Bowling for Columbine

The noble Order of the Knights of Jubal traces its origins back to the Year Two Thousand A.D., when a group of distinguished persons of good and true character, founded the order to promote chivalry and honour. The order takes its name from our leader, Alexander Jubal McRae, who on two (so far) occasions has been seriously injured, in one case fatally, defending an innocent woman from attackers.

Moderators: Jamie, Greg

Postby NR Pax on Fri Dec 13, 2002 3:52 am

Dafodarian wrote:I was just wondering if you had any contact numbers/pages for the SCA, given that you may well be right about that being the easiest way. Thanks.



I did some digging for you. Drachenwald is the SCA Kingdom that Wales falls under. Hope it helps.

And this is the main site.
Only a fool sees hardship as just wages for being different.
NR Pax
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 541
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2001 12:00 am

Postby redwulf25_ci on Sat Dec 14, 2002 1:36 pm

Ogredude wrote:Situation 1) A mean nasty stray dog comes onto my property and menaces my family and/or livestock (yes, I'm a farm boy.)
I want my scoped rifle so that I can remove this dangerous animal from my property with the minimum of fuss. If I had to use just my handgun, I'd have to let the dog approach me to within about 25 yards (handguns aren't really that useful past that range), thereby putting myself at higher risk


Risk of what? The dog shooting you? I've never seen a dog leap 25 YARDS, nor have I seen one that possesses a projectile weapon.
Martin Hall CI, PIQE: Be Virtious and Cool
Clan of the cats Geek Code
COTC+++ Arch++ Prm++++ Char++ Chelsea++ Jubal+++ Sebo+ Pst+ FA-- EI+ M++ W++ Ch- WeR--- EaR--- V--- WW+ WC- W&W++
CRFH Code v3.1 R+ D&Blue and Margret+ !WB F- PSL++[Blue or April] U !IRC RM? BSL RPG P+++ I+ E GN+ AI+
redwulf25_ci
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 227
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Denver, CO, USA

Postby redwulf25_ci on Sat Dec 14, 2002 1:42 pm

Ogredude wrote:Actually, in Idaho, you can carry any weapon openly, anywhere. Some businesses may ask you to leave it outside, but that's their right as the business is private property.

The weapons covered by our concealed carry laws include handguns, dirks, dirk knives, bowie knives, and daggers. Anything else, including legally owned rifles and shotguns, is OK to carry concealed anytime, anywhere, without a permit.


If a weapon is legal to cary openly, and the reason you have it is for self defence not the comission of a crime, why would you WANT to cary it concealed? Aren't you less likly to be attacked if your attacker can SEE that you are armed?
Martin Hall CI, PIQE: Be Virtious and Cool
Clan of the cats Geek Code
COTC+++ Arch++ Prm++++ Char++ Chelsea++ Jubal+++ Sebo+ Pst+ FA-- EI+ M++ W++ Ch- WeR--- EaR--- V--- WW+ WC- W&W++
CRFH Code v3.1 R+ D&Blue and Margret+ !WB F- PSL++[Blue or April] U !IRC RM? BSL RPG P+++ I+ E GN+ AI+
redwulf25_ci
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 227
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Denver, CO, USA

Postby Montrose on Sat Dec 14, 2002 5:39 pm

Mana Weed said, in response to my observation about the state of weapons in Fuedal Japan:
That's true, and though there were several samurai that used them fairly and justly, there were also many that would go out of their way to bring down 'mortal insults' upon themselves that it was, at the time, considered perfectly within the samurai's rights to kill the insulter.
This insult was walking into a sheathed katana. So, these samurai that had a taste for killing would poke their katanas out at right angles, and practically hit people with them solely to have the excuse to kill.

Right. That's my point. The Samurai were the ONLY ones with weapons. They wouldn't have had the luxury of being draconian to that degree if the populace were allowed to be armed.

Mana Weed also commented on the observation concerning a drunk driver crashing into a house that that can easily be written off as an accident, cars are intended for transportation, guns are intended to kill.
(later, I'll figure out how to use the quote option.)

what the tool is intended for is immaterial. an improperly used car is every bit as dangerous as an improperly used gun.

My contribution to the general discussion of swordplay:
I also am into fencing. I do all three weapons, though sabre is my strong suit. My friends and I also regularly get together with shinai and beat the snot out of each other with them in a style that cannot accurately be called by the name of any martial art. :) We just do it for fun. I've always wanted to take formal classes or be actually trained in broadsword, greatsword, or shield and sword technique, but there are no teachers around here that I have found.
Nathan Webb, CI

"If you have to choose between the lesser of two evils, you're not chunked up high enough."
Montrose
Junior Keenspotter
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2002 5:44 am

Postby NR Pax on Sun Dec 15, 2002 10:20 am

Risk of what? The dog shooting you? I've never seen a dog leap 25 YARDS, nor have I seen one that possesses a projectile weapon.


Not to be rude, but have you ever seen wounds inflicted by dogs? It makes more sense to take the dog out with a ranged weapon than it does in closing with them. Why put yourself at risk?

If a weapon is legal to cary openly, and the reason you have it is for self defence not the comission of a crime, why would you WANT to cary it concealed? Aren't you less likly to be attacked if your attacker can SEE that you are armed?


Two reasons:
Because some people get very uncomfortable iwth weapons being openly displayed. Nothing wrong with showing some courtesy.

If attackers have no way of knowing who is armed and who isn't, that makes it a bit less likely that they will try anything.
Only a fool sees hardship as just wages for being different.
NR Pax
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 541
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2001 12:00 am

Postby redwulf25_ci on Tue Dec 17, 2002 7:15 am

NR Pax wrote:
Risk of what? The dog shooting you? I've never seen a dog leap 25 YARDS, nor have I seen one that possesses a projectile weapon.


Not to be rude, but have you ever seen wounds inflicted by dogs? It makes more sense to take the dog out with a ranged weapon than it does in closing with them. Why put yourself at risk?



A handgun acurate at 25 yards IS a ranged weapon, my point was that it is unessisary to posess a sniper rifle for this task as the dog is unlikly to travel the 25 yards before you can fire and possesses no ranged weapons of it's own.
[/code]
Martin Hall CI, PIQE: Be Virtious and Cool
Clan of the cats Geek Code
COTC+++ Arch++ Prm++++ Char++ Chelsea++ Jubal+++ Sebo+ Pst+ FA-- EI+ M++ W++ Ch- WeR--- EaR--- V--- WW+ WC- W&W++
CRFH Code v3.1 R+ D&Blue and Margret+ !WB F- PSL++[Blue or April] U !IRC RM? BSL RPG P+++ I+ E GN+ AI+
redwulf25_ci
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 227
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Denver, CO, USA

Postby Darth Paradox on Tue Dec 17, 2002 3:19 pm

redwulf25_ci wrote:
NR Pax wrote:
Risk of what? The dog shooting you? I've never seen a dog leap 25 YARDS, nor have I seen one that possesses a projectile weapon.


Not to be rude, but have you ever seen wounds inflicted by dogs? It makes more sense to take the dog out with a ranged weapon than it does in closing with them. Why put yourself at risk?



A handgun acurate at 25 yards IS a ranged weapon, my point was that it is unessisary to posess a sniper rifle for this task as the dog is unlikly to travel the 25 yards before you can fire and possesses no ranged weapons of it's own.
[/code]


At 25 yards, if the dog starts moving quickly towards you, you have no guarantee of being able to hit the dog with the first shot, nor of being able to get a second shot off. Dogs are pretty fast sometimes.
Darth Paradox
Christopher Battey, CI
Scatterplot - a thrice-weekly webcomic. College == chaos && chaos == fun.
User avatar
Darth Paradox
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1406
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Postby terra incognita on Tue Dec 17, 2002 5:03 pm

if you want to keep guns away from people, just threaten their offspring.
User avatar
terra incognita
Keenspot Deity
 
Posts: 10052
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 4:00 pm

Postby Mistrunner on Sat Dec 21, 2002 5:50 pm

Well, I thought I would add in my two cents. Personally, I hold gun control as I do many other issues. I find that there is no suitable solution. However, I find that there are two principles that I use when examining an issue:

1) Take statistics and past experiences with a grain of salt, as they can be misleading.
2) Not rely on any basis of principles that cannot be logically argued to be an 'ultimate truth' for those debating. (i.e. The Bible, between two who believe it to be the word of God, would be considered such a doctrine. The Constitution of the United States would not, as it is faliable, changable, and written by people who, for better or worse, aren't perfect)

I find that these principles help me out when I am arguing a debate logically and reasonably. Of course, if I find that the end result just rings wrong with me, I reserve the right to concede the debate to my being unreasonable and try to sort through the issue on my own. I will note that when I choose this option, I choose not to base my actions on this irrationality, and will back off from any sort of policy-making decision until my arguments improve.

