Armed America

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

No agenda there.

Having such wildly different standards isn't evidence of an agenda on *my* part.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Guns don't scare me. People who are obsessed with them do...

Obviously you don't find all obsessions about guns equally objectionable. :-) Somehow I don't think my refusal to surrender my weapons to people who seem obsessed with disarming me rises to an obsession itself.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Don't see anything about peace or lack of conflict. While you may find it desirable, it's not a part of being civilized.

2. Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and reasonable: terrorist acts that shocked the civilized world.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

...I'd like to see you "resolve conflict non-violently" with a mugger or a rapist. How quickly your facile platitudes would dissolve...

Having never been mugged or raped, I can only surmise that I've done a very good job of non-violently resolving the conflict by not putting myself in that position in the first place. Carrying a gun and shooting someone who you think is going to mug or rape you (because it's too late if they've already started the act, isn't it?) is not the only method you can use to not be mugged or raped.

[Shawnee123]

Wildly different standards? Do you know *me*? Do you have a close relationship with *me* and understand my *viewpoints*?

Can you shove astericks up your *ass*?

[Hippikos]

.I'd like to see you "resolve conflict non-violently" with a mugger or a rapist. How quickly your facile platitudes would dissolve...

So, according your "pro-violently" standards, everyone can be his own judge? You can decide to punish her/him with the death penalty executed by yourself choosing from your armory which you have aquired because of that reason?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

You can decide to punish her/him with the death penalty executed by yourself ...?

Legal use of deadly force, even though it is accordance with the law on Justification, is not "executing a sentence". And yes indeed, you rely on your own judgment, and thereafter your actions are subject to the judgment of a court.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Having never been mugged or raped, I can only surmise that I've done a very good job of non-violently resolving the conflict by not putting myself in that position in the first place.

Congratulations. So, obviously if someone finds themselves being mugged or raped, they must have "placed themselevs in that position", and it must be *their* fault. Pretty classic case of "blaming the victim".

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Carrying a gun and shooting someone who you think is going to mug or rape you (because it's too late if they've already started the act, isn't it?)

If it's "too late", might as well let them finish, eh?

The actual legal standard that you're blowing off as "think they're going to" is in that law on Justification that you keep refusing to read.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Wildly different standards? Do you know *me*?

The observation about "different standards" wasn't addressed to you, it referred to Elspode's demurrer that you somehow hadn't spread misinformation. The standards in question are Elspode's.

[lisa]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Having never been mugged or raped, I can only surmise that I've done a very good job of non-violently resolving the conflict by not putting myself in that position in the first place.

1. Easy comment to make if you're a male... if not, I apologize
2. I'll bet many rape/mugging victims thought that... right up until the time they were raped/mugged.
3. Perhaps you live a life where you don't HAVE to travel in areas where muggings and rapes are more common. Not all of us are so lucky.

Carrying a gun and shooting someone who you think is going to mug or rape you (because it's too late if they've already started the act, isn't it?) is not the only method you can use to not be mugged or raped.

From everything I have read, guns are more often used in self-defense by simply being seen. If someone is approaching you and you see them coming, the sensible thing is to run. If they chase, then you draw the weapon and, as I understand it, more often than not, they then flee. Even if they have a gun, they usually don't want to get into a gunfight anymore than the potential victim.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

The observation about "different standards" wasn't addressed to you, it referred to Elspode's demurrer that you somehow hadn't spread misinformation. The standards in question are Elspode's.

Wow, that's impressive Maggie. You managed to figure out Shawnee was talking to you, even if you hadn't made it clear who you were addressing in the first place!

You're comming along nicely I see. Congratulations. Keep up the good work.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Obviously you don't find all obsessions about guns equally objectionable. :-) Somehow I don't think my refusal to surrender my weapons to people who seem obsessed with disarming me rises to an obsession itself.

Actually, I really do - as I've said before, I'm anti-gun as far as the concept of a weapon to kill people with is concerned... but I still believe it's your right to have one.
People obsessed with them on both sides of the argument have an unnatural and, to me, somewhat creepy fixation that i find disconcerting... though admittedly, I'm less worried about a gun control freak shooting me than a gun ownership freak.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Wow, that's impressive Maggie. You managed to figure out Shawnee was talking to you, even if you hadn't made it clear who you were addressing in the first place!
.

I knew she was addressing me because she quoted me, even though she didn't use quote markup.

If you're asking for disambiguation, my phrase "Different standards" referred to "Bush is a liar" vs. "Shawnee isn't spreading misinformation". I was happy to explain that (as I do here once again), rather than simply spouting snarkyness about the supposed clarity of a one word post.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Ibram

I'm less worried about a gun control freak shooting me than a gun ownership freak.

A "gun control freak" will disarm you so *someone else* can shoot you--or otherwise assault you--with impunity. A "gun ownership freak" thinks you should be allowed to decide for yourself whether you will have the ability to defend yourself if that happens. You're a hell of a lot safer from a legal gun owner than you are from a criminal.

Of course, if you're currently in a jurisdiction where the state has already disarmed the law-abiding, it's rather academic. Where are you, again?

[Aliantha]

You really do amuse me sometimes Maggie. Thanks for that.