On personal liberties

[MoeFaux]

You know Harry Browne too???

"Know" isn't really the term; I merely met him once at a conference in Vegas that I attended with some high profile friends. I've listed to some of his stuff on tape, and he corresponds with my friend, but, he would never remember me.
It was an honor to meet him, he's a very good man.

 

[MoeFaux]

True, but I do have to question the wisdom of someone who would just submit to a rapist, and rape is from what I understand one of the worst things that can happen to a woman short of murder, and he may even end up murdering her for all she knows, just so she doesn't have to use those awful, evil guns.

Here's a question for Cleopatra:

What if someone were raping you, you were screaming out for help, and a passerby used a gun to stop the rapist? Would you call him a criminal, or would you thank him for his help?

Boy, that's a very touchy subject. As a woman, I'd like to say that maybe we shouldn't be throwing this around.
She just doesn't want to use a gun.

I'd like to include an article from Reason titled "Arm the Chicks" I think it has a humorous look on women owning guns.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv24n3/finalword.pdf

But, I really hate it being said, "if someone were raping you". Let's be nice.

 

[EvilYeti]

Buk, buk, buk, buk, buk, buk, buk, buk, bacagh, buk, buk, buk, buk, buk, buk, buk, buk, buk…BACAGH, buk, buk…

Sorry dude, I don't speak chicken.

 

[Tony]

Sorry dude, I don't speak chicken.

If attacking me makes you feel like a big man, so be it.

 

[EvilYeti]

Ah, yes, that's the answer. 80 year old women should defend themselves with their two bare hands; they don't need guns at all.

Oh thats a great idea, that way when the criminal is done robbing the woman he will have two guns, instead of just one! You Libertarians are really a godsend to the American felon.

Twit.

Retard.

 

[MoeFaux]

Mommy, Daddy, please don't fight.

Let's not ruin a perfectly good thread by throwing names. Why don't you instead throw out arguements?

 

[shanek]

Boy, that's a very touchy subject. As a woman, I'd like to say that maybe we shouldn't be throwing this around.
She just doesn't want to use a gun.

As I said, that's fine. I was asking her how she felt about someone else using a gun to protect her.

But, I really hate it being said, "if someone were raping you".

It's a very real possibility, and quite germaine to the conversation. Besides, she's the one who brought it up, so I don't think it'll be any great attack on her emotionally to ask her to consider a different aspect of it.

 

[shanek]

Retard.

The difference is, you ARE a twit (a twit is someone who delights in the ridicule and embarrassment of others, which describes you to a "T." You are a twit, your posts atr twits (since "twit" also applies to the taunt itself), and you twit constantly in almost every single post ("twit" is also a verb)). I'm NOT a retard; I graduated cum laude on the National Dean's List.

I call you a twit because you behave exactly like one. You only call me retard because I disagree with you on certain things.

 

[EvilYeti]

Mommy, Daddy, please don't fight.

Go wait in the toolshed sugar, Daddy will be right out when he's done.

Let's not ruin a perfectly good thread by throwing names. Why don't you instead throw out arguements?

Any thread shanek participates in is ruined by default.

 

[MoeFaux]

Go wait in the toolshed sugar, Daddy will be right out when he's done.

Well, I can't be mad at you for long, with you talking to me like that.

However, back on the subject...
I don't think that Cleopatra would just "let it happen" to her. I'm sure she would fight back; there's plenty on ways for a person to fight against another person.
I am for guns, but I don't own one. If I happended to be attacked by a rapist brandishing a gun, I would most certainly fight to the death rather than be raped. There will be thumbs gouging out eyes.
Just because she doesn't want to use a gun doesn't mean she won't harm someone else who attempts to harm her.
I would like for her to chime in on this, though, as I really shouldn't be speaking for her.

 

[Suddenly]

The difference is, you ARE a twit (a twit is someone who delights in the ridicule and embarrassment of others, which describes you to a "T." You are a twit, your posts atr twits (since "twit" also applies to the taunt itself), and you twit constantly in almost every single post ("twit" is also a verb)). I'm NOT a retard; I graduated cum laude on the National Dean's List.

I call you a twit because you behave exactly like one. You only call me retard because I disagree with you on certain things.

Isn't dedicating a post to insulting someone with a term that means they insult others just maybe a little bit ironic?

You did nicely skip over the fact that the likely result of a rapist attacking an 80 year old woman with a gun will be a violent rape after which the rapist will have a shiny new gun. It's not like rapists announce their intent, especially if the victim might have a gun. The rapist will likely "announce" his presence with a sharp blow to her head.

Thats kind of why I don't think widespread gun ownership is too good of an idea. Property crime might decrease, but the more hard core criminal will just assume his target has a gun and take appropriate precautions to ensure they won't be suprised.

When I investigate cases I often have reason to believe I might be in danger. I don't carry a gun for two reasons. First, if someone wants to shoot me they need to bring their own gun. Second, I'd rather be killed than have to live with killing someone else by accident. I might get over it if I knew they were going to kill me, but life just isn't that simple. Most people who speak of defending themselves have never seen what it really looks like to shoot someone, or the feelings of guilt even when the killing is justified.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Well, I've just waded through this fairly interesting thread for the first time. And though now on page 5, I feel compelled to comment on this, from page 1:

I'm pro-gun. All the anti-weapon laws are killing people.

Hyperbole.

If there just one passenger had had a gun on one of the planes on 9/11, the Trade Towers would still be standing. There's no doubt about that.

Conjecture.

And women, more than men, should be pro-gun. A woman with a gun will stop an assailant. It prevents rape.

Generalization.

 

[LucyR]

If there just one passenger had had a gun on one of the planes on 9/11, the Trade Towers would still be standing. There's no doubt about that.

I'd say there was doubt. Didn't see the original post, but surely if guns were allowed on planes the terrorists would have also carried some?

 

[EvilYeti]

Well, I can't be mad at you for long, with you talking to me like that.

See, I'm not such a bad guy.

I am for guns, but I don't own one.

Well, maybe you should rethink your position. The idea that owning a gun makes you any safer is a myth. Less than 3% of homicides annually are considered justifiable. The majority of gun deaths are suicides, followed by homicides and accidents. Did you know gun owners are 37 times more likely to kill themselves then a criminal?

In fact, pulling a gun on an armed assailant whom was only planning on robbing you is a great way to get killed. Its much safer to just hand your money over.

Regarding rape, consider the following:

Approximately 66% of rape victims know their assailant. [2000 NCVS.]
Approximately 48% of victims are raped by a friend or acquaintance; 30% by a stranger; 16% by an intimate; 2% by another relative; and in 4% of cases the relationship is unknown. [2000 NCVS.]

A woman is most likely to be raped by someone she knows and whom likely already knows she has a gun. So he can catch her off guard, all he needs is for her to be unarmed one time.

And as Suddenly also pointed out, its pretty likely the rapist will just assault the vicitm, beat them into submission and walk off with a shiny new gun.

If you are interested in rape prevention, it makes much more sense to avoid situations that can lead to rape then playing a victim and carrying a gun.

 

[Grammatron]

A woman is most likely to be raped by someone she knows and whom likely already knows she has a gun. So he can catch her off guard, all he needs is for her to be unarmed one time.

That's a very misleading statement. The way authorities classify "know their assailant" is very lose. It could be something as basic as she knew the name of the guy it won't necessarily mean he knew where she lived or hid her gun.

 

[Cleopatra]

"The fox knows many things; the hedgehog knows one big thing."

Tsk tsk tsk...

This is why I like this forum; you go to sleep leaving peaceful threads behind you and when you wake up you may enjoy the traces of debauchery that took place while you were sleeping...

Moe Faux wondered about Isaiah Berlin and I open a parethesis here to give a short account about him and I will be back to the topic because it turned out to be more exciting than I expected.

Young skeptical Tony open your eyes cheri, you might learn something new today...


How can a love of liberty lead to totalitarianism and murder on an epic scale? This is what Isaiah Berlin spent most of his life thinking about. He was born in Latvia but emigrated very soon with his family in England. Oxford’s University became the center of his life. He was among the first who introduced serious studies of Philosophy in Oxford in early 30ies. I don’t say more because you can find a detailed CV of his on line.

Berlin never composed a book, he expressed his thoughts in essays instead. His writing style is fascinating and he doesn’t remind you the dull or dry writings of common professors of philosophy. Have you had the opportunity to listen to him speaking it’s something you wouldn’t forget.

His most famous essays are : “Against the Current” an essay on Machiavelli, Montesquieu and Hamann. “ Four Essays on Liberty” Where the famous quote: “." Liberal governments should recognize that all political values must end up in conflict, and all conflicts require negotiation” comes from.

The most influential essay of his is the one I strongly suggest you to read—it will take you an afternoon and it’s a very pleasant reading: “ The Fox and the Hedgehog” You can read an excerpt
here

This one is in many ways relative to our discussion: The title refers to a verse of the ancient Greek poet Archilochus: "The fox knows many things; the hedgehog knows one big thing."

The Hedgehog needs only one principle that directs its life. Typical examples are Plato, Dante, Pascal, Nietzsche and Proust. The Fox, pluralist, travels many roads, according to the idea that there can be different, equally valid but mutually incompatible concepts of how to live. The roads do not have much connection, as is seen in the works of Aristotle, Montaigne, Shakespeare, Moliére, Goethe and Balzac.

It was very in fashion in the late 80ies middle 90ies for… pretentious students of English colleges like...moi to play the game that was inspired by this magnificent essay.

We argued over whether our favorite authors, professors, and friends were Hedgehogs (like Plato), who had an overarching scheme for understanding the world, or Foxes (like Aristotle), who found meaning in particularity.

After stating that I’d rather being murdered than getting a gun I don’t think that I need to state whether I am a hedgehog or not

If you are interested in the human’s role in History then you must read "Historical Inevitability" where he debunks in the most impressive way Carr’s marxist view on the topic. Maybe all I need to say about this debate is that after its publication only Greek Stalinist relics refer to Carr anymore…

Of course I will be back and yes, this is a threat.

 

[Chaos]

The difference, in my mind at least, is that the other cases you mentioned were attacks directly against those who were causing the problems in the first place. The 9/11 attacks, OTOH, were not. They might have been able to justify the attack on the Pentagon on these grounds, but certainly not the World Trade Center.

If you kill someone because he's trying to kill you, that's defense. If you kill someone's sister because he's trying to kill you, that's murder.

I was deliberately listing political terrorist groups. Al Quaida is a religious terrorist group.

In a nutshell, religious terrorist do what they do because they think god tells them to do it.

On the other hand, the Rote Armee Fraktion (I know a bit more about them because they were active in Germany) had some really smart and reasonable people among them; Ulrike Meinhof was reputed to be one of the most brilliant journalists of post-war Germany.
Before they became terrorists, these people were not much different from some people here in this forum. They believed that the ballot box was useless because the politicians were all unrepentant former Nazis - which, to a certain degree, they were. They´d committed arson at a department store in Frankfurt (not sure about the location) and got indicted for that, so they thought the jury box was also in the hands of the "Nazi" state - so they became terrorists.

I admit that their perception of the political reality was, to some degree, warped; however there were some less than democratic things going on in Germany in the sixties, the SPIEGEL affair, for example, or what happened around the Persian Shah´s visit to Berlin (?) in 1968 (?). Honestly, if had witnessed these things first hand, I am not sure if I would not have at least sympathized with the Rote Armee Fraktion.

And, by the way, the Rote Armee Fraktion (for ther most part) directly targeted those it thought were responsible for the problems they saw - judges, CEOs etc.

 

[MoeFaux]

Re: "The fox knows many things; the hedgehog knows one big thing."

His most famous essays are : “Against the Current” an essay on Machiavelli, Montesquieu and Hamann. “ Four Essays on Liberty” Where the famous quote: “." Liberal governments should recognize that all political values must end up in conflict, and all conflicts require negotiation” comes from.

The most influential essay of his is the one I strongly suggest you to read—it will take you an afternoon and it’s a very pleasant reading: “ The Fox and the Hedgehog” You can read an excerpt
here

If you are interested in the human’s role in History then you must read "Historical Inevitability" where he debunks in the most impressive way Carr’s marxist view on the topic. Maybe all I need to say about this debate is that after its publication only Greek Stalinist relics refer to Carr anymore…

Thank you for the information . I'm leaving for work in a minute, but I'll read the link during lunch and do some more searching on google with the essay titles you provided.

 

[shanek]

You did nicely skip over the fact that the likely result of a rapist attacking an 80 year old woman with a gun will be a violent rape after which the rapist will have a shiny new gun.

Why is that at all a likely result? Present data, please.

Second, I'd rather be killed than have to live with killing someone else by accident.

Again, this is fine, but what possible justification is there for forcing this choice on others?

 

[shanek]

Well, maybe you should rethink your position. The idea that owning a gun makes you any safer is a myth. Less than 3% of homicides annually are considered justifiable. The majority of gun deaths are suicides, followed by homicides and accidents. Did you know gun owners are 37 times more likely to kill themselves then a criminal?

This is all from that bogus, long-refuted Kellerman "data." And you accuse others of spouting out junk science!