting individuals from aggression through voluntary payments rather than taxation.
The United States Libertarian Party and others view it as an essential tenet of all libertarian thought, though not all libertarians agree. The principle has been derived by various philosophical approaches, including natural law, utilitarianism[citation needed], contractarianism[citation needed], egoism[citation needed], and Objectivism. Murray Rothbard derived the principle from self-ownership. Ayn Rand derived it from the right to life. However, some espouse the principle as a simple matter of personal preference."
I have often wondered if taxation couldn't be worked into a voluntary participation system. i.e. if you want X benefits then you make Y donation, but if you don't want X benefits then you forego Y donation.
This would necessarily be difficult to apply to things such as military and police protection, common roads, and regulatory agencies or other services that protect all people regardless of participation.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME