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 Sat Nov 23, 2002 4:13 am

I stumbled across this thread by accident and wanted to add my thoughts to it. Going to start with a quick nitpick though:

[quote="Jamie"]
Still, well over 11,000 people are killed in gun related violence each year. That
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 Kanaeda Kuonji on Sun Nov 24, 2002 11:20 am

A good point was made about firearms being tools.

In West Virginia, there's pretty much a gun for every person in the state. Most youth are taught how to handle one responsibly at an early age. Gun laws are very lax here, and most people know how to use them with effect.

BTW, West Virginia has the 2nd lowest crime rate in the US, and the nation's most effective judicial system. The state can still get people in and out of the CJ system here within a year.

As a well-known t-shirt says: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

Blame the person that pulls the trigger, not the weapon itself. One last thing to remember is that 90% of murders in the US are Crime of passion murders, in which the individual doesn't take time to cool off.

My Prescription for this is more personal responsibility.
Kanaeda Kuonji
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 843
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Buckhannon, West Virginia, United States

Postby Ogredude on Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:22 am

Kanaeda, Monrose, thank you thank you thank you thank you!

Both of you have made exactly the point I've been trying to make for ages. I'm probably going to be paraphrasing your posts here for a long time to come.


Yes, a gun is a tool, just like a table saw or a car. People die in auto accidents every year (probably more than gun deaths, I donno the statistics) yet nobody's rallying for banning cars.


As far as registration is concerned, I think a good idea would be a "shall issue" card provided by the state in which you live. You would go down to City Hall, apply for the license, give them like a $5 filing fee, and they would run exactly the same type of instant background check that is currently run when you purchase a gun at a firearms dealer. If the check comes back clean, then you *WILL* get issued your license. There would be *NO WAY* for the government to deny you the license if your background check comes in clean. This license will allow you to purchase any firearm anywhere in the state, and allow you to carry it openly. With proof of safety course taken, you would be issued (again on "shall issue" policy) a concealed carry permit, allowing you to carry weapons concealed.

Upon purchasing the firearm at the store, the dealer will note down your card number in his database, but will NOT tie any particular firearm or quantity of purchase to that number. Just the fact that you purchased merchandise from that store.

This provides the service to the people that the "crazies" won't be able to buy a weapon at a dealer (they'll have to go black market), and it provides the service to the people that the government will not have any record of who owns which firearms, so that the people are safe from confiscations should the government turn sour.

Ease of using firearms registration records to confiscate weapons is my primary objection to registering purchases. Sure, maybe the current government won't even think of doing that, but imagine if we get someone in power who decides to be a tyrant. First thing he's gonna do is make sure that none of his subjects (we're no longer citizens at this point) can defend themselves against him and his jackbooted thugs. Firearms registration records make this process extremely easy. Let's give the tyrant a tougher time taking our teeth away, shall we?

And let's GROW UP, America. Use the brain that God gave you (or if you're atheist, that the random conglomeration of chemical reactions gave you) and ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS.
User avatar
Ogredude
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Boise ID US

Postby vorn_the_unspeakable on Mon Nov 25, 2002 8:31 am

Ok, one thing I have to put in to Og's idea (which is otherwise a good one): People who simply purchase a gun do not necessarily have the proper training to carry that gun safely. Same as cars, same as other tools, and I, personally, do not want people walking around with guns at their sides if they don't know how to use them safely! Unlike a table saw, it's easy to injure and kill others 'accidentally' with a firearm. I would recommend requiring at least a cursory training course to get a weapons license. This leads to a slightly different problem: how is the person supposed to learn to unload, disassemble, clean, reassemble, load, aim, fire, etc. a gun if he's ot allowed to purchase one? Simple: Qualified gun ranges (also a shall issue license) provide short (it shouldn't take more than a few hours) training courses in the use of a gun. The range shall provide the guns required to teach this. This parallels many other training things for licenses -- When you go to drivers' ed, you don't bring your own car, that would be absurd. So yeah.

'sall I had to say.

Vorn
User avatar
vorn_the_unspeakable
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1540
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Stratford, CT

Postby NR Pax on Mon Nov 25, 2002 8:46 am

I'm glad that others feel the same way about personal responsibility. 8)

Ogredude, what is the process like for a CC permit in West Virginia? Just curious about it.

As for the training to handle a weapon, I agree with that statement. Just as you need proper training to operate a car you should have it with a gun. Just about every range I know of does offer training to their customers. My main advantage is that the military has already trained me on rifle and pistol but not everyone has that option.
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 Ogredude on Mon Nov 25, 2002 1:31 pm

Well, I don't know about the CC laws in West Virginia, because I live in Idaho. Here's the way it works in Idaho.

Idaho requires a safety course, the sheriff's department in my county used to provide these for free, but they don't anymore. Now, you can take the course at the one indoor range in the city, and one of the big sporting goods stores. It costs about $50. Then, once you've taken the course, you go to the sheriff's office and fill out an application and get fingerprinted ($35 fee). About 3 months later, you get a letter in the mail and go back to the sheriff's office to be photographed and pick up your permit ($20 fee). This is on a 'shall issue' policy, meaning that if you pass the background check and have not been convicted of any domestic violence, and are not an illegal alien, then you *WILL* be issued a permit. They cannot deny this. This permit allows you to carry a handgun, bowie knife, dirk knife, or dagger concealed, and it also makes you exempt from the instant background check and registration. When you purchase a firearm, they simply note down your permit number (same as your driver's license number, the two are tied together in the state's computers) and you're done.

The course I took was "Legal aspects of deadly force" and was incredibly interesting. They taught us when we should or should not use deadly force, and if we were to kill someone in the process of defending ourselves, our families, or our homes, what we should expect at the coroner's inquiry. The course I took was the last free course offered by the sheriff's department.

An interesting note about Idaho's concealed weapons laws... Legally owned rifles and shotguns are exempt from the law, and you may legally carry concealed at any time without a permit if you are outside a vehicle and outside the city limits of an incorporated city. Even inside the city, you may legally carry concealed without a permit in your home and in your fixed place of work.


As far as safety training to buy a gun, I'm still not quite sure about that. I agree that everyone should have the responsibility to learn how to use the tool before buying one, but then again, requiring that turns the right into a privilege. Unless the course was available at a multitude of places and they could NOT deny you entrance to the course, and they could NOT deny you a permit once you pass the course (if the background check is clean), then I'd be OK with that. As long as they accepted a hunter's safety course, prior military service, prior LE service, or any of a number of courses offered by the ranges and sporting goods stores.

I guess this would be OK, as most extension services offer hunter's safety courses (at least in this area). But I think the ideal solution would be for parents to teach their children firearms safety. I feel that even if a parent doesn't own any weapons and doesn't LIKE weapons, they should STILL teach their kids the rudiments of firearms safety.


It all comes back to the personal responsibility to me. If people are not willing to accept responsibility for their own actions, then no amount of legislation is going to make things better. You've surely heard about the kid suing McDonalds because he's fat? That's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Little fatso needs to take responsibility for his own actions, and sign up at a fitness center. If I were the judge hearing that case, I'd not only throw it out of my courtroom but I'd throw him and his lawyer in jail for contempt of court.
User avatar
Ogredude
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Boise ID US

Postby NR Pax on Mon Nov 25, 2002 4:13 pm

I beg your pardon. I got you mixed up with Kanaeda. However, Idaho sounds like they have a good system. A ridiculously long wait time, but a good system. And they even let you carry Bowie knives? I may have to look at the job situation out there.

As for the topic of classes, you do have a point about that turning self defense into a privliege. But the way I was looking at it is just like a car: You need to be trained before you are licensed.
NR Pax
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 541
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2001 12:00 am

Postby Ogredude on Mon Nov 25, 2002 4:40 pm

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.

Also, the carry laws only prohibit concealed carrying w/o license within a motor vehicle, a logging camp, or inside the city limits of an incorporated city.

The town of Kuna, south of Boise about 15 minutes, only incorporated in the last couple years. Prior to that, Kuna residents could carry concealed w/o a permit anywhere but in their cars. (In which case, you remove the magazine and put it in the glove box, and you're perfectly OK)

Yes, Idaho is a freedom-loving state. One bad thing about this is that our politicians never come right out and say what they think about protecting 2nd amendment rights, as they know damn well that if they announce that they're pro gun control (or victim disarmament as I like to call it), that they'll never win an election.
User avatar
Ogredude
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Boise ID US

Postby Coureton on Tue Nov 26, 2002 12:28 am

I have to say that I agree with the weapon control arguments. I live in New York City. Notorious for its large number of cops, and larger number of violent crimes. I am not allowed to carry a knife larger than 4 inches at ALL in this city. Much less a firearm. To get a fire arm, or even a permit to carry a knife above 4" in length I have to register each and every instance of said thing, and have a proovable reason why I need to own such an impliment. For instance, working late at a convenience store, something dangerous in a life threatening way. In fact carrying a 2.5" blade MULTI TOOL gets me attention from the police. This is not ok to me at all. I feel confidant enough with my bare hands, but it is the principle of the matter. I should be able to as a law abiding citizen to be able to defend myself in other ways since I clearly can not rely on the police. It is quite frustrating, and I haven't gone to get my weapons registered because I do not feel that I should have to register my work tools. (I do theater tech)

I wish that, as a person whos training is primarily with the sword that I could cary my primary weapon even exposed, but practicing with a wooden sword in a park will get me nearly arested as I found out the hard way. And my gym will not permit me to practice inside becaues my Boken is a weapon in the eyes of the law.
See how she draws her breath and lets it go again, as if no one else in the world knew that air was good.
Coureton
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2002 10:43 am
Location: Boston, MA

Postby Kanaeda Kuonji on Tue Dec 03, 2002 5:32 pm

Concealed weapons in West Virginia:

Only a set number of these are given out every year, and to get one, you are required to undergo a safety course in firearms, you have to go to a shooting range (have to be able to shoot after all ;)), and pay a fee to get yourself registered. And of course, on top of that, you have to pass a background check, but that last one is pretty much universal.
Kanaeda Kuonji
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 843
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Buckhannon, West Virginia, United States

Alternate viewpoint - Pro Control

Postby Dafodarian on Thu Dec 05, 2002 7:43 am

Please pardon this intrusion (or at least interjection), given that I'm not actually a member of this order (Although I may well be taking the oath soon, I don't want to rush into it). It struck me that there were quite a few references to the crime-wracked British Isles.

Given that I live there, I can honestly say that I personally am in favour of gun control. Then again, I find it hard to approve of any device used for killing that doesn't require the user to be within arm's reach of the target. Hey, I'm a throwback, and I still think that killing is a serious enough buisness that it should be hand-made.

Okay, personal moment over. Please don't flame me, I know that guns have many uses beyong killing. I just happen to prefer swords - it's rather easier to defend oneself with a sword (C.F. Heinlein, Glory Road) than a firearm.

What I actually decided to write about is this - Having lived in Britain all my life, I can honestly say that I've seen no real problems. Admittedly, our police-forces are chronically under-funded, which tends to give skewed statistical patterns (But hey, who trusts stats, any more?), but crime really isn't a problem here. By contrast, I went to Canada with my scout group, and stayed in Scarboro, a suburb of Toronto - There was a full-scale gang shootout less than three streets away while I was there...

As to morals of this mixed bag? I suppose, first and foremost, I'm really glad that I live in a country where I'm exceptionally unlikely to get shot. I know the 'Only criminals will have guns' principle, and in my experience, most don't. I like the sense of comparative safety I get from knowing that 98% of the people I see in a given day are not actually armed with something I can't run away from. I like the police, who do a sterling and thoroughly unappreciated job. I like the fact that if I do get mugged, not only is the perpetrator unlikely to blow a fist-sized hole in me because he got the shakes with a hair-trigger, but he's also less likely to think I'm going for a gun when I hand him my wallet (much good may it do him - Its empty anyway...).

I suppose the big debate on gun control (at least from what I understand of the second amendment principle) is about the freedom to overthrow a corrupt state, en-masse. I'd like to quote Heinlein again (Yeah, I know, but I'm a fan) "Democracy is founded on the principle that a thousand people are smarter than one man. How's that work, again?", and remind people that popular is not necessarily wise. Also, I'd like to ask, given that we don't live in totalitarian regimes, why not ensure that you get the government to adhere to your high principles by direct action. It's a democracy - get yourself elected. If everyone keeps a close and careful track of who's in charge and what they're doing, then the system of checks and balances that popular government is supposed to work on actually does work.

Oh, and before you ask, yes I know how to use a firearm. Yes, I could get a license, if I felt I would ever want to use a firearm. Yes, I don't drive either - my points on killing, above, apply (to me) just as well to motor-vehicle accidents as they do to guns. I don't know to a degree of certainty I'm happy with that I won't accidentally kill someone, so I don't do it.

And yes, this post may, or may not, reflect my personal and honest opinions to any or no degree. But I hope I've managed to raise some points you'll find it interesting to discuss.

Thank you for your time.
No, I'm normal, I tell you... Normal, I say!!

Pat - CI in the order of the Knights of Jubal
User avatar
Dafodarian
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Wales

Postby vorn_the_unspeakable on Thu Dec 05, 2002 8:48 am

Finally we get some opposition in this thread, and well-thought-out opposition at that. You also make some points that I've wanted to.

