Norm
Senior FZ6 Advisor
Thank you.:thumbup:
-
Welcome to the Yamaha FZ6 Forums. Member registration disables ads and allows you to post and share. Register Here.
As Don King Used to Say
- Thread starter Norm
- Start date
Thank you.:thumbup:
W
wrightme43
Again I have to go back to the simple fact that a disassembled gun locked in a safe is a piece of steel with no value. Almost 100,000 forceable rapes in the US each year are reported. Unknown the number that are not reported. Here is a intersting fact. For a forcible rape to occur that means the police did not stop it from happening. No one stopped it. A woman with a concealed weapons permit, that has her gun with her is very very very very unlikely to be raped. Your idea removes this option from her.
Your plan allows the largest, strongest, and most violent to rule. It is a horrible idea, and just wrong.
Here is another neat little tidbit of info. People with CCDW are upstanding citizens, have went thru training, made a effort to understand the use of deadly force, paid lic. fees, and are very very very very under represented in the commision of crime.
Its sorta like that ATGATT deal. If you need it you cant go home and get it, but 99.9999999999% of the time you dont need it.
All your plan does is remove the ability to defend themselves from those who follow the law and give those who disobey it more power.
That in my mind makes it a flawed plan, that will cause damage.
W
wrightme43
Monster gets 422 years for 19-hour rape and torture of Columbia student
Two Teens Held In Gang-Rape Of Mother, Torture Of Son - West Palm Beach News Story - WPBF West Palm Beach
Inn maid says she witnessed rape, torture of woman - Latest News - The Grand Rapids Press - MLive.com
Should these people have no right to defend themselves? Should they have to ask thier attacker to please hold on a moment while I go to my safe, open it, reassemble my gun, load it, and then we can try this again??????????????
That is just a horrible idea. It is a proven ineffective and daminingly wrong idea.
The right to the means of self defense, and the ability to carry it out are needed.
Two Teens Held In Gang-Rape Of Mother, Torture Of Son - West Palm Beach News Story - WPBF West Palm Beach
Inn maid says she witnessed rape, torture of woman - Latest News - The Grand Rapids Press - MLive.com
Should these people have no right to defend themselves? Should they have to ask thier attacker to please hold on a moment while I go to my safe, open it, reassemble my gun, load it, and then we can try this again??????????????
That is just a horrible idea. It is a proven ineffective and daminingly wrong idea.
The right to the means of self defense, and the ability to carry it out are needed.
CoFZ6
Junior Newbie Trainee
That's an interesting attitude. Don't you Brits remember how the US had to send guns to your country at the start of WWII since your citizenry had no weapons to defend themselves from possible German invasion? It's sad you didn't learn your lesson then and are willing to make the same mistake again.
simonwb
Back in black
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2008
- Messages
- 254
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Leicestershire, England
Interesting take on history. Over here, we believe the Germans called off any invasion of England after they lost air superiority in the Battle of Britain Battle of Britain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which ended in October 1940 and in which predominantly British pilots flew in British Spitfires and Hurricanes.
The US didn't join the war until late 1941. Of course, we recognise and salute the sacrifices you and other nations made in lives and material to finish the war in 1945.
You imply a link - one I hadn't thought of before, but which I think may hold water - between a country allowing its citizens to carry guns and having a large standing armed forces.
haha wow man. gettin ready for that Civil War in the year 2097 already huh?
the very same problem could be addressed by simply having the government stockpile weapons and distribute them in wartime in the face of imminent invasion. no sense arming your contry TO THE TEETH when there are no wars being fought or even looming in the background.
here i will give my general opinion on the matter:
i think people should have the right to own handguns or rifles or shotguns or whatever. but it should be regulated more so than just stopping at your local walmart and buying a handgun. I know criminals and drug dealers will get guns no matter what. that is not what i am trying to stop. I am just trying to make it harder for that accountant to buy a gun to kill his wife. or the guy who shoots up his school. or the guy who shoots up his workplace. in many of those cases making it hard to buy the weapons will prevent at least some of those incidents.
i think people should have the right to own handguns or rifles or shotguns or whatever. but it should be regulated more so than just stopping at your local walmart and buying a handgun. I know criminals and drug dealers will get guns no matter what. that is not what i am trying to stop. I am just trying to make it harder for that accountant to buy a gun to kill his wife. or the guy who shoots up his school. or the guy who shoots up his workplace. in many of those cases making it hard to buy the weapons will prevent at least some of those incidents.
SovietRobot
Scourge Of Humanity
The U.S. didn't officially join the war until '41, but we were selling/loaning Britain guns and planes since the start of it.
There's a reason it was called a World War, the fate of it could not be decided by one or two countries alone.
Had Britain gone up against nazi germany alone, it probably would have fallen.
You have to be thankful that the third reich was just way too greedy, and was waging too many battles in too many places to really win.
Hitler was playing Chess on 4 different tables, where each table had its own chessmaster.
SovietRobot
Scourge Of Humanity
You're assuming the government(the people in power) are thinking of every citizen's well being, and not their own grip on power.
What if the citizens try to overthrow the government, or more likely, what if the government initiates Martial Law? Do you think they're going to hand out weapons to its enemy(oh I mean citizens)?
Of course I'm speaking completely theoretically.
SovietRobot
Scourge Of Humanity
The only thing to blame in those situations is society, and human nature itself.
Putting the blame on a TOOL and not the PERPETRATOR is a bad habit to get into.
Sure, a gun is an easy impersonal tool to commit a desperate act with, but it's no different than an axe, a knife, a rope, a chainsaw, prescription drugs, or...society itself.
W
wrightme43
And the accountant who has decided to kill his wife, will just go Oh, oh well I guess I will go home and have a nice piece of pie instead?????? Seriously think that thru a bit. If he is going to kill his wife, and has made the decision to kill his wife, is she going to be any less dead if he uses a bat, poison, knife, concrete block, rope, electricity, carbon monoxide and on and on?
Guns are very regulated. It is not as simple as just walking in and walking out. Again there is a process in place that keeps guns from dangerous people. It is the law. The law is not obeyed by dangerous people. Law enforcement responds AFTER a crime has been commited. Captures the perpetrator if they can, and then the Justice system determines, guilt and punishment.
Guns are a whole different thing. In the hads of law abiding citizens they can PREVENT crime commited by the unlawful.
Lets boil it down.
You are at home. Your front door is kicked in, two masked men enter. Do you
A. Do whatever they ask and hope for a chance to call 911 and wait 10 minute if you are so lucky to be allowed a chance to phone for help.
B. Shoot them.
Would you rather your wife, daughter, girlfriend?
A. Be raped and make a police report
B. Shoot them
You have a choice to defend your own life or to farm that defense out to others.
Violence still must be commited. You are still responsible for the violence you have only farmed the act out to the police force.
Another way to put that.
When seconds count, the police are only a few minutes away.
Yes I know I am a jerk. I am asking you questions you can not win answering in any other way than I want. I know this. I want you to think about your answer and search inside yourself as to what you would really do. I know what I would do. I made the decision that I will protect my own life, and the lives of those I love.
Read this if you like.
And that is where ethics and psychology bring us back to the bearing of arms. For causality runs both ways here; the dignity of a free man is what makes one ethically competent to bear arms, and the act of bearing arms promotes (by teaching its hard and subtle lessons) the inner qualities that compose the dignity of a free man.
It is not always so, of course. There is a 3% or so of psychotics, drug addicts, and criminal deviants who are incapable of the dignity of free men. Arms in the hands of such as these do not promote virtue, but are merely instruments of tragedy and destruction. But so, too, are cars. And kitchen knives. And bricks. The ethically incompetent readily (and effectively) find other means to destroy and terrorize when denied arms. And when civilian arms are banned, they more readily find helpless victims.
But for the other 97%, the bearing of arms functions not merely as an assertion of power but as a fierce and redemptive discipline. When sudden death hangs inches from your right hand, you become much more careful, more mindful, and much more peaceful in your heart — because you know that if you are thoughtless or sloppy in your actions or succumb to bad temper, people will die.
Too many of us have come to believe ourselves incapable of this discipline. We fall prey to the sick belief that we are all psychopaths or incompetents under the skin. We have been taught to imagine ourselves armed only as villains, doomed to succumb to our own worst nature and kill a loved one in a moment of carelessness or rage. Or to end our days holed up in a mall listening to police bullhorns as some SWAT sniper draws a bead...
