Self Defense?

[fleurya]

You're right, we should keep guns legal, and while we're at it, let's correct all those bad laws we made and legalize drugs, prostitution, gambling (all gambling), murder, and any other crime we think is ridiculous because someone decided to do it anyway. I guess that pretty much means toss out all laws and plunge into anarchy. I'll definitely stop by my local Wal-Mart for a gun when that happens!!

 

[ToddG]

That's called the "slippery slope" fallacy.

BTW, if anarchy really were to break out, it's going to be too late to start looking for a way to protect yourself ...

 

[TheCustomer99]

How about we only have enough government to ensure law and order, a government that acts in the best interest of it's citizens? How about we have government like Thomas Paine envisioned? How about we realize that no private citizen has ever started a war, committed genocide, or caused some of the worst atrocities imaginable? How about we leave issues like gun control, gay marriage, drug legalization, prostitution legalization, and other issues up to the public? Instead of banning something, why don't we educate people on how to use them responsibly? Wouldn't we see better results if we taught people not to abuse things and the dangers of their behavior, rather than pour money into "Drug Wars" and the like? Name one ban in history that has worked. Slavery doesn't count because that was a program that was STARTED by the government and the government had to right it's wrongs.

 

[schweb]

How about we only have enough government to ensure law and order, a government that acts in the best interest of it's citizens? How about we have government like Thomas Paine envisioned? How about we realize that no private citizen has ever started a war, committed genocide, or caused some of the worst atrocities imaginable? How about we leave issues like gun control, gay marriage, drug legalization, prostitution legalization, and other issues up to the public? Instead of banning something, why don't we educate people on how to use them responsibly? Wouldn't we see better results if we taught people not to abuse things and the dangers of their behavior, rather than pour money into "Drug Wars" and the like? Name one ban in history that has worked. Slavery doesn't count because that was a program that was STARTED by the government and the government had to right it's wrongs.

The "I want a tiny government" argument is a bad argument and is extremely short sighted. Individuals, companies, and other non-government groups have a great deal of history of intolerance, bad decisions, harmful actions, etc. Sometimes it does take the government to step in and solve problems for the greater good of society. That's why we have them.

If you need me to, I'll give you huge litany of issues that it took the government to solve that never would have happened if left up to the individual.

And by the way, all those issues that you want left up to the public...technically they are. The government is elected by the people.

Also, slavery was not started by the government nor committed directly by the government. It was financed by private companies and exploited by private individuals. The government had no laws against it which allowed slavery to occur. But hey, why did we need the government to step in a say it was wrong and abolish slavery? We should have just left that up to the public right?

 

[TheCustomer99]

The "I want a tiny government" argument is a bad argument and is extremely short sighted. Individuals, companies, and other non-government groups have a great deal of history of intolerance, bad decisions, harmful actions, etc. Sometimes it does take the government to step in and solve problems for the greater good of society. That's why we have them.

If you need me to, I'll give you huge litany of issues that it took the government to solve that never would have happened if left up to the individual.

And by the way, all those issues that you want left up to the public...technically they are. The government is elected by the people.

Yes, but most things done by the individual are minisucle when compared to what governments have done. Many of the issues that government has solved were issues started by the government. Had the government not started slavery, supported slavery, declared blacks were 3/5 of a person, and had myriads of intolerant laws, we would not have the racial and ethnic problems in the magnitude we see them today. We may have not even needed a civil rights movement. In the days when drugs were mostly legal, the drug problem was not as bad as it was today. Families weren't being torn apart by it. Our government kills innocent people along with the guilty every year via the death penalty. The bottom line is that government hurts more than helps when it steps in on most issues. The only times their policies work is when they fix problems they themselves started. We elected them but they don't represent us. Many times, when a person is elected, they become and ideologue or a zealot and abandon their moderate position that got them into power. They become an extreme conservative or an extreme liberal. We are a nation of moderates, but our government is extremely polarized. I love Thomas Paine's "Common Sense," that publication lays out a government that I'd want.

 

[schweb]

Yes, but most things done by the individual are minisucle when compared to what governments have done. Many of the issues that government has solved were issues started by the government.

Understanding the the government is formed by the people, elected by the people, and ultimately responsible to the people, sure, I'll give you that.

Had the government not started slavery, supported slavery, declared blacks were 3/5 of a person, and had myriads of intolerant laws, we would not have the racial and ethnic problems in the magnitude we see them today. We may have not even needed a civil rights movement.

As I pointed out earlier, your facts are incorrect. The government did not start slavery. It was private individuals and companies. It took the government finally doing the right thing and abolishing it. Left up to the individual, I bet you we'd still have slavery today.

As for the rest of your thought in that statement, it's just absurd.

In the days when drugs were mostly legal, the drug problem was not as bad as it was today. Families weren't being torn apart by it.

Hmm, when was this? 150 years ago when records weren't kept and drugs couldn't be transported as easily? Funny, I would think from a statistical analysis standpoint it would be difficult to compare.

Our government kills innocent people along with the guilty every year via the death penalty.

What, the death penalty that a majority of the individual people want? You're right, let's go back to the wild west laws and bring back dueling. That was a much better society.

The only times their policies work is when they fix problems they themselves started.

You're right. The government caused pollution, poor wages, racism, and poverty. Heck I even hear they eat babies too!

We elected them but they don't represent us. Many times, when a person is elected, they become and ideologue or a zealot and abandon their moderate position that got them into power.

Then they don't get re-elected. If they do, then a majority of these altruistic individuals you want to run the country re-elect them.

I love Thomas Paine's "Common Sense," that publication lays out a government that I'd want.

There's a reason that government has never existed and never will. People cannot be trusted to care for the least of society and take care of shared resources without guidelines and laws.

 

[TheCustomer99]

Understanding the the government is formed by the people, elected by the people, and ultimately responsible to the people, sure, I'll give you that.

Thank you.

As I pointed out earlier, your facts are incorrect. The government did not start slavery. It was private individuals and companies. It took the government finally doing the right thing and abolishing it. Left up to the individual, I bet you we'd still have slavery today.

As for the rest of your thought in that statement, it's just absurd.

We had a system of indentured servitude before the government stepped in. Private citizens took African prisoners in as indentured servants but they had more freedom than they did under slavery. In the early 1600's Virginia decided that no Africans coming to the colonies could be free after arriving. After that, other colonial governments followed suit. I'll give you that we pressured the government to do it, but it was still the government that had the final say. And as for the civil rights statement I made, what I meant is that, before slavery, people were just called a name by what nation they came from, Africans were Africans. It was the legalization of slavery that caused gross intolerance of them. I'm not saying they were seen as equal beforehand, but surely they weren't seen as 3/5 of a person. If the government had not made the "3/5" statement, I believe we could have naturally evolved into a more tolerant society. However, I could be wrong on that point.

Hmm, when was this? 150 years ago when records weren't kept and drugs couldn't be transported as easily? Funny, I would think from a statistical analysis standpoint it would be difficult to compare.

I'm not talking about hard core drugs per se. I'm talking about pot and the less harmful drugs. Trade protectionism, at least in part, from the government against hemp drove the movement in the late 30's to illegalize it. And how well has it worked?

What, the death penalty that a majority of the individual people want? You're right, let's go back to the wild west laws and bring back dueling. That was a much better society.

I never have and never will support the government taking the life of someone for any reason. Why not have them do hard labor instead? If given the choice between death or 16 hour days working hard, I suppose many would choose death over it. I just think the death penalty is too easy on people. I know I sound morbid, but I'm feeling ill today, I can't really explain my position as well as I'd like. The wild west thing you said isn't what I meant in the least. I support the police, I know they're necessary, I'm not naïve. I just don't support the death penalty.

You're right. The government caused pollution, poor wages, racism, and poverty. Heck I even hear they eat babies too!

Pollution- The citizens have demanded that cars be more fuel efficient. The government may have helped, but that wouldn't amount to anything if we didn't buy them up. Compare gas mileage today to gas mileage in 1970, and you'll see that people with the help of government have naturally moved away from that. We'll continue to progress. We'll find better ways of transportation. Nobody had to outlaw horse and buggy transport.

Poor wages- What is your definiton of poor wages? Economists would say that the market value of any particular labor is decided by supply and demand. Keynsian and Classical economics are better at deciding what the market value of anything is. The government should have a part in the process since they are part of the economy, but carelessly raising wages can do some harm. It can cause higher unemployment because businesses can't afford to hire more people or, on the opposite side of the spectrum, if they can hire the same amount, it'll lead to inflation because there will be more spending.

Racism- The government is as racist as anyone. Again, this goes back to the "3/5" of a person thing.

Eating babies- Yes, I've heard the same thing.

Then they don't get re-elected. If they do, then a majority of these altruistic individuals you want to run the country re-elect them.

