Skip to main content

View Diary: RKBA: A Terrible Act of Domestic Terrorism (368 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  See the problem with this argument (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sandy on Signal, happy camper

    I am referring to this:

    But don't deprive those who would be protected from stronger attackers from defending themselves simply because a domestic terrorist committed an unspeakable crime.

    Is that more often than not, it emboldens people who are weaker to get into situations they otherwise might have avoided.

    This is very true with gang violence. People shoot other people now for things like "saving face" for being called out and too weak to respond without a gun.

    Some people argue on this site that if everyone had guns, we'd all have some kind of mutual respect. I don't believe that, I think that guns enable people to be bolder and more aggressive.

    Just read some history of the gun fights in the old west. Everybody had guns, and there were so many justified killings that today we would call murder.

    I don't think we should be settling problems with guns, and that is exactly what people who carry guns want to do.

    "... the Professional Left, that is simultaneously totally irrelevant and ruining everything" (Glenn Greenwald)

    by ranger995 on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 08:16:09 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Disagree. (7+ / 0-)

      Is that more often than not, it emboldens people who are weaker to get into situations they otherwise might have avoided.

      I'm not sure what you mean by this. Example?

      And

      This is very true with gang violence. People shoot other people now for things like "saving face" for being called out and too weak to respond without a gun.

      Gang members are by definition criminals. Their behavior bears little relationship to someone who is not a criminal. Past performance is the best predictor of future actions.

      The "old west" period lasted about ten years. The lawlessness of that time was greatly exaggerated, mainly by reporters writing stories for papers back East.

      I know a few concealed carry permit holders, and none of them want to settle problems with guns. If you shoot someone in self defense out in public, not only do you get to live with it, you will find yourself in court defending those actions.

      I don't believe everyone should be carrying either. But the chance that someone might be could deter a criminal, whereas the certainty that nobody else is armed will embolden them.

      "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

      by happy camper on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 08:40:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think that you are sincere in your feelings, (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Miss Blue, Roadbed Guy, happy camper

        but I disagree.

        If you choose to carry a gun, that means that you are willing to use it. If you think you are just going to show people your gun and that is going to be enough, that is wrong headed.

        There are actual historical accounts of gun fights in the west, eyewitness accounts and court documents. Historians have gone through these and written books about them.  

        Take for example the end of the Dalton gang--I use this example because it is a case of armed citizens against criminals. Here is a situation where five armed robbers robbed two banks, and the armed citizens decided to shoot them. An intense battle ensued, leaving four of the criminals and four citizens dead, and several others wounded. My personal opinion is that this is the kind of thing gun enthusiasts see as evidence for why it is good to have an armed civilian population.

        This is probably one of the most innocuous examples I could find. Many gunfights occurred between neighbors over land or business disputes.

        We are just going to have to disagree on this one.

        I don't believe everyone should be carrying either. But the chance that someone might be could deter a criminal, whereas the certainty that nobody else is armed will embolden them.

        An armed citizenry is not going to deter criminals, it will embolden people to use their guns.

        Lastly, 30 years ago, gang members settled their disputes through fist fights. Now they are shooting one another. I think part of the reason for this is that people living in rural areas who define their freedom as being able to carry a gun, and are afraid that the government is coming to take them away, will not allow any gun regulation. Even closing down the gun show loopholes. Access to guns has become much easier, and these criminals are using guns that were purchased legally.

        "... the Professional Left, that is simultaneously totally irrelevant and ruining everything" (Glenn Greenwald)

        by ranger995 on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 08:55:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Please stop with the old west and gang references (5+ / 0-)

          Those are extreme and hyperbolic examples that are irrelevant to the issue at hand here.

          This is about personal protection and safety. Owning a handgun does not "embolden people to use their guns". It provides a means of personal protection and self defense.

          If President Obama didn't intend to lead, he shouldn't have applied for the job.

          by APA Guy on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 09:04:42 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  They are very relevant. People are arguing for an (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Miss Blue, Roadbed Guy

            armed civilian population, and suggesting that they are safer. I am pointing to a point in our history where civilians were armed to refute that notion.

            Also, if gang members didn't have such easy access to guns, then there wouldn't be so much killing.

            This is about personal protection and safety. Owning a handgun does not "embolden people to use their guns". It provides a means of personal protection and self defense.

            This statement is an oxymoron, how will they protect themselves? By using their guns.

            I can point to hundreds of individual cases where people were shot in "self-defense" needlessly, because a person felt threatened and opened fire.

