Re: YEAH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:07:13 -0700, "William Noble"
<nobody@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

don - points noted, and the points are valid. However, I think I would not
be out of line in suggesting that the relatively small towns and cities of
MN are quite a different place from the mega-cities - New York, Los Angeles,
Chicago (detroit, SF, boston, etc) - We really do have populations of
sociopathic gangs who think nothing of, shall we say, collateral damage.
You, or I, armed with reasonable weapons (not an M-16) would have no chance
against such a gang - there needs to be other means of deterrence and
enforcement.

Agreed, but the several armed intrusion events here were not reported
as gang-related. The Twin Cities metro area certainly isn't LA, but
there are definitely gangs in Mnpls and St. Paul. Population of the
metro area was nearly 3 million in 2000. We even have us an airport
and a coupla teevee stations now.

I agree that most folks would probably not prevail over an assault by
several gangsta's armed with AK-47's or MAC-10's. I don't worry about
that because that sort of activity is almost exclusively gangsta's
shooting gansta's, sometimes with collateral casualties. That's a
difficult urban problem for which it seems evident that there is no
simple quick fix.

I think there is a viable remedy but it would require good leadership,
some money and more than transient civic support and commitment. The
situation now is that those who would be (mostly) law abiding in the
'hoods feel scared and powerless, and higher-level civic leaders don't
really much give a damn.

My concern is defense against one or two hopped-up intruders who are
looking for money and/or goods to steal to buy drugs, and then kill
the witnesses. That doesn't happen only in the gang 'hoods or even
only in metroland. Several of those recent events here happened more
than 20 miles from the 'hoods. One was in Lake Woebegone, AKA Anoka,
where all children are above average.

Oh, and I agree with the sentence about people not being wrongfully harmed
by ...., but you do see that it's sellf fulfilling - if someone is
wrongfully harmed, then the owner was not competent and responsible.

LOL. Okay, what I meant (and did allude to in part you snipped) was
those that passed a background check for prior evidence of violence,
felony, irresponsibility or incompetence. As I said before, that
check is required to get a permit to purchase a handgun, and a
telephone update check with the FBI is done at point and time of
purchase.

The problem is we really have at least two separate societies - large/urban,
and much smaller/rural - with vastly different needs and we are trying to
use a one-size-fits-all solution, which I assert won't work.

I definitely agree that a one-size-fits-all solution won't work.

And, yes, it's not just guns, but guns allow injury at a distance.

They can even stop/drop a malevolent assailant before he's close
enough to slash my throat or break my body, YMMV.

A good friend of my
daughter's was murdered in her sophmore year of HS when the older sister of
two girls who were fighting stabbed her through the heart when she tried to
break up a fight at a party. That disregard for life comes from drugs,
dysfunctional families, and a breakdown of our social structure. Prisons
dont' work, they make it worse.

Prisons definitely work while malfeasors are in them. They need to be
there longer and with more certainty. Sentences for dealing in kiddy
porn are longer and more certain than those for armed robbery or even
murder 2.

Guns make it worse because they are rampant in the hands of the wrong people.

Blades in the hands of the wrong people also kill as you've noted.

Blanket prohibition of either is not a remedy because it would remove
them only from the hands of law-abiding people.

Guns are reviled objects by some because they see guns as having no
useful purpose except to kill. They're OK with knives because
everyone has cutlery, but they're unfamiliar with guns. Their views
are almost without exception formed by media, rhetoric from others and
TV violence, and they very typically regard their safety and
protection from harm as someone else's responsibility. Fortunately,
that works for most folks most of the time.

I respect their right to eschew guns if they wish, and if I carried I
would respect those who prefer to ban them from their home or place of
business. I won't accept their desire to deny me a different choice.

Veterans and folks who grew up with hunting arms in the house view
them as tools to be respected and used with care, usually with some
appreciation of their precision and craftsmanship.

A handgun, with a modicum of skill, can be an effective tool for home
defense and self defense against an aggressor intent on doing grievous
or fatal harm. It enables an aging senior or a 90-lb woman to
decisively stop an attack rather than be the easy prey they may appear
to be. The purpose of a SD/HD weapon is to stop, not to kill. It's
true that a decisive stop will be fatal to the stoppee, but that is
not the purpose. The purpose is preservation of one's own life, not
the taking of another's. It's also the law.

Maybe we need "gun free zones" or
something, but our current practice doesn't work.

The error is in addressing any remedy at objects rather than abusers.

Bill, what would it take to get folks with your viewpoint to revile
and address bad actors rather than the implements they use badly? Guns
and knives are not the problem. Bad guys using weapons badly is the
problem. The first step in solving a problem is to understand the
problem. Turning up the radio so you don't hear the squeak is easy
and expedient but it is not a solution.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: (OT) Something From An Ignorant Right Winger
    ... The club was constructed to defend against others, or kill others. ... That's not only the kind of guns that are ... The relevance here is your statement of "intended for purpose X". ... There are firearms that are are designed for purposes other than ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Oakland Police Worried About Increased Vigilantism
    ... TV, showing a T-shaped belt buckle knife, who intoned ominously that the ... only purpose for this knife was to kill people. ... future being shot by guns and you are celebrating! ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: (OT) Something From An Ignorant Right Winger
    ... The club was constructed to defend against others, or kill others. ... And then how to enforce those rules and laws. ... That's not only the kind of guns that are ... The relevance here is your statement of "intended for purpose X". ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: JOIN THE NRA !!
    ... are designed to kill and maim human beings. ... USE for, just like alcohol, is controlled by the user, NOT the design. ... missing my original point that the assault gun's intent is to kill and ... manners that gun manufacturers redesigned the guns in such ways to ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: GUN NUT SHOOTS SCHOOL PRINCIPAL REPEATEDLY
    ... Kill someone. ... guns are dangerous weapons and there needs to be some ... A well regulated militia, ... Subtitle A - General Military Law ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
Loading