VA. Tech-- a PC liberal/rightwing joint venture?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

roth

Postby professorpan » Thu Apr 19, 2007 11:03 am

Again, I don't know what to tell you. I find it hard to believe your that out-of-touch with reality. Yes, it is a crime to even "handle" a weapon, in a hundred different circumstances. If you are seen handling a weapon anywhere in public...you have gone a long way down the road towards arrest and a trip to the hoosegow. You didn't know that?


Well, good -- I don't think people should be openly brandishing weapons in public. But you still won't answer my question -- how many people are arrested and jailed for using guns to protect themselves against criminals? Why won't you answer that -- maybe because it isn't true that it's a real problem?

You don't know about the thousands of people who have been stuffed in prisons unjustly, in this country? You don't know about all the inner city folks who get caught in a dilemma...needing to carry a weapon to survive, and being busted for it? You didn't know there are thousands of black folks thrown in prison on gun-related charges...when many of them were only trying to survive in a virtual war zone (their own neighborhood)? Or were you just assuming that all fourteen hundred thousand black people in jail were all 'guilty'? Watch that wretched show "Cops" sometime. Each show they throw about five black people in jail on gun charges when the reality is, many of them just want and need protection.


Well, I'm quite familiar with the situation you describe, living in one of the most dangerous cities in America -- so go easy on the lectures. My city is brimming over with guns, and as a result, black kids are killing each other at the rate of nearly one per day. Any black citizen can get a gun legally, just like any white citizen. But gun makers and dealers prey upon the lower classes, and the illegal trade in handguns is a major factor in the violence.

And it's not about upstanding black citizens carrying guns for protection and getting arrested. That's pathetically naive and dishonest, and shows you have little or no understanding of the dynamic of inner cities and no familiarity with crime statistics. The cheap and easy availability of illegal guns fuels the violence associated with the drug trade -- a deadly mix. As a self-professed libertarian, surely you understand how the prohibition of drugs factors into this.

A "gun ban?" Not in Baltimore. The statement is ludicrous. Guns are available to anyone who wants them -- legally or illegally. And I have no problem with jailing people who support the illegal gun market, or who don't go through legitimate channels to legally purchase their gun.

And George W and some legislators signing a piece of paper...that means something? A majority of these 'PC libs' you have pointed out, signed off on the Iraq War too. Woodrow Wilson practically signed his name in blood pledging that American boys would never go to war. 99.5% of those politicians are absolutely meaningless and utterly corrupted. And yet you think their actions signify something? Count me out.


You're the one who brought up the gun seizures in New Orleans. I presented you with another piece of the story -- how outraged citizens fought back and put laws into place to protect their privacy and their right to possess guns. That nullifies your constant cries of "They're taking our guns away!" and your assertion that pro-gun control PC liberals are a danger to your arsenal.

But you don't let facts get in the way of your firearm proselytizing -- you'd rather throw around unsubstantiated soundbites and NRA propaganda. I have no problems discussing gun law and philosophy with people who take the time to actually educate themselves. But trying to have a discussion with a propagandist is not worth the time.

So put some facts where your mouth is, or admit you're only parroting pro-gun propaganda.
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

The right to bear... a taser?

Postby Fat Lady Singing » Thu Apr 19, 2007 11:29 am

Hi all: to the people who say that if the students had had guns, fewer people would have died, and that only complete and total ability to carry any firearm of choice would have saved them, I offer an alternative:

what if they all owned and carried tasers?

or how about this:

what if they all owned and carried one of those sticky-foam shooters that supposedly traps the perp in goo? (don't know about how big they are or if they actually can be carried, but surely some tech could be developed along these lines for personal protection).

or how about this:

what if they all owned and wore bullet-proof vests and helmets? (Apparently the shooter wore a bullet-proof vest, so he was intent on protecting himself.)

Any of these would allow people to protect themselves, which gun-ownership-rights advocates purport to want. I think those advocate could get behind such measures, right?