            There was a recent case here in Chicago, where a man shot one of his neighbors. The guy was walking his dog and let the dog pee on the shooter's lawn. The man grabbed his gun and went to confront him. The dog owner responded hostly, and the non-criminal law abiding citizen shot him dead.

            Most of the comments in the Tribune were in support of the shooter. So, a population that thinks it is OK to shoot people for such a small thing. And you want to arm them all.

            "... the Professional Left, that is simultaneously totally irrelevant and ruining everything" (Glenn Greenwald)

            by ranger995 on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 09:13:46 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  According to Google (5+ / 0-)

              this shooter was a 69 year old man who was physically attacked by the dog owner, a 23 year old man.

              You forgot that part.

              No way should anybody get shot over a dog on the lawn, but it sounds like that was not the issue in this case. What kind of a moron punches a 69 year old man, especially one with a gun in his hand?

              Another recent incident comes to mind, near where I live: a man having a picnic with family members in his back yard asked a group of men playing basketball at a park adjacent to his property to refrain from using profanity in front of his wife and children. The men responded by hopping the fence and beating this guy to a pulp in front of his family. He was hospitalized. He could have easily been killed.

              If he had a gun, should he have defended himself? If he had, would it have been justified? Would you say the shooting was over a basketball game?

              "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

              by happy camper on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 09:45:50 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I think the man ran out to confront the dog owner (0+ / 0-)

                because he had a gun. He could have  just as easily called the police.

                The dog owner should not have attacked him, and I did say that he responded hostly.

                The problem here is that you think this is a good thing. You think it is good that a confrontation and shooting that could have been completely avoided happened.

                The guy deserved to get shot, right?

                "... the Professional Left, that is simultaneously totally irrelevant and ruining everything" (Glenn Greenwald)

                by ranger995 on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 10:23:06 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  No. I do not (5+ / 0-)

                  think it is a good thing. Your assumption that I do is offensive.

                  You believe this man should have called the cops. How long does it take the cops in Chicago to respond to a call of a dog pissing on someone's lawn?

                  Right.

                  Should he not have told the dog-walker to leave his property? Would it have been better for this old man to be beaten by a stronger and younger attacker? In his own front yard? Getting beat up can kill a man that old.

                  For that matter, do we know if these two had past altercations? Maybe it was not the first time he'd been told to keep the dog off the lawn. Maybe he threatened the old man previously?

                  You did not answer my questions about self defense in the situation I have cited. Is there any situation where you feel a person is justified in defending themselves with deadly force?

                  "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

                  by happy camper on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 10:53:31 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Well DUH... (5+ / 0-)

              Woman about to be raped defending herself = using her gun

              Yes...that's pretty much it. You have a problem with that concept of personal protection? If so, please state your rationale here...

              If President Obama didn't intend to lead, he shouldn't have applied for the job.

              by APA Guy on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 10:59:49 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  There are (4+ / 0-)

          1.8 million lawful defensive uses of guns each year. In the great majority of those cases, no shots are fired. Even fewer result in death. So often, showing a gun is indeed good enough. Many a burglar has fled at the sound of a pump shotgun being racked.

          In Australia, they experienced a sharp rise in robbery and burglary after the government imposed severe restrictions on firearm ownership. Criminals want their victims to be unarmed because it's safer for them.

          30 years ago gang members had lots of guns. Blaming rural citizens, most of whom don't carry unless it's deer season, for urban gang warfare, is off base.

          Again, very few people advocate no regulation of firearms. The gun show loophole is not a "gun show loophole". A dealer at a show must run background checks on purchasers. A private citizen who is not a licensed dealer does not. I would have no problem with making it possible for private sales to use the background check system.

          "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

          by happy camper on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 09:15:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  My argument is that in those cases no gun was (0+ / 0-)

            needed, simply turning on the outside lights would have also made the burglars flee. I think every time a gun rights activist pulls their gun, they report it as having saved their lives, and all those incidents are included in that 1.8 million statistic.

            "... the Professional Left, that is simultaneously totally irrelevant and ruining everything" (Glenn Greenwald)

            by ranger995 on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 09:21:27 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  That's one out a 150 people . . . (0+ / 0-)

            and yet the other 149 of us survive.

            How can that be considering that our world is so fraught with danger?

        •  the change in gang culture you cite came from (0+ / 0-)

          L.A. at a time when the CIA was ratcheting up the stakes by pumping harder drugs into the black market to raise money off the books.  seriously.  Google it.

          but still, the violence would have been so much better if only California hadn't had the laxest gun laws in the nation.

