Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 06 Jan 2020, 3:32 pm

Quite the protection of lives made by a person with a gun.

“Lives were saved by these heroes, and Texas laws allowing them to carry arms!”

How many more victims would have been killed or wounded if there was NOT a person armed to stop an evil person intent on killing many?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 07 Jan 2020, 1:27 am

Well, it worked this time. Fortunately, the guy was a good shot. But of course what happens when a good samaritan kills innocent people? Moreover, I have a major problem with the idea that the answer to the mass shootings is that when I go into public space there will be many people armed. I think part of civilization is NOT to have endure the constant threat of the use of lethal force in the public space. At least with a police officer you surmise that they have a certain amount of training and experience. There is also this simplistic notion that people are divided into binary groups of people: "good people" and "bad people." But real people are more complex than that and when you give people the right and even expectation to take lethal weapons into the public space, some so-called good people are going to reach
for their guns when a dispute arises, which would not happened before.

I see part of being civilized, part of civilization is to take the threat of lethal violence out of the public space. Even if this arming of the populace helped in some cases to deal with potential mass shootings, I think the cost would be too high. If you are going to have authority to take a weapon into the public space that you could take out and kill another person in a second of anger, in my opinion you need to be extensively trained and screened. And I certainly don't want the average Joe Blow walking around with a Glock.

At least in that church they had a security group that did some sort of training. And they saved lives. Good for them; they did a great job. But I don't think that arming everyone is the answer; it would be a major set-back for our society.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 07 Jan 2020, 8:33 am

My church does security training as well, and I am part of that.

I am glad that you approve of the result in this case.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 07 Jan 2020, 10:10 am

I also agree that mandatory arming of everyone is not the answer. Screening and Proficiency testing for purchase (such as a drivers license) would be acceptable to me. You are not the best driver when you are 16 and get your license to drive, but you can show proficiency. Sure, you may get angry in a second and take out your road rage with a 1 ton vehicle going 70 mph, but I do not mandate the removal of motor vehicles from all but who are "extensively trained". What is that in the world of motor vehicles? Dale Earnhardt racing school? Perhaps the yearly drivers education?

No, I say. You show initial proficiency, and are screened, then you have the ability to purchase a firearm until you show or give cause that you no longer have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

People are not binary. There is a inference from you that people cannot make the decisions properly, so legislation needs to be in place to prohibit evil from ever occurring. I give people the benefit of the doubt until there is reason not to. Your inference says ALL people need to not have the ability because the MIGHT be bad. I agree that people are not all bad or all good. It appears you have a distrust of your fellow man. I recall the poem by Ronald Russell "LESSONS FROM LIFE". Look especially at the third line.

Lessons from Life
By Ronald Russell
A child that lives with ridicule learns to be timid.
A child that lives with criticism learns to condemn.
A child that lives with distrust learns to deceitful.
A child that lives with antagonism learns to be hostile.
A child that lives with affection learns to love.
A child that lives with encouragement learns confidence.
A child that lives with truth learns justice.
A child that lives with praise learns to appreciate.
A child that lives with sharing learns to be considerate.
A child that lives with knowledge learns wisdom.
A child that lives with patience learns to be tolerant.
A child that lives with happiness will find love and beauty.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 07 Jan 2020, 11:35 am

I don't have a problem with people having guns in their home. But when they bring guns into public that makes it a problem for me. I am not sure where you are getting the notion that my political views reflects some excessive distrust of people. I simply disagree with the notion that having constantly armed people walking around in public is a good thing. If you want less violence, the best way to do that is not by having people walk around with guns.

We did not get from homicide rates in the 100/100,000 in the Middle Ages to less than 10/100,000 by using violence. It's not like people just hot inherently better. But socialized in a world where survival is no longer an issue and laws against violence are enforced, violence has been much reduced. Western European countries did not get to much lower rates of violence than our country by coming to the conclusion that more guns were the answer to stopping gun violence. The answer to reducing gun violence is by making a better society-not by arming people to the teeth. That's not my vision of what our country should be. You have a society where through economic policies you divert most of the wealth of society to at most the top 20%, much more to the top 10%, 5%, 1%--while the other 80%are stressed with economic insecurity, getting affordable housing, access to healthcare, getting decent, meaningful jobs--and then you want a lot of unhappy people created by these economic policies walking around with guns? I don't think so.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 20 Jan 2020, 12:32 pm

My HS physics teacher told a story where he was in a serious traffic accident. He was thrown clear from the wreck and was able to walk away. He took from that experience that seat belts were a bad idea.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 20 Jan 2020, 1:45 pm

Perhaps that was because vehicles back then could not go much over 30 or 40? :grin:

Actually, I have been in a serious accident and the seatbelts did save my life. That being said, people should be allowed to choose seatbelt wearing or not. However, if a person was not wearing their seatbelts and thrown from the vehicle, striking another; the thrown person would be liable for the injuries of the struck victim, as his/her choices impacted the life of another.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 20 Jan 2020, 2:56 pm

The notion that people should have the freedom to make choices regarding personal safety becomes more complicated in a modern society with a safety net. I remember when we had an initiative in Califirnia regarding whether motorcycle riders should have to wear helmets or not and proponents brought forth data on how much California had to spend on motorcycles riders who were permanently incapacitated (i.e., they were now vegetables). And it was a lot of money. If somebody wants to be...stupid...and not wear a helmet (or seatbelts)...then I agree that should be their decision. (Airbags are more complicated but we dont get a choice regarding that) But we shouldnt have to pay for their stupidity. And that means government having a good reason to take that choice away.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 20 Jan 2020, 10:54 pm

I agree, Freeman. We should not have to pay for those instances of stupidity.