ExRx.net

Exercise Prescription on the Net
It is currently Sat Oct 25, 2014 11:51 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 124 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Self defence is a basic human right.
I strongly agree. 93%  93%  [ 26 ]
I somewhat agree. 7%  7%  [ 2 ]
I disagree. 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Total votes : 28
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 3:16 pm 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Posts: 4424
Location: Pennsylvania
"As I said, although I agree people have a right bare arms, I wish they would choose to do otherwise, and that they would choose to make decisions that create a society in which it makes more sense not to carry guns. I think making it very difficult to a get a weapon that can kill dozens of people is the minimum the government should have to do for its citizens." - Ryan A

I'm only one man. I can't fix all the worlds problems on my own, but I can do exerything in my power to protect myself and my family, friends, neighbors, etc.

Likewise, it seems strange to me that you expect people to lower their defenses FIRST, and THEN work together towards reducing crime and violence.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 3:46 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:41 pm
Posts: 667
Location: Davis, California
I think solving the worlds problems is more important than protecting myself or some member of my family. I am fighting evolution here, I realize, but I would prefer our species survive more than my genes.

I would be more likely to listen to someone who is passively distributing knowledge than acting like a dictator with a gun. I think disarming yourself is the easiest way to show trust in another individual. If someone does not feel you trust them, it is unlikely he will ever lower their defenses and we will forever live in a land of itchy triggers, constantly fearing for their lives.

There is the reason "being defensive" in social situations is bad. It makes people feel like you are threatened. We need to eliminate these feelings and the actions that cause them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 4:14 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 625
Location: Kentucky, USA
Hmmm, Can't keep up completely with the Debate, but oh well, it is the internet afterall.

Ryan A wrote:
I think solving the worlds problems is more important than protecting myself or some member of my family. I am fighting evolution here, I realize, but I would prefer our species survive more than my genes.

Just out of curiousity, Do you have children, Are you married? I only ask, because "I" do not know anyone who would not do "ANYTHING" to protect their children from Real Harm.

However, I am trying to understand your point of view, even though I don't Agree with it.


Quote:
I would be more likely to listen to someone who is passively distributing knowledge than acting like a dictator with a gun. I think disarming yourself is the easiest way to show trust in another individual. If someone does not feel you trust them, it is unlikely he will ever lower their defenses and we will forever live in a land of itchy triggers, constantly fearing for their lives.

I too would like to live in a world where we can trust everyone and not have any concern for the bad things the "bad" guy down the street or around the next turn/corner may want to do to me or my family. Unfortunately, We don't have that world, therefore, it is my duty to (at a minimum) pay attention to my surroundings and prepare myself for the worse, while hoping and praying that the worse never comes.

Bottom line, Trust is earned, and I noone should expect it to be given freely.
Quote:
There is the reason "being defensive" in social situations is bad. It makes people feel like you are threatened. We need to eliminate these feelings and the actions that cause them.


Cliff


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 4:28 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 625
Location: Kentucky, USA
Ryan A,

I think it's fairly evident that in the perfect world, no one would need or even want a gun or any other weapon for self defense. BUT, we don't live in the perfect world.

Therefore, how do you propose removing deadly weapons/guns from society, therefore reducing or eliminating the need to defend myself.

Keep in mind, Deadly weapons have evolved from a need since the beginning of time.

I'll simplify the timeline:
pre-historic times: man fought man with fists, bigger guy wins
NEXT
Little guy picks up stick/stone to equalize the fight with bigger guy
NEXT
Big guy has stick/stone, so little guy finds sharp object/knife
NEXT
Big guy gets knife so little guy gets bigger knife or thrown object/spear

I think you see tha pattern here. EAch evolution of the weapon has evolved from the need to protect themselves from a bigger threat/person.

Additionally, how are you proposing to achieve the fair and perfect society, where the "BIGGER" guy doesn't try to "Bully" the little guy?

Cliff


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 9:36 pm 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Posts: 4424
Location: Pennsylvania
"I think solving the worlds problems is more important than protecting myself or some member of my family." - Ryan A

I don't see them as contradictory. Nor do I see how my being prepared (as much as one can be) makes me part of the problem. I've never robbed, raped or murdered anyone, and I don't intend to.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 9:38 pm 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Posts: 4424
Location: Pennsylvania
Also, I don't know how a willingness to defend ones self and family makes someone like a dictator.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 10:29 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:41 pm
Posts: 667
Location: Davis, California
Also, I don't know how a willingness to defend ones self and family makes someone like a dictator.