    •  Wow...I couldn't disagree more... (4+ / 0-)

      If you know anyone who has been raped personally (and I know 2 women and one man who have been raped VERY well), you will know that most of them wish they would have had the ability to stop their attackers through any available means - including deadly force.

      Love, peace and undestanding is great in theory and the ideal, but when confronted with a criminal act in need of instant remedy, a firearm can be that remedy. Your notion of "settling problems" is rather pie-in-the-sky when matched against reality.

      Just one man's opinion...take it for what it's worth.

      If President Obama didn't intend to lead, he shouldn't have applied for the job.

      by APA Guy on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 09:02:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If this is your opinion it is pointless to discus (0+ / 0-)

        Love, peace and undestanding is great in theory and the ideal, but when confronted with a criminal act in need of instant remedy, a firearm can be that remedy.

        This kind of bullshit tough guy talk, and carrying a gun, does not make you any tougher.

        "... the Professional Left, that is simultaneously totally irrelevant and ruining everything" (Glenn Greenwald)

        by ranger995 on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 09:33:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, but it is true to an extent. (4+ / 0-)

          Being nice and friendly won't get you anywhere with a hardened criminal or a hard right extremist, both of which could be drawing a firearm on you.

          (RKBA) Right to Keep and Bear Arms: interested in a DKos RKBA group? Email in profile. Share Our Wealth

          by KVoimakas on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 10:03:27 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Being nice and friendly? What a joke. (0+ / 0-)

            See this is the Dirty Harry type of bullshit that I am talking about.

            Who is telling you to be nice and friendly with criminals?

            See what you are trying to do is paint me as weak, while you are strong going around with your gun facing up to the criminals.

            That is bullshit tough guy talk, that comes from bad 1980s action movies.

            "... the Professional Left, that is simultaneously totally irrelevant and ruining everything" (Glenn Greenwald)

            by ranger995 on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 10:19:57 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You do realize that I never said that YOU told (5+ / 0-)

              me to be nice to criminals right?

              I'm not trying to paint you as anything. Let me go find a quote...

              If someone puts a gun to your head and pulls the trigger, you are going to die.  Laws, public opinion, ethics, ideals, treaties, or personal preferences will not prevent your death.

              As a Buddhist sage observed, “If you understand, the world is the way it is; if you do not understand, the world is the way it is.

              The way of the world is force. You may not like that. You may choose not to believe it.  But it is true.  The world is ruled by force.  

              Public opinion is worthless.  It will not stop any weapon.  Law is nothing but rules you apply after you have subdued people by force.  Laws, without being backed up by more force, are not worth the ink they’re written with.

              What keeps you alive and free are weapons and trained warriors ready to use them.  It is not economics, philosophy, ethics, negotiations, treaties or laws.  Power and the will to use it are the only things standing between us and the grave.

              (RKBA) Right to Keep and Bear Arms: interested in a DKos RKBA group? Email in profile. Share Our Wealth

              by KVoimakas on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 10:27:17 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Jeezuz, if you eat up that dirty harry bullshit, (0+ / 0-)

                then there really is no sense in this discussion.

                "... the Professional Left, that is simultaneously totally irrelevant and ruining everything" (Glenn Greenwald)

                by ranger995 on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 10:35:28 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Can you tell me what's wrong with what I posted? (4+ / 0-)

                  I'm just curious.

                  (RKBA) Right to Keep and Bear Arms: interested in a DKos RKBA group? Email in profile. Share Our Wealth

                  by KVoimakas on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 10:37:40 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It is a right wing argument that is meant to (0+ / 0-)

                    promote fear of the boogeyman to support power and violence.

                    It is the same argument that was used to start wars in Iraq and Vietnam.

                    The civil rights movement was mostly a movement of non-violent resistance, and it was extremely effective, which proves that theory wrong.

                    "... the Professional Left, that is simultaneously totally irrelevant and ruining everything" (Glenn Greenwald)

                    by ranger995 on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 10:42:12 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Except that the civil rights movement was (4+ / 0-)

                      protected by black guys with guns to a certain extent.

                      Fear of a militant (and armed) black power group/groups made King look like a much better alternative.

                      Deacons for Defense, an armed civil rights group, provided security to those who wouldn't take up arms themselves (which I find hypocritical.)

                      Hell, even Gandhi's had the mutiny 'behind' him that made the British go "Well, shit. This isn't going to work."