I don't own or carry a gun because I am afraid of what I might do if I did. I know I have anger issues, I know I have bad aim, and I know that there's other people than who I might want to kill in the area pretty much all the time. Similarly, I don't drive because I don't trust myself not to run into something or someone.

As for how to deal with a state that appears to be becoming corrupt, I agree absolutely. Get yourself elected, there you can actually do something. And if it's too late to do anything, well, it's too late and you should have thought of that earlier. Move out already.

There is a point I want to bring up as to gun v. knife for defense (actually from an article I read once, somewhere, I don't remember where). Not sure whether I agree entirely with the person's assessment, but here it is.

Someone wrote:When you are in need of defense, you need to: A. call attention to yourself and the situation in which you are in (so that others can see that you need help), B. act quickly and decisively to ensure that you and others around you are safe from the attacker. Whether the attacker dies or not should not matter that much. Guns, well, they're loud. They're fast. And they kill a lot more easily than a knife at point-blank range. On the other hand, attackers need to: A. not call attention to oneself, B. surprise their opponent, and C. make sure that their opponent lives so they don't go to jail for forcibly entering a house and killing the inhabitants. Knives are quiet, small (and thus easily concealable in the palm of the hand), and they're very easy to injure with without killing. Thus, attackers should use knives, and defenders should use guns.


As for my opinion on using statistics to justify one opinion or another, I bring up the two fundamental problems with gun control arguments, according to me:

1. Anti-gun-control people use bad statistics.
2. So do pro-gun control people.

I, personally, do not mind the people around me having things that could kill people. Heck, people drive to work every day in vehicles that can (and do) seriously injure or kill people (and in somewhat greater numbers than guns), sometimes with little or no regard for the safety of those around them (The speed limit is 65, not 90. Act accordingly. And stop cutting people off without signalling, morons). I'd just rather they knew what they were doing with them, something that, woefully, is all too often ignored. Nobody's invincible.

Vorn
User avatar
vorn_the_unspeakable
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1540
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Stratford, CT

Postby Montrose on Sat Dec 07, 2002 8:38 am

In answer to the gentleman from Wales:

I tend to think the way you do about the blades vs. guns issue. At the moment, I am well enough trained in the use of a sword and/or knife that I feel I can take full responsibility for its use. I am not as well trained as that with firearms, despite the best efforts of one of my best friends, a libertarian.
I understand where you come from on the issue of feeling safe in your environment. I love to feel safe in my environment. At the moment, you and I will agree to disagree on a fundamental aspect of this exchange: You feel safe because in Britain the general public does not bear the responsibility for their own defense. If they did, they would be allowed carry weapons, and you are not. I consider that to be patently wrong. No human being should be without the maximum responsibility they are capable of bearing for themselves. Any less is an offense to the intent of our design and a surrender of capabilities that make us valuable to ourselves, each other, and the universe. That is why I do not support excessive gun control or disarmament, or the criminalization of certain other things.
As with all things, this is my opinion, and subject to the scrutiny of logic.
Peace and PIQE to all.
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 Dafodarian on Sat Dec 07, 2002 11:18 am

Montrose,

Having read both your previous posting and the corresponding one in the other thread, I must admit that I would doff my cap to you, had I a suitable emoticon. As it is, I thank you for well-reasoned debate, although I must take minor issue with one point - While the term 'Gentleman' is highly flattering, it is not quite accurate, given that I am in no way of gentle birth. Perhaps you would do me the honour of using my name? :)

I'm Pat. I know that names have power, so please feel free to make use of mine. After all, trust is the basis of friendship. :D

Past that minor point - I should clarify where I stand on the 'personal defence' matter. I am personally inclined to agree that one should be capable of defending oneself. Hence the fact that I am a competent swordsman, in an age where blade-craft is not only largely forgotten, but also, in most situations, somewhere between moderately and highly illegal. However, given that in my country, both at a civic and national level there are people employed by the state to defend and administer for the populace, I give my trust, in most situations, to these professionals. If I were in a country which did not extend this courtesy to its inhabitants, I would naturally re-assess the situation, and consider my position.

Still, I must ask - Is it true that the american police forces have recently had their remit clarified so that it no longer covers protecting people? Please, tell me that I have misinterpreted that? Or at least explain some nuance that I have missed, that stops the alteration from making hard-working defenders of peace and justice into the first steps toward oppression? :o


That worry aside, I have been reading back over the posts on this thread, and I have noticed one recurring theme - the twinned concepts of freedom and responsibility. Is this a common feeling amongst the knights? Is it an oddity of those of us posting on this thread? Is this worth a fresh thread to gather wider opinions?

All the usual feedback, etc, to the usual places...