So what do we have to work with that we can argue on gun control? I should first like to state that, unless we decide that all weapons are to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis (probably the wiser choice) arguing gun-control should be done for guns in general. If a gun falls into a catagory where it's main purpose is obviously fit for what is deemed 'acceptable use' as a firearm, it should be allowed. So without further condtions, IMO:

Why guns should (potentially) be legal:

Outside of any debate that they are legally allowed (a null argument, imho, arguing to preserve the status quo does nothing to say if the status quo is a good thing) the main reasonings (that I have seen) seem to be as follows:

1) Use for hunting. Some people, even in the modern world, hunt. Either for pleasure or as one who I spoke with put it, "It was cheaper to renew the permit than to buy groceries."

Counter-Argument: a) Hunting is not neccessary in the modern world, and thus hunting is not a proper excuse. Moreover, other weapons could be used for hunting, weapons that are less deadly and more 'traditional,' leading to a safer and 'more sportsmanlike' hunt.

Counter-Counter-Argument: I) While unnecessary, hunting can be a convenience for those who hunt for food. Many do not possess the skill to use other weapons in hunting. Moreover, as other hobbies are allowed, even if deemed 'unnecessary,' so too should hunting.

My conclusion: While hunting is not enough of an issue to sway the situation directly one direction or another, I would state that, should the issue be equal, hunting is a good enough reason to allow controlled use of firearms.

2) For defense of self in private situations (Robbery, armed assault, etc.). If the other person has a gun, it is argued, you have a better chance of defending yourself (and possibly others) if you are armed on equal terms.

Counter-Argument: a) Gun control would reduce the amount of gun-related violence due to the unavailability of guns, and would result in no need for you to be 'armed on equal terms.' Criminal access might still be present, however, it would be severely reduced and make criminals much easier to trace. (Crime by posession would lead to preemptive capture)

Counter-Counter-Argument I) Criminals would still gain access through black market situations, leading to an unarmed populace and while criminal access might be down, the almost zero level of guns among the legal populace would cause a great imbalance.

My conclusions: I find that this argument holds water. With the application of gun control, the ratio of criminals with guns to non-criminals with guns would increase, although both numbers would decrease. This is enough of an issue to have legal access to guns, but does nothing for determining that guns should be given without proper certification.

3) For defense of self against government. (foreign or domestic) For the prevention of a totalitarian state, whether imparted by a foreign body or by deception in a domestic one, firearms may be the only recourse to defending one's liberties and principles.

Counter-Argument a) Defense against a foreign government is the province of the military and (possibly) law enforcement, and as long as these systems are present the idea of a militia is obsolete in modern warfare. In the case of domestic problems, the local system of government, combined with assistance of government systems in other parts of the world, should be enough to solve any domestic problems that do come up.

Counter-Counter-Argument I) In the case of foreign powers, an able militia can help aid homeland security in case of invasion, and drastically aid the preservation of the decided-on state of affairs. In the case of domestic, foreign powers are no guarantee, and one cannot act through a system that has been altered to prevent manipulation into a better state of affairs.

My conclusion: This arugment is a fairly good one, however it is flimsy as the only source of debate due to the fact that what the majority wants may not always be the wisest decision, and arming the majority so that it can enact decisions actually can disable democracy.

Final conclusion on this side: I believe that these two arguments combined allow for the justification that guns should be allowed and while the users might need to be registered as safe in order to purchase said guns, the registration of the guns themselves is not necessary and detrimental in some cases. (See Reasoning 3)

Why guns should (potentially) not be legal:

1) Guns can hurt and kill people, and in fact the intent of a firearm is to hurt and/or kill. Ergo, a gun is different than other tools, being a true 'instrument of death.' Anything that has only the purpose to hurt and/or kill should not be dispersed among the general populace due to the potential for improper use.

Counter-Argument a) With proper education and training, a gun can be used as a tool as in cases 2 & 3 in the former argument. Therefore with proper training, improper use due to poor ability can be minimized. In the case of improper use due to anger, this can be prevented by not allowing guns to be sold (and restricting the user, not the weapon) to those who have a history of violence issues. In the case of improper use due to criminal intent, criminals will still have access (see 2, A, I) to guns, as well as other weapons.

Counter-Counter Argument I) While training may resort in a lower level of mishaps, those with anger issues are not prevented entirely by restrictions. The anger could be a 'breaking point,' or they might gain access to a gun from someone else, or they might not be reported, or the gun issue could be the first instance. In the case of criminals, while some guns might still be present, the level will be severely reduced. (see 2, A)

My conclusion: This argument is sufficient to demonstrate regulation of gun owners, but not loss of guns or gun types. Those with anger issues will find other ways to cause harm, as will criminals.

I found no other arguments that I found satisfactory. (without innate logical flaws)

Therefore, with all matters considered, I would propose the following as an ideal solution:

1) The classification of firearms into three catagories. (and subsequent sub-catagories) Those mainly being Defensive, (ex. handguns) Hunting, (ex. most sport rifles and some shotguns) and Military (ex. SMGs, Sniper Rifles, etc.) The first two shall be publically accessable without regulation to the guns themselves, while the third would only be available to specialized, predetermined groups.

2) A background check and proper training would be necessary to gain a permit, this permit being necessary for the acquisition and posession of a firearm. The guns themselves would not be recorded, and those who do not gain their permits revoked (for violent activity or some similar offense) may buy and carry these weapons as they see fit, with respect for private business.


This all said, and very long-winded, this is all noted to be my own opinion based on my own experience and the arguments that I have been exposed to. Also note that while logic is great for policy making, in moment-to-moment situations one does not have time to write out a lengthy diatribe, so logic can jump out a window where the real world is concerned. :)

Tony
Mistrunner
Junior Keenspotter
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2002 8:38 pm
Location: Arlington, WA

Postby Ogredude on Fri Jan 17, 2003 1:48 pm

NR Pax wrote:
Risk of what? The dog shooting you? I've never seen a dog leap 25 YARDS, nor have I seen one that possesses a projectile weapon.


Not to be rude, but have you ever seen wounds inflicted by dogs? It makes more sense to take the dog out with a ranged weapon than it does in closing with them. Why put yourself at risk?


This is quite true. You wouldn't believe how fast an angry dog can lunge. And 25 yards is the outside of a handgun's effective range, unless you're VERY highly trained with it. Most practical shooting clubs have the majority of the targets at 10 or 15 yards range, I believe.

Besides, an incident happened a few weeks ago which necessitated the use of a scoped rifle. I live on a farm, and a stray cat showed up who was beating up on my two cats. He was too canny to be caught in the live trap, and too skittish to approach any closer than maybe 50 yards if you were lucky. Usually he'd run away if you got within 75 yards of him. So, I used my scoped .22 and removed him from a range of about 100 yards, by hiding in a bush so he couldn't see me.

NR Pax wrote:
If a weapon is legal to cary openly, and the reason you have it is for self defence not the comission of a crime, why would you WANT to cary it concealed? Aren't you less likly to be attacked if your attacker can SEE that you are armed?


Two reasons:
Because some people get very uncomfortable iwth weapons being openly displayed. Nothing wrong with showing some courtesy.

If attackers have no way of knowing who is armed and who isn't, that makes it a bit less likely that they will try anything.


Also very true. One day while I was living in the city, my next-door neighbor needed to go pick up her son, but was afraid because she thought she was being stalked by someone. So I escorted her, carrying my 9mm holstered visibly at my side. When I returned to my apartment, several of the children in the courtyard approached me with the question "Are you a cop?". When I told them I wasn't, they responded with "Then why are you carrying a gun?"

This is the attitude that I hope to avoid by carrying my defensive tools concealed. It's just a heck of a lot more convenient to me to be able to carry my tools around without people being afraid of me, or having to leave it behind when I enter a business, or even having the police called when I enter a business. Some businesses will call the police if someone walks in openly carrying a weapon, especially convenience stores, even though they have nothing to worry about. However, if it's concealed, I can avoid the issue and the inconvenience entirely.
User avatar
Ogredude
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Boise ID US

 
Previous

Return to Eqvites Ivbalis, Order of the Knights of Jubal

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest