Violence as Deterrent

POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Saturday, October 4, 2025 00:35
VIEWED: 6613
PAGE 6 of 12

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

GEEZER

Friday, March 27, 2009 3:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

The non-aggression principle seems very sound:

The fun part of the non-aggression principle, as a "simple solution", is that either you'd have to either have a majority of the people strictly enforce it(as in "You aggress against me and I kill you dead"), or you'd have to have a government strong enough to enforce it. Either way, I suspect that the enforcement would probably be too much for a lot of folks who believe that aggressors are just mis-understood or products of the problems with society.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

ANTHONYT

Friday, March 27, 2009 4:09 AM

Hello,

Aggressors often are the misunderstood products of problems with society.

Which factors not at all into the action of stopping them. It factors only into the process of preventing them.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KWICKO

Friday, March 27, 2009 4:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
AnthonyT

Thinking about it further - I don't think the problem is the need for guns. I think it's the breakdown of 'civil' society.

And I can't think of one heavily armed society* that I'd want to live in - Afghanistan ? The Congo ? Somalia ?

Guns simply don't improve the society and make it better, more law-abiding or more considerate.

* Finland's gun ownership rate is far below that of the US. Also, most guns in Finladn are dbl brl shotguns or hunting rifles.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

I'm late to the game, and just now catching up in depth on this thread, so some of this may already be posted later in the thread, and I just haven't read it yet...

"Heavily armed society" that you might want to live in? How about Switzerland? True, they don't have as many guns per resident as the U.S. does, but they're right up there, according to Wiki:

Quote:
Country/Guns per 100 residents/Year
United States 90.0 2007
Yemen 61.0 2007
Switzerland 46.0 2007
Iraq 39.0 2007
Serbia 37.5 2007
France 32.0 2007
Finland[5] 32.0 2008
Canada 31.5 2007
Sweden 31.5 2007
Austria 31.0 2007
Germany 30.0 2007
New Zealand[2] 26.8 1993
Saudi Arabia 26.3 2007
Greece 23.0 2007
Angola 20.5 2007
Thailand 16.0 2007
Australia 15.5 2007
Mexico 15.0 2007
South Africa 13.1 2007
Turkey 13.0 2007
Argentina 12.6 2007
Italy 12.1 2007
Pakistan 12.0 2007
Spain 11.0 2007
Russia 9.0 2007
Ukraine 9.0 2007
Brazil 8.8 2007
Colombia 7.2 2007
United Kingdom 5.6 2007
Iran 5.3 2007
Philippines 4.7 2007
India 4.0 2007
China 3.5 2007
Nigeria 1.0 2007

Clearly, I think some of the LEAST heavily armed societies are ones you definitely wouldn't want to live in. China? Nigeria? Columbia? Mexico? Russia?

From these numbers, it seems it's not the GUNS, but rather the society they're in, and WHO has the guns. In Mexico, that means police and criminals, almost exclusively. How's that working out for them? In China, it seems the guns are in the hands of the government and ONLY the government - which is fine unless you happen to be a dissident there...

Just a few things to ponder...

Mike

I'm something of a ne'er-do-well
even though that's something I could never do well...

The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

KWICKO

Friday, March 27, 2009 4:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Rue,

I appreciate your faith in me. In fact, I enjoy violence in my television shows, movies, and video games, but abhor it in my life. Each gun I've ever owned has been accompanied by a silent prayer. May I never, ever find occasion to draw this on a person. Violence is only ever fun in the make-believe world. I never want to do more than imagine the horror of actually ending a life. I think it would haunt me forever.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Thanks for putting that so succinctly, Anthony. It mirrors my own feelings on the matter.

KWICKO

Friday, March 27, 2009 4:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Hello,

I do not mind any reasonable process to purchase a firearm. Reasonable meaning this to me:

1) Everyone should be able to afford it. Any fee associated with the qualification process should be within the means of poverty-stricken Americans, and perhaps even payable with the aid of government assistance.

2) Every law-abiding adult-minded citizen should be able to purchase a firearm. This means if you haven't broken the law, and have the reasoning capacity of an adult, you should not be barred.

3) Mental instabilities/disabilities/illnesses should only factor into the equation if the individual either A) can not reason as an adult or B) represents a harm to others due to the nature of their illness.

4) The process for qualification should be as brisk and efficient as possible, with no artificial padding of waiting periods or other delays. If a person qualifies, they qualify.

5) The process for qualification should be routinely examined to make sure it is not being used as a tool to disallow firearms from the citizenry. Especially the process should be routinely vetted against any political leanings or influence. The basic premise of the process should always be that 'Any law-abiding adult has a right to own firearms.'

6) The process for qualification should include some sort of training for the weapon(s) in question, with a focus on legal use and basic safety. The test to confirm this knowledge should be very basic, and tied especially to item 5.

There are a lot of concessions I'd be willing to make in regards to my right to own and carry firearms. I am prepared to be very reasonable.