                      I'd much rather reason with someone than force them to do anything. I'm not a fan of violence. I don't go out of my way to seek physical confrontation. I've never drawn my gun. I hope I will never have to. But I will have contained violence (or power, whichever you'd like to use) at my fingertips if I need it.

                      Because some people understand only force.

                      (RKBA) Right to Keep and Bear Arms: interested in a DKos RKBA group? Email in profile. Share Our Wealth

                      by KVoimakas on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 10:47:00 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Look, what you are saying is not true. (0+ / 0-)

                        There were militant and armed black groups, but they were rejected by the mainstream civil rights activists. They were not used to protect anyone, in fact, the leaders of the movement viewed them as more of a hindrance to forwarding their goals.

                        Peaceful, non-violent, movements have been successful where attempts at violence have failed. To try to suggest MLK or Ghandi were successful because of the threat of violence is rewriting history to support your point of view.

                        Look at Israel--two sides that seek violent solutions, and the violence just keeps getting worse and worse. The strong armed tactics of the well-armed and trained Israeli military have not protected the public overall.

                        If you want to believe that if everyone was armed to the teeth, we would all be much safer, then we really just have to agree to disagree.

                        Because some people understand only force.

                        That would be the boogeyman

                        "... the Professional Left, that is simultaneously totally irrelevant and ruining everything" (Glenn Greenwald)

                        by ranger995 on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 10:55:33 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Uhm , it's not a bogeyman if it's true. (4+ / 0-)

                          link

                          The Deacons for Defense and Justice is an armed self defense African American civil rights organization in the U.S. Southern states during the 1960s. Historically, the organization practiced self-defense methods in the face of racist oppression that was carried out by Jim Crow Laws; local and state agencies; and the Ku Klux Klan. Many times the Deacons are not written about or cited when speaking of the Civil Rights Movement because their agenda of self-defense, in this case, using violence (if necessary) did not fit the image of strict non-violence agenda that leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. preached about the Civil Rights Movement. Yet, there has been a recent debate over the crucial role the Deacons and other lesser known militant organizations played on local levels throughout much of the rural South. Many times in these areas the Federal government did not always have complete control over to enforce such laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Voting Rights Act of 1965.

                          Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was no stranger to the idea of self-defense. According to Annelieke Dirks, “Even Martin Luther King Jr.—the icon of nonviolence—employed armed bodyguards and had guns in his house during the early stages of the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1956. Glenn Smiley, an organizer of the strictly nonviolent and pacifist Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR), observed during a house visit that the police did not allow King a weapon permit, but that ‘the place is an arsenal.’”[3] Efforts from those like Smiley convinced Dr. King that any sort of weapons or “self-defense” could not be associated with someone like him in the position that he held. Dr. King agreed.

                          (RKBA) Right to Keep and Bear Arms: interested in a DKos RKBA group? Email in profile. Share Our Wealth

                          by KVoimakas on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 10:59:33 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  I just want to make one last point and then (0+ / 0-)

                        I'll leave you to your gun enthusiasm.

                        Because some people understand only force.

                        I think that, because you think this way and carry a gun, you are one of these people who only understands force, and you pose a threat to my safety.

                        OK, I will not bother you again.

                        "... the Professional Left, that is simultaneously totally irrelevant and ruining everything" (Glenn Greenwald)

                        by ranger995 on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 11:23:10 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  why do you think he poses a threat to your safety (4+ / 0-)

                          Please explain what he has said that has given you cause to fear for your safety if you were to encounter him in the non-virtual world.

                          There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

                          by Crookshanks on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 12:24:11 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  ? (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          rockhound, theatre goon

                          If I understood only force, I'd not be pro-LGBT equality, more single payer health care, pro-legalization, pro-....well, any of a number of liberal/progressive issues since the Dems can't FORCE much of this shit through. Organizing Dems is like (you've heard it before) herding cats. If I recognized only force, I'd be a Republican. I'm not.

                          (RKBA) Right to Keep and Bear Arms: interested in a DKos RKBA group? Email in profile. Share Our Wealth

                          by KVoimakas on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 10:32:26 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

        •  Oh please..."being tough"? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gerrilea, rockhound, theatre goon

          Is that what you think this is about?

          God...misguided isn't even the word for your line of thought here.

          If President Obama didn't intend to lead, he shouldn't have applied for the job.

          by APA Guy on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 10:57:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Would that be a second amendment remedy? (0+ / 0-)

        Interesting that you use that word.

        "... the Professional Left, that is simultaneously totally irrelevant and ruining everything" (Glenn Greenwald)

        by ranger995 on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 09:38:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site