But it's not so. To believe this is to ignore the actual statistics and generative patterns of weapons crimes. Virtually never, writes criminologist Don B. Kates, are murderers the ordinary, law-abiding people against whom gun bans are aimed. Almost without exception, murderers are extreme aberrants with lifelong histories of crime, substance abuse, psychopathology, mental retardation and/or irrational violence against those around them, as well as other hazardous behavior, e.g., automobile and gun accidents.
To believe one is incompetent to bear arms is, therefore, to live in corroding and almost always needless fear of the self — in fact, to affirm oneself a moral coward. A state further from the dignity of a free man would be rather hard to imagine. It is as a way of exorcising this demon, of reclaiming for ourselves the dignity and courage and ethical self-confidence of free (wo)men that the bearing of personal arms, is, ultimately, most important.
This is the final ethical lesson of bearing arms: that right choices are possible, and the ordinary judgement of ordinary (wo)men is sufficient to make them
Ethics from the Barrel of a Gun
Guns are very regulated. It is not as simple as just walking in and walking out. Again there is a process in place that keeps guns from dangerous people. It is the law. The law is not obeyed by dangerous people. Law enforcement responds AFTER a crime has been commited. Captures the perpetrator if they can, and then the Justice system determines, guilt and punishment.
Guns are a whole different thing. In the hads of law abiding citizens they can PREVENT crime commited by the unlawful.
Lets boil it down.
You are at home. Your front door is kicked in, two masked men enter. Do you
A. Do whatever they ask and hope for a chance to call 911 and wait 10 minute if you are so lucky to be allowed a chance to phone for help.
B. Shoot them.
Would you rather your wife, daughter, girlfriend?
A. Be raped and make a police report
B. Shoot them
You have a choice to defend your own life or to farm that defense out to others.
Violence still must be commited. You are still responsible for the violence you have only farmed the act out to the police force.
Another way to put that.
When seconds count, the police are only a few minutes away.
Yes I know I am a jerk. I am asking you questions you can not win answering in any other way than I want. I know this. I want you to think about your answer and search inside yourself as to what you would really do. I know what I would do. I made the decision that I will protect my own life, and the lives of those I love.
Read this if you like.
And that is where ethics and psychology bring us back to the bearing of arms. For causality runs both ways here; the dignity of a free man is what makes one ethically competent to bear arms, and the act of bearing arms promotes (by teaching its hard and subtle lessons) the inner qualities that compose the dignity of a free man.
It is not always so, of course. There is a 3% or so of psychotics, drug addicts, and criminal deviants who are incapable of the dignity of free men. Arms in the hands of such as these do not promote virtue, but are merely instruments of tragedy and destruction. But so, too, are cars. And kitchen knives. And bricks. The ethically incompetent readily (and effectively) find other means to destroy and terrorize when denied arms. And when civilian arms are banned, they more readily find helpless victims.
But for the other 97%, the bearing of arms functions not merely as an assertion of power but as a fierce and redemptive discipline. When sudden death hangs inches from your right hand, you become much more careful, more mindful, and much more peaceful in your heart — because you know that if you are thoughtless or sloppy in your actions or succumb to bad temper, people will die.
Too many of us have come to believe ourselves incapable of this discipline. We fall prey to the sick belief that we are all psychopaths or incompetents under the skin. We have been taught to imagine ourselves armed only as villains, doomed to succumb to our own worst nature and kill a loved one in a moment of carelessness or rage. Or to end our days holed up in a mall listening to police bullhorns as some SWAT sniper draws a bead...
But it's not so. To believe this is to ignore the actual statistics and generative patterns of weapons crimes. Virtually never, writes criminologist Don B. Kates, are murderers the ordinary, law-abiding people against whom gun bans are aimed. Almost without exception, murderers are extreme aberrants with lifelong histories of crime, substance abuse, psychopathology, mental retardation and/or irrational violence against those around them, as well as other hazardous behavior, e.g., automobile and gun accidents.
To believe one is incompetent to bear arms is, therefore, to live in corroding and almost always needless fear of the self — in fact, to affirm oneself a moral coward. A state further from the dignity of a free man would be rather hard to imagine. It is as a way of exorcising this demon, of reclaiming for ourselves the dignity and courage and ethical self-confidence of free (wo)men that the bearing of personal arms, is, ultimately, most important.
This is the final ethical lesson of bearing arms: that right choices are possible, and the ordinary judgement of ordinary (wo)men is sufficient to make them
Ethics from the Barrel of a Gun
W
wrightme43
Or another way.
Do you believe that we who own guns will kill or harm those we love because we are upset? Or out of carelessness?
We are not careless, we are not insane and incapable of controlling our own actions. I am a human being with all the frailities that intails, but also all the intelligence, and reason that intails as well.
When pushed and I can leave I walk away. I have never in my life hit a woman, and I see no reason why I ever would. I have control over my mind and body. I do not and will not accept that humans are inherrantly evil beings only waiting for a reason to go insane and on a shooting rampage. Those are aberations.
Do you believe that we who own guns will kill or harm those we love because we are upset? Or out of carelessness?
We are not careless, we are not insane and incapable of controlling our own actions. I am a human being with all the frailities that intails, but also all the intelligence, and reason that intails as well.
When pushed and I can leave I walk away. I have never in my life hit a woman, and I see no reason why I ever would. I have control over my mind and body. I do not and will not accept that humans are inherrantly evil beings only waiting for a reason to go insane and on a shooting rampage. Those are aberations.
valid points, for sure.
perhaps i wasnt clear enough. i agree with much of what you say and agree guns have a place in homes. i also agree that in many instances people who were going to say, kill their wives, would do so anyway either with a gun, concrete block, whatever.
the events i was saying could be prevented by making getting a gun harder to do are scenarios where you have people that are still not completely bat-**** insane. they are people who are looking to vent somehow. or they are just really extremely angry. if these people have free or easy access to firearms, a gun is EASIER to kill someone with than pounding their head in with a concrete block.
if i told you to kill someone in cold blood and for whatever reason you agreed to do it (i am forcing your hand somehow) you would probably choose a gun over a concrete block. killing with guns is much easier than with manual-force objects. they are more like "press a button and person dies" than would be a chain-saw or block or knife or other TOOLS.
if the tool is so easy to kill with that it would be used to hurt or kill or threaten someone with then that means in SOME scenarios a person would do something he would not have otherwise have done with the more difficult to use manual weapons/tools. those instances would have been prevented by making guns harder to get a hold of. in canada we have less of those "whoa that is messed up" crimes than you guys have in the states. FAR less even on the per-capita scale. nobody shoots anyone else in traffic.
how many people shoot other people in traffic over road rage? well in canada i could probably count that on one hand for all instances over the past 100 years in our ENTIRE country. in the US i am sure you would need your second hand before the end of the year.
perhaps i wasnt clear enough. i agree with much of what you say and agree guns have a place in homes. i also agree that in many instances people who were going to say, kill their wives, would do so anyway either with a gun, concrete block, whatever.
the events i was saying could be prevented by making getting a gun harder to do are scenarios where you have people that are still not completely bat-**** insane. they are people who are looking to vent somehow. or they are just really extremely angry. if these people have free or easy access to firearms, a gun is EASIER to kill someone with than pounding their head in with a concrete block.
if i told you to kill someone in cold blood and for whatever reason you agreed to do it (i am forcing your hand somehow) you would probably choose a gun over a concrete block. killing with guns is much easier than with manual-force objects. they are more like "press a button and person dies" than would be a chain-saw or block or knife or other TOOLS.
if the tool is so easy to kill with that it would be used to hurt or kill or threaten someone with then that means in SOME scenarios a person would do something he would not have otherwise have done with the more difficult to use manual weapons/tools. those instances would have been prevented by making guns harder to get a hold of. in canada we have less of those "whoa that is messed up" crimes than you guys have in the states. FAR less even on the per-capita scale. nobody shoots anyone else in traffic.
how many people shoot other people in traffic over road rage? well in canada i could probably count that on one hand for all instances over the past 100 years in our ENTIRE country. in the US i am sure you would need your second hand before the end of the year.
P.S. wright you should change your avatar to this:
W
wrightme43
LOL
An illustrative case is Warren v. District of Columbia, in which three rape victims sued the city under the following facts: Two of the victims were upstairs when they heard the other being attacked by men who had broken in downstairs. From an upstairs telephone, the two roommates made several calls to the police. Half an hour passed and their roommate's screams ceased; they assumed the police must have arrived. In fact, however, their calls had been lost in the shuffle while the roommate was being beaten into silent acquiescence. When her roommates went downstairs to see to her, as the court's opinion describes it, "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands" of their attackers.
Having set out these facts, the District of Columbia's highest court nevertheless exonerated the District and its police, noting that it is
An illustrative case is Warren v. District of Columbia, in which three rape victims sued the city under the following facts: Two of the victims were upstairs when they heard the other being attacked by men who had broken in downstairs. From an upstairs telephone, the two roommates made several calls to the police. Half an hour passed and their roommate's screams ceased; they assumed the police must have arrived. In fact, however, their calls had been lost in the shuffle while the roommate was being beaten into silent acquiescence. When her roommates went downstairs to see to her, as the court's opinion describes it, "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands" of their attackers.
Having set out these facts, the District of Columbia's highest court nevertheless exonerated the District and its police, noting that it is
a fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.
Care to discuss this one????? lets post it again
a fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.
Just in case someone missed it.
a fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.
14 hours of rape and torture AFTER calling the police.
Care to discuss this one????? lets post it again
a fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.
Just in case someone missed it.
a fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.
14 hours of rape and torture AFTER calling the police.
simonwb
Back in black
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2008
- Messages
- 254
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Leicestershire, England
Er, no.
"Lend-Lease (Public Law 77-11)[1] was the name of the program under which the United States of America supplied the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, China, France and other Allied nations with vast amounts of war material between 1941 and 1945 in return for, in the case of Britain, military bases in Newfoundland, Bermuda, and the British West Indies. It began in March 1941, over 18 months after the outbreak of the war in September 1939."
My emphasis. Source:
Lend-Lease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Still, don't get me wrong. I'd much rather live in a world with the US as superpower than, say, China.
that must have been a response to someone else i believe.
as i said:
and then went on to clarify my point.
my only issue is giving guns out like toilet paper in stores. just checking if someone has a crim record isnt enough imo. sure going a little bit further may or may not be EXTREMELY effective but it will be partially effective. what we have in canada is a good system (no NOT the gun registry that was a massive blunder)
W
wrightme43
Again you need to go back to WHO is shooting who in road rage incidents in traffic. The guns that are being used are in the overwhelming majority of cases, stolen and owned by gangs.
You are buying into the theory that humans are incapable of controlling thier own actions and that we are prone to harming others over slight insult. It is just not true. INSANE people, and Criminals are. Should the sane ones give up thier right to defense while the insane continue to cause harm?
You and many others have it backwards. The gun is only a chunk of steel. The bullet a small lead object. The eye and hand that use the tool are the danger. Madmen are dangerous. Let us therefore ban mad men from society.
But but but it is said that we have laws in place to ban mad men from society.
Are they working?
Are gun laws keeping mad men from getting guns?
Who do they keep from getting guns? People who follow the law.
So here we are back again.
The I got mad and shot my wife deal is a bunch of crap. If a man gets mad and shoots his wife he is insane, he will have a record of violence against other human beings in 99 out of 100 cases. He should not have a gun to begin with.
You are buying into the theory that humans are incapable of controlling thier own actions and that we are prone to harming others over slight insult. It is just not true. INSANE people, and Criminals are. Should the sane ones give up thier right to defense while the insane continue to cause harm?
You and many others have it backwards. The gun is only a chunk of steel. The bullet a small lead object. The eye and hand that use the tool are the danger. Madmen are dangerous. Let us therefore ban mad men from society.
But but but it is said that we have laws in place to ban mad men from society.
Are they working?
Are gun laws keeping mad men from getting guns?
Who do they keep from getting guns? People who follow the law.
So here we are back again.
The I got mad and shot my wife deal is a bunch of crap. If a man gets mad and shoots his wife he is insane, he will have a record of violence against other human beings in 99 out of 100 cases. He should not have a gun to begin with.
W
wrightme43
Oh hey Lone I am not trying to beat on you, I just want you to understand why I feel like giving guns is in the worst intrest of society.
