Hi Brian.
So? Are you saying most law-abiding gun-owners do NOT believe in "peace"? Do they believe in violence and war? What individual gun owner do you know who espouses such a viewpoint?
Brian, I am afraid that nothing presented to you is going to shake you out of your fantasy world. In fact -- with all due respect -- your posts are becoming so unreal that I am honestly starting to wonder if you are not putting us all on. Seriously.
You talk in pure abstractions that are almost impossible to discuss because they are so vague and disconnected to the real world. What is "peace" anyway? It can mean anything from the absence of war to a Mexican standoff. But that strays off into foriegn policy issues, and not the topic here so much...
The point you are seemingly impervious to getting is that there are those out there who
do not want peaceful solutions to problems in the way most oridinary people would understand the concept. Their idea of "peace" (if it exists at all) is to get whatever they want and the other party offer no resistance. It is
not centered around obeying the rules and laws of society to begin with and embracing the Golden Rule.
The essence of our discussion/debate -- IMHO -- is your adament refusal to recognize that there are some out there who are just bad people. These predators get a thrill -- sexual or ego or powerwise -- out of hurting/torturing/violating other people. There are also many more general predatory street type muggers and robbers who are not necessarily serial killer types, but
will kill you over $5, whether you give it to them or not (convenience store clerks and taxi drivers are common victims of this breed of scum). They have absolutely no sense of morality, and to try and talk to them about "right and wrong" is about as productive as telling a Great White shark they shouldn't eat you if they are hungry. For you to think (as you indicated on several threads) that you would be able to "reason" or "discuss" or hold a dialogue with those types, is just naivety of the most extreme sort.
So to come back around to your quote, how do we get there so far as peace is concerned? First of all, "we" recognize the reality that not everyone out there places a high value on it. For the rest of us who desire to live in peace with our fellow human beings, we go with that old adage of
"Pray for Peace, but be prepared for war'
I mentioned correction (and police officers) as to illustrate the vast gap in reality between those like you whose exposure to the hardcore criminal element in a protected environment as opposed to those who deal with them on the streets as they really are, and/or in environments (prison) where "rules" are very different from a counselors office. The former is always an uneasy truce at best...
You are right in one limited realm. The sucess rate for rehabiliation is poor. BUT? Ever consider that the reason for such is that there are just some out there who
cannot be rehabiliated? And even have no desire to be? They find a life of crime and violence exciting, profitable and fun. You simply refuse -- in spite of all evidence otherwise concerning the reality behind the true sociopathic/criminal personality -- to believe it exists.
The failure is not a lack of "trying" rehabilitation (as ought to be evident by the
decades of this approach), but the simple reality that
it just doesn't work; the whole premise is at odds with human nature.
*sighs* Ok, sing Kumba-Ya if you want, but this is just another example of your detachment from the real world. In fact, it -- if you examine it on a deeper level -- even refutes your own premise that "we" could do anything of the sort. For one thing, a truly
free society is not articulated into any single entity capable of doing any such thing. It would be the opposite of a peaceful society, as in the sense of a tranquil one, at the very least. For instance, you speak of re-doing society? Please answer your own question. To radically transform society? Hell, it would take a tyranny to enforce, which naturally involves force and the guns you claim to hate being concentrated into the very government which you speak ill of.
As David Horowitz once said, in effect, "Gulags and graveyards are filled with the millions of victims of this type utopian thinking..."
Well, tell us what they are? This "new model", that is? You are cheating us all out of something if you do not have the answer or plan...past some shadowy phrase about "needing" to find it!
And why is killing dangerous people "hypocritical"? Assuming it is done under natural laws of self-defense? Hypocritical relative to what? Of course, I realize you do not accept the existence of the right to self-defense, so perhaps my own question was answered...
Sure calling the police will be the right thing to do...
if you have the luxury of time and safety to do so! However, that is usually not the case if your door is being kicked down, or someone, after robbing you, tells you to lay down on the floor....or perhaps they have your wife/children at their mercy...
Anyway, as several have pointed out, the SCOTUS has ruled the police have
no obligation to protect any one individual. They are not personal bodyguards, and you can bet they are not going to be there when the situation becomes critical because even the dumbest of criminals usually do not ply their trade when a cop is around and handy.
Uhhhh, that absolutely
wasn't what I said, Brian. What I said was that by calling the police (which you advised as an option) you are essentially paying someone else to do
your dirty work for you. That is to say, you seem to personally disdain and shun the option of using deadly force to protect
yourself from a criminal assault....but you don't mind calling upon
someone else to potentially do it
for you. There is a big difference here and I want it noted for the record!
The stun-gun remark just illustrates again your disconnect to how things really are. Not withstanding that police
are trained in the use of "stun guns", do you know anything about them at all?
A stun-gun has to be "up close and personal". That will not do one a bit of good if the other person has a gun or knife and absolutely willing to use it. A taser is better if the situation does not require immediate deadly force. Pepper spray can work well too. But even then, there are some who are so hopped up on drugs or just flat out crazy and mean that are not affected by it. In those case, there is NO realistic option other than a gun...whether or not used to disarm the subject or actually -- in the most extreme situation -- protect your own life and/or that of a third party.
But of course, I realize that is not the way it is in your Never Never Land!
I sure do...but with opposite conclusions of what you probably intended!
Merry Christmas and Peace on Earth.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
