Gun ownership is MAD?

Polls can be incorrect or manipulated. A person who owns a illegal gun for protection in England would agree in the street that gun laws are right for fear of gun ownership suspicion. you would say the same for Drugs if you happen to have several pounds of illegals drugs in your garage.. you would loudly say in a street poll "welll im against recreational drugs etc etc etc" BS.

 

Brave New World(1932)

 

"Oppression exists because people allow themselves to be oppressed"--I have to completely disagree with that statement-there have been many governments that have enslaved their people and to speak out was a death sentence-Russia-China-Uganda today-or possibly being Jewish and living in Berlin at one time could be dangerous to ones health-I don't think they "allowed themselves"anything-many countries will not allow their citizens to obtain a passport to leave even if they could-There is very visible slavery going on right here in America today-note the people smuggled in and put to work in sweatshops-it's work or die-thats their choice?-As far as gun control goes-Unfortunatley many idiots own too many guns-I believe in personel protection of your own property and those that qualify should be allowed to own one-those that don't; shouldn't-I have been held up by gun 3 times in my life-Had I had a gun someone would have,been shot-I can't own a gun because I got into a bar fight years ago and they took away my right to own one-but as I don't hunt it's no big deal-I just wish we could keep better track of who has em-to many nuts out there packin-

 

Lets look at it this way.

13 people hold 1300 hostage with the threat of violence.
the 13 are the oppressors the 1300 the oppressed.
Why is this?

You say "many governments that have enslaved their people and to speak out was a death sentence".

I say, "so what?"

Being Jewish and living in berlin meant death, they didn't fight back, they died, whose fault? at least partially theirs.

Warsaw ghetto: millions confined, deported to camps, and/or starved to death, there wasn't an armed uprising until their numbers dropped down to about 60,000 at which point of course they were too few and too weak to fight and were stamped out.

give me your children: http://www.datasync.com/~davidg59/rumkowsk.html

how do 13 people hold 1300 hostage?
the 1300 submit to it.

they try to reason, they allow themselves to be controlled through fear.

lets say you believe the official 911 story.

4 planes.

3 did exactly what the handful of perpetrators wanted crashed into buildings.
1 did not.

why?
They refused to be controlled.
they banded together, they fought back.

how many lives did they save in doing so? who knows.

how many lives would have been saved in europe if mother and fathers refused to hand over their children and decided to fight instead of slowly starving to death while their kids, their sick relatives, and their elderly were being gassed.

Oppression exists because people allow themselves to be oppressed.

Basic animal instinct: Fight or Flight.

When faced with adversity if you choose neither and instead embrace your servitude you should not be surprised by the outcome.

Fight or Flight.

If you can't run you fight, you fight till either you're unable to fight or your adversary is unable to fight.

if you quit, if you give in, if you stop fighting, you die.

not because you were overwhelmed and lost the fight, but because you decided to STOP fighting.

You embraced submission, you chose to die.

 

Don't i look like a jackass...

I did an edit, so now it makes sense.

 

Pitt

Sorry you had to wait (but I’ve explained that in the PM)

My thesis is that the problem with many American attitudes towards guns is that they seem to see them as a way of dealing with and also ignoring many of the social problems within their society. It also seems to me to led to a belief that threat and suppression is the best means of defence.

“Yet you have never given reason, facts, or figures to support this theory of yours”

Most of my posts have been giving my reasons, the problem is that as far as I can see you don’t seem to read them or don’t understand them?

**

For example someone said that a gun protected them from such people as crackheads and gangbangers but the problem as I see it is this can lead to the mentality that there is therefore no need to deal with the societal problems that has lead to drug addiction and exclusion.

“As you have been told MANY MANY times a gun CAN and DOES protect you from "crackheads and gangbangers", it does not solve the issue as a whole and no one clames it does. It protects against individual instances.”

Just because something can be done doesn’t make it the best way of doing something, the US could and did invade Iraq but it did not make the region a better place. To me they relied too much on the gun and not enough on what social and economic factors needed to be addressed. But as pointed out several times causes have effects.

As also pointed out it doesn’t solve the issue as a whole so what other things might work better? I’ve tried to find out your ideas on those and discuss them with you but you seem reluctant to discuss them so I’m left with the feeling that your major solution is the gun. You can say it isn’t, but your posts seem to say something different.