Well, if you look, you will find I did not say anything of the sort. I was making a general statement about why I think guns are bad and why defensive attitudes in general are bad. Thus, although I think you always have the right to defend yourself, and admit guns are an effective way to do so, I question if these attitudes and solutions will create a better world, or if the world into factions around the world as emerging nations struggle to industrialize.

When I think about my response to an idea like self defense and gun control, I try to think of it in the context of what it means when interconnected with all of the other things in the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 10:57 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:41 pm
Posts: 667
Location: Davis, California
I hope this to be my final main post, perhaps I will make a few more to clear up any questions but I think this summarizes my position well.

After reading through some of my initial comments a few times, I think I have found something that might persuade you to my perspective on why a lot of people packing guns is bad for some people.

I don't want to carry a gun; that is the fact of the matter and it is my right to choose to do so. As a right, my choice should not increase/decrease my ability to enjoy freedom that accompanies being a human being. If people start packing guns around all the time, I envision two scenarios:

(1) It works exactly as you claim, and when someone tries to attack you, you can better defend yourself and this deters future attackers.

(2) Someone tries to attack you, and you can defend yourself but rather than deter future attackers, it escalates into an arms race where criminals start getting better weapons (this is perhaps the origin of the black market for automatic weapons and such). This scenario does not affect you guys that are continually updating your defensive technology, but for someone like me, I am at a larger disadvantage relative the criminals. Least importantly, they have bigger guns but I never had any, so this is rather unimportant but perhaps these criminals could assault many people like myself at once due to their increased weaponry. More importantly, since they are used to you guys who are known to carry weapons and defend yourselves, they do not hesitate to just shoot and not bother to give people a chance to hand over their wallet (or pull out a gun and defend themselves). So to me, the major problem with guns, from my perspective, is that when you start arming everyone, those who choose not to carry are put into a horrible situation.

Since I brought up cars, there is a similar analogy with cars, people who would choose to not drive cars, and the lack of public transit. The majority of people love cars and so the government spends a ton of money creating roads and not making public transit systems (there are obviously some great exceptions in the country and in other parts of the world). This essentially forces people who do not want to drive (maybe because they know they are bad drivers) to drive, simply because there is no other option. This creates hazardous situations on the roads that could be avoided by forcing people who MUST drive cars, to take more of the cost to maintain roads and pay highway patrols. This is especially bad in California where roads are always being worked on, and traveling around the state is very difficult by train/bus. The people that do make efforts to travel via other means pay a extra costs because they are in a minority of adopters of mass transit technology.

I don't mind being an "early adopter" of not carrying a gun and pay a higher cost (via the increased likelihood of my death in an encounter with an assailant) but I would like to see the government work to respect the rights of the citizens who choose not to bare arms, just as I would like to see them work to help mass transit users see more reasonable fares.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 1:11 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3986
That sounds kind of like boarder line slippery slope to me. I also don't see anything that makes up for the consequences of criminalization. Which I think is a fatal flaw in outright banning. Although I'm with you on regulation.

As for the car situation, that just sounds like an argument for public transportation. It doesn't really support banning cars. It kind of demonstrates the arm race, but the arms race scenario is a bit of a stretch.

The main problem with California, is the people that live there. They want to have tons of social programs and government projects, but then nobody is willing to pay any taxes. Much like the Bush administration's budget, but worse. Now this is coming from a nonresident, but it seems to me that all their legislature does is block everything and anything the governor tries to do without offering any ideas of their own.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 8:47 pm 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Posts: 4424
Location: Pennsylvania
"(2) Someone tries to attack you, and you can defend yourself but rather than deter future attackers, it escalates into an arms race where criminals start getting better weapons (this is perhaps the origin of the black market for automatic weapons and such). This scenario does not affect you guys that are continually updating your defensive technology, but for someone like me, I am at a larger disadvantage relative the criminals. Least importantly, they have bigger guns but I never had any, so this is rather unimportant but perhaps these criminals could assault many people like myself at once due to their increased weaponry. More importantly, since they are used to you guys who are known to carry weapons and defend yourselves, they do not hesitate to just shoot and not bother to give people a chance to hand over their wallet (or pull out a gun and defend themselves). So to me, the major problem with guns, from my perspective, is that when you start arming everyone, those who choose not to carry are put into a horrible situation." - Ryan A

