Teachers with guns: a response

One should never write when one is angry. But sometimes it’s the best way to get a point across, and this lame-assed story for Rolling Stone by leftwing goon Robert Dreyfuss has given me cause to hurl something heavy through my computer screen with rage.
The attention of this blog has been turned toward issues [...]

One should never write when one is angry. But sometimes it’s the best way to get a point across, and this lame-assed story for Rolling Stone by leftwing goon Robert Dreyfuss has given me cause to hurl something heavy through my computer screen with rage.

The attention of this blog has been turned toward issues regarding firearms many times in the past, including these articles on concealed-carry firearms and discussions on gun control such as the recent Colonel Jeff Cooper post.

And on September 13th, there was a school shooting in Montreal about which I wrote in this post. At the end of the relatively short comments section, I chimed in on October 2nd with an observation on the Amish school shooting that had happened that day, saying: “There are no good solutions to the problem of suicidal people who wish to take others down with them; we’re feeling the same problem with Islamist terrorism. But I’m really beginning to wonder if it isn’t time to start permitting teachers to carry concealed weapons and to offer defence courses as part of their training.”

It would only take a sufficiently trained and armed teacher ten seconds to neutralise a threat to herself and her students, and it would only take consistency of this approach across the nation’s schools to constitute a potentially useful deterrent to aggressors in the first place. Israel and Thailand have successfully armed their teachers with good results in response to school terrorism.

Today it appears that a Republican state representative in Green Bay, Wisconsin has suggested doing the same thing: “Sometimes when people are intent on harming others, the only reasonable response you could have is to confront them with firepower to stop them,” says Frank Lasee.

I’m glad I’m not the only one who realises instinctively that teachers and students are currently defenceless, giving aggressors carte blanche in the schoolroom in much the same way that unarmed citizens are at the whim of armed aggressors in their homes or in the streets. But Robert Dreyfuss in Rolling Stone magazine begs to differ – not because he actually cares enough about the issue to consult statistics, refer to facts or even think the damned thing through – but because he’s a leftwing GOON with a leftwing reaction void of any of the rational processes required to come to a decent conclusion.

“It happens every time. A gun nut or some deranged students kill some kids at school, and pro-gun advocates are right there with the solution: Arm Our Teachers …. Frank Lasee [is] the pol who proposed this lunatic idea,” his cheapshot article fires back. Yet his own solution is conspicuously absent, like so many leftist criticisms, and his sarcasm and typecasting are equally vacuous of constructive discussion points. One could perhaps rewrite his article thus: “It happens every time. A kitchen knife-wielding nutcase or some deranged students kill some kids at school, and antigun activists are right there with pathetic cheapshots instead of solutions.”

Indeed, the thought has probably never occurred to Dreyfuss that guns may be tools without a moral bias which are simply utilised either to good or evil purposes by their user, who is morally responsible. Indeed, the thought has probably never occurred to Dreyfuss that individuals are morally responsible. It seems he didn’t actually think to think at all before writing it.

This little article was, itself, a bit like a school shooting. Dreyfuss came in, picked up his computer and started firing away on the keys at those who advocate the freedom to own firearms, leaving nothing but chaos of thought and a confused audience. Of course, he also shot himself in the end, as these comments to his own post at Rolling Stone testify:

“What next, armed security guards at banks? Air marshalls with guns on planes? Oh wait… I’m sure teachers can just use the aforementioned ‘really sharp pencils’ to fight off people with guns.”

“The assumption that violence will increase, such as having ‘firefights’ in school, if responsible adults on campus were armed, reflects only ignorance and an emotional knee-jerk reaction to the problem.”

“Some word processor nut strikes again.”

If you’d like to have a sensible debate about this, Dreyfuss, let’s take a look at the facts concerning the widespread issuance of concealed weapons permits in the general populace of 38 US states and the effect it’s had on violent crime in those respective states. What’s that? It’s devastating to your narrow, skewed leftist worldview? So sorry.

John Wright

johnwright@libertarianreason.com

66 Comments

  1. Anonymous on October 6, 2006 | Permalink

    If you reduce the accessibility to possess a fire arm, you then reduce the fire arms in circulation which means you have then reduced the possibility for gun related crime, It don’t take a Einstein to work that out, less guns less crime!
    To suggest that teachers should carry loaded guns in the schoolroom setting only creates an environment for increased gun related crime.
    There are other avenues to go down to reduce the possibility for guns being used in schools, schools have to be secure settings, when was the last time a risk assessment was carried out in schools to access the risk factor. How many schools have full body metal detectors? such as they have in airports? How many schools have CCTV? How many schools have security on campus?

    Psychological profiles should be carried out on a regular bias (i.e. yearly) to assess the mental stability of those that have an aspiration to own or do own a fire arm. Teachers have mental problems also which affects and questions their stability to carry a fire arm. The American Nation at large is mentally unstable which can be confirmed by the amount of people who from the cradle to the grave have their own personal psychologist, it is one of the biggest industries in the U.S.A which is well documented. If you have to pass criminal background check is it not of importance also to pass a psychological background check also. There should be a national register for mental suitibilty for gun ownership.

    The risk factors which have an impact on mental suitabilty for gun ownership have to be reduced to protect the nation at large. Gun collections for illegal fire arms should be held on a regular frequency with an amnesty provided.

  2. Brian on October 6, 2006 | Permalink

    A person’s psychological health is something that I can support being on record for driving, gun ownership and any number of other things. But your first paragraph appears to ignore some of what John’s post was about. “Less guns less crime” is entirely unsupported by the facts, there is just as much crime, in fact arguably MORE crime, in Britain than there is in the U.S. states where you are free to own a gun. I just want to correct you on that point.

  3. Anonymous on October 6, 2006 | Permalink

    Has the British Government lost the plot, have they not learnt from the past 36 yrs, and from the U.S.A. understandably they haven’t.

    Govt launch gun law consultation

    ”Children as young as 12 could be legally allowed to use licensed firearms in Northern Ireland under proposals put out by the Government for consultation”.
    By: Press Association

  4. John Wright on October 6, 2006 | Permalink

    I don’t regard ‘teachers with guns’ as the definitive solution here – it’s merely a discussion point. Nevertheless many of the criticisms against it are insubstantial, and I was irritated with the way Dreyfuss delivered his unengaging drive-by rhetoric on it.

    Anonymous- You have at least weighed in on the discussion, which I appreciate. But I’d encourage you to think more about why you believe teachers carrying concealed weapons would be the problem you convey. Is it merely because it’s an unknown, to which your imagination suggests bad results? Or have you some evidence for that? As one comment argued, air marshalls, security guards, bailiffs and thousands of law enforcement agencies across America have been armed for years without a mass outbreak of the kind of abuse you imply. And I urge you to check out my previous articles dealing with concealed weapons permits in the hands of millions of ordinary citizens with basic firearms training in the US. Again, no such calamity occurred. How do you reconcile your belief with the statistics?

  5. Stevie, Belfast on October 6, 2006 | Permalink

    That is talking about shooting sports, Anonymous. You want to prevent shooting sports in NI now? And what should they learn from the U.S.A. other than a great record on crime in most gun-owning areas? I think you have the wrong impression of the U.S. You watch too much movies and tv.

  6. Anonymous on October 6, 2006 | Permalink

    Brian point of correction:

    I believe you need check your facts out before making wild statements regarding the facts

    2005 statistics for U.S. gun crime and death, According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 2005, 477,040 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced an offender with a firearm. The FBI’s Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms. The result being that 10,650 deaths were due to gun crime in the U.S.A. to firearms.

    British statistics being for the year 2004, Fatalities: 70, Serious injuries: 430, Total firearms offences: 10,590, With replica/ imitation gun: 1, 350, With handgun: 4,910 Source: Home Office recorded crime figures.