**

Just as (I’ve pointed out in another thread) Israel believes it can defend itself against its Muslim neighbours makes them seem to believe that they don’t have to deal with what is causing the hostility to them.

Many people have stopped asking themselves why things are the way they are and have fallen into the trap of believing that this is how things are. As long as you keep out of the bad parts of town and carry a gun ‘that stuff’ doesn’t need to be dealt with.

“Again you address this as a singular issue and ignore the FACT that many people who think, address, and work on these social problems CAN and DO in fact carry guns. Prooving the fact that one does not exclude the other.”

But it is clear you haven’t given it much thought (as seen in previous posts) and it is we who are having the discussion.

**

And the best way of keeping it under control and in its place is by the threat that comes from owning a gun.

And it seems to me that if people believe that the threat of violence works it is not much of a step for many to start thinking that the actual use of violence is acceptable.

“Again show me FACTS that show where gun ownership is NOT a deterrent to crime. I have shown you facts and figures that say it is Indeed a deterrent. So with nothing to back your statement up it is nothing but hot air.”

Again are you saying that the best way to deal with the issue of crime is guns? (see comment above).

**

This was my theory at the beginning of this thread and so far it has not really being challenged.

Although the pro-gun people here have spent a lot of time defending gun ownership they seem unable or unwilling to discuss many of the social problems within their society that some of them claim guns are needed to defend them from.

Guns are seen as a way of deterring crime (suppressing it) but approaches aimed at lessening or removing the crimes seem to be ignored.

“Yet you have been shown this is not always true”

Where? You have said you do think of other things but don’t seem able to discuss them.

“and you have brought nothing to the discussion to bolster your point.”

I’m not surprised you think that since it is clear that you are either not reading or not understanding the things I’ve written. You need to enter into a discussion before you become a part of the discussion.

**

The false sense of power that guns can give people also seems to appears in the idea that they are a protection against government persecution.

This view is prevalent among many of the pro-gunners but nobody seems able to get beyond rhetoric and into meaningful discussion of the issues.

The uncertainty of when guns should be used to ‘defend’ freedoms that seems to have not happened in the US’s history.

The problem that many pro-gunners seem likely to oppose some social and economic changes while supporting others, which seems to me that they are more likely to ‘defend’ some systems and an ideologies that to me are some of the problems with the US political system.

“You have accused me of "being able to predict the future" (which of course is rediculous and never claimed) yet you constantly ask others when would such action become necessary? Kind of an ironic situation, now asking other to predict the future?”

Are you taking about my comments to Shane about when to take action? If so I think you need to re-read my post you seem not to have understood, I’m trying to point out that people can’t tell what is going to happen.

It is there again above “The uncertainty of when guns should be used to ‘defend’ freedoms” It is about asking at what point should guns be used, the problem is that because we don’t know the future the point is uncertain.

Do you act to early and fail or act too late and fail, the problem is that usually only with hindsight do you know when the right time had come.

Should the American people have risen up in armed revolution at the actions of the Un-American committees and McCarthy? Maybe they should have, but they didn’t, the question is why didn’t they?

To me it is better to stop that tipping point being reached (when it might be too late) than to put your trust in the idea that guns will get you out of the danger.

**

They don’t seem to be asking themselves why things are the way they are, in fact they don’t seem to be asking why to many things and some seem almost contemptuous of that kind of inquiry.

“The problem balbus is that based on your questions you want to drill down to the singular root cause and accept nothing less. Your question, answer, you why, answer, you why, answer, you why? it never ends, then when this is pointed out you claim no there is no single answer it takes a broad spectrum of programs and answers to tackle such problems.”

Again you seem to need to re-read the posts you just don’t seem to understand. I have given my views openly you don’t seem able to do so. If you ask about my views, I give a reply, but if I ask about yours you often seem to go into a hissy fit. I have tried to explain my views you seem reluctant to talk about your own (that are except for guns) and get all defensive when asked.

**

Some time ago in another thread about guns, I accepted that this was an American decision. I could try and point things out to people or show how things are viewed from outside the US’s culture and even suggest alternatives, but if they don’t want to accept my viewpoint or my arguments that’s fine, above all my reason for being here are to learn. And it must be said that the way that ideas are accepted or rejected often tells me a lot and so teaches me a great deal.