Or maybe it's because they want to be able to actually shoot a shooter. It's not *protection* that's important, it's killing a killer. Or maybe just shooting...whatever.

If not, my bad.

Hey, here are some other fun self-protection ideas.

How about if every public building is equipped with nets rigged to drop from the ceiling and everyone carries a remote control to trigger them?

That wouldn't take care of open spaces like parks and whatnot, though. So, okay, all trees could have sleeping gas pods rigged up, and we all carry remotes to trigger them.

Oh, wait, that wouldn't account for a scenario where a criminal could wear a gas mask, rendering your gas triggering moot. In that case, yes, I finally see, only a completely armed populace will save us from murder sprees.

As an aside, about gun ownership protecting us from tyranny: it sure worked for those folks at, say, Ruby Ridge, huh? Man, if people think a few shotguns or semis or even AKs or whatever is going to protect us from a police state, just look at Iraq. If the government or military want us, they got us. They're way ahead in the arms race.
User avatar
Fat Lady Singing
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 9:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

to elaborate...

Postby Fat Lady Singing » Thu Apr 19, 2007 11:47 am

Hi all: I realized just now that my Iraq comment seems to undercut my argument. Let me be a little clearer.

In Iraq, the "insurgents" don't just have guns, they have all sorts of weaponry, including roadside bombs. We ain't outta there yet, are we? Sure, we're not "winning" in the sense that the people aren't completely pacified, but we are "winning" in that we now have an established presence there for the foreseeable future. (And by "we" I mean our unelected government that represents the actual people of the U.S. in name only).

I doubt a serious governmental crackdown upon the citizenry could be stopped by handguns, shotguns, and machine guns, is all.
User avatar
Fat Lady Singing
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 9:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby rothbardian » Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:58 pm

erosoplier--

We need to "grin and bear it"? Why then, are you even bothering to discuss issues? Whatever it is, just grind your teeth and break out a beer.You belong down at the pub...not a conversation board.

And you've brushed by about 50 specific arguments. I'm sorry but yours is such typical 'liberal-think'--vague, fuzzy, foggy semi-notions...whatever strikes your fancy at the moment, is what you go with. Don't feel bad--You're not alone. 'Neo-con'-think is in a deadheat.

So when the BlueHats (i.e. government authorities) murder 3000 Americans on 9/11, start a fake war in Iraq resulting in the murder of 600,000 Iraqis, and previous to that perpetrate the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children, I should meekly accept the 'legitimacy' of their delegated authorities (the Blue Hats)...and just grin and bear it?

No, I think I'll send a few emails and post a few comments, thanks.

If you don't understand that the whole VA.Tech scenario is simply an extension of the same evil psychopaths behind 9/11 (regardless of whether this shooting has been an actual 'false flag)..then you are naive on a scale I can't even quantify.

The point is (and this is a typical libertarian point)..power monopolies are a cataclysmic disaster. Those who are part of a power monopoly become sloppy, stupid and evil.

The same systemic incompetence, immorality and evil that caused the law officers to hide behind trees, lock down the campus, not allow anyone in or out, and sit there while the shooting and killing continued (the same murderous behavior we saw at Columbine High school)...is what we have with 9/11.

Australia is no different--you guys have the same evil 'power monopoly' culture...a bunch of 'elite' psychopath freaks in high places...massive epidemic pedophilia among the 'power' set...bizarre obsessions with occult. Here in the US the BlueHats Inc. are planning war after bloody war. I have a family--I have children they'll want for their wars and their evil. You "grin and bear it" if you like. Count me out.

yathrib--

Did you say you were "comforted" by the heroics of the professors? I would be much more comforted if they routinely kept self-defense measures nearby and were still living. Just like the pilots on 9/11. They would still be alive along with 3000 Americans...along with 3000 American soldier boys...along with 600,000 Iraqi men, women and children. But...political correctness must survive. (??)
rothbardian
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby rothbardian » Thu Apr 19, 2007 9:34 pm

Mr. Pan--

You're confused. I've answered your question. And it was a disingenuous question to begin with because...if you don't realize that thousands upon hundreds of thousands of just black folks alone have been unjustly busted on weapons charges, and busted on a host of other unjust charges....then you're only other alternative is to believe they are virtually all guilty.

Your political correctness has you in a tight spot--Either you believe almost all blacks convicted of gun charges are truly guilty (uh-oh, somebody call the NAACP!) or you're acknowledging my point that gun ownership/usage/handling/etc. has been incorrectly and overly criminalized.

And your comment regarding the 31-year "gun ban" in DC-- "The statement is ludicrous." You need to get out more, or something. Not until March of this year did some judge finally modify what was universally described as a virtual gun ban in DC, going back to the 70's. You can google "Washington DC gun ban" if you like. Here's a link-- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17538139/ And you say you live right there and didn't know about this?

Your comment--- "I don't think people should be openly brandishing weapons" Your wrong about that. Depending on the whim of a judge or a prosecutor, there are a number of instances where "brandishing" is allowed. But the anti-gun sentiments that prevail in the PC world have resulted in the criminalization of 99% of otherwise legitimate scenarios.

Another of your comments--- "it's not about upstanding black citizens carrying guns for protection and getting arrested." Yes it is about that. You're assuming all the blacks thrown in prison are legitimately guilty. That's an amazingly condescending conclusion. The vast majority of blacks in DC who are not dealing drugs live in a war zone. Those people frequently feel the need for self-defense measures. But because PC prevails, they are given no access (or more accurately, no practical access). This has led to frequent arrests and imprisonment.

And finally, you say to me..."admit you're only parroting pro-gun propaganda."? Again, you're confused. I merely believe in my right to defend myself. I stand on that simple principle. You can set up all the goofy straw men and bogeymen you see fit. I simply reject the absurd notion of one human saying to another human "I must confiscate a large portion of your freedom because I wish to preside over your life."

It doesn't work. The guys with the magical blue hats were not able to successfully 'preside' over the lives of those students. And there are thirty-two corpses and some KrispyKreme wrappers in police cruisers over in Virginia to prove it.

The right to self-defense has effectively been taken away from me and the American people. Thirty-two kids lay dead to underscore that PC reality. If people truly were free to routinely carry whatever self-defense measures they chose, and were free to implement those measures as they saw fit (just as the magical blue hat people do)...those kids wouldn't be dead.
rothbardian
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby professorpan » Fri Apr 20, 2007 12:09 am

Your attempts to portray me as an ignorant racist is pathetic, Roth. You can't win an argument with facts and logic, so you resort to slander. It's pitiful.

WHY WON'T YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION? You insist that innocent, law-abiding gun owners are being jailed and prosecuted for defending themselves. If that was the case, surely you can take five or ten minutes to back up your assertion?

You won't... because you can't.

You don't live in my city, so don't tell me most people arrested for illegal weapons possession are law-abiding folks just trying to protect themselves. Because that is utter bullshit. And don't paint me as a racist for describing the unfortunate black-on-black gun violence that plagues my city -- which is driven, in most cases, by the prohibition of drugs and the violence that causes.

And your comment regarding the 31-year "gun ban" in DC-- "The statement is ludicrous."


I never mentioned D.C. -- what the hell are you talking about?

And finally, you say to me..."admit you're only parroting pro-gun propaganda."? Again, you're confused. I merely believe in my right to defend myself. I stand on that simple principle. You can set up all the goofy straw men and bogeymen you see fit. I simply reject the absurd notion of one human saying to another human "I must confiscate a large portion of your freedom because I wish to preside over your life."


NO ONE IS CONFISCATING YOUR FUCKING GUNS, DUDE. Come visit me in Baltimore. We'll take a walk, you and I, Roth old pal, to a local gun dealer. Whip out your credit card and buy anyone gun in the store. Then we'll take a walk to another part of town, where you might get a little nervous. But don't worry -- we'll find you a nice handgun in no time.

If you don't answer my question, I'm done with you and your evasiveness. You started this conversation by claiming that law-abiding gun owners are being thrown in prison for defending themselves against criminals. So, please, Roth -- I know you don't want to look like a foolish propagandist for the gun lobby, spewing nonsensical, unsubstantiated anecdotes.

Please back up your bluster -- for your sake. Show me some figures to back up your initial assertion.

Or I won't waste another keystroke.
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Sweejak » Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:06 am

While you guys are hashing out what is something of a side issue for me I thought I'd post this link to an interview and a film:
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/04/19/mike-mcnulty/

Mike McNulty, producer of Waco: The Rules of Engagement, Waco: A New Revelation and The FLIR Project explains the proof of his contention that the U.S. Army Delta Force (Combat Applications Group) was sent by Bill and Hillary Clinton to Waco and how they helped the FBI Hostage Rescue Team mass murder 86 men, women and children in broad daylight, in front of everybody, live on TV, call it a suicide and get away with it.

MP3 here. (1:26:44)
http://dissentradio.com/radio/07_04_18_mcnulty.mp3

... A lass (sic) than perfect version of Waco: The Rules of Engagement is currently running on the Documentary Channel.


Also a doc on Ruby Ridge, you may not like these people but I don't think you can condone what happened. I think this is by Jon Ronson.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... y+Ridge%2C

===============
As far as being arrested for merely defending your own:

I mentioned that I'd heard of guns being brandished out here. A college kid on something, PCP or Ecstasy, naked, showed up one morning, drove into this mans property, opened the door to his child's room ( an out building) and commenced to jerk himself off. The father showed up with a rifle, aimed it directly at the intruder who saw it and was totally unfazed, but began moving towards his car. The father decided this was not a case of deadly danger and let him get in the car and leave. He said he would have shot the tires making it easier for the police to arrest him but was afraid of a ricochet. When the police arrived his interest was chiefly about the pointing of the gun, and he said if it he pointed it at the intruder he would have to take him down to the station and there would likely be charges. Now, I don't know the exact legalities and the father lied and said he did not point it, only had it with him. The intruder was arrested later that day, wrote a sincere apology and there were no charges. Now I know this doesn't fulfill Pan's demands for proof on this point, take it for what it's worth.
User avatar
Sweejak
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:40 pm
Location: Border Region 5
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby rothbardian » Fri Apr 20, 2007 2:19 am

Pan--

First of all, I never originally put forward any claim that great numbers of people are being thrown in prison. I didn't introduce that subject at all. You did. Your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired. But since I got the DC scenario mixed up with your Maryland scenario, I guess that makes us even.

Anyway...my original statement was that extremely few citizens dare to use deadly force. One hears only on the rarest occasion about a citizen shooting someone in the midst of a crime scenario. You then, out of thin air, demanded I do a research project for you, demonstrating the great numbers of jailings. The thrust of my point was as to the great numbers of people who demure from stepping in with deadly force. You need to go back and reread this thread. The subject of false convictions (as opposed to conspicuously small numbers of citizens using deadly force) is YOUR subject..not mine. You need to do your own research on these topics you find of interest.

Here is the original exchange between us--

Me-- "Few people (myself included) want to put themselves in that kind of position. You hear of very, VERY few stories where law-abiding citizens took the risk of applying deadly force."

You-- "Show me some studies or articles with statistics on how many law-abiding citizens have gone to jail for shooting armed intruders. Because I think that's another bogus assertion. But I'm willing to be enlightened -- so show me. Please."

Huh? Who made such an assertion? You've gotten it backwards. Again, you need to do your own homework assignments.

