Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

clark · 2005-08-25 10:41:24

So you going to arm your kids too in this brave new world?

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-25 10:54:18

My apologies to Cindy for following the off-topic tangent.

Guns in a pressurized vessel.

Over-rated concern already addressed numerous times, perhaps most notably by Bob Zubrin in "the Case for Mars." The popular misconception of a stray bullet causing explosive decompression of a habitat just isn't true.

Anyway how do you prove you shot someone in self defense.

Under normal circumstances, it has to be investigated. However if clark is right and Mars colonists will be under constant surveillance it becomes much easier to determine.

And if a criminal knows they are going to be shot in self defense maybe they should adopt a shoot first ask questions later mentality.

Some already do. At any rate, the mindset of don't provoke the criminal is entirely the wrong approach to dealing with the problem.

If I have a gun and someone unarmed jumps me do I shot him? What if he takes my gun then what recourse do I have?

To the first question, if in your determination your life is in danger, yes. You don't have to shoot to kill, but if that's what it takes.

I'm not opposed to non-lethal weapons for personal defense either provided they can be made as reliable as a firearm. But criminals with lethal weapons are not going away.

For the second, sure, someone could take your gun away. Any weapon you have can conceivably be used against you. There is no magical safety talisman for all situations. But if you know how to use the weapon, the odds are much higher that if it's ever used it will be to protet its owner rather than harm them.

So you going to arm your kids too in this brave new world?

Not until they're old enough to shoot straight and know when not to.

clark · 2005-08-25 11:07:59

I take issue with only one point:

However if clark is right and Mars colonists will be under constant surveillance it becomes much easier to determine.

If?

Punishment is not a detterant to crime. The equation of "can I get away with it" is.

John Creighton · 2005-08-25 11:10:04

Not until they're old enough to shoot straight and know when not to.

Does the kid shoot when the bully steels his candy or calls him names?

edit: Does the kid shoot when the bully steels his candy or calls him names?
What a dangerous world to be a comedian, critic or even do peer review

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-25 11:14:44

Punishment is not a detterant to crime. The equation of "can I get away with it" is.

Quite right. The question is whether our future colonists will decide to implement the Big Brother approach with all the problems it entails, or accept the problems of some privacy and freedom from government oglers.

Ain't nothin' perfect in this world I was once told. It seems that bit of wisdom can be exported to Mars as well.

Does the kid shoot when the bully steels his candy or calls him names?

Will the bully persist when the kid pulls a Glock?

John Creighton · 2005-08-25 11:21:55

Does the kid shoot when the bully steels his candy or calls him names?
Will the bully persist when the kid pulls a Glock?

I suppose it depends if the bully will think he will actually use it. What if the bully backs off this time and decides to get the kid later for making him look bad when he is not expecting. Perhaps the bully jumps the kid from behind from behind. Suppose the next day the kid threatens to shoot the bully for beating him up. Should the bully then shoot the kid preemptively in self defense? Or how about if the kid shoots the bully after he was beat up well the bully is walking away with his back turned. Is that self defense?

clark · 2005-08-25 11:27:03

The question is whether our future colonists will decide to implement the Big Brother approach with all the problems it entails, or accept the problems of some privacy and freedom from government oglers.

You just need a *sense* of privacy. You need adults who can deal with others differences without getting bent out of shape because somebody has an interest or behaves in a manner they find personaly offensive.

There is no real issue when privacy is sacrificed for legitimate security. The historical problems have always arisen due to crossing the line of using the invasion of privacy for issues that are not related to legitame security.

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-25 11:39:52

Okay, two points.

suppose it depends if the bully will think he will actually use it. What if the bully backs off this time and decides to get the kid later for making him look bad when he is not expecting. Perhaps the bully jumps the kid from behind from behind.

et al.

Sure, any of those things can happen. But from where I'm sitting it seems that what you're saying is that after the bully (or criminal to follow the metaphor) makes the first offense, that the victim should do nothing to encourage him to greater offenses, which in essence and by default advocates giving in. That's totally the wrong mindset. Sometimes force can only be met with force.

There is no real issue when privacy is sacrificed for legitimate security. The historical problems have always arisen due to crossing the line of using the invasion of privacy for issues that are not related to legitame security.

Yet don't those in power always abuse that power if it's granted to them?

EDIT::
Anyway, how 'bout Jung and that atrophy of instinct?

clark · 2005-08-25 11:48:32

CC: Armis Exposcere Pacem

Yet don't those in power always abuse that power if it's granted to them?

You tell me, Mr. Administrator.

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-25 11:50:46

Armis Exposcere Pacem

No better way.

You tell me, Mr. Administrator.

I'm an exceptionally noble case.

clark · 2005-08-25 11:50:46

[sigh] Spectaculorum procedere debet. [/sigh]

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-25 11:52:48

Yes, time for the next act. Exiting stage left.

John Creighton · 2005-08-25 12:01:09

Okay, two points.
suppose it depends if the bully will think he will actually use it. What if the bully backs off this time and decides to get the kid later for making him look bad when he is not expecting. Perhaps the bully jumps the kid from behind from behind.
et al.
Sure, any of those things can happen. But from where I'm sitting it seems that what you're saying is that after the bully (or criminal to follow the metaphor) makes the first offense, that the victim should do nothing to encourage him to greater offenses, which in essence and by default advocates giving in. That's totally the wrong mindset. Sometimes force can only be met with force.

Yeah, the ole, "he started it". It is called not taking the law into you own hands. People will always think someone wronged them. Without a method to check that like a fair trial what is to stop someone from burning your house down for sleeping with there wife. By giving people guns and telling them to defend themselves you are telling them to take the law into their own hands with deadly unchecked force. How do you know who uses that power responsibly and who doesn't. Should people join gangs for there protection, so if someone pops one of there buddies, their friends will take care of it for them? If people don't have weapons what does doing something about it entail? A first fight. Which although sometimes can result in death often results in no injuries requiring medical attention. I think a first fight is a much better alternative then a gun fight. Just my humble opinion.

clark · 2005-08-25 12:05:39

****************Intermission**************************

[Musical score]

Lets all go out to the lobby
Lets all go out to the lobby
Lets all go out to the lobby,
and have ourselves a snack!

[/Musical score]

Shhh! It's about to start.

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-25 12:09:51

<grumbles, trudges back on stage>

Allowing people the means to defend themselves is not "encouraging them to take the law into their own hands," rather it is acknowledging that the duly constituted police cannot possibly be there to deter every crime.

The argument is not should police or private citizens be the first line of defense against crime but rather is let the burglar/rapist/murderer do their thing and call the police afterwards a policy that makes any shred of sense. The simple reality is that if citizens are denied the means to protect themselves they have two choices. Become victims in the face of armed criminals, or become criminals themselves by breaking the law to avoid being victimized. I cannot in good conscience advocate that position.

John Creighton · 2005-08-25 12:21:22

<grumbles, trudges back on stage>
Allowing people the means to defend themselves is not "encouraging them to take the law into their own hands," rather it is acknowledging that the duly constituted police cannot possibly be there to deter every crime.
The argument is not should police or private citizens be the first line of defense against crime but rather is let the burglar/rapist/murderer do their thing and call the police afterwards a policy that makes any shred of sense. The simple reality is that if citizens are denied the means to protect themselves they have two choices. Become victims in the face of armed criminals, or become criminals themselves by breaking the law to avoid being victimized. I cannot in good conscience advocate that position.

Would you rather become a criminal by breaking the law to defend yourself in a world where guns are ilegal or become dead in a world where the criminal shoots you before you know what happens in a world where guns are legal. The idea of legalizing guns to defend oneself is another erroneous consequence of the deterrent theory. If steeling is punished equally as severely as murder then some people well say, "well, if I am a thief I might as well be a murder too". The simple fact is that the low doesn't always work. Sometimes the bad guy is never caught and sometimes the wrong guy is thrown in jail. Making it legal to carry concealed firearms only compounds the matter. I believe Plato said something like, "A law will only work if the majority of people obey it out of there own accord".

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-25 12:34:26

The simple fact is that the low doesn't always work.

Yes! That is it precisely!

If guns are illegal, people on one side of the law won't have them. They aren't the people we need to worry about.

I don't accept the premise of your question. Criminals are already armed, they always will be, no law can do a damn thing about it. Any laws limiting weapon ownership will not apply to violent criminals who by definition don't obey laws.

So, would you rather live in a world where only criminals have weapons, or would you prefer to have a fighting chance when you wake up in the middle of the night and hear some thug rummaging around the next room?

I really hate bringing this up and I'm really not trying to be inflammatory, but if rapists and burglars had a Union they'd be lobbying for a total gun ban. There are countless cases of crimes being thwarted by the mere brandishing of a firearm and countless more where victims needlessly suffered or died because they couldn't defend themselves and the police never came. The fact that people can advocate de-clawing the average citizen in the face of vicious criminals while claiming some moral superiority is really sickening.

Again, I don't mean to be insulting. It's nothing personal. I simply strongly disagree with your interpretion on practical, legal and moral grounds.

clark · 2005-08-25 12:49:31

Unless you can ban guns utterly, completely, and totally for all people, CC will always have a point.