    The population of the U.S.A. BEING: approx: 295,734,134
    The population of the U.K. BEING: approx: 58,789,194

    The U.S.A. has a population approximately 5 times greater that the U.K. Meaning that in real terms the U.S.A. has a gun crime death toll 152 greater than the U.K., and a gun crime which in real terms is 45 times greater in the U.S.A. than what it is in the U.K.

    Less guns less crime is equated out in reality and borne out in the facts and figures as far as the U.K. is compared to the U.S.A. and is totally supported by the official statistics of the above mentioned countries, The U.K. is a safe place because it doesn’t have a militia mentality.

  7. Anonymous on October 6, 2006 | Permalink

    Stevie Belfast, get real, Kids with gun regardless of what circumstances.

  8. S Quinney on October 6, 2006 | Permalink

    John, quite right, it’s not the absolute solution probably but it could be a big part of a solution and it sure beats the hell out of Michael Moore’s crappy approach. Anonymous you raise some good questions on school security but firearms have been an integral part of security for decades.

  9. Brian on October 6, 2006 | Permalink

    Anonymous how about typing your name so we can see who we’re talking to. And I wasn’t talking about the whole of the USA, I was talking about the U.S. states that have freedom to own and carry firearms. Contrast those figures and you’ll see you’re wrong. There was nothing “wild” about my statement.

  10. WTK55 on October 6, 2006 | Permalink

    Anonymous I don’t think you know what the hell you’re talking about, my 8yr old son has been using a rifle with my supervision for 3 years and is becoming quite the marksman. You are pathetically ignorant if you think that makes me an irresponsible parent, there are kids shooting competitions and it’s an Olympic sport!!!!

  11. John Wright on October 6, 2006 | Permalink

    Anonymous- Now the USA has a milita mentality? Have you ever BEEN to the United States? I invite you to join me in gun-owning Arizona and we’ll take a trip down to the Sheriff’s Department together and take a look through crime statistics and compare them to Belfast.

  12. Brian on October 6, 2006 | Permalink

    It’s worth pointing out that the old adage about a gun being used merely instead of a knife or other weapon rings true for the UK… crime is higher in the UK, in the USA because firearms are more readily available more guns are used, in the UK more knives are used. So what? People who wish to commit crimes will do so regardless…. gun law is to do with allowing law-abiding people to protect and defend themselves. Only a fool thinks that criminals pay attention to the law: by definition they don’t!

  13. John Wright on October 6, 2006 | Permalink

    WTK55- Welcome. Both my grandfather and my father-in-law were proficient shooters by their mid-teens, and I already have a .22 caliber rifle in mind for my son who is three years old now…. by five, he’ll be learning to shoot. In the meantime, he comes down into the wash behind our house and watches his dad shooting paper plates. Maybe we should ask Anonymous: Exactly what do you think is wrong with kids shooting at targets, supervised by their parents?

  14. Anonymous on October 6, 2006 | Permalink

    You could hardly compare your town to Belfast.

  15. S Quinney on October 6, 2006 | Permalink

    Anonymous you didn’t answer John’s question, what do you think is wrong with kids shooting targets with a low caliber rifle under their parent’s supervision? Would you extend the same prejudice to other sports that could be dangerous…. javelin? Archery? What else would you like to ban?

  16. Anonymous on October 6, 2006 | Permalink

    It is aimless no point to it waste of time and energy.

  17. S Quinney on October 6, 2006 | Permalink

    Like football or baseball or basketball?? Maybe for you, but you are arrogant if you project onto others what are simply your own likes and dislikes. Is that how you want law to made, like a dictatorship according to you???

  18. Anonymous on October 7, 2006 | Permalink

    I come from the point of a Calvinist worldview which I don’t think you will agree with or understand, what ever will be, will be, what happens to a person in life and in death is predestined. The absolute sovereignty of God in human affairs, America was founded on the principles of Calvinism, but sadly today in America and in the U.K., Calvinism is a struggling remnant.

    To shoot a gun, just for the sake of shooting it is a pointless activity with no constructive benefit to the shooter, I don’t condemn the right to take part in such, that is free choice, I just think that one should be more constructive with ones time and that if one takes part in some form of recreation it should be some sort of activity that they one is going to benefit from, for example will there be financial gain, will there be benefits for my health, will my education benefit and so on.

    The culture I come from kids just kick a ball pointlessly on the streets day day out, while letting other more important things go to pot, and at the same time they could be more constructive in their use of time by using their time, parents have guidance responsibility for their children, for instance the time could be of more benefit in their education, parents have a responsibility to train their children in their formative years because they are laying the foundation or planting seeds in the hearts of their children which will have consequential affect on children, which will direct their hearts and give them direction for the rest of their life, this foundation for life occurs in the biological, social, and psychological development of children.

    What benefit will a child receive from shooting paper plates?

    Qui tacet consentit.
    “ who keeps silence consents”

  19. Anonymous on October 7, 2006 | Permalink

    In rlation to Brians posts on this page he keeps moving the goal posts.

  20. S Quinney on October 7, 2006 | Permalink

    There are two ways to respond to your ridiculous suggestions.

    One is to say that there certainly are benefits to the discipline of any sport, shooting included. The kids on your street who waste their time kicking balls around would certainly benefit from such a hobby, and most of the kids who attend shooting classes and schools around the country are involved in many other extracirricular activities that almost everyone agrees are character-forming and formatively helpful.

    The second is to say that shooting is simply fun, and to ask the question; in your world, is there no room for having fun? There are many human activities that do not accomplish directly anything of consequence but are nice, ie. when you choose to treat yourself to ice-cream, there is no benefit other than the pleasure that comes from it. Do you never eat or drink anything except what accomplishes the nutritional benefit necessary for your health? Or do you treat yourself occasionally for no other reason than the pleasure that comes from the activity? Be warned: by claiming what you just did, you are also relegating football, basketball, atheletics, movie-going, entertainment television, laughter and so much else to the ‘SHOULD NOT DO’ list. Nobody I know would honestly claim that to be a good thing.

    And so I ask you again, WHAT is wrong with teaching kids to shoot??????????

  21. Anonymous on October 7, 2006 | Permalink

    S Quinney :
    As I stated, you would not agree with me or understand me simply because your moral code as a atheist are poles apart from mine, but you have failed to understand that I have said that you have free choice and that one should have a constructive approach to recreation, which is recreation.
    To everything there is consequence either positive or negative, eat too much ice cream and you get fat is the negative the positive it supplies calcium for the bones.
    Television and movie going has had the most negative influence on society, put rubbish into ear and eye gate and the end product is rubbish coming out, such as in the case of the murder of Jamie Bulger, Venables and Thompson who murdered Jamie had been watching violent films before they murdered him, to say that movies or T.V. is purely innocent fun and pleasure is a very naïve statement to make, for instance have a look at what influnce The Da Vinci Code had, people believed it to be the truth. Or take The Turner Diaries and the influence that book has had on the American Nation. To teach a child in their years of innocence to shoot is putting an innocent child into a socially toxic environment with negative influnence upon their formative years. You are free to make whatever choice you choose, the fact is I disagree with you.

  22. Anonymous on October 8, 2006 | Permalink

    MODERN gun slinging America has failed to understand the historical setting in which the bill of rights was conceived. The men who wrote it came from a rustic rugged undeveloped America in the year 1789 of the initial draft a frontier country; Article 11 was established December 1791, in a colonial setting, the context of that setting is totally different from the needs of 2006.

    America a super power on the world stage trying to police the troubles of world conflict, the insincerity of it is, they can’t deal with and police their own house and have failed to put it in order.George Bush take note.

    Law enforcement in schools isn’t the service which teachers are employed to carry out, it is the responsibility of Government, to reduced the job of teachers to self defence and armed protection reduces the populaces reliance upon law and order and the enforcement of it by the Police and Government, this isn’t the road to go down, no private individual should assume the right of law enforcer to do so is to question authority, this removes the reliance of the populace on the social order, of law and order, which will lead to a state of chaos if every legal gun owner starts taking the law into their own hands.

    Gun owners using their guns in self defence is an act of a disordered society, by taking the law into their own hands, this is morally wrong because it removes the authority of law enforcement from the legal guardians of the Police and any other regimented bodies. As a law abiding citizen one should leave law enforcement and protection of law and order to those employed to do so.

    The best way to enforce law and order is to remove firearms from law abiding citizens because the majority of gun crime originates from inner city gangland neighbourhoods and from drug gangs in small and geographically restricted areas, which have no exposure with the general populace at large. Guns should be banned everywhere. Guns are needless. In 98% of civilian gun defenses, 1,960,000 times a year, no shots are fired. If you are not going to fire a shot, you clearly don’t need a gun. This proves that the guns are pointless for self defence. Banning guns will prevent these unnecessary defenses.

    To take the law into your own hands cause difficulties for the Police when investigations take place, law abiding citizens should not compromise the investigations of the Police and risk possible prosecutions taking place and the guilty paying for their transgressions, civilians should leave crime deterrence to the Police who are appropriately equipped to do so. Civilians should be good law abiding citizens and leave law and order to those employed to do so.

  23. S Quinney on October 9, 2006 | Permalink

    Anonymous you are a moron. There is so much wrong with what you’ve just said that I don’t even have the time or energy to go through with a complete rebuttal. But I’d like to see you try telling ANY SINGLE ONE of the 1,960,000 people who have driven away criminals using firearms that they SHOULD have just sat there at the whim of their attackers instead of defend themselves!

    You are an idiot if you believe that the fact no shots were fired in those circumstances means they didn’t need a firearm. Are you this pathetically incapable of seeing what is right in front of your face???? The REASON, dumbass, that no shots were fired is BECAUSE they had a firearm in their hands!!! DUH!??? Their attackers ran away as soon as they saw the gun! So did the gun work????? YES!!!! I can’t believe you are this stupid. THEN you say, unbelievably, that banning guns will prevent these unnecessary defenses? If no shots were fired, then what evil is there to prevent? I’m trying not to laugh through my anger at your complete doltness.

    You said self-defense with firearms causes problems for the police, yet it’s the fucking POLICE that are issuing CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMITS to the population! You clearly understand nothing about it, I’m asssuming you don’t live in America Anonymous because you have NO IDEA what you’re talking about. Come down to any local police department in the states and they’ll tell you that they fully support and encourage your right to own a gun and carry it too! If you bothered to read John’s articles on this you’d know that it is the POLICE that issued his permit and a local community police officer that taught the training course for civilians! Are you really this incapable of learning?

    You said the majority of gun crime is in geographically restricted areas like the gangs. So what are you going to tell the victims of violent crime in other areas that you have now disarmed??? That they should NOT be allowed to defend themselves with a firearm IN THE RARE EVENT THAT THEY NEED TO because YOU don’t believe they should have one? What about the 1,650,000 people that defended themselves successfully using firearms against these assholes, you’re telling me they SHOULDN’T HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO SO? You are a complete Idiot. I have no issue saying that since you’ve posted as Anonymous, so until you allow us to see a name, I will henceforth refer to you as Idiot; definition, someone who is incapable of learning.

    You said the bill of rights was conceived in a different kind of era. I’m pretty sure you just pulled this paragraph from some online anti-gun resource. Nevertheless it’s totally incorrect. Ask ANY ONE of the 1,650,000 people that drove away criminals with a gun whether or not they NEEDED a fucking GUN!!!! Answer: yes, otherwise they may not be alive today, Idiot!

    What are you going to tell the shop owner, and I really do want an answer on this – the shop owner in John’s post where he described a local shop owner who was held up at knifepoint in his store, what are you going to tell him as the reason you are not allowing him to defend himself in this way? WHAT?

    Finally you say “Gun owners using their guns in self defence is an act of a disordered society” – is this an idiotic comment or what, Idiot. A) What was disordered was the fact that anybody was attacking in the first place, not the method of defense used against them, B) AGAIN, what is disordered about self-defense? Would it be orderly if it wasn’t done with a gun but with a baseball bat? Would it be orderly, Idiot, if it were done with pepper-spray? Or by using your feet? Or by defending with your hands? OR IS ONE MERELY EXPECTED TO SIT LIKE A DUMMY AND PLAY DEAD ALREADY?

    I am totally amazed at your lack of intelligence, Idiot. Or are you merely toting around these socalled arguments just because you can’t quite figure out why you think gun ownership is wrong but you JUST KNOW THAT IT IS?

    Try coming over to America and telling us that we can’t own firearms. You’ll get the same answer in a majority of circumstances. Although, you may not want to come here, it’s a little wild for you, obviously. You’d rather sit in BELFAST where pensioners are attacked routinely and can’t defend themselves, and where gangs of youths rule the street corners after dark, where a brutal rape occurs in a woman’s home for hours in the middle of the night where she’s left for dead after several hammer-blows to the head and has no means of defending herself in her own home….. OKAY.

    And the fucking sick part of this is that YOU are telling her THAT’s THE WAY IT SHOULD BE.

  24. John Wright on October 9, 2006 | Permalink

    Quinney- Your comments were a little harsh and may well have gone over the line toward insulting. But since you raise so many valid criticisms I’ll leave your comment up…

  25. pugcra on October 9, 2006 | Permalink

    Anonymous, you aren’t too bright.

    I have read some socialist, elitist, wannabe intelligencia posts before, but yours here takes the cake!!!

    Those that believe that people shouldn’t have the right or ability to defend themselves, and that only the police should provide safety, need mental and/or emotional help. Either you live disconnected from reality, you’re a pacifist, or you’re just unable to admitt to yourself that the world is a dangerous place.

    I live in Detroit, MI., have a permitt to carry a weapon, and do so. If I call 911, they might show-up, might not….and not any sooner than 45 minutes. Forget about healthy adult males, how about women? Old folks? The infirmed? They don’t deserve to be able to defend themselves? Does anybody?

    Also, the reason that 98% of the time guns used in self-defence are not fired, is because the mere sight of a fire arm usually stops the attack.

    Never mind, I’m gonna stop….
    You’re too much of an idiot ananymous.

    But keep believing that you don’t need to be able to defend yourself…that will keep you and your family safe.

    Oh….wait…it won’t!!

    C.W.P.

  26. Anonymous on October 9, 2006 | Permalink

    Your rattled Quinney and angry, do you know why TRUTH you prove my point if you get provoked and angry with words, what would you be like in a stressful situation with a gun, you need to buy some soap to wash your mouth out.You won’t right what you think is wrong or disagree with, with abusive words

    For your information I have read THE History of THE ULSTER SCOTS in America from the time of the Gilbert & William Tennet the Ulster Presbyterians and the LOG COLLEGE, and the History of Jonathan Edwards and Princeton, and a lot more, Stonewall Jackson, Robert E Lee, R. l. Dabney & J H THORNWELL, and the Ulstermen who guided your country from the Whitehouse, and do you know were John Dunlap came from who printed the American Declaration of independence,Strabane, James Wilson the Grandfather of Woodrow Wilson who later became President of country and Princeton, also worked in the same printers shop in Strabane GRAY’s!

    To try and right one wrong with another wrong in the act of self-defence is an atheistic concept of justice which undermines the role of civil government and the institution of Law and Order in society, which attempts to make the absolute sovereignty of God, His works of providence in preserving and governing all his creatures, and all their actions, redundant.

    As long as government has in force righteous legislation for the enforcement of law and order in society no individual has the supreme legal right to act as judge and jury and executioner, to assume this responsibility is to act against God and conspire against the image of man which God created, God is man’s only judge.
    Why have police officers, why have courts, why have judges, and solicitors, why have jails when man in his humanistic ignorance makes them superfluous by taking the law into his own hands supposedly in an act of self defence, a act of violence is no defence,surely to act in this fashion is an act of idiocy on man’s part.

    Man’s responsibility as a righteous agent in a democratic society is to submit to the forces of law and order in the most responsible way that he can by supporting all the legal institutions of law and order, by allowing the police to police and the solicitors prosecute and judges judge, therefore bringing righteous punishment to the perpetrators of crime.

    Hi! Unlce Sam!
    Virginia sent her brave men,
    The North parade grave men,
    That they might not be slave men,
    But ponder this with calm:
    The first to face the Tory,
    And the first to lift Old Glory
    Made your war an Ulster story:
    Think it over,
    UNLCE SAM!
    The Ulster Man was There.

  27. S Quinney on October 9, 2006 | Permalink

    I don’t know why you feel it is relevant to quote from old poetry and tell me about the history of the Ulster Scots in America or why it’s even got anything to do with what we’re talking about.

    Where you DO deal with the issue, you attempt to claim now that shooting a gun in self-defense is NOT self-defense, a position which I don’t quite understand. So let’s break it down. I’ll give you three scenarios and you tell me which ones are morally justified and which ones are not. This will be a simple exercise. An intruder comes into your home and points a gun at you. You don’t understand what he wants, and cannot reason with him. He is getting agitated and you realize that he will kill you shortly.

    SCENARIO 1: You pull out your gun and shoot him to save your life.

    SCENARIO 2: You pull out your gun, he sees it and flees the scene.

    SCENARIO 3: You whimper on the floor and he kills you in cold blood.

    Are you really attempting to tell me that scenario 3 is the only moral solution?

  28. HolyGlock on October 9, 2006 | Permalink

    Asshat.

  29. Brian on October 9, 2006 | Permalink

    As long as government has in force righteous legislation for the enforcement of law and order in society no individual has the supreme legal right to act as judge and jury and executioner, to assume this responsibility is to act against God and conspire against the image of man which God created, God is man’s only judge.

    Your perspective is flawed, however, inasmuch as you are permitting those who act against those same laws to be “judge, jury, and executioner” of the law-abiding.

    Why should not the laws work in favor of the law-abiding and against the criminals under exigent circumstances? Pacifism only works in the face of an enemy who supports a moral code (i.e. America during the civil rights movement or Britain during the push for Indian independence), and imputing one’s moral code on another is inherently fallacious.

    Your perspective lends strength to those who would ignore the laws and hamstrings those who support the laws.

    Why have police officers, why have courts, why have judges, and solicitors, why have jails when man in his humanistic ignorance makes them superfluous by taking the law into his own hands supposedly in an act of self defence, a act of violence is no defence,surely to act in this fashion is an act of idiocy on man’s part.

    If an act of violence is no defense, then pacifism is the order of the day. The meek may inherit the earth, but they have to survive long enough for the strong to kill one another off.

    Unfortunately, due process concerns (i.e. police/judiciary) do not in fact exist under exigent circumstances. Even under the best of circumstances, the judiciary in the United States has consistently held that the police force has no liability for errors in its attempts at defense of members of society.

    But your perspective would have the law-abiding person die or be gravely injured, rather than supporting the laws of society. That’s a mistake.

    Self-defense is by no means idiocy, and is in fact the law of nature itself. Locke knew this. Hobbes feared this. To deny a creature the right of self-defense with the claws and teeth which it can bring to bear is to deny that creature its right to exist.

    Surely your fatalistic perspective does not in fact hold that the rabbit should meekly submit to the fox’s jaws, but should instead beat feet? Or, in the case of tool-using humans, draw one’s Glock 23 and put 165 grains of metaphorical “claws and teeth” into one’s assailant? :-)

  30. S Quinney on October 9, 2006 | Permalink

    Beautiful comment, Brian: I applaud you! :-)

  31. Brian on October 9, 2006 | Permalink

    It seems that Anonymous, who is actually Bill C who posted here before, has gone quiet. But this emphasizes the point, quite often there are people out there with views that haven’t been thought through, and any attempt to challenge those views will not actually make him think about why he believes what he believes, it will make him go to the internet to find facts that seem to back up his theory- he’ll tow his brain behind his belief and try and make the round peg fit in the square hole of his world view. I can’t see for the life of me why someone would hold the bizarre opinions that Bill does, and I’m beginning to wonder if talking to someone like that isn’t just a monumental waste of time. S Quinney did a good job of trying, but it’s interesting how little of his wall of stubborn belief was actually penetrated.

  32. XMM on October 9, 2006 | Permalink

    “I can’t believe that there are actual, breathing humans out there who think this way. What he’s suggesting is a Police State, pure and simple. One where Government is the provider of everything in his life. I can’t imagination a more pitiful line of thought.”

  33. Neil Murphy on October 9, 2006 | Permalink

    “The aggressor does not fear the law, so he must be taught to fear you.”
    Col. Jeff Cooper -1993

  34. John Wright on October 9, 2006 | Permalink

    Folks- I’m quite aware that emotions run high on this issue and that many of you, like me, are easily frustrated by a point of view which would take away your liberty and your right to defend yourself and your family. In that and many of the other points you raise, I agree with you.

    But Anonymous is clearly the minority here in this discussion, and it would be prudent to remain respectful of his opinion regardless of whether you agree with it or not. No-one here should be ridiculed, merely debated with. I don’t believe in censorship per se, so I’ve left your comments intact, but let’s be civil. For my money, I think Anonymous has a point when he says: “You won’t right what you think is wrong or disagree with, with abusive words.”

    Thanks all for your comments, including you Anonymous.

  35. Anonymous on October 9, 2006 | Permalink

    Oh ya well I rape babies!

  36. cjl on October 10, 2006 | Permalink

    There have always been, and there always will be, those among us who are unwilling and/or unable to take responsibility for their own lives.

    To those people, the word “freedom” has no meaning.

    They prefer to have someone else be responsible for their safety and well-being. In this case, the responsible party is “law enforcement”.

    When law enforcement fails to keep them safe, they can die in peace knowing that the police failed them, so their death is no fault of their own.

    But for a free man, this doesn’t work. Freedom means a lot of things to us. For one, it means that we take responsibility for our own lives, rather than turn them over to the control of the state.

    When the state tries to take control of certain aspects of our lives, we stand and fight, as our forefathers did.

    We have read history as well, and history has taught us that denying men arms is the first step in taking their remaining freedoms. This goes back long before firearms were used in warfare.

    The nice thing about Freedom, however, is that it works both ways.

    You are free, Anonymous, to choose to die at the hands of your assailant while waiting for the police to arrest him.

    You are also free to believe in the criminal justice system as a way to rid our society of villains.

    Chances are very high, however, that your villain, who chooses you as his victim, has already been arrested and convicted of one or more violent offenses.

    Obviously, the criminal justice system leaves a lot to be desired.

    Back to the original topic:

    Police are a reactionary force. They don’t arrive at the scene of a crime until after the crime has been committed.

    In the case of most school shootings, the shooter takes the lives of several innocents before taking his own life. So the police have a fairly open and shut case. They know who’s been killed and who killed them. Is this justice?

    Or would justice be better served if an armed teacher were to stop this guy before he kills my child?

    If you believe the former, I have zero respect for you, as your belief says that my child’s life is worth less than that of a cold-blooded, suicidal killer.

    Good day.

  37. Anonymous on October 10, 2006 | Permalink

    There are some on this post who have misunderstood me, because they believe that I am coming front a point of ignorance and naivety, this is a false premonition and far from the truth, as I have had two relatives murdered with illegal had guns and having a legal firearm would not have prevented or deterred their murder so it made no difference, all types of violence are wrong and two wrongs don’t make a right, it takes courage to make a stand for human justice borne out of social concern for a better society for all, sometimes one has to stand against the tide and take the abuse which is borne of ignorance. I must also state that I have witnessed and experienced (we’re talking inches apart from the victims) the carnage which results from the use of legal and illegal guns, I have also known a number of people who were shot with illegal firearms who held a legal personal protection side arm, which made no difference because they never had the opportunity to draw it.

    Having a gun won’t and does not solve crime and violence or act as an effective deterrent! Owning a gun is a reaction to fear of crime, there will always be good and evil that is a fact of life, there is no escaping that fact, there will always be violence and crime because man broke his vertical perfect relationship with his Creator and now he has to deal with a horizontal relationship with his fellow man in his fallen nature which is imperfect, he can’t cope with this idea of relating to his fellow man because his fallen nature which makes him fearful, it may be colour, it be creed it may be greed, or having worldly goods or not having worldly goods and so on, that creates this state of fear in man, because the American mentality that resorts to the gun and doesn’t fully understand the causes, the reasons, and the motives for violence, so he unethically takes a mistaken higher view.

    The have a gun, have a go way of thinking originates from the jungle where dog eats dog, “The difference between repressive violence and revolutionary violence, is only the difference between cat shit and dog shit” Leo Tolstoy, violence is violence is violence regardless whether it comes from criminal repressive acts against the innocent or libertarian aggression against the person behind the crime, this is a knee jerk violent reaction committed in anger and frustration which is a violation against man in the image of God, while the libertarian views this as necessary by virtue of his fallen state it is never a legitimate act and there can be no moral justification for acting in this misconceived manner which is a vicious circle, were does it end, it needs to be broken and the only way that this will happen is through a non-violent approach to deal with the problems of society.

    The practice of non-violence is an imperative that is inescapable how ever difficult one may find this in their mental limitations. To deal with it in a narrow-minded way with these intellectual limitations will never solve the root problems of society which are the catalyst for crime, this situational ethic can’t be shied away from, it has to be dealt with in an intellectual manner and pointing a gun at some perpetrator doesn’t solve crime, it is in terminal despair that one reacts with a gun because there in no distinction between the violence and the greater force, contemporary reactionary violence is forced upon society because one has failed to deal with the root causes, and without a distinction there can be no legitimate moral justification to demand vengeance without justice.

  38. S Quinney on October 10, 2006 | Permalink

    Anonymous I appreciate your answer and I will endeavor to keep my frustration under control. I apologize for the way I dealt with you earlier, you never resorted to stooping to my level and I thank you for your patience.

    But you are simply wrong about this. Self-defense with a handgun is nothing more than self-defense, it is NOT aggression. Libertarians like myself believe that it is wrong to INITIATE aggression, but it is absolutely NECESSARY in a civil society that we allow people to defend themselves from aggressors who have initiated aggression against them. You did not deal with the three scenarios I gave you earlier, nor did you prescribe a practical alternative.

    I would like to ask you some questions, to which I would appreciate your response in point-form.

    1) If someone comes into your home and is about to use violence against you which may end your life, would you simply cower on the floor and allow him to complete the task?

    2) If not, what form of defense IS moral, if not a gun? (Baseball bat, kitchen knife, feet, etc.)

    If you would cower on the floor and allow him to complete the task, I believe you have answered my questions and we part ways, since the society you would create would allow anyone carte blanche to do as he would like to do, and I couldn’t live in that world.

    Over to you.

  39. Brian on October 10, 2006 | Permalink

    … two relatives murdered with illegal had guns … have witnessed and experienced (we’re talking inches apart from the victims) the carnage which results from the use of legal and illegal guns … have also known a number of people who were shot with illegal firearms

    This is an appeal to authority and nothing more. Your life experiences indicate X. Mine, having used firearms defensively with discharges and without, indicate Y. So who’s right? This is a fallacious argumentative technique and it doesn’t contribute anything to your premise.

    Having a gun won’t and does not solve crime and violence or act as an effective deterrent!

    Except for the fact that the only thing that deters criminal activity is the probability of being wounded/killed during the perpetration of that activity, you’re absolutely right. The examples of firearms usage-both with and without discharge-are prolific and demonstrated throughout private studies and public media. Read your local paper.

    Owning a gun is a reaction to fear of crime, there will always be good and evil that is a fact of life, there is no escaping that fact, there will always be violence and crime

    Good! So now you’ve accepted that fact. So the question is … which is the greater good: to fight crime, or to allow crime free reign?

    The fact that you’re Calvinist doesn’t mean anything more than that you’ve accepted fatalistic despair as a lifestyle. “Que sera, sera” is a lovely song, but not much of an ideology. God’s will is far too vast to merely say that one will act as a leaf upon a stream, without any sense of self-determination. God made us with at least the illusion of free will (i.e. that even if predestination is in fact the rule, we can’t observe it until after our death, which means that our actions are still our own), which means that we have choices. And one of those choices may be to defend oneself violently.

    Did God create the zebu and the gnu without natural defenses and weapons? Did God create the lion and the tiger without natural defenses and weapons?

    If God had intended for His creations to do nothing more than sit still and accept whatever circumstances befell them, He would never have progressed into the creation of organisms that respond to stimuli.

    violence is violence is violence regardless whether it comes from criminal repressive acts against the innocent or libertarian aggression against the person behind the crime

    Let’s look at an analogy that meets your criteria: a man has violently beaten and is currently raping a woman. Another man comes along and ends the rape with a blow to the rapist’s head. Your position states that the rapist and the defender are morally equivalent. That’s inane.

    there can be no moral justification for acting in this misconceived manner which is a vicious circle, were does it end, it needs to be broken and the only way that this will happen is through a non-violent approach to deal with the problems of society.

    But the exigent circumstances of dealing with criminal activity do not allow for an in-depth analysis of the root causes of that activity. To believe otherwise is to have the squirrel question why the hawk is attacking him and try to understand from where his hunger stems, rather than duck into the bole of a tree.

    You’re confusing public policy creation with self-defense. As a society, certainly our attempts to establish egalitarian rules are laudable, but when those rules cannot be enforced through official channels, what is the recourse of the law-abiding?

    pointing a gun at some perpetrator doesn’t solve crime

    Actually, both realistically and statistically speaking, that’s the best possible way to solve a criminal incident as it happens. Don’t confuse the establishment of public policy with exigent self-defense.

    You need to understand that violence is the law of nature, and as such, is also the law of man. God created both, and God has accepted violence as a solution to certain situations throughout the Bible. With that in mind, there is in fact good violence and bad violence. “Vengeance” is not part of the picture in the few moments when one has the opportunity to save one’s own life or the life of another innocent, law-abiding person.

    Death is not something to be feared, but neither is it something to be welcomed. If God had not intended for us to prolong our corporeal existence, why would He have given us hunger and thirst, the desire to avoid pain, or an urge to procreate?

    Your perspective is very limited, and your demeaning attitude does nothing to convey some force to your “argument”, such as it is.

  40. Brian on October 10, 2006 | Permalink

    As an addendum, I’d like to state that my previous comment about Calvinism was not intended as a dig at the faith in general.

    Personally speaking, I do not believe in the doctrine of predestination per se. Rather, I believe in the mind of God being large enough such as to encompass all of time and space. That would include the future as well as the present.

    In short, God already knows what’s going to happen and what choices people are going to make. But He allows them to make those choices.

    I have no problem with Calvinism or any other Christian sect. I just disapprove of reliance on the doctrine of predestination as a worldview advocating apathy.

  41. cjl on October 10, 2006 | Permalink

    anonymous said…

    ” I must also state that I have witnessed and experienced (we’re talking inches apart from the victims) the carnage which results from the use of legal and illegal guns, I have also known a number of people who were shot with illegal firearms who held a legal personal protection side arm, which made no difference because they never had the opportunity to draw it.”

    That’s amazing!