More importantly--your question is fundamentally useless for a discussion between our two worldviews. If I dig up numerous cases of folks who are in jail unjustly in the way libertarians would define it...you would merely point out that they were "legally convicted". Where would we go from there? Based on our differing worldviews, the whole conversation is obviously a non-starter. I'm not sure how you're missing that.

If you didn't realize what a 'dud' your chosen conversation topic was then tell me...how would you propose the two of us had gone about having this discussion? I would have pointed out hundreds and hundreds of cases which 'freedom' people have viewed as unjust arrest and imprisonment...and you would just sit there happily declaring--"But it was a duly constituted conviction."

After the fact, I did try to throw some helpful hints your way about some of the more obvious injustices regarding gun-related charges, Surely not all 80 million black people who have been sent to jail on gun charges were guilty. Alas, I can't get you to acknowledge that..and at this point the blood pressure's going up and you're introducing 'naughty' words.

If 75% of the DC population are law-abiding (I'm sure that's low) then there are a huge number of them who need adequate self-defense but have to do so "illegally". It's simple common sense to conclude that many blacks in America are unjustly convicted...and a huge percentage of those convictions obviously involve gun charges. And you're saying that's not true. In fairness, I don't believe you're racist. I just think your political correctness has you cornered and you're trying to cope.

Sweejak--

I appreciate that anecdote. There are obviously a hundred million of those kinds of stories, and anyone who pretends not to realize this is the state of things in America...is in a state of denial. Thanks

[on edit-- I think I notice a bit of a blind spot in my own perspective here because...when I originally stated there were very few citizens daring to use lethal force, I was overlooking all the people who live in these tragic war zones in many of our inner cities. There you find many citizens who not only dare to carry illegal weapons, they (as I would) obviously feel a great deal of pressure to do so.

I think I was subconsciously dismissing them as a practically indefensible in the eyes of those I am debating.--In other words, when a bunch of black guys start shooting at each other, most of the world (apparently including many PC libs?) write them all off as drug gangsters. So I shied away from citing those innocent blacks who are lost in this terrible mix...and guilty only of trying to survive.

But...you know what, more of us need to be pointing out the simple common sense fact that a great many peaceable law-abiding blacks (and Latinos) are getting caught in these violent scenarios and being unjustly lumped with the bad guys. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people, particularly blacks and Latinos, have been thrown in prison.]
rothbardian
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Sweejak » Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:53 am

Aside from the fact that pilots were disallowed the possibility of having a pistol on board only 2 months before 9-11, and assuming you believe the Flight 93 story....
is it ludicrous to describe those who brought down United 93 as belonging to the militia? As I noted in the essay, Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia: composition and classes" in its entirety (with emphases added) defines the militia as follows:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are —

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
But there is no reason why the general militia must remain unorganized. I also observed,
A well-regulated militia does not require a draft or any compulsory training. Nor, as Alexander Hamilton recognized, need training be universal. "To attempt such a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable extent, would be unwise," he wrote in Federalist 29, "and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured." But Congress has the constitutional power to create training programs in effective self-defense including training in small arms — marksmanship, tactics, and gun safety — for any American citizen who volunteers. Any guess how many millions would take weapons training at government expense or even for a modest fee if generally offered?
Maybe it's time (again) to think "outside the box" — or more accurately inside the box provided by the Constitution.

http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_ ... 1177020486

Well, I don't think I'd feel very comfortable on a plane where everyone is packing, but I don't like confined spaces at 30 thousand feet. A classroom would be a little creepy but I could probably get used to it, I'm ok on freeways where everyone is operating a machine that, while not intended to kill, can. I think most folks would leave their weapons at home, nobody really wants to be burdened with the extra responsibility when there is no deadly threat. I wouldn't have a problem with the pilots having a weapon, after all my life is already in his hands. I'd be ok with most teachers having access to one, which means the blue hats. There's a question in there somewhere, I guess it's this: How would your world view handle situations like aircraft where it is possible, and I imagine for most people, even myself, desirable to have gun control?
If there were true gun control a pilot wouldn't need one, but then, the hijackers used boxcutters.
User avatar
Sweejak
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:40 pm
Location: Border Region 5
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby rothbardian » Fri Apr 20, 2007 4:48 am

Sweejak--

If I understand your comments correctly...I think the culture would adjust and most or all of the 'stigma' of gun-carrying would evaporate. I know that's true because that's how it is in Switzerland. Everybody is armed to the gills...and there is no heavy, uncomfortable atmosphere of threat or danger. Lots of women would probably carry (concealed for the most part) if there were reasonable freedom to 'brandish' and/or use the weapon. The tragic crime of rape would decline drastically.

Paul Craig Roberts was recently describing American culture in his youth--

"One of my grandmothers thought nothing of me and my friends playing with the World War II weapons my uncle had brought back. My other grandmother never batted an eye when I collected my grandfather’s shotgun from behind the door and went off to match wits with the crows that raided the pecan trees or the poisonous cottonmouth snakes that could be found along the creek that ran through the farm."

As far as aircraft are concerned, it is my understanding that up until recent years, any police officer boarding a plane was allowed to carry his weapon and often did. I believe many airlines in many parts of the world have armed air marshals. I don't know if we still do here in the US.

When you say "true gun control" do you mean a scenario where virtually all guns in the world had been removed? I don't think that's possible. The technology exists--it can't unexist. And lots of people, particularly penitentiary veterans can make a gun almost out of anything. So...I find it very hard to argue it wouldn't have been greatly preferable for those doomed pilots from 9/11 to have had access to lethal force.

It's the mainstream (if you ask me) that has manufactured this whole hyped up deal about the "horrors" of self-defense. Mainstream academia, and the media, and Hollywood.

Typically what you see between Hollywood and leftist academia and such...is a great big fake Vaudeville act---Hollywood produces a huge avalanche of garish, gory, over-the-top violence flicks. Then academia and a parade of PC poltician/fakers sanctimoniously step forward to 'save the day'...denouncing the horrible evils of self-defense.

It's a big show for the sheeple. And two days into this VA, thing, I have very little doubt left that this has been a bloody, gory, satanic real-life theatre production:

Step 1-- Create mind-controlled madman.
Step 2-- BlueHats Inc./Bush/Cheney/assorted government psychopaths quickly come forward declaring--"Oopsie, we're going to need to clamp down BIG TIME on a bunch more of your freedoms."

By the way, have they posted this story at the other thread...about a previous college campus shooting in Virginia five years ago...before there were these on-campus prohibitions? A madman commenced shooting at the Virginia Appalachian School of Law...but he was only able to shoot three people before several students ran to their cars to retrieve weapons, and shut the guy down.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/ap ... killer.htm

I think it was" Dream's End" who was chiding me earlier about the mathematical odds of any students actually possessing weapons and successfully implementing those weapons. You out there, Dream's End?
rothbardian
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Dreams End » Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:05 am

Here ya go, Roth. I haven't actually read all this thread, but I was interested in the incredible coincidence of someone having a gun right when the shooter came out of Appalachian state. Here's what our heroic gunman said in an interview with Katy Couric:
Mr. BRIDGES: I went back to the classroom and told the students to get out, that there was a shooter in the building. We herded them out the–the back stairwell. At that time, me and Ted Besen went down the back stairwell, and my vehicle was parked in a parking spot between the shooter and the back stairwell. We seen the shooter, started to approach him, stopped at my vehicle, and got out my handgun, and started to approach Peter. At that time, Peter throwed up his hands and throwed his weapon down. Ted was first person to have contact with Peter, and Peter hit him one time in the face. So there was a little bit of a struggle there. After that, Ted pushed him back, me, Ted and another student, Todd Ross, took Peter to the ground and subdued him until we had some handcuffs to put him in.

COURIC: I should mention, Tracy, that you are a police officer, a trained police officer. You were one in–in North Carolina. And another student, I understand, who was able to help, Michael Gross, he handed you a pair of handcuffs so you could handcuff the suspect. Must have been incredibly fortuitous that you all had police training and a police background that you were able to–to act in such a–a quick and appropriate way.

Mr. BRIDGES: Yes, ma’am. It all kind of happened real fast. We, you know, just kind of done what we could at the time.
http://timlambert.org/cgi-bin/apla.cgi/ ... n/222.html


Damn Blue Hats.
Dreams End
 

for Roth

Postby professorpan » Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:40 am

Roth, here are some quotes from you:

Meanwhile if a madman breaks into my home with a gun...I would love to have the (effective) right to defend myself...a right that PC libs (and cons) have taken away, at this point.


Okay, explain why you don't have the (effective) right to defend yourself -- or admit you're talking trash.

There most certainly is a virtual gun ban. The reason being that the government has criminalized 99.9% of any sscenariowhere a citizen would be inclined to use a gun--


Really? 99% of any scenario? Then show me some statistics -- or admit, again, you're just parroting jingoistic propaganda.

If I shoot a gun-toting intruder in my home but he somehow staggers out the front door and collapses in the front yard...I am in great danger of being sent to prison for twenty years (or worse).


Again, you, my friend, made the claim. If you make the claim, you should have the cojones to back it up. Stop accusing me of failing to do your legwork and put up -- or admit you don't know what you're talking about.

If I shoot an intruder in my home in the darkness at 2 in the morning and it turns out he only had a stick in his hand (or something)...I'm in grave danger of being sent to prison for twenty years.

If I were to pull a gun out of my glove compartment and shoot a guy under almost ANY circumstances, no matter how dire (a violent carjacking attempt etc.)...it would an absolute toss of the dice as to whether I would be sent to prison, charged with homicide, or whatever.


See above. You'll have to pardon me if I don't just accept your words at face value.

Few people (myself included) want to put themselves in that kind of position. You hear of very, VERY few stories where law-abiding citizens took the risk of applying deadly force.


So, you're saying that gun-owning, law-abiding citizens are afraid of using their guns to protect themselves because they're afraid of going to jail? A guy hears someone breaking into his house in the middle of the night and he thinks to himself, "Jesus, I should get my gun to protect my wife and kids... but what if I get thrown in jail?! No, I'll leave my gun in the dresser drawer and accept what happens..."

C'mon, dude. Get real.

I repeat therefore--there is a virtual gun ban. The restrictions that currently exist as to when a person may use adequate self-defense measures are immoral and ridiculous.


Here are some facts you could find in just a few minutes of searching.

http://saf.org/LawReviews/SouthwickJr1.htm

Putting together all of these results, we find that there is a good correspondence among them. They are derived from different approaches, so that correspondence adds credibility to each method. Somewhere around 0.8 to 2.0 million violent crimes are deterred each year because of gun ownership and use by civilians. In addition, another 1.5 to 2.5 million crimes are stopped by armed civilians. There may be some overlap in these two categories because of the ways in which the data are collected, but there are almost certainly some two to four million fewer completed crimes each year as the result of civilian gun ownership. Returning to Figure 1, the numbers of crimes "A. Deterred by Police/Courts/Corrections" are unknown. The numbers in "B. Stopped by Police" are certainly quite low because police usually respond after the crime is completed. The numbers in "C. Deterred by Civilians" would seem to be around 0.8 to 2.0 million. The numbers in "D. Stopped by Civilians" are around 1.5 to 2.5 million. Finally, the numbers in "E. Completed Crimes" are about 3.5 million, based on NCVS data. Without the civilian guns being used to deter and stop crimes, the numbers of completed crimes could well double. It would undoubtedly be the case that increased gun ownership would further reduce crime. [Page 245]


And here is a good primer on what constitutes "use of force":

http://www.useofforce.us/4details/

And handgun law:

http://www.handgunlaw.us/

So, Roth, the onus is now on your to support your claim that there is a "virtual gun ban" and that "PC libs" have taken away your right to defend yourself. I've looked at the laws, and they are very specific about what constitutes the legal use of force, and nowhere do I see anything that supports your views.

So, I ask again -- back up your claims. Why is that so difficult?
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby rothbardian » Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:59 pm

Pan--

You're going around in circles, brushing past almost all of my statements, and creating new debates and topics after abandoning the ones where you were getting nowhere.

I hate to use the word "obnoxious" because I don't want to unnecessarily inject ill will into a debate...you're doing enough of that for the both of us and then some. But...this reminds me of your earlier alleged "incredulity" about my concerns over a recurring military draft throughout the history of this nation and my concern over my kids being forced into fighting neocon/'rollover'-lib wars sometime in the not-too-distant future. You sat there with a straight face, chiding me over my concerns--"There's no draft. What are you talking about?" George W. Bush couldn't have said it any better. You have the ability to look at 'black' and declare it 'white'.

You state-- "...show me some statistics -- or admit, again, you're just parroting jingoistic propaganda."

Do you seriously want me to go back over the statements I just made in our previous exchange? OK...but this is getting to a certain point...I have a life I need to get back--but here goes:

Pan, where would I get those "statistics" from? The government? You know...the one being run by George Bush? That government? I already know what their statistics indicate--they indicate that all 45 million (Washington DC) blacks they've thrown in jail for gun-related charges...are guilty.

If I cite sources that I go to for guidance...you would respond with a sneer. You would come back (possibly) with sources from corporate-controlled, elite-funded academia...sources that are so inept and so dumb they can't find a single anomaly from 9/11 indicating internal criminal activity, as one example. And you rely on these people's crime statistics?

The millions of us lowly ordinary folk who obviously have more common sense than these people, reserve the right to dismiss out-of-hand gigantic chunks of baloney that are emanating from these 'official' and 'credentialed' sources. Therefore...as...I...said...before...you are creating a complete and total non-starter discussion.

Dream's End--

Were you hoping you had found a fig leaf? Keep looking. I don't care if the guy was a party clown or danced for Chippendale's in his off-hours from being a student. He was student on-campus and he had a gun, and it wasn't even on him. He had to run to his car. And he still was able to save the day.

If that happens even in a 'gun-control' world...how much better the odds if even a small percentage of people chose to 'carry' in a free world. This anecdote sheds some light.

Your chiding point about having me ""dazzle" you with my mathematical skills was...that even if a small percentage of students carried weapons (let's see...1% of 9000 students= 90 gun-carriers) the odds were slim-to-none that they would do any good.

Here was your comment-- "...dazzle us with your mathematical skill. How many students would have to be armed on that campus of around 26,000 to give say a 50% chance of someone being armed and trained..."
rothbardian
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby rothbardian » Fri Apr 20, 2007 2:14 pm

And for that matter...even if there was an actual on-duty cop on campus (who had nevertheless left his gun in his car)...it still speaks clearly to the baffling argument that armed humans on-campus are of no use.

If students with weapons on campus are 'laughably' useless...why would it help then...to have people on campus who were wearing magical blue hats? It's all nonsense.
rothbardian
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby peng! » Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:02 pm

I have never been a proponent of gun use or possession.

But I tend to agree that the average person with a gun isn't going to use it routinely for violent purposes. If I had been in one of those classrooms, I sure would have liked to have a friend with a gun by my side who knew how to use it.

And I have to say that long before the fall of 2001 I started to distrust the people with "the magical blue hats." If average people can't own guns, then I don't want those people carrying them either.
peng!
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:59 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 170 guests