But here is where I get off the gun-toting-nut bus: I sincerely believe that if people truly wish to arm themselves with such weapons, then they should be regulated and required to carry a liscence that can only be obtained by demonstrating an understanding of the safe operation and maintenance of the weapon.

Out in the woods, hey, let the kids shoot trees. But a great percentage of people live in urbanized environments, and this free and unfettered access to guns has got to change to enforce responsibility.

I've had many friends who are complete idiots around guns. Too many people simply do not understand what this thing is, and what it can and will do if improperly handled.

Yeah, yeah- the whole "the State" is controlling a right that provides our ultimate check. It doesn't wash with me. I think we can come to a reasonable point that satifies those who wish to own guns and those who wish that those who do own guns handle them responsibly.

If we can take a gun away from a cop who beats his wife, we should be able to make the leap in common sense judgement for this. Just my point of view.

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-25 13:05:03

If we can take a gun away from a cop who beats his wife, we should be able to make the leap in common sense judgement for this. Just my point of view.

You've got a valid point and I can certainly see room for compromise.

My main objection is, as you indicate, that licensing a right sets a bad precedent. But like any other right, it can be denied under certain circumstances as history shows. With fallout, but nonetheless.

Ideally, we'd disarm those who can't be trusted with a weapon rather than license everyone who elects to exercise that right. The benefits as far as crime go aren't from everyone being armed anyway, but rather the very real possibility that any given person is armed.

Back to the old "can I get away with it" point.

clark · 2005-08-25 13:28:33

Ideally, we'd disarm those who can't be trusted with a weapon rather than license everyone who elects to exercise that right.

I see your point, but it comes back to your own take on crime fighting- taking action after the fact. After the irresponsible behavior has been noticed and caught.

I would rather create some barriers that reduce the occurence of such instances.

I had to take a test to get a permit to use a knife to whittle when I was a cub scout. I wasn't allowed to touch a gun, or come within 10 feet of one until I understood the saftey and operation of them. The rifles that were mine growing up were had trigger locks, along with all the rest of the guns. Not because I would go and play with them, but because it is proper care and respect for what these things are (plus some other kid might get into them). I still treat every gun or rifle, even if I absolutely know it is unable to fire, as if it were loaded.

I've known enough people who respect guns like this, and more than enough who don't to realize that those who understand what is being asked for here is not that difficult to do. It's common sense. I am not going to cry over some idiot who thinks his "god given" right to a firearm means he doesn't have to show some good sense and learn how to handle a weapon appropriately. [shrug]

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-25 13:33:37

I am not going to cry over some idiot who thinks his "god given" right to a firearm means he doesn't have to show some good sense and learn how to handle a weapon appropriately. [shrug]

No disagreement here.

clark · 2005-08-25 13:47:26

Nemine contradicente

Act 3?

Trebuchet · 2005-08-27 16:17:51

Perhaps the winning comprimise is a license which simply says that the person in question is responsible enough to carry weapons, but without registration of the actual weapons?

If people are worried that such schemes will allow The Government to crush all the posisble armed resistance, perhaps an ironclad right to privacy which requires that citizen's records be encrypted and the key to that encryption stays with people... of course, then you'll get into the scenario where people will shoot someone, claim to be licensed, and then not turn over their encryption key, but I believe that this will fail the laugh test with juries.

Mundaka · 2005-09-05 03:22:08

idiom · 2005-09-05 04:04:04

perhaps freedom of the press and of speech should be regulated.

A simple grammar exam would go a long way, along with a certificate of basic rhetoric. Don't leave grade school without one!

That is basically what a firearms license is. It like being required to have a Barristers certification to represent yourself in a court of law.

It might stop you incriminating yourself, or being so easily deceived by politicians.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-08-25 10:41:24

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#27 2005-08-25 10:54:18

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#28 2005-08-25 11:07:59

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#29 2005-08-25 11:10:04

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#30 2005-08-25 11:14:44

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#31 2005-08-25 11:21:55

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#32 2005-08-25 11:27:03

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#33 2005-08-25 11:39:52

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#34 2005-08-25 11:48:32

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#35 2005-08-25 11:50:46

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#36 2005-08-25 11:50:46

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#37 2005-08-25 11:52:48

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#38 2005-08-25 12:01:09

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#39 2005-08-25 12:05:39

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#40 2005-08-25 12:09:51

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#41 2005-08-25 12:21:22

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#42 2005-08-25 12:34:26

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#43 2005-08-25 12:49:31

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#44 2005-08-25 13:05:03

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#45 2005-08-25 13:28:33

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#46 2005-08-25 13:33:37

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#47 2005-08-25 13:47:26

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#48 2005-08-27 16:17:51

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#49 2005-09-05 03:22:08

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#50 2005-09-05 04:04:04

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

Board footer