Yes, but most people will vote for someone and not pay attention after that. Sometimes people care more about voting on American Idol than they do for their representatives. Our educational system is a failure, and that is why.

There's a reason that government has never existed and never will. People cannot be trusted to care for the least of society and take care of shared resources without guidelines and laws.

I don't think Paine was a fool. He's one of the most revered figures in our history. But the whole, "People aren't smart enough to make their own decisions, therefore government should" idea could lead to a nanny state.

A truly representative government would make laws and guidelines that are clear. Most people do not understand the law, and as an attorney I know said, most judges don't either. I believe a real representative government would set the guidelines and laws that people can understand, and that aren't as restrictive as they are today.

 

[schweb]

We had a system of indentured servitude before the government stepped in. Private citizens took African prisoners in as indentured servants but they had more freedom than they did under slavery. In the early 1600's Virginia decided that no Africans coming to the colonies could be free after arriving. After that, other colonial governments followed suit. I'll give you that we pressured the government to do it, but it was still the government that had the final say.

You can't have your cake and eat it too here. Your final statement goes completely against what you're been arguing here. Do you want the government to step in and regulate or not?

It was the legalization of slavery that caused gross intolerance of them. I'm not saying they were seen as equal beforehand, but surely they weren't seen as 3/5 of a person. If the government had not made the "3/5" statement, I believe we could have naturally evolved into a more tolerant society. However, I could be wrong on that point.

You are completely wrong on this point. Africans have been discriminated against and shown intolerance all the way back to ancient Greece. The government had nothing to do with it. In fact, if it wasn't for the government forcing an end to local slavery, local "Jim Crowe" laws, and other discrimination, it would be much worse today.

Heck, it was less than 100 years ago that the government finally forced the states to allow interracial marriage.

I'm not talking about hard core drugs per se. I'm talking about pot and the less harmful drugs. Trade protectionism, at least in part, from the government against hemp drove the movement in the late 30's to illegalize it. And how well has it worked?

Again, you're making unsubstantiated conclusions. Your logic and forced conclusions just don't add up. You're saying families are destroyed by drugs in one sentence and then blaming the government for raising the price and outlawing it here. Again, what is your stance?

I never have and never will support the government taking the life of someone for any reason. Why not have them do hard labor instead? If given the choice between death or 16 hour days working hard, I suppose many would choose death over it. I just think the death penalty is too easy on people. I know I sound morbid, but I'm feeling ill today, I can't really explain my position as well as I'd like. The wild west thing you said isn't what I meant in the least. I support the police, I know they're necessary, I'm not naïve. I just don't support the death penalty.

Death or your idea of forced slaver, whatever it is, it's the people that demand it.

Pollution- The citizens have demanded that cars be more fuel efficient. The government may have helped, but that wouldn't amount to anything if we didn't buy them up. Compare gas mileage today to gas mileage in 1970, and you'll see that people with the help of government have naturally moved away from that. We'll continue to progress. We'll find better ways of transportation. Nobody had to outlaw horse and buggy transport.

Actually gas mileage today isn't any better than the late 1970's. Why? Because the government hasn't forced companies to improve it. But we should probably just leave it up to them to do so right?

Poor wages- What is your definiton of poor wages? Economists would say that the market value of any particular labor is decided by supply and demand. Keynsian and Classical economics are better at deciding what the market value of anything is.

Right. Survival of the fittest, etc. I get it. But that's not best for a society. There always need to be protections for those who are less fortunate or in the minority. If not, there will be outlandish exploitation.

Check out your US history and compare the worker exploitation before the advent of labor laws and after. Companies wouldn't have done that on their own without the government forcing them to do so. We'd still have 12 hour days, 6 days a week for pittance as the standard along with child labor abuse.

Yes, but most people will vote for someone and not pay attention after that. Sometimes people care more about voting on American Idol than they do for their representatives. Our educational system is a failure, and that is why.

So you're saying let's get rid of government and let people run themselves but you are saying they're too dumb to vote for the right people already? That doesn't sound like the kind of person I want next door to me when they're able to do whatever they want.

I don't think Paine was a fool. He's one of the most revered figures in our history. But the whole, "People aren't smart enough to make their own decisions, therefore government should" idea could lead to a nanny state.

Government shouldn't make all decisions. However, you also can't have the opposite as you are advocating. I also never said Paine was a fool, just as I wouldn't say Karl Marx was a fool. However, it doesn't mean their ideas are worth wholesale implementation or are exempt from criticism.

A truly representative government would make laws and guidelines that are clear. Most people do not understand the law, and as an attorney I know said, most judges don't either. I believe a real representative government would set the guidelines and laws that people can understand, and that aren't as restrictive as they are today.

That has nothing to do with being a truly representative government. This has to do with the function of time, changing mores, and the needs of a more diverse society.

 

[ToddG]

Left up to the individual, I bet you we'd still have slavery today.

It was individuals, not "governments," who demanded slavery be put to an end. It was individuals, not "governments," who fought and bled and died to win a war that ended slavery.

You're right, let's go back to the wild west laws and bring back dueling. That was a much better society.

Sign me up.

 

[schweb]

It was individuals, not "governments," who demanded slavery be put to an end. It was individuals, not "governments," who fought and bled and died to win a war that ended slavery.

The reason this argument is really futile is that you and TheCustomer are clearly of the belief that the government and the people are separate.

I come from the opposite standpoint that the government is the people and I'm thankful for that every day.

 

[ToddG]

That's a classical example of equivocation. You're talking about The People, meaning the collected mass. I very clearly said "individuals." They are two very different things.

Governments don't get shot and killed on a battlefield. Governments don't sacrifice their homes and jobs to serve The People. Individuals do that. And yes, those individuals also play a role in deciding who runs the government.

But when 40% of the population is clearly in one political camp, and 40% is clearly in an opposing camp, and 20% is undecided or unaffiliated, then almost by definition the government is not going to represent the attitudes, opinions, and desires of a significant portion of The People.

 

[schweb]

I say we just continue to talk in circles because that's about where this thread has gone.

 

[ToddG]

The important thing is that we all agree that everyone has a right to be armed and defend themselves and their families.

And that dueling would be a good addition to our modern social fabric.

OK, you can lock the thread now. :ninja:

 

[schweb]

Haha.

No, I'm not locking the thread unless it starts getting into the territory of breaking Forum Rules.

While this thread may have reached the end of of its useful life, so have many others here. I'd be locking things all day

 

[ToddG]

I didn't really want the thread locked. I'm very happy to see that you and the other Mods allow political and sometimes raucous debates to go on here. I think it's healthy and, at least in my limited experience, rarely gets personal or out of hand.

My only point is that if you are going to lock a thread, it's good to do it on a point of universal acceptance like the right to bear arms and defend oneself (and duel).

 

[DistantHoller]

"Bowling for Columbine" anyone?

Btw... I read somewhere that one of the most common ways for the homeowner to be killed in the U.S. is by his own gun. The criminal just takes it away and shoots him with it. Seems like a bad investment to me...

The more guns that exists in a community the easier it must be for a criminal to get hold of it.

The really tough criminals will of course get hold of it anyway, but your local street thug might not. That´s the difference I think.

 

[todd51]

I have never seen any serious crimes (especially with guns) around where my hometown is. EVERYONE in our town has a gun or two or ten. I'm willing to bet that 99% of those guns are used for some sort of hunting or sporting purpose.

I personally own 3 different guns myself. A Remington 870 shotgun, Marlin .22 rifle, and a .357 Taurus magnum. Every single one is meant for hunting (yes even the magnum, I plan to hunt deer with it next winter). Of course I have never seen a problem with having a gun in the house, you know your using it for self-defense if you keep one on you to carry or one in the car.

I have never thought about owning a gun just for self-defense in the home or on the road until a couple of days ago. I was at my parents house for the night because I had to go home to help my mother move some furniture since my father was out of town on a business trip. Instead of going to bed that night I fell asleep on the couch in our basement watching tv (my room is on the 2nd floor). I was awoken in the middle of the night by my mother shaking me saying someone was trying to get into the house. She said she was awoken by strange noises from outside, sounded like someone walking through the rock in our flower bed right ouside the house. I normally thought she was just freaking out and saw things, then we heard a loud crash upstairs as if someone had fallen over. Thankfully we were the only 2 in the house and both downstairs. I quickly ran to the back of the basment and grabbed my shotgun and loaded it with 3 shells of birdshot (only kind of shotgun shells we had). Thinking if I really wanted to I could hurt him shooting him in the shoulder or legs with it, if I were pressed enough to acutally fire. While walking upstairs I told mom to call the cops. I carefully swept to the other side of the house with my heart pounding ever so harder the closer I got to the living room. When passing into the kitchen a figure walked in through the other side. I quickly turned on the light and racked the shotgun, when the intruder finally recovered from the brief blindness he saw me standing there and fled through the same window he had come in.

