Re: government milk: guns (vastly off-topic)

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Your method of making no distinction between the two is pure trickery, not

>the reverse.

Your argument is that there should be no gun control. Therefore, to argue

that no gun control would result in a depression of crime based on legal

gun ownership stats is questionable at best.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>What I should have said is the

>harms outweight the benefits. Say, an abusive spouse or partner is

>threatening a woman and she gets a restraining order, tries to get a gun

>to protect

>herself, needs to wait for a waiting period, and dies the next day.

>www.armedandsecure.org discusses one such anecdote, and supplies some

>stats. It appears

>they'd be better without them. It discusses such scenarios in the LA riots

>too, under " debate center " .

I'm not disputing that there are some situations in which people would

benefit from not having to deal with a waiting period. You are assuming,

however, that there are more threatened people who would be hurt or killed

if not for waiting periods than there are people who would hurt or kill

without waiting periods, but you haven't offered any justification for that

assumption. It appears to be faith-based, or doctrinal, rather than

empirical or logical.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/18/04 7:14:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> You shouldn't do " active reistance " -- just shoot the guy?

No, I'm comparing gun resistance alone, to the average of all forms of

resistance, because I only saw stats for gun resistance alone.

There are three categories I'm speaking of:

-- using a gun

-- being passive (complicit)

-- resisting (including guns, but also pepper spray, fists, etc)

Using a gun makes you 2.5 times safer than being passive. Resisting makes

you slightly more likely to get hurt than being passive. That seems to indicate

that not only are guns far more protective than pepper spray and other forms

of resistance, but most forms of non-gun resistance are actually dangerous.

But no, of course you don't just shoot the guy, and generally don't need to.

Millions of people a year use guns effectively to defend themselves against

criminals-- far, far, far more than who die from gun violence-- and something

like 90% of them effectively get the criminal to flee simply by brandishing the

gun and nothing more.

I'd tend

> to agree, " shoot first " would put me less at risk of getting shot

> myself. But when are you authorized to use deadly force?

> Mainly when the person is using deadly force on you. If you shoot

> an unarmed guy -- even if he COULD kill you with his bare hands --

> you will likely end up in jail. And if I shoot someone's attacking

> dog (a more common scenario) THAT would land me in all

> kinds of trouble.

Better than getting mauled. But the effectiveness of guns is primarily

non-violent. Most of the time, just pulling out the gun will prevent an attack.

More importantly, as gun holdings rise, especially concealed holdings, over

time, crime goes down continually, even years after the change in law. That

shows that the more commonly a criminal finds himself attacking an armed person,

the more the word gets spread among the criminal folks that they better move to

a different state where they can prey on unarmed people, so the effect is

exponential in a way-- for every one person who defends themselves with a gun,

many more are saved.

>

> The police are using pepper spray and tasers now for crowd

> control, and unless the person is really on crack or something,

> they are pretty debilitating, and much simpler for a " shoot first "

> paradigm. I'd be much more willing to shoot a guy following

> me with a taser than to kill him.

That's not a bad idea. Pepper spray isn't such a good idea, unless you can

run fast. If anyone sprayed me with pepper spray, I'd certainly want to kill

them if I ever saw them again, were I the type to attack anyone. Speaking of

pepper spray, the LAPD is trying to ban gas masks at protests-- they want to be

able to debilitate whoever they want and make sure its effective. That's

just disgusting.

>

> But also ... women carrying guns usually get TRAINING. Women

> carrying pepper spray usually don't. Women aren't very good

> at self-defense without training.

Training is definitely good for anything. Still, usually the criminal flees

at the sight of the gun. Guns are uniquely protective in that sense.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/18/04 7:15:34 PM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> >It sure would if the black man had a gun.

>

> Glad you included if.

It's important. Had they suspected it reasonable the black man was armed,

they wouldn't have risked attacking him. Guns don't *cause* people to drive

people tied to trucks, and they do prevent other forms of death, and as gun

ownership increases among the population in total, rather than just criminals,

attacks like that or of any kind become less likely.

> >You can feed your family but protecting your family is a societal ill?

> Why

> >even feed your family if you'll let them be murdered by an intruder?

>

> You're twisting and assuming totally wrong. Point your finger and make me

> the bad guy.

I'm not making you the bad guy. Did you not say that self-protection was a

societal ill? I was responding to what you explicitly wrote. If you didn't

mean that, either I read it wrong, or you didn't write what you meant very

clearly.

> Hope he's no relation to Trent Lott who embarassed the heck out of the Bush

> administration with a racist comment then resigned.

I doubt it. Unless you have some reason to think so, it's not very fair to

him to suggest it. Especially since you seem to be implying, for no particular

reason, that there is some association between gun advocacy or advocacy of

certain policies towards guns, and racism.

> >Using a gun to protect yourself against someone else attempting to

> initiate

> >violence is defense, not offense.

>

> Not in a house in Massachusetts. It's self preservation and liberty, not

> going to jail and not giving an opening to the system mill to grind you up.

> What I haven't read and haven't experienced can't have anything to do with

> learning that.

I'm not sure what you're saying.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>Statistics show you're wrong. Women who defend themselves with a gun are 2.5

>times LESS likely to be hurt than women who engage in passive complicity,

>whereas women who engage in active resistance including guns and all other

forms

>are MORE likely to be hurt than women who are complicit. That means that

>using fists, knives, pepper spray, etc, is dangerous, while guns are safe.

I'm not sure what that means, " Women who defend themselves with a gun are 2.5

times LESS likely to be hurt than women who engage in passive complicity,

whereas women who engage in active resistance including guns "

You shouldn't do " active reistance " -- just shoot the guy? I'd tend

to agree, " shoot first " would put me less at risk of getting shot

myself. But when are you authorized to use deadly force?

Mainly when the person is using deadly force on you. If you shoot

an unarmed guy -- even if he COULD kill you with his bare hands --

you will likely end up in jail. And if I shoot someone's attacking

dog (a more common scenario) THAT would land me in all

kinds of trouble.

The police are using pepper spray and tasers now for crowd

control, and unless the person is really on crack or something,

they are pretty debilitating, and much simpler for a " shoot first "

paradigm. I'd be much more willing to shoot a guy following

me with a taser than to kill him.

But also ... women carrying guns usually get TRAINING. Women

carrying pepper spray usually don't. Women aren't very good

at self-defense without training.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

From: <ChrisMasterjohn@...>

> It sure would if the black man had a gun.

Glad you included if.

>

> You can feed your family but protecting your family is a societal ill?

Why

> even feed your family if you'll let them be murdered by an intruder?

You're twisting and assuming totally wrong. Point your finger and make me

the bad guy.

>

>

> at www.armedandsecure.org for a citation.

Hope he's no relation to Trent Lott who embarassed the heck out of the Bush

administration with a racist comment then resigned.

>

> Using a gun to protect yourself against someone else attempting to

initiate

> violence is defense, not offense.

Not in a house in Massachusetts. It's self preservation and liberty, not

going to jail and not giving an opening to the system mill to grind you up.

What I haven't read and haven't experienced can't have anything to do with

learning that.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/19/04 1:05:10 AM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> That still doesn't make sense. How is " resisting " using a gun different

> from " using a gun " ?

It isn't. The action of using the gun is exactly the same, only one statisic

counts guns only, and the other lumps guns together with all the othe forms

of resistance. Since I didn't come across statistics for the individual kinds

of resistance, I'm forced to extrapolate from the " lumped " figure what the

effect of the non-gun resistances is.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>There are three categories I'm speaking of:

>-- using a gun

>-- being passive (complicit)

>-- resisting (including guns, but also pepper spray, fists, etc)

>

>Using a gun makes you 2.5 times safer than being passive. Resisting makes

>you slightly more likely to get hurt than being passive. That seems to

indicate

>that not only are guns far more protective than pepper spray and other forms

>of resistance, but most forms of non-gun resistance are actually dangerous.

That still doesn't make sense. How is " resisting " using a gun different

from " using a gun " ?

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Heidi Schuppenhauer wrote:

> Granted you haven't read the book, I'd guess the folks who get

> " legalized " guns are not the drug dealing punks? So if old ladies and

> normal folk

> get more concealed weapons, then the punks will be less likely to

> abuse them? That does make sense.

>

> Though I'm not sure it requires a GUN to do it. Any weapon

> might do.

Are you familiar with the expression " bringing a knife to a gun fight? "

> I do think most women are 'easy targets' for a predator.

> I dislike guns because it requires a life/death decision, and most

> of the " enemies " I've encountered, like racoons and mean dogs

> and self-exposers, aren't ones I want to kill.

Well, yeah, but you live in rural Washington. People living in other

areas may require different tools.

> My Mom, interestingly, got held up at gunpoint. She got behind the

> kid and started yelling and he ran. She is not an easy target.

I'm glad it turned out well, but for future reference, resisting an

attacker who is armed with a gun, even if you have a gun yourself, is

very dangerous.

[Guest guest]

>It isn't. The action of using the gun is exactly the same, only one statisic

>counts guns only, and the other lumps guns together with all the othe forms

>of resistance. Since I didn't come across statistics for the individual kinds

>of resistance, I'm forced to extrapolate from the " lumped " figure what the

>effect of the non-gun resistances is.

>

>Chris

Hmm .. different studies, different subjects, different ways

of accounting for data .. it would need a lot more proof

then that if we were talking diet.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>I'm glad it turned out well, but for future reference, resisting an

>attacker who is armed with a gun, even if you have a gun yourself, is

>very dangerous.

But if they DON'T have a gun, a good taser would knock them out.

Or some other non-fatal weapon invented in the future. That's

the illogic I haven't been able to sort out. Most of the

real attacks I've heard of have been at gunpoint, in which

case it is too late to draw a weapon (though in the cases

I know of personally, the " victim " got away via verbal

abuse, amazingly enough). And if you are walking down

a dark alley, you can't very well keep a gun half drawn

" just in case " .

Oh well. In this neck of the woods a lot of women DO

keep a gun in their handbags. Me, I can't find my wallet

half the time, I can't see how I'd find a weapon either.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Heidi Schuppenhauer wrote:

>> I'm glad it turned out well, but for future reference, resisting an

>> attacker who is armed with a gun, even if you have a gun yourself, is

>> very dangerous.

>

> But if they DON'T have a gun, a good taser would knock them out.

> Or some other non-fatal weapon invented in the future.

The problem with this is that the possibility of a target armed with a

fatal weapon tends to put some fear of god into would-be criminals in a

way that non-fatal weapons can't. Don't underestimate the deterrent

effect.

> That's

> the illogic I haven't been able to sort out. Most of the

> real attacks I've heard of have been at gunpoint, in which

> case it is too late to draw a weapon.

Guns are more or less useless in a situation like that. They can be very

useful when the attacker is unarmed or armed with a knife (in which case

the gun is a better bet than the taser). For most women, an encounter

with an unarmed man of even average size could potentially be deadly,

and has been on many occasions. Also, even if it's a losing proposition

for the victim on average, the possibility of a less-rational victim

drawing a gun and killing a gun-wielding attacker serves as a deterrent.

> (though in the cases

> I know of personally, the " victim " got away via verbal

> abuse, amazingly enough).

I wouldn't be surprised if it worked--criminals aren't the most stable

people in the world. On the other hand, I'd just as soon not try it, for

the same reason.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/19/04 3:26:48 AM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Hmm .. different studies, different subjects, different ways

> of accounting for data .. it would need a lot more proof

> then that if we were talking diet.

There's actually no reason to think it's different studies; I think it's more

likely that in the secondary sources I read, they were using the same data

and grouping it in different ways.

That said, each comparison

-- resisting with a gun makes you 2.5 times safer

-- resisting makes you slightly less safe than complicity

are each solid comparisons from one set of data. So, while my suspicon about

pepper spray remains without solid foundation, it is safe to say that using a

gun, statistically, is less dangerous than not using one, not more dangerous.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>>>>Suze-

(Excuse me, Suez, or Soozey... ;->)

----------->hahahah. jerry seinfeld, look out.

<weg>

>-------->if that is the case then why outlaw *gun ownership*? it's the

>*people* that need " fixing " in that scenario, not the law (or lack

thereof).

>>>>>Why are you arguing the point with me? I've never advocated banning

guns.

---->ah, OK, i misinterpreted your statement then.

>>>> In fact, I think a lot of gun control laws are grievously flawed,

and I object to the idea that gun ownership is by definition the

problem. I'm also a big fan of hunting (I'm not presently a hunter myself,

but I've enjoyed it and I think it's an essential part of a well-managed

ecology, not to mention being a valuable food source, at least if pollution

were adequately controlled) and I don't disagree that personal defense is a

rational goal. That doesn't mean I think everyone should be running around

with assault weapons, rocket launchers and tactical nukes.

----->neither do i, fwiw!

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/19/04 6:17:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> So a gun would have meant that any man would have been less likely to be

> attacked, tied and dragged to death.

Absolutely.

Do you think there are alternatives

> better than a country of concealed weapon armed individuals?

Until you enumerate the flaws of such a system, I can't answer.

Reason I ask is

> we were told once an alarm system would be good defense. I equated it with

> putting a pacifier in a crying baby's mouth. Temporarily puts a bandaid on

> the problem, so the real or root problem can be ignored, put aside, made

> believe its not there and someone not everyone can feel safe and secure.

Exactly. The root of the problem is that there is a criminal who believes

they can get away with robbing your house without getting shot. Leaving a light

on and a sign that says the owner has a gun would probably work just as well!

:-P

> Didn't want to hear an alarm was a great tool or weapon of neglect of

> society.Going along with it condones the neglect and contributes to changing

> the world to how I choose it not to be.

But you can't " choose " for the world not to have criminals. That's

unfortuante, but a simple fact.

> You turned it around in an accusatory manner implying me to be neglectful.

> I

> meant there would be no reason to self protect if society was not ill. All

> interpreted above.

Your initial statement was gone from the email, so I didn't bother including

the rest. Suffice it to say that your initial statement didn't make your

meaning clear. That may have been my fault or yours, but it doesn't matter now

that we've cleared it up.

You assume that the presence of malice is an " ill " of society, as if society

could be structured in a way to ensure the absence of malice. That is simply

not true. Malice has always existed in every single society on the face of

the planet, and always will for the duration of human existence, because malice

is a part of the spectrum of possible human intents.

Hunter-gatherer societies have much higher murder rates than the worst of our

societies by the accounts of every serious anthropologist who has studied

them. Thus, the savage is not so " noble " after all.

> >>Hope he's no relation to Trent Lott who embarassed the heck out of the

> >>Bush administration with a racist comment then resigned.

>

> >I doubt it. Unless you have some reason to think so, it's not very fair to

> >him to suggest it. Especially since you seem to be implying, for no

> particular

> >reason, that there is some association between gun advocacy or advocacy of

> >certain policies towards guns, and racism.

>

> Wonder about motivation besides freedom and rights in any kind of campaign.

> Can't see how fear can not be involved.

It isn't fear, it's pragmatism: gun legalization lowers crime. From a

pragmatic viewpoint, if you are compassionate, and want less crime, or if you

seek

stability, and consider crime to produce instability, then the correct policy

is to legalize concealed weapons.

From an ethical viewpoint, the state should not have the power to monopolize

gun possession, or any other behavior.

Fear can be simply unfamiliarity

> with something. Fear of change.

It's appropriate to fear a change that will result in more violent crime and

more tyranny of the state. Gun control would be one such change. Were fear

not adaptive when appropriate, we would not possess it as a species.

Admit I'm not going to submit easily to the > self defense way of life which

> could become the Wild West again if denigration of society isn't addressed.

It wouldn't become the Wild West because most of us live in industrialized

society, not on ranches.

I don't know who " society " is or how he/she/it can be an object of

" denigration " nor what it means to do so, but if you oppose self-defense, then

you

necessarily are giving your tacit approval to offensive violence.

> You can not use your legal gun in MA to protect your house and harm someone

> without going to jail for it. You've mentioned I should read opposite views

> from the leftist box I've been placed in according to some of my reading. If

> you need a box egalitarian is more a fit.

I didn't place you in a box. I said that if you want an objective history of

a political movement, you must read more than one viewpoint, especially when

the one viewpoint coincides with the political ideology of said movement.

What if I've got opposite views

> from my values from media like everyone else and experienced opposition in

> the form of negative results from interaction and in observation.

I'm having trouble deciphering this sentence.

Could any

> of that be proven to be less informative or accurate than reading the

> opposite view or taking any other route instead that may more fits my

> values?

Accuracy has nothing to do with values. Either legalizing concealed weapons

will lead to more crime, no change in crime, or less crime. That can be

scientifically evaluated without respect to values.

Furthermore, values must take into account human nature, which can also be

scientifically evaluated, as has pointed out numerous times. You can't

forge values that are not coincident with the implications of human nature; or

rather, you can, but they are not practical.

There's two choices here either fearful and self defensive or self

> preserving, careful, in a state offensive, not inviting trouble, playing it

> safe, recognizing boundaries.

Boundaries must be recognized by all parties to be effective. My recognition

of the boundaries of my property has no effect on an intruder's recognition

of the same boundaries. Nor does my recognition of my own person as mine, to

be safeguarded from violent attack, have any effect on a criminal's recognition

of the same boundary. Thus, boundaries cannot be recognized by all parties

unless they can be enforced.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> > >It sure would if the black man had a gun.

> >

> > Glad you included if.

>

> It's important. Had they suspected it reasonable the black man was armed,

> they wouldn't have risked attacking him. Guns don't *cause* people to

drive

> people tied to trucks, and they do prevent other forms of death, and as

gun

> ownership increases among the population in total, rather than just

criminals,

> attacks like that or of any kind become less likely.

So a gun would have meant that any man would have been less likely to be

attacked, tied and dragged to death. Do you think there are alternatives

better than a country of concealed weapon armed individuals? Reason I ask is

we were told once an alarm system would be good defense. I equated it with

putting a pacifier in a crying baby's mouth. Temporarily puts a bandaid on

the problem, so the real or root problem can be ignored, put aside, made

believe its not there and someone not everyone can feel safe and secure.

Didn't want to hear an alarm was a great tool or weapon of neglect of

society.Going along with it condones the neglect and contributes to changing

the world to how I choose it not to be.

>

>

> > >You can feed your family but protecting your family is a societal ill?

> > Why

> > >even feed your family if you'll let them be murdered by an intruder?

> >

> > You're twisting and assuming totally wrong. Point your finger and make

me

> > the bad guy.

>

> I'm not making you the bad guy. Did you not say that self-protection was

a

> societal ill? I was responding to what you explicitly wrote. If you

didn't

> mean that, either I read it wrong, or you didn't write what you meant very

> clearly.

You turned it around in an accusatory manner implying me to be neglectful. I

meant there would be no reason to self protect if society was not ill. All

interpreted above.

>

> > Hope he's no relation to Trent Lott who embarassed the heck out of the

Bush

> > administration with a racist comment then resigned.

>

> I doubt it. Unless you have some reason to think so, it's not very fair

to

> him to suggest it. Especially since you seem to be implying, for no

particular

> reason, that there is some association between gun advocacy or advocacy of

> certain policies towards guns, and racism.

Wonder about motivation besides freedom and rights in any kind of campaign.

Can't see how fear can not be involved. Fear can be simply unfamiliarity

with something. Fear of change. Admit I'm not going to submit easily to the

self defense way of life which could become the Wild West again if

denigration of society isn't addressed.

>

> > >Using a gun to protect yourself against someone else attempting to

> > initiate

> > >violence is defense, not offense.

> >

> > Not in a house in Massachusetts. It's self preservation and liberty, not

> > going to jail and not giving an opening to the system mill to grind you

up.

> > What I haven't read and haven't experienced can't have anything to do

with

> > learning that.

>

> I'm not sure what you're saying.

You can not use your legal gun in MA to protect your house and harm someone

without going to jail for it. You've mentioned I should read opposite views

from the leftist box I've been placed in according to some of my reading. If

you need a box egalitarian is more a fit. What if I've got opposite views

from my values from media like everyone else and experienced opposition in

the form of negative results from interaction and in observation. Could any

of that be proven to be less informative or accurate than reading the

opposite view or taking any other route instead that may more fits my

values? There's two choices here either fearful and self defensive or self

preserving, careful, in a state offensive, not inviting trouble, playing it

safe, recognizing boundaries.

Wanita