“Like when you were shown facts and figures showing you (which you never countered) that in fact the UK has MORE crime and crime is on the rise in recent years than the US? This leads me to a view from outside the UK populous, that you tend to ignore crime in general.”

Again you haven’t read or were unable to understand what I’ve posted, I have commented on the UK crime figures and I’ve also pointed out that the amount of space given to crime in the UK media makes you assertions that we ignore crime seem plain stupid.

It has also been pointed out that many well informed people in the UK don’t seem so afraid of crime that they feel that they need a gun to protect themselves from it. As I’ve asked many times why are you so afraid of crime that you feel you need for a gun to protect yourself from it?

In the poll you link to 78% of those asked didn’t feel they needed a gun for protection against crime and in London an urban area that you say is the most risky only 7% felt the need.

What is so different about Americans like yourself that you are so afraid of crime?

Well there is on major difference between the UK and the US, and that is the huge number murdered by guns in the US compared with the UK.

**

I have since then revised my view because it seems to me that the attitudes of many of the pro-gunners have an impact on the way they view the world and US foreign policy.

I think that some people would like to see gun control or even promote it as a single issue, unconnected to other social and political views.

But why is it that so far it seems the most vocal of the gun defenders seem to be right wingers (oh and one Social Darwinist).

“Why should gun control be connected to anything other than GUN CONTROL?”

As pointed out many times, general attitudes cross boarders, a persons attitudes in one area can influence those in another area. Do you understand this or would you wish me to explain?

**

Pitt

Having read through the whole thread again it become clear that you seem to change arguments to fit the situation. When it suites you, you hype the danger of crime but when it doesn’t suite you, you diminish the supposed risk.

Even your definition of what crime you are talking about seems to change depending on what you are saying, one moment it is only violent crime, one moment it is only gun crime, the next moment it is all crime.

At other times you are incredibly defensive when I ask questions that would spread some light on your views on other ways of tackling crime.

It is also clear that many times you don’t actually read my post let alone try and understand what I’m saying and your replies seem to have increasingly become hasty and ill thought out ‘reactions’.

You seem totally negative, no you will not listen to my arguments, no you will not try and understand what’s been said to you, no you will not stick to one definition if that means you have to concede a point.

I’ve listened to your views and come up with ideas that you have even supported.

Maybe it would be better it you stopped reacting and began understanding.

 

Balbus,

The issue that i have isn't when an armed revolution is or is not needed, it's retaining the ability to fight that armed revolution.

"At what point should guns be used" is secondary to having the guns in the first place.

The American people might never need to physically defend themselves against their State, but why take away their ability to do so?

As you stated: "... the problem is that because we don’t know the future the point is uncertain."

The point being uncertain, i choose to hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

I choose to retain the option of resistence should resistence become nessecary.

History tells us that it is not uncommon for resistence to become nessecary.

 

This is a very good point Shane.

But mine is when do you use the guns even if you had them?

You wish to resist but when do you resist?

What do you resist?

And what do you do if what you wish to resist is accepted even popular with the majority of you fellow citizens?

The thing is that I think there are a lot of gun owners in the US that would accept even encourage the kind of laws that I would find abhorrent.

The majority of the American people at the time didn’t care (or supported) what happened to the Native Americans, the Japanese Americans, the Commies and today to the ‘terrorists’. And many believed they had the guns to protect them from such enemies of the American way.

To me the death of people due to the prohibition against drugs (gang killings, turf wars) is not just a tragedy it is criminal negligence on the part of a society that lets it continue.

But as one contributor pointed out in another thread about guns, as long as the deaths were mainly amongst young ethnic groups most people didn’t care or thought it good way of getting rid of such people. And if these people ever started attacking ‘decent’ folk then it was a good think the ‘decent’ folk had the guns to kill them with.

To me guns spawn a certain mentality, belligerent and authoritarian, which believes it can either control situations or alter things through violence.

Guns can control crime.

Guns can control governments.

But I fear that some thing that since they have the ‘control’ they also have the solution and become blind to the true nature of the problem both with crime or government.

‘We need laws to control the ‘terrorists’ (Commies, Japs, red Indians) but that will not happen to me because I have a gun and will shot the police if they try to take me.’