    You’ve been inches from more than one person who was shot, and you’ve personally known a number of people who were shot because they didn’t have the opportunity to draw.

    Wow. Just wow.

    I’m afraid those people you knew, who were shot in spite of being armed, weren’t properly trained, or simply weren’t paying attention.

    It also sounds like you hang out with some rough people and/or in a very rough area.

    Those of us who carry and train (the training is much more than just lethal force) know that having a gun doesn’t make us invincible. More on that below.

    You still haven’t answered my question.

    Which of the two events is more just, the scenario where an armed teacher stops the assailant from killing my child, or the scenario where the assailant kills my child, along with other children, and is still killed by the cops when they show up?

    In the first scenario, there are a lot less dead people. In the second scenario, the assailant dies anyway. If it’s not “suicide-by-cop”, then he pulls the trigger on himself.

    I’m sorry, but my childrens’ lives are worth protecting. If that means arming teachers who are willing to carry and be responsible, I’m all for it.

    I carry a gun just for that reason, to protect my family.

    In defending myself, if they’re not around, I help ensure that I’m still around to take care of them. That’s my job as a father.

    I certainly will not lay down and say, “Do with me as you will. It’s in God’s hands”.

    The gun is my last line of defense, but it’s there.

    First line is awareness and confidence. Second line is avoidance. If those don’t get the job done, I’ve had plenty of time to prepare for lethal force.

    If the assailant manages to ambush me in spite of all that, I won’t die wishing I had my gun. I’ll die knowing that someone has bested me in armed conflict. It won’t be because I didn’t do everything in my power to defend myself.

  42. C.W.P. on October 10, 2006 | Permalink

    Anonymous;

    This type of argument has very little chance of changing anyones point of view. The very personal and specific view that you use to create your arguments is never going to be accepted by many others.

    Survival is the most basic instinct known to the human animal.
    Everyone here except you can acknowledge that, while you seem to believe that there exists a higher level of human/spiritual existance that all of us need to attain so that violence is not a part of our culture.

    Lets be logical about this. There are bad, evil people that will never stop wanting to hurt others. There are many others that are driven to criminal acts of violence due to their own personal life experiances and choices. These people care little about what your beliefs are, especially when they are about to harm your family or you to get what they want.

    Consider also that you are not in a position to tell others how to live their lives, especially when it comes to survival and the right to self-defense. Just because you believe that self-defense is never acceptable, doesn’t make it un-acceptable to the vast majority of other people.

    People will continue to defend themselves, wether you believe it is right or not. And no matter how much you wish that the world fit your personal views, survival dictates to everyone else that we deal with the world the way it is.

  43. John Wright on October 10, 2006 | Permalink

    What ‘Anonymous’ describes is fundamentally a pacifist approach, and there are significant problems with pacifism in both principal and in practice.

    In principal, pacifism denies sovreignty to the individual – they must sacrifice their lives for the idea of a greater good. In this sense, pacifism denies value to human life per se.

    In practice, pacifism allows aggressors to do what they please without deterrence or consequences. FBI statistics indicate that as many as 40 percent of incarcerated felons have decided not to commit a crime at some stage because of the fear of encountering armed citizens. Without such a fear, it is obvious that much more crime would occur, lending further support to the argument that pacifism is counterproductive to its own aim of being life-honouring.

    In short, if pacifists are to deal with meaningful solutions, they must engage with these problems that we encounter in the real world. In the real world, there are aggressors with firearms (no matter what public policy). Anonymous still has not been able to give a coherent reason that disarming law-abiding citizens would produce the kind of result he describes.

  44. Jester on October 10, 2006 | Permalink

    Anonymous,

    Thank you for posting your opinions, beliefs, and views. For some time I have given some thought to the question of appropriate self-defense. I will say that I agree with some of what you say.

    I believe that one should live to the best of one’s ability in accordance with God’s will. I do not however believe solely in fate. If I’m driving and I see a car heading straight for me, I will do whatever I can to avoid a collision. I will not simply accept my “fate.” Nor I doubt would you (Please correct me if I am wrong). The obvious difference with this example is that defensive driving is usually reduces the risk of an accident for both drivers. My point though is that I wouldn’t accept the outcome (a crash) before doing everything I could possibly do to avoid it. I could not possibly know if it was God’s will for me to die in an accident or His will that I learn to pay more attention when I’m driving, until I had done everything thing I could in order to avoid the accident.

    Now back to the issue at hand of defending one’s life against an attacker:

    You stated, “To try and right one wrong with another wrong in the act of self-defence is an atheistic concept of justice which undermines the role of civil government and the institution of Law and Order in society, which attempts to make the absolute sovereignty of God, His works of providence in preserving and governing all his creatures, and all their actions, redundant.”

    I agree that any act of vengeance on the part of the victim “undermines the role of civil government and the institution of Law and Order.” Further, I believe any act of vengeance is blameworthy in the sight of God.

    However, I do not believe self-defense is vengeful by nature. Vengeance is an action that comes after the initial attack. By my definition, self-defence is an act that attempts to prevent a violent act from being perpetrated or attempts to interrupt and end a violent act in progress. Vengeance is blameworthy, while self-defense is not IMO.

    However, as soon as anger, hatred, rage, or ego enter the heart of a person any further action could not be deemed as self-defense. Because as soon as you want to do harm to the other person, any further act would be an act of aggression. “To try and right one wrong with another wrong” is an act that comes after the fact and therefor IMO belongs in the class of actions deemed vengeful.

    Self-defence is used to stop the threat. Are there other means of stopping a threat than a firearm? Yes. And I believe that anyone considering carrying a firearm to defend themselves should seriously consider having other means of defending themselves on lower levels of the use of force continuum. However, all current less than lethal alternatives (that I’m aware of) have disadvantages compared to firearms e.g. range, effectiveness, speed of effectiveness etc.

    Anonymous, I know it’s been a few days since the last post and maybe this converstation is dead, but I hope you will reply as I’m am quite interested in your response.

  45. Rosalita Paglia on October 10, 2006 | Permalink

    I love this conversation! I think it is a good thing that people discuss how their belief works itself out in this way. :-)

  46. Anonymous on October 11, 2006 | Permalink

    Summum jus,summa injuria

  47. S Quinney on October 11, 2006 | Permalink

    Anonymous you are proving that you can’t engage in discussion if all you can leave is a Cicero quote. Is that it? The conversation is over now? You have ignored the many on here who are asking you questions and attempting to reason with you.

  48. Frank on October 11, 2006 | Permalink

    I guess you may have changed your mind about this a little Anonymous? For further reading I recommend John R. Lott’s excellent ‘More Guns Less Crime’, a scholarly update on his landmark 1997 study in the Journal of Legal Studies. You can pick up a copy from Amazon, and it will expound on the points John makes in this great blog.

  49. Anonymous on October 12, 2006 | Permalink

    I am sorry to disappoint you Quinney don’t believe everything you read on the internet. The quote I used was taken from a play (Heauton Timoroumenos) written in the fourth century BC by the Athenian poet, Menander, the Roman playwright (Who comes before Cicero approx. 30yrs at time of his death and the birth of Cicero ), Terence, produced an adapted version, but my QUOTE is From Blaise Pascal’s Pensees, REASON OF EFFECTS were he quotes Terence, besides that point, it was used as a summary of thought for my argument “EXTREME RIGHT IS EXTREME JUSTICE” the fact being that we who have different opinions of the situation which fail to succeed in convincing each other, so therefore perfect knowledge is unachievable in this case of having a probable view of what is right.

  50. Brian on October 12, 2006 | Permalink

    I neglected to respond to your “argument” pertaining to statistics regarding crime in Great Britain as opposed to the US and how those same statistics indicate that the UK is in fact safer than the US because of the lack of a “militia mentality”. I overlooked it and I’ll take the time to respond to it now.