I have a hard time believing this scenario. Firstly, many people like to believe that bad things can't or won't happen to them. Secondly, carrying a firearm on a daily basis is inconvenient and often uncomfortable. Most people are just too lazy to carry regularly. Finally, there's no evidence of this occuring anywhere where concealed carry has been legalized (in spite of the grim predictions of critics).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 11:28 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:41 pm
Posts: 667
Location: Davis, California
I have a hard time believing this scenario. Firstly, many people like to believe that bad things can't or won't happen to them. Secondly, carrying a firearm on a daily basis is inconvenient and often uncomfortable. Most people are just too lazy to carry regularly. Finally, there's no evidence of this occuring anywhere where concealed carry has been legalized (in spite of the grim predictions of critics). - MattZ

I totally don't understand what you are saying here. I clearly believe bad things will happen; if I did not, I would have no problem with guns. Carrying a gun is inconvenient but they are also lazy, both of which result in non carrying? I don't get any of that.

I would like to see some of the studies done on these areas where carry has been legalized because I have a hard time believing criminals would not respond by shooting faster; I know that's what I would do, but again, I would like to see the studies before I comment further.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 11:43 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:41 pm
Posts: 667
Location: Davis, California
That sounds kind of like boarder line slippery slope to me. I also don't see anything that makes up for the consequences of criminalization. Which I think is a fatal flaw in outright banning. Although I'm with you on regulation.

I don't quite follow the "consequences of criminalization" part. Could you elaborate.

As for the car situation, that just sounds like an argument for public transportation. It doesn't really support banning cars. It kind of demonstrates the arm race, but the arms race scenario is a bit of a stretch.

At some point in the thread it was said "I wish everyone could be forced to carry a gun." This is a bad idea, and that was the point of the car analogy although with the cars, I think the bad idea is being actively lived out. People feel a lot of pressure to drive, especially in CA where things are so spread out, in most cases.

The main problem with California, is the people that live there. They want to have tons of social programs and government projects, but then nobody is willing to pay any taxes. Much like the Bush administration's budget, but worse. Now this is coming from a nonresident, but it seems to me that all their legislature does is block everything and anything the governor tries to do without offering any ideas of their own.

Well yes, and no. We have a major rift in income ranging from hollywood rich to immigrant poor. We have a lot of fringe counties that are very republican and then of course, the very large cities that are democratic so the legislature is quite the madhouse I am sure, kind of like the US Congress. We are very big and have many different "cultures" as well, who all seem to have these special needs.

I don't mind paying more taxes as long as it goes toward intelligent social programs, which don't really exist in my opinion. I would like to see unemployment converted to reeducation and job placement. The only social programs I would like to see are public education that is good and healthcare that is good. Education is difficult to do the huge variety of foreigners in the school system. Healthcare shares the same plight as it does in the rest of the country, although I think a system could exist if people were less greedy with corporate profits and less trigger happy on the lawsuit cannon. The most depressing thing for me is seeing "improvements" being made to roads/freeways to accommodate the endless suburbia sprawl and no effort being made to create high rise residential where public transit would actually work. The entire Sacramento valley is likely to be covered in single story houses by 2050, if not sooner.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 4:32 pm 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Posts: 4424
Location: Pennsylvania
"I totally don't understand what you are saying here. I clearly believe bad things will happen; if I did not, I would have no problem with guns. Carrying a gun is inconvenient but they are also lazy, both of which result in non carrying? I don't get any of that." - Ryan A

It's not that complicated. Some people have no desire to arm themselves. Others might like the idea of concealed carry, but not enough to put up with the discomfort and inconvenience. Only a relatively small percentage of the population has the inclination and self-discipline to carry a firearm on a daily basis.


Last edited by Matt Z on Mon Jul 06, 2009 4:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 4:41 pm 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Posts: 4424
Location: Pennsylvania
Your the one claiming that concealed carry will increase/intensify violence. The burden of proof is one you.

I would suggest you start with FBI crime statistics, and then look for information on concealed carry laws. I think you'll find that violent crime rates actually dropped durring the same time period when many states legalized concealed carry.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 6:35 pm 
Offline
In Memoriam: TimD
In Memoriam: TimD
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:04 am
Posts: 3129
Location: Va Beach, Va
I've pretty much stayed out of this, but in retirement now, I drive a cab on the side as a supplemental incomeI'm totally on Matt's side. I would NEVER incite any violence, but the fact that I let people know I have a conceal permit ( I post the permit in plain view), it keeps things real calm in the bad parts of town in the wee hours of the morning.
Tim


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 124 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next


All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group