My problem has always been those that do not recognize my right, and who wish to enact legislation not as a tool to enable it, but rather as a tool to eliminate it.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

I'd especially like to shine some light on your item #5. Many here probably don't know, but in many, MANY areas of this country, even where there ARE legal right-to-carry laws on the books, and concealed-carry licenses are legally available (technically, at least), there exist loopholes in whether or not a citizen can obtain such a license. Lots of places word the laws as "the Sheriff or Chief Law Enforcement Officer MAY issue" such a permit, instead of saying that he WILL issue the permit. As such, there have been cases where CLEOs (Chief Law Enforcement Officers) have decided, for their own political reasons and leanings, that they won't issue such permits to anyone, or to certain groups or individuals, regardless of whether they meet every legal criteria to obtain such a permit.

There are battles being fought to change these wordings from "may issue" to "shall issue", because if you've gone through all the classes, paperwork, training, background checks, and paid the fees, it sucks more than a little to have a sheriff with an axe to grind simply say, "Too bad, so sad, no permit for you."

Mike

I'm something of a ne'er-do-well
even though that's something I could never do well...

The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

KWICKO

Friday, March 27, 2009 4:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
...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?.

Signy, see the table I pulled from Wiki, and ask yourselves those questions.

The presence of guns BY THEMSELVES doesn't destroy a civil society.
Can you have a civil society AND widespread gun ownership at the same time? I'd say "yes" - probably as easily as you can have an un-civil society and no widespread gun owndership, or any combination of those things.

As I said above, I think it's not the guns, but rather their surrounding society that needs to be looked at with a fresh eye.

I'm not fighting with you, or even disagreeing. Just pointing out a few eye-opening factoids that help put the issue in a bit of a different light, and hopefully give one a fresh perspective and a few eye-opening moments.

Iraq is semi-heavily-armed, and by all accounts is pretty much a hell-hole nowadays. Switzerland has more weapons per person than Iraq, and seems to be as polite as can be. England has very few, and seems okay with that. Mexico has relatively few, and from the news reports seems to be the Wild West by comparison. So what are the similarities between these places, and what are the key differences?

Just a few things to ponder...

(Yes, Rip, I'm taking it back!)

Mike

I'm something of a ne'er-do-well
even though that's something I could never do well...

The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

KWICKO

Friday, March 27, 2009 4:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Signy seems to think it's somehow important to point out that not all people seeking a CCW permit would be responsible with their guns. Um. So, because some vanishingly small percentage of folks would be irresponsible, that means what exactly? There are plenty of ways for irresponsible people to get guns--seems going through the process of aquiring a CCW permit would be a self-selecting process for a slightly more responsible crowd
I think you're making too much of what was a minor point on my part, HK. I was simply rebutting Frems' point that ALL CCW'ers are automatically responsible.

My real point is the question whether guns are "the answer", "the problem", both, or neither (irrelevant). I'm leaning towards the "may be part of the problem or irrelevant" simply because... just as incarceration hasn't seemed to deter crime, neither will widespread gun ownership. Something else is at work. I dont' know if its the media, a culture of greed (captalism), the myth of redemptive violence, dependence on religion, or fluoride in the water ... but something is seriously awry with our society and I dont' see guns solving that problem.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

You're definitely onto something here, Sig. But where I think you lose your train of thought is in falling into the trap of supposing that there is ONE problem, ONE area of issue, that ONE thing that, if we could just do away with THAT, everything else would fall right into place. It's not one thing - it's everything. (And you're far from alone in wondering what "the problem" is)

People are people, and are generally all quite similar - UNTIL you put them in a society or caste and instill that mindset into them for a few (or a few thousand) generations. It's not that guns are our problem, or the media, or greed, or religion - it's ALL of the things that make up our uniquely American society.

KWICKO

Friday, March 27, 2009 5:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
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.

On that note, a co-worker went to Wal Mart today at lunch to pick up a few things. When he got back, he told me that he didn't think they'd charged him for the new toothbrush he bought; apparently it fell down to the side of the cart, and he hadn't noticed until he was unloading the cart at his car. He checked his receipt, noted that the toothbrush wasn't on there - and then drove back to Wal Mart to pay them their $0.96!

So not only did he NOT want to steal, he actually went back to make it right. Not out of any threat of legal consequences, either, because he was already free and clear - but simply because it's against his very nature to steal. Even from Wal Mart.

Gave me a bit of faith in humanity, that did...

KWICKO

Friday, March 27, 2009 5:12 AM

Quote:
Geezer wrote:

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."

Bingo! Geez and I find ourselves in a rare moment of complete agreement!

Mike

I'm something of a ne'er-do-well
even though that's something I could never do well...

The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

KWICKO

Friday, March 27, 2009 5:13 AM

And with that marathon of replies, I think I'm finally caught up in this thread. And off to bed...

Mike

I'm something of a ne'er-do-well
even though that's something I could never do well...

The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

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