Pat.
No, I'm normal, I tell you... Normal, I say!!

Pat - CI in the order of the Knights of Jubal
User avatar
Dafodarian
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Wales

Postby NR Pax on Mon Dec 09, 2002 5:28 am

Dafodarian wrote:Still, I must ask - Is it true that the american police forces have recently had their remit clarified so that it no longer covers protecting people?


Not recently. That decision was handed down by the Supreme Court about 30 years ago. The police are under no obligation to protect people and are not criminally liable if they fail to answer a 911 call. This even applies to people who have had restraining orders issued against someone and they are attacked.

My main problem with the Gun Control lobby is that I have yet to hear any arguments beyond "If we just make guns more illegal, criminals will behave."
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 NR Pax on Tue Dec 10, 2002 2:31 am

OK, it took the post but doesn't note that I did it. Stomps on the servers

One quick thing to ask Dafodarian: What kind of sword work do you study?
NR Pax
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 541
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2001 12:00 am

To Pat:

Postby Montrose on Tue Dec 10, 2002 8:25 am

My appologies. I meant no offense by not using your name. I reasoned since we didn't know each other, a familiar term might not have been appropriate.
My name is Nathan. Pleasure to meet you. :)
As it concerns the issue of police in America, my opinion is partly biased by the issue of Police not being required to protect, and partly by the fact that I live in New Orleans right now, where the police are not notoriously reliable. They're not bad, really, they're just not as good as other places, like Dallas, Houston, Maryland, etc. Of course, this may be because they have a lot more to contend with. Either way, the general trend is that Americans are expected to fend for themselves, even if the state-forces in power say otherwise. And I have to clarify that most police officers will protect rather they have to or not, just as a matter of what they view their role in society to be.
My opinion is also at least partly informed by two mutually counter-acting forces in my life: a good friend who is libertarian, and my mother who is at least partially liberal statist. She had a gun in the house growing up, but she was either superstitiously afraid to teach me to use it, or she felt she did not know enough about it to try to teach me. My uncle, however, who is exceptionally practical and intelligent, taught everyone in the house gun safety, and felt no qualms about leaving his rifle and his crossbow out where any of us (including his at that time very young child) could get to it. Everyone knew enough gun safety that they didn't touch it frivolously or without the supervision of a skilled user.
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

To Pat:

Postby Montrose on Tue Dec 10, 2002 8:26 am

My appologies. I meant no offense by not using your name. I reasoned since we didn't know each other, a familiar term might not have been appropriate.
My name is Nathan. Pleasure to meet you. :)
As it concerns the issue of police in America, my opinion is partly biased by the issue of Police not being required to protect, and partly by the fact that I live in New Orleans right now, where the police are not notoriously reliable. They're not bad, really, they're just not as good as other places, like Dallas, Houston, Maryland, etc. Of course, this may be because they have a lot more to contend with. Either way, the general trend is that Americans are expected to fend for themselves, even if the state-forces in power say otherwise. And I have to clarify that most police officers will protect rather they have to or not, just as a matter of what they view their role in society to be.
My opinion is also at least partly informed by two mutually counter-acting forces in my life: a good friend who is libertarian, and my mother who is at least partially liberal statist. She had a gun in the house growing up, but she was either superstitiously afraid to teach me to use it, or she felt she did not know enough about it to try to teach me. My uncle, however, who is exceptionally practical and intelligent, taught everyone in the house gun safety, and felt no qualms about leaving his rifle and his crossbow out where any of us (including his at that time very young child) could get to it. Everyone knew enough gun safety that they didn't touch it frivolously or without the supervision of a skilled user.
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 Dafodarian on Tue Dec 10, 2002 1:42 pm

Nathan,

No offense intended or taken - rather, it was an invitation (If on reflection a touch infelicitously worded :oops: ) to shift to named terms. As to the American police forces, I quite understand that they are almost certainly 99.98% good people, who do what they do because they believe in it, not because they have to. I also expect that they are a similar percentile snowed under with problems, for reasons well beyond the scope of this post to explain, no doubt. It seems wise that you know your way around a firearm, whether or not you intend to use it - I have chosen not to, but I like to think I know enough to have made an informed choice.

As an aside, at this point, I would like to refer back to NR Pax, and gun control - For my part, it's not so much that 'criminals will be better behaved', but rather 'criminals won't feel the need to carry firearms, and hence are less likely to kill me outright or even greviously wound me unintentionally'. I have little illusion as to how long I'd survive if the underworld decided I was in some way a major target, so I prefer to minimise the risks of non-premeditated death. I also feel it to be a wise choