Google Ads/Analytics

  • Google Analytics
  • Google Ads

What I've Been Reading

Blog powered by Typepad

« Einstein, Hitler, God | Main | Kaz II: Mystery at Sea »

April 17, 2007

Comments

John S

Julie,

Thank you for your reply and an international perspective, and your English is better than my own, let alone my French.

The "Old West" was actually a relatively peaceful place. Democracy and social contract were absolutely in existence. Defending yourself, or another isn't personal justice or an eye for an eye. That is when you go for revenge i.e. when a father hunts down and kills the rapist of his daughter. I can understand that even if it may be wrong, but it isn't what I'm describing. I'm talking about the ability for someone to stop a bad thing from happening. My state of mind in a situation like that would be frightened, but that doesn't mean that my actions have to be rash. I am trained as a Military Police Officer in the United States Marine Corps so I'm aware of the value of training, but I don't think it's right to be an elitest about who has the responsibility and morales to be able to protect themselves. Police make bad decisions as well even with their training because there still is fear. It's just a human reality. (I do completely favor training for anyone who is going to carry)The responsibility we speak of is our bond as human beings. Some violate that bond and there are those that are less aware of it than you or I, but for a government to step in and take away that responsibility doesn't make our society a better place.

Defending yourself from crime through legislative, executive, and judicial matters doesn't actually stop crime. If someone is trying to hurt my family, I can't wait for the police to get there after I find a phone to call them. By then my family is all ready hurt or killed and no amount of judicial punishment or laws will bring them back.

Yes, countries like France have fewer murders and mass casualty incidents than the U.S. but those are different cultures. Over here, the cities with the strictest gun control laws are the ones with the highest crime/ murder rates. Meanwhile cities that have concealed carry permits or even open carry permits have much lower crime rates. You can argue the cause/ effect relationship, but these laws haven't done much to deter the violence.

Men have done plenty of good things with guns. They have stopped bad men with guns. Maybe if the guns were never there, it would be a different story, but as long as there are bad men out there, we need normal good people with the ability to counter them.

Cheers,
John


Joseph Froncioni

Julie,

Merci pour ce commentaire excellent. Je suis complètement d’accord avec vous et je vous remercie d’avoir visiter mon site.

Goldmund

Hello,
I am French: sorry for my english.

I just wanted to give you my feeling, from far away, and from a country where free weapon carrying is not allowed. For us, it is unbelievable that a modern society like USA still allows it...it's a sort of mystery. And the arguments developped by John S are really frightening! That sounds like Far West, or, to compare with a european period, to middle age, when justice was a personal affair, and democracy and social contract did not exist. An eye for an eye. Personal justice.
But I ask John S, who are we to decide to kill someone? Who are you, John S, when you decide to shoot? And in which state of mine are you at this moment? Panicked? Frightened? When you buy the gun, are you following the same coaching than a policeman who is educated to act coldly in stressful situation? Are you obliged to follow the coaching? And if you did, can you guarantee that every people who buy one have the same sens of responsability than you? And what is the definition of "responsability" in this case? Because we are talking about a general legislation. Not only your single appreciation or mine.

Crime belongs to human nature, ok. And we need to defend ourselves against it, ok. But in my country, this is mostly the work of legislative, executive and judicial powers. We also believe that our liberties as individuals finish were someone else liberties begin. And to possess a deathful weapon as an individual person, not a state representant, is against the right to live. Thanx Rousseau. And, to speak of real life, there are far less big incidents in these countries where the gun legislation is strict (at least, in France & around)), than what was descrided in Bowling for Colombine. And I also believe that you, and all the people who were a weapon are a danger for everybody, no matter if you have or not a criminal intention.

But perhaps you are more confident in the human nature, John S, and believe we live in a world where everybody take its responsability and act very wise when having a deadful toy in the hands. I do not. And History prove I am right. Men never did good things with a gun.

Julie

John S

Andy, what you do, is take a second to evaluate the situation. If the shooter is aiming at multiple targets or fireing indescriminately, you then determine if you have a clear shot and ensure that there is no one behind that indidual incase you miss or if your round passes through the perp. If it's a bad guy and you have a shot, you take it.

If you can't determine the situation, you don't draw your weapon and you run away.

Having a weapon at least gives you an option as well as additional responsiblity. I would rather have that option and take on that responsibility than have to be a victim and wait for/ rely soley on the police.

AndyF

For John S:

Hey, John, here's a scenario and I'd like you to tell me what to do with my gun:

Shots are heard at VA Tech and people are running everywhere. I see a shooter taking shots at someone. Do I shoot him? Is he the original shooter, or is he just someone like me who is shooting back?

I'd really like to know what you'd do...

Andy

John S

I propose that the problem isn't that the psycho had the gun, it was that no one else did. If someone else (or everyone else) was armed, someone could have stopped him. The answer isn't more gun restrictions (look at D.C., N.Y, and L.A.) it is more guns.

Mikey

Hey bro,

Right on! You must have received lots of hits on this one from all of the Google adds ....Holsters, Firearm training.

I'm so glad I live in a little naive city called Montreal.

Cheers

Sarah Touchie

You're not nuts. The Governor was also quoted as saying that this is not the time to open up the debate on gun control. May I politely ask, then, when would be a good time? madness.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.