The police had found him later passed out in the park a block from our house, it was a man who was at the only town bar we have that night, and decided he needed more alcohol after the bar was closed, so he figured he would just find an open window to a house and creep in, steal some booze and get out. No one knew him, he must have just been passing through town because no one had recognized him, and everyone knows everyone else in our town.

I thanked God I didn't have to fire and was able to just scare him away. I am never parting with my Remington again.

 

[fleurya]

declared blacks were 3/5 of a person

Actually, if I remember right, that was a step toward recognizing slaves as people. Before that, I don't think they were considered people at all. That's usually the way public policy works, in small steps: starting with making them 3/5 people to the civil rights movements and even policies being made in the past 20 years. Had the government not taken at least incremental steps, possibly nothing would have been done at all. You may recall that the American Revolution almost didn't happen due to the slavery controversy. It would have been put to an end then and there by the newly-forming government had selfish, materialistic landowners not gotten their way.

Policy usually does drag, but that's only because changing public opinion for the better is a gradual process, and only possible through large, organized means, such as the government. Otherwise, I doubt much of anything would change. After the government, what's the biggest organized bodies of people out there? Corporations. And we know for sure who their looking out for; themselves! (See comment on slavery above)

And by the way, all those issues that you want left up to the public...technically they are. The government is elected by the people.

Exactly, which is another problem. What is the turnout for elections? 30%? It horrible. And deep-pocket special interest groups backed by corporations have too much sway also Money wins elections; plain and simple. Easy answer, take money out of the equation. It is possible. Get people more informed. Offer some kind of incentive if necessary. Make election day a national holiday so people can get out and vote. Many countries to this.

But I guess that's just some liberal crap.

That's a classical example of equivocation. You're talking about The People, meaning the collected mass. I very clearly said "individuals." They are two very different things.

huh??

But when 40% of the population is clearly in one political camp, and 40% is clearly in an opposing camp, and 20% is undecided or unaffiliated, then almost by definition the government is not going to represent the attitudes, opinions, and desires of a significant portion of The People.

When George Washington was in office, he warned the future of the U.S. government against 3 things, one of those was to avoid partisan politics and not adopt a party system. I wish they had listened. I never want to identify myself with any party because it "categorizes" me and puts values on me that may not be true and could pressure me to follow the group.

Ok, I'm done with this thread!

 

[RiDE]

"Bowling for Columbine" anyone?

Btw... I read somewhere that one of the most common ways for the homeowner to be killed in the U.S. is by his own gun. The criminal just takes it away and shoots him with it. Seems like a bad investment to me...

The more guns that exists in a community the easier it must be for a criminal to get hold of it.

The really tough criminals will of course get hold of it anyway, but your local street thug might not. That´s the difference I think.

I hope you were joking about the Bowling for Columbine.... That is the most ridiculously edited, out of context malarkey ever allowed to be seen. If you were not joking, here's is a link will help you immensly. (CLICK!).. and remember, NEVER just believe something you see in print or on TV without checking into it a bit.


As for the rest of your statement and opinion (which you are surely entitled to):


Here is my brief take on this...

Ok let's say we are strictly talking about ones ability to defend against "street thugs" (no tyrannical government, no hobby shooting, no hunting, etc.)...

Now let's use your idea of there are NO guns in existence (by the public), none owned by my household and none owned by the "Street thugs"... Me, personally, I'm ok with a straight-up fist fight, I wouldn't look forward to waking up in the middle of the night to do it, but it is what it is, and I'm confident that I can either win the fight (let's again pretend the thugs have the common courtesy to go 1 on 1 and not 5 to 1.. and we all know how courteous and fair thugs are right), or keep myself alive to fight again another day....

Same world you described (NO guns).

This time though, I'm out of town, and my wife and kids are home without me... Thug comes in... RIDE is not home to go 1 on 1... and after taking what he wants, realizes my wife is ALL alone in bed... (you know where this would go right?).... what happens to her?... no guns remember!

May YOU or YOUR wife never be caught in this situation.... and may your idea of a no gun society never come to fruition.

As for me and my family, we cherish the rights we have been so fortunate to have and we intend to have these same rights granted to our posterity. Not simply the 2nd, but every last one of them.

 

[fleurya]

Ok, one more thing to say. I understand the rep system, but I don't think anyone should give negative rep just because you don't agree with what they some. I'm basically referring to these kind of big issue, debate threads. It's just petty and if everyone did it, we'd all be in the hole.

Grow up.