‘The terrorists need to be tortured but that wouldn’t happen to me because the American people have guns and will rise up and stop it (just like they didn’t for the Commies, Japs, and Native Americans)’

You can have your guns but that doesn’t mean that things that should be resisted will be resisted or that when resistance is needed it will come or be able to come.

**

In Nazi Germany most Germans could get hold of a gun but did that mean they were able to resist the excess of their government (or want to)?

In Israel the citizenry are under arms, but does that mean they treat the Palestinians fairly?

Just because people in a society have access to guns does not make that society a good and just society.

**

 

Proud

No vacation, actually it was work and childcare and it’s still not over just lessened, which means that for some time I may not be able to post as much as I’d want to here (please hold back those tears).

But don’t worry I will be here to keep an eye on the forum.

As to me being an impostor I’m sure you will be able to tell from the quality of the doublespeak I’ll be spewing that it is the genuine me.

But thanks, it is good to be back (if only partially)

 

Your right-now I remeber it was when I owned a home a had this asshole "friend" move in-he had lots of guns in the house and was a druggie and quit paying rent-I tried to forcibly kick his ass out one day and because I pushed him I went to jail for domestic violence-I spent a week waing to go to trial as they would not allow me to go back to my own house while this guy was living there-When I did get out and got back home he had stolen everything that was not nailed down-Some people know how to make the law work in their favor and take full advantage of it-He got free rent and all my stuff-I got jail time-and because it was at my home it was considered domestic violence-hence no gun ownership allowed-The bar brawl was another time years before-I could care less about owning a gun-what for?-If I have to be afraid to live I may as well check out-I fear noone or nothing-but then I don't go around scaring people or putting myself in that position-There will always be a big percent of the population that will own and use guns illegaly-law or not-

 

Yea-and that particular law is a joke in my opinion-I realize alot of women are hurt by idiots every year but to include man to man fighting is stupid-Shit-me and my big brother broke that law many times growing up so did my parents by spanking me-stupid-needs to be re-done-more clarification

 

Yea-I met a lady who was taken to jail for shooting her boyfriend in the face with a squirtgun!

 

No-That was right here in Vancouver Wa-They are REAL touchy on the domestic thing-The jails are full of people doing the dumbest things to their spouses-Throw a plate of food at someone and your goin to jail-

 

Ya know in grade school I used to shoot the girls with rubber bands-Today I would probably do a little jail time for that! A month or so in juvi to straighten me right out!

 

Have not ...and will not read this whole thread....just the first couple posts to get the idea.

Had a dream long ago that helped me immensly..... In it I was studying martial arts in asia....the master came up to me with his hand up his wide sleeves, bowed to me and said - 'you have been a good student - I have but one more thing to teach you " - as fast as thought his hands flashed out placing throwing stars at me and every place I could move to -...... - I disappeared - he bowed and said "very good".
What I got out of this dream is that you do not Have to be where the energy is, and you can choose not to be.

That said - I live on some fairly wild, isolated, large acerage and have illegal hunters and a large wildlife population, some possibly threatening animals (bears, big cats, and assorted of the cannines). I have guns both for protection and to possibly hunt if the need comes. I have posted the land and yet have had hunters turn their guns on me and threaten me when I tell them I am the landowner and there is no hunting.
I do not even go out any more about the hunters - both because I do not wish to threaten and because I have allowed 1 hunter with 1 companion to hunt, post, and prosecute those that come on the land.
I also purchased some bows and arrows but have not put the necessary time in to become again proficient with them.
Ideally and some time I will put down the guns (hardly ever use them)- talk and respect the animals - as they will me - and maybe put the land up as a wildlife refuge - if we decide that's the way we want to go.
Ideally and some time I will no longer make excuses for myself about not doing what I feel to be right for myself - not be where the energy is rather than arm myself to deal with it.

But I do believe in martial arts - especially for potential victims (which excludes - ?) - and therein can also stretch to believing that one has the right to defend themselves from others at the same level by which they are being threatened.

But, you have a gun - you are definitely more liable to use it.

Sooo - 2 sides of the coin - neither is right or wrong

Eventually we See that each must decide how they choose to live - - - AND Do IT !

Blessing Be along the Way

Namaste (my spirit bows to your spirit)

 

Yea that always got the girls attention and me thrown out-whoops

 

Pitt

We seem to have hit an impasse, you are unwilling or unable to discuss the things that could move the discussion on so we have become stuck.

I have tried many times to get us out of this rut but you seem determined to keep us in it.

You complain that I ask questions and therefore refuse to answer them, but how is a debate meant to proceed if only one party is willing to be open?

Again your replies are a list of reactions that seem to lead nowhere and take little account of what has gone before. You say I don’t take note of what you say but I have and did and actually came up with some ideas that you supported. You say I don’t take note of your counterpoints, but the only problem is that numerous times, when I’ve asked question about them you have become annoyed that I will not just accept them and refused to reply.

I mean what am I supposed to do, accept you counterpoints without question, because that seems to be what you are saying. Also many of the counterpoints you talk about are just reaffirming assertions that have already been questioned, so in fact you are not allowing me to even question original statements so the debate has in fact not moved on one bit.

Think about it –

You’ve asked questions of me and I’ve replied often at length and in detail (such as the gun laws you supported and the ideas on reducing crime that you seemed to support)

But when you make a statement (for example about social issues)

I ask questions

You reaffirm what you have said.

I ask questions (often the same ones because the assertion is the same)

You tell me I ask too many questions and are not going to answer anymore

Later you make the same assertion again.

If I ask questions again, you say I’m a cove that keeps asking questions and refuse to reply.

And so we get nowhere.

This is not debate it is the opposite of a debate, you are basically telling me that I have to accept your assertions without question or discussion.

**

I could give many examples but I’ll take one from your last reply

It starts - “I have given you example of what I do to try and help social problems”

I know, but when I tried to discuss your attitudes and approaches to social problems, that were brought up by an earlier statement like this, you stopped replying because you said I asked too many questions.

But here you are implying once again that since you have done certain things, this proves that you have put thought into social alternatives to crime, the problem is that without proper discussion that is unproven and because you continue to refuse to discuss it remains unproven.

The thing is that if I again begin to ask the same questions that I have before - when you first made such a statement - you will once again accuse me of asking why, why, why and refuse to discuss it.

**

You then go on and try to justify your refusal to talk –

“You want indepth discussions of these social programs and yet you refuse to state why you think it is wrong for social workers to carry guns.”

You seem to be implying that you are the injured party, that you are willing to discuss things it’s just that why should you since I refuse to be open.

The only problem is that I have been open, I have explained my views at length and in some detail and funny enough you supported me.

I see nothing wrong with a law-abiding social worker owning a gun.

But I’ve also explained at length and in some detail how I would go about trying to make a society where he or she (or you) felt that they didn’t need a gun for protection.

**

You refuse to debate and seem willing to lie to justify your refusal.

As I say we are at an impasse, I want a discussion, you don’t.

**

 

I’ll come to the rest of your points later but it is interesting that you haven’t actually addressed the issues raised in my last post.

Namely that you don’t seem willing to enter into an open and honest debate.

What you have done is post what seems like a classic piece of misdirection, you seem to be trying to smother the issue in a whole load of back quotes and argument.

**

As I say I’ll come back to them in detail later but from just a casual read these points are out of context or have already been debated and addressed.

For example –

“You titled this thread “Gun ownership is mad?”

You tried to do this once before, I pointed out then and I’ll point out again, the title comes from a comment from Shane about being armed and Mutually Assured Destruction.

The title is actually “Gun ownership is MAD?” the uppercase and the question mark are important.

I’m not saying gun ownership is insane, I’m asking if gun ownership is about mutually assured destruction. (I suppose a better title with hindsight would have been “Is Gun ownership MAD” but the thread needed a title and that’s what came to mind at the time)

“Mutually assured destruction (MAD) is the doctrine of military strategy in which a full scale use of nuclear weapons by one of two opposing sides would result in the destruction of both the attacker and the defender.It is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use of the very same weapons.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_assured_destruction

(Note the bit about threat, my premise all along has been that it seems many of the pro-gunners think more about the idea of suppression through threat than they do about other means.)

**

The quote from Shane is - "A personal policy of mutually assured destruction is as decent a deterrent as i can think of. You aim at me and i'll aim at you. Pretty simple."

Now remember we were not at that time talking just about gun ownership in relation to crime but in general terms, so my reply was –

[But this presumes you are allowed to aim back?

If someone want you dead or want to rob you and they believe you are armed they are not going to call you out like some b-movie western, they are just going to shoot you in the back or from a distance that you cannot reach. Maybe they don’t even shoot you just plant or drop a bomb, kill you by remote control.

So how do you defend yourself?

Wear a kavlar jacket, drive an armoured car, install bullet-proof glass in your home? Have your gun out at all times and pointing it at everyone that is around you? Do you try and impose an exclusion zone around you warning people they risk being shot if they get closer? How far do you exclude people, I mean a sniper can put a bullet right through you from a mile away?

I live in a city and pass hundreds maybe thousands of people a day often while pushing or carrying my child, I use public transport, I live in a normal semidetached house and such things are impossible, so I’m thankful I live in a society where very, very few people have guns.

Rather than giving everyone a gun I would rather work toward having a society were no one would be so desperate for money or recognition that they felt they needed to use a gun.]

**

What was your motivation in bring this up?

“You state “If someone want you dead or want to rob you and they believe you are armed they are not going to call you out like some b-movie western, they are just going to shoot you in the back or from a distance that you cannot reach. Maybe they don’t even shoot you just plant or drop a bomb, kill you by remote control.” If someone wants you dead they will accomplish this with or without guns. This statement is nothing more than just posturing, it has no real meaning to the basic subject at hand”

What ‘subject at hand’?

The only subject at hand when I wrote that was Shane’s statement about MAD, to suggest otherwise, as you do, seems rather dishonest.

**

This type of misdirection doesn’t seem to have anything to do with honest and open debate or in moving the discussion forward.

As I say we seem to be at an impasse, I want a discussion, you don’t.


**

 

Some I’ve already covered but Ok the first in an on going series your number one point in the post 354 was –

“Owning a gun leads to an escalation all the way up to getting a “hydrogen bomb”. That “might becomes right” Indication that someone with a gun wants to dominate you. Law abiding gun owners that I know do not have this attitude and you have not provided any data to support this assumption”

As an explanation of what an arms race can be it still stands this was actually in reply to the statement by Shane -

“the only practical defense against firepower is firepower”

To which I replied -

“I have a spear you have a thirty eight, so I get a thirty eight and you get an assault rifle, so I get an assault rifle and you get a bazooka so I get a bazooka and you get a tank so I get a tank and you get a F-16, so I get an F-16 and you get an atomic bomb, so I get an atomic bomb and you get a hydrogen bomb so I get a hydrogen bomb.

But what if you haven’t the resources for the next step?

If I can only afford a spear then any person with a gun can dominate me.

Might becomes right”

At the time you had not posted in the thread, I was replying in a general way to Shane’s statement and Shane’s alone and in fact Shane’s reply was -“Unfortunately, in the present world Might is Right. How do you think the state maintains it's position of dominance? And as much as I hate guns, i would rather not be the one holding only a spear...”

He therefore does buy into the idea that dominance can come though the threat of weapons (if someone has a gun they have dominance over those with a spear). He also seems to imply that he would want everyone to have private control over any weapon the government had (e.g. even nuclear weapons).

To conclude

Shane made a statement

I commented on that statement

Shane replied to that statement

In what way is this a demonstration of my supposed inability to enter into discussion?

**

 

I don’t think it would have escaped anyone’s attention, it certainly didn’t escape mine, but once again in your last post you have side-stepped saying anything about the issues raise in my post, that is that you are unwilling to be have an open and honest debate.

Instead once again you are using rather dishonest misdirection to try and cover up your inability to answer questions.

**

The misdirection

You claim that I “tend to ignore facts and questions being directed at you”

So lets look at the evidence.

You say “You say the thread is about mutually assured destruction yet in your second post you go beyond that premise by asking, what is the threat and why is there a threat. The threat is criminals and criminals are usually armed with better weapons than their victims, they have the element of surprise, and they have the advantage of planning. Neither I nor anyone I know has “threatened” anyone with a gun or the use of a gun”

So lets look at this –

Shane (not you) said ““I have no problem with an armed individual trying to protect himself and his family from an outside threat.”

He hadn’t specified what threat he was talking about so I needed clarification so I asked -

“What threat?” and “Why is there a threat?”

At the time I asked these things of Shane you had not entered the discussion and I didn’t know that you would enter the discussion.

You had/have every right to give your opinion but I think it a bit much to say I hadn’t the right to ask for clarification from Shane.

As it is from Shane’s subsequent posts his emphasis of what the threat is seems to be relates more to government and that is to crime and that argument has been going on in tandem with that relating to crime.

(but why is this an example of me not answering questions it’s me asking one?)

**

It was you that said the threat was violent crime which you claimed at the time was everywhere (later you seemed to admit that it wasn’t everywhere).

“Neither I nor anyone I know has “threatened” anyone with a gun or the use of a gun”

But the very ownership of a gun for the use as ‘protection’ is in itself a threat, you ever seem to say it is a good idea to advertise the fact that you are armed, you also believe in carrying a concealed weapon and castle domain. These things are all about using threat as the means of suppression.

You actually say “lets face it, Weapons are a deterrant”

“Deterrence is a means of controlling a person's behavior through negative motivational influences, namely fear of punishment”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrent

Here is a definition of deterrence. As I’ve pointed out it is about suppression though the threat.

It is saying ‘if you do something I don’t like I have the ability to kill you’ you are setting yourself up as judge, jury and possibly executioner. The problem is that this can lead to a mentality that believes suppression is preferable to trying to deal with the problems that have lead to the actions that need suppressing.

I have been trying to find out about this but so far you have made it very plain that you are unwilling to talk about it, seemingly claiming that I don’t have the right to ask questions.

**

“But this presumes you are allowed to aim back?
Your scenario for this question is about assassination not mutually assured destruction. In an assassination there is in reality not much one can do except be prepared with a bevy of armed guards on a constant lookout. For the average gun owner this is ridiculous as they are not the target of assassins. So again you are not talking about “MAD” but crime”

Which I believe was the point I was making. “But this presumes you are allowed to aim back?
If someone want you dead or want to rob you and they believe you are armed they are not going to call you out like some b-movie western, they are just going to shoot you in the back or from a distance that you cannot reach. Maybe they don’t even shoot you just plant or drop a bomb, kill you by remote control.
So how do you defend yourself?
Wear a kavlar jacket, drive an armoured car, install bullet-proof glass in your home? Have your gun out at all times and pointing it at everyone that is around you? Do you try and impose an exclusion zone around you warning people they risk being shot if they get closer? How far do you exclude people, I mean a sniper can put a bullet right through you from a mile away?

Can you not see that I was trying to point out just how ridiculous the idea of a “personal policy of mutually assured destruction” is?

If you live your life with the idea that everyone else is an armed threat that you need to protect yourself against I think you would go insane.

**

“Rather than giving everyone a gun I would rather work toward having a society were no one would be so desperate for money or recognition that they felt they needed to use a gun.]
Again I don’t know of anyone who would disagree with this statement, however in this day and age this is a fantasy world. It also has nothing to do with “MAD” but crime.”

Just a minute – you don’t disagree with the statement but you do disagree with the statement? You say that in this day and age this is a fantasy but is working toward trying to bring it about stupid?

**

My motivation is - What has assassination have to do with “MAD”?

My perception is this thread was about individual gun ownership. MAD is only effective with large organization/groups/Governments. When it comes to small groups/individuals its not about who has the bigger gun if you want someone dead it’s about who is the sneakiest/more clever/better aim. So if you wish to take this back to the beginning, please tell us how individual gun ownership leads to “MAD”. For “MAD” to apply to individuals it would imply that EVERY individual is armed with something.
Show me where law abiding gun owners are constantly looking to make sure they have bigger better weapons than their neighbors.

That is your opinion, Shane’s seems to be different, so please talk to him not me. I actually argued against the idea of a personal policy of MAD, saying that to me it seemed silly and didn’t make sense. If you really thought that very one else was an armed threat or that at any time you would be attacked then you would have to spend your whole life constantly ready to defend yourself.

But you must already know that, because presumably you read my posts, or do you, time and again you accuse me of things that are not true or claim I have said things I haven’t. All through this thread I’ve had to go back to correct you, pointing out where you have made a mistake. At first I thought these were honest mistakes, then I thought it was sloppiness based in laziness but now I’m beginning to suspect that it is deliberate. Unable to counter my arguments honestly you have had to resort to dishonestly.

As I say we seem to be at an impasse, I want an open and honest discussion, you don’t.

**