    You relied on the Home Office’s statistics, indicating the dearth of firearms-related crimes. So how does the fact that the Home Office’s crime statistics were intentionally distorted by political pressure in order to make the UK appear safer than it actually is affect your “argument”? Please note that the article is dated February 13, 2006, from The Independent. Another blog post pulls together several important links on this point as well.

    How about the fact that the BBC has reported on the lack of effectiveness of the crime reduction strategy adopted by the British Government. That article is dated October 11, 2004.

    Maybe instead you want to discuss the efficacy of fining muggers and thieves rather than prosecuting them. Considering that the fine tops out at 100 pounds, there are circumstances where it is actually profitable to steal!

    And, hey … what the hell … I’ll pull an old Internet trick here and call in some analysis from someone else entirely which contradicts your point. He doesn’t even have to resort to using flawed statistics to do it, either.

    Now, understand that where you use the statistics which have been challenged repeatedly for their validity, other people use this thing called “reality”. And pacifistic Fatalist idology doesn’t work well in “reality”.

    As for your most recent post …

    I am sorry to disappoint you Quinney … blah blah blah … but my QUOTE is From Blaise Pascal’s Pensees, REASON OF EFFECTS were he quotes Terence,

    The fact of the matter remains, regardless of the source of your quote (because it was neither offered originally nor is the source relevant to the discussion at hand), that you fell back to quoting platitudes, rather than making an argument.

    If I say, “Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six,” does the source matter? Does the platitude itself matter? In the context of a discussion as to the use of lethal force, platitudes do nothing for any position.

    besides that point, it was used as a summary of thought for my argument “EXTREME RIGHT IS EXTREME JUSTICE” the fact being that we who have different opinions of the situation which fail to succeed in convincing each other, so therefore perfect knowledge is unachievable in this case of having a probable view of what is right.

    The fact of the matter here is that, although it’s possible to determine something resembling a point from the above rambling, you need a remedial English class. Your sentence structure defies comprehensibility, and you flaunt your ignorance of proper grammar and spelling as though they are in fact optional. Citing Roman and Greek authors does nothing for your position if you can’t form a coherent sentence.

    That diatribe aside, you are correct in that our collective worldviews are so diametrically opposed that there can be no real growth from discussion.

    With that in mind, I humbly request that you abstain from any and all discussion regarding the use of lethal force and the possession of objects capable of being used lethally. Please keep in mind that objects capable of being used to administer lethal force include knives, swords, electrical appliances, coffee mugs, piano wire, rope, chains, automobiles, pieces of glass, baseball bats, cricket bats, boots, shoes, hands, feet, teeth, claws, gravity, water, polluted air, plastic bags, and most other corporeal objects.

    Your mindset is so antithetical to aspects of human nature including self-defense and self-preservation that there is no point in presenting it to anyone who does not already share your narrow-minded pacifistic Fatalist worldview. For all of the aforementioned reasons, please understand that your writings on the aforementioned subject have no impact on anyone else. As long as you propogate this ideology, please refrain from annoying the rest of the population with your perspective.

  51. S Quinney on October 12, 2006 | Permalink

    LOL Brian I hardly know how to respond to that. Except to say that I agree entirely, and found your various links very interesting when related to this discussion. It’s clear that Anonymous simply hasn’t thought hard enough about this issue to hold a coherent, considered opinion. I asked him the simple question of how his belief would work out in practice were someone to enter his home and attempt to kill him, and he couldn’t answer me. Incredible…. but maybe the best thing would be for him to go read some more and learn before coming to irrational ‘beliefs’ about it.

  52. Brian on October 12, 2006 | Permalink

    Well, Quinney … it’s not that I bear our European provacateur any ill will. In fact, I wish him well in his endeavors.

    I just disagree with his premise and I believe that he would add a lot of weight to his presentation by doing it in proper English.

    As to your perspective, remember that Mahatma Gandhi and the Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso were/are both strong advocates of non-violent resistance to violence and oppression. Both of them also have expressed an understanding of the necessity of violent response to violence when necessary.

    They could answer your scenario, but as they actually understood where feel-good ideology ends and reality begins, their answers and his wouldn’t be the same.

  53. Bill Corr, Belfast, NORTHERN IRELAND on October 12, 2006 | Permalink

    Dear Brian,

    I think you are suffering from Instant hero immediate gratification syndrome just like the neighborhood bully who always picks on those whom he thinks are vulnerable and weak the dyslexic,(which is nothing to be ashamed of) when he himself feels vulnerable, to make himself look strong and to hide his own inadequacies. I would suggest to you before you put mouth into gear you engage your brain, would you go into the courtroom without the material facts. When was it a crime to have bad syntax from a disability and to express your views, is free speech banned in America and on the internet, life would be dull if we all held the same views and opinions variety is the spice of life, Libertarian reason was boring until I came along to add some stimulation if that is a point of annoyance to you tough luck.

    If you want to pick on the real criminals of American society I would suggest to you to look no further than the George W. Bush who was elected as President even though he had the least votes and his fellow bed partners corporate America who are infected with the stupid white virus, the root cause of America’s problems .

    I will not be bullied because I suffer from dyslexia; I also suffer from muscular dystrophy even though I was dealt a bad hand it has not made cruel or bitter to those whom I see as vulnerable.

  54. Rosalita Paglia on October 12, 2006 | Permalink

    I’m sure you don’t wish him any ill Brian, but his opinion certainly isn’t based on the best of fact and surely the onus is on him now to go and get his facts straight, so to speak. That said I have enjoyed reading this conversation and thank Anonymous for his input.

  55. S Quinney on October 12, 2006 | Permalink

    You accuse Brian of “instant hero immediate gratification syndrome” and then you proceed to tell everyone how you believe Libertarian Reason was boring before you came along? How ironic! It certainly wasn’t boring for me or any of the other readers who come to this blog because either we’re interested in libertarian politics or we are libertarians ourselves. Your short attention span for true debate should be a fair indication of why you think this. You also appear to have a preoccupation with the idea that free speech is being banned, yet you have never been censored on this blog at all (or am I wrong John?) Finally, you complain that Brian has bullied you, yet his point of contention with you was not your dyslexia or your muscular dystrophy but your opinions on the issue of firearms, to which on latter questions you STILL have not attempted to answer. It is shameful to use dyslexia and mucsular dystrophy as an excuse for shoddy thinking.

  56. John Wright on October 12, 2006 | Permalink

    Bill- I’m not sure that a blog with hundreds of hits every day could be considered ‘boring’ … regardless, you are right to say that diversity of opinion makes it a rich arena of ideas and in that regard I thank you all for your comments and for bringing unique points of interest. Remaining issues on this topic are: what self-defence IS justified and why?, does taking away legal firearms actually make a safer place to live?, and are shooting sports invalid ways to spend one’s time? I think you know MY answers.

  57. Brian on October 13, 2006 | Permalink

    I think you are suffering from Instant hero immediate gratification syndrome just like the neighborhood bully who always picks on those whom he thinks are vulnerable and weak

    Hmm … somebody suggests that the means that myself and my countrymen are proud of using to protect ourselves, our families, and other people on a daily basis are against God’s will and I disagree, so that makes me a bully. Somebody further suggests that the act of self-defense is in and of itself contrary to God’s will, so that makes me a bully.

    [sarcasm]That makes lots of sense.[/sarcasm]

    When was it a crime to have bad syntax from a disability and to express your views,

    I will not be bullied because I suffer from dyslexia; I also suffer from muscular dystrophy even though I was dealt a bad hand it has not made cruel or bitter to those whom I see as vulnerable.

    It’s not a crime at all to have bad syntax from a disability. But to portray yourself as an educated, intelligent person without any context regarding said disability (there was none either on your blog before you deleted all of the posts or in these comments) is to misrepresent yourself. I cannot be blamed for your failure to inform me of your disability. On the Internet, all we have to judge are these words. If you have a disability, then you must disclose that you have a diability or risk the effects of that otherwise-unknown disability on your argument.

    As to whether you’re being bullied … nobody’s picking on you for your disability (now that you’ve disclosed that you have a disability), but instead attacking your ideological position. You don’t need to feel vulnerable/ashamed/weak because of your disability, as long as you own up to it.

    Your position on firearms, however, has been eviscerated.

    is free speech banned in America and on the internet, life would be dull if we all held the same views and opinions variety is the spice of life

    Of course not! Dissenting opinions as to things which may be discussed with objective fact and real-world experience are fantastic and lead to productive discourse! Even dialogue on subjective, personal matters is great! But you can’t mix the two. Opinions as to real-world matters supported by nothing more than subjective ideology do not lead to productive discourse.

    In short, supporting your argument that reducing the number of firearms in circulation is a good thing with the idea that violence is inherently wrong because all people are predestined to their fate is not a rational position.

    Libertarian reason was boring until I came along to add some stimulation if that is a point of annoyance to you tough luck.

    That’s between you and the authors of the blog.

    If you want to pick on the real criminals of American society I would suggest to you to look no further than the George W. Bush who was elected as President even though he had the least votes and his fellow bed partners corporate America who are infected with the stupid white virus, the root cause of America’s problems .

    Aside from the rampant racism and “Bush-bashing” in this diatribe, I don’t think that anyone wants to “pick on” anyone else in this matter. If you’d like to debate American politics, be my guest. There are numerous opportunities for precisely that all over the web. But this discussion was about your perspective as to the necessity of reducing the number of available firearms, not American politics.

  58. Rosalita Paglia on October 13, 2006 | Permalink

    We love the blog John. :-)

  59. ATK55 on October 13, 2006 | Permalink

    I’m glad Brian said it first: “stupid white virus” is an extremely racist remark and perhaps indicative of the fact that Bill has more issues to deal with merely than his irrational fear of guns. Hoplophobia and racism are starting points.

  60. S Quinney on October 13, 2006 | Permalink

    OK, I’m a ltitle confused Bill on some of your actions which appear to be erratic… you have deleted all the posts on your blog and replaced it with one that shares a name and a template with another at http://afterdarkness.blogspot.com.

    And the second thing I observe is that the title of your post is set up as a antithesis to using guns in self-defense as if the way people use guns in this way in America is INSTEAD of forgiveness. You still do not understand that self-defense with a gun is being used NOT in revenge but as a way of preventing further violence by the individual involved! If I shoot someone who is going to kill me, I still may forgive them afterward and I will certainly call the ambulance and try to save their lives after the threat from them has been neutralized. It appears you still have this idea that use of a firearm in self-defense is somehow an evil retribution of some kind, when in fact no-one has ever suggested that you should be able to shoot someone in that manner. What we are suggesting is that you should be able to PROTECT yourself to save your life and that of your family. Is that so difficult to understand?

  61. S Quinney on October 13, 2006 | Permalink

    It is also noteworthy that in the letter from the Amish that you quote from, there is thanks expressed to the police for their efforts, USING HEAVY FIREPOWER, to neutralize the threat posed by this guy. In this case, killing him would certainly be preferable, even to the Amish, than the killings of those schoolgirls. Are you telling me that you don’t agree with what I just said?

  62. S Quinney on October 13, 2006 | Permalink

    (Bill’s blog changes identities yet again, with yet another non-English title, CARPE DIEM, at http://thepuritanstoday.blogspot.com – maybe he took my points on board about his inconsistency?)

  63. Brian on October 16, 2006 | Permalink

    Well we shouldn’t be too surprised that Bill believes what he believes…. look what he’s reading! MICHAEL MOORE, STUPID WHITE MEN! Was there ever a more blatant pack of shit written in a single book?

  64. John Wright on October 17, 2006 | Permalink

    Folks- Thanks for taking part in the discussion. Bill’s points of view are fascinating, and illustrate the socialist ideology well, and the worldview that creates it. Bill is the quintessential leftist, and his convictions are clearly heartfelt and sincere.

    The socialist emphasis is on a view of man a sacrificial being, whose greatest attainment is to surrender himself. In this post, Bill advocated that people sacrifice themselves to the whim of evil men, because he believes that greater good is accomplished in pacifism.

    At other times, man should have to sacrifice his wallet, or his freedom to do certain things, or certain faculties of his mind; for the greater good – and at all times he should sacrifice himself for the collective.

    Such a view is extremely common in lesser degrees through society, and the ideosphere is full of debate on an issue-by-issue level (like this particular issue which, superficially, was only about teachers and guns). But rarely do people acknowledge or even realise what principals are informing such views, and what ideologies are responsible for the belief.

    Libertarians like myself could find myself at odds with (likely) almost everything that Bill believes about society and the role of government. But it’s important to acknowledge the reason for that, and subsequently to debate ideology.

    Therefore my greatest issue with what Bill is saying is not PER SE that he wishes me to succumb to violent actions against me without using deadly force against those actions, nor that he believes in the moral equivalence of the aggressor and the victim. My greatest issue with what Bill is saying is that he wishes the rule of society to say that men are not sovereign individuals whose only moral justification is themselves, they are sacrifices to the collective.

  65. frawls on October 24, 2006 | Permalink

    I work in a teacher training facility and I am speechless at the suggestion that anyone would ever even remotley consider giving a teacher a gun. By the very fact that they are becoming teachers maybe suggests that they are not the type of people who are comfortable with aggression. Through your mind back to when you spent your days in the sandpit, remember those motherley figures who looked after you and gave you milk and cookies. Then as you got older they got a little more strict, telling you off for some minor misdemeanor. You can probably remember they’re names, I can Mrs Kelly was one, a kindly woman with a big heart. Now just try and picture little miss kelly or Miss whoever pulling a big ass gun from under they’re petticoats and shouting drop it motherfucker or ill blow your head off!! Please, anyone who finds themselves in the situation of being confronted by what you know can only be a raving lunitic who has very little respect for life left including his own is panic and giving another person a gun in that situation no matter what two day training session you sent them on is suicide.
    How about trying to change the attitudes towards guns and even maybe make it a bit more difficult to own one instead of giving them out like sweeties!!

  66. S Quinney on October 24, 2006 | Permalink

    Frawls, you clearly haven’t read the material on use of firearms in defensive (rather than aggressive) use, and it also seems likely that you are suffering from a syndrome known as hoplophobia (an irrational fear of firearms, no matter whose hand may be holding them).

    You said that the fact they’re becoming teachers indicates they’re not comfortable with aggression. Who is? You seem to be confusing aggression and defense! Those who need to defend themselves and children around them are being aggressed AGAINST, they are not aggressing themselves …and they would be offended at the suggestion.

    You also seem to be suggesting that little kind ladies should not be able to defend themselves. You also portray the fact that you’ve never seen (or heard of) women, no matter how kind or little they are, carrying guns. It’s quite commonplace; in fact it has been well-argued that women are MORE suited to defense with firearms than men, since they can clearly benefit more by having them than men can. Guns have rightly been called ‘equalizers’ in this respect — their defensive use in the hand of a woman against an attack by a man ensures that her lack of physical size and strength cannot be used against her.

    Lastly, your final analysis of how a person with a gun may react in that situation is seriously flawed. (1) it ignores the experience of almost 2 million citizens who have defended themselves using firearms successfully, (2) your desire to disarm the victims as though a better result would ensue if they were defenseless is asinine and we saw in the tragic Amish shooting HOW WRONG YOU ARE, (3) you mention that we should change “the attitude” toward guns. What attitude would that be?

    Yours,
    Quinney

POST A COMMENT

Your email is never published nor shared.

CONNECT

John on Facebook

FOLLOW

John on Twitter

LISTEN

John at KLPZ