Armed America

[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.

[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.

[Hippikos]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

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.

It is executing a sentence. It's your sentence when you decide to use your gun. There's no judge, no jury, just you and your gun decide whether someone is guilty and should be punished with the death penalty. That's Wild West to me, not modern civilization.

Simple logic, Ibram - someone with 30 guns is a great deal more likely to protect you than someone without any, simply by the fact that the person without them is at a great disadvantage.

That's the catch 22, you need the gun because the other one has. At the end everybody has a gun meanwhile looking suspicious to the other in case he uses it.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

It is executing a sentence. It's your sentence when you decide to use your gun. There's no judge, no jury, just you and your gun decide whether someone is guilty and should be punished with the death penalty. That's Wild West to me, not modern civilization.

No, it's not a sentence. It's legal use of deadly force...whether I do it or a cop does.

Self-defense is not a "punishment". If a person attacking me survives my defense, he'll still be criminally liable for his actions, and subject to trial and punishment by the judicial system. If my defense was a "sentence", that would be double jeopardy.

Is it really your position that I have no right to self-defense? I find that appalling. If your allegedly "modern civilization" abrogates my right to defend myself if attacked, I'll take the "Wild West", thanks.

[Aliantha]

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

[Undertoad]

Simple logic, Ibram - someone with 30 guns is a great deal more likely to protect you than someone without any, simply by the fact that the person without them is at a great disadvantage.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Simple logic, Ibram - someone with 30 guns is a great deal more likely to protect you than someone without any, simply by the fact that the person without them is at a great disadvantage.

Unless the person with 30 guns shoots you, or you accidentally get caught in the crossfire, or there's and accidental discharge that kills you. Then you'd have been safer if the person had no guns.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Unless the person with 30 guns shoots you, or you accidentally get caught in the crossfire, or there's and accidental discharge that kills you. Then you'd have been safer if the person had no guns.

You seem to live in a world full of hypotheticals. How do you live with the constant danger that your neighbor will hit you with his car? Surely it should be confiscated.

You're in more crossfire danger from the criminal; as a local gangsta told a reporter friend of mine when asked why there was so much collateral damage in Da 'Hood, his answer was "Because none of us can shoot, and we're all high". It's really hard to stay proficient with a weapon you're not allowed to own.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

You seem to live in a world full of hypotheticals. How do you live with the constant danger that your neighbor will hit you with his car? Surely it should be confiscated.
....

Like your hypothetical that you need a gun to protect yourself from crime. How do live with the constant danger that your neighbor will rape you with his penis or mug you? Surely you should shoot him before he does.

I was just responding to the hypothetical that someone who owns 30 guns would be more likely to protect you. I think it would be more likely that a gun causes injury to an innocent person than "protect" a person. Have you ever "protected" someone with your gun, Maggie?

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Simple logic, Ibram - someone with 30 guns is a great deal more likely to protect you than someone without any, simply by the fact that the person without them is at a great disadvantage.

[busterb]

Guns don't kill people, Chuck Norris kills people!

[Ibby]

Yeah, uh... that would all be really interesting, maggie, if I was in Korea.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Yeah, uh... that would all be really interesting, maggie, if I was in Korea.

Mea culpa. Googling too late at night. And too much news from that benighted peninsula of late. I don't want to make a Korea of it. :-)

So...checking on *Taiwanese* gun laws, apparently you folks are not anywhere near as well-off as the South Koreans.

Originally Posted by Time Magazine

Taiwan has some of the toughest gun-control laws in the world. Private ownership of firearms is largely outlawed; people convicted of illegally making, transporting or selling guns can face the death penalty.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...674823,00.html

And yet your per-capita homicide rate is apparently higher than the US, and homemade guns are considered a significant problem.

Not seeing anything about a "crossbow violence" problem, though... :-)

Huh? I was under the impression you wanted to legislate more gun control restrictions. I was wrong.

Please.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Huh? I was under the impression you wanted to legislate more gun control restrictions. I was wrong.

I probably came across that way, and Maggie may even have riled me up enough that I posted to that effect (yeah Maggie, I abdicate all responsiility and hold you to blame:p ). But I would really like to convince handgun owners, and only handgun owners, that the world would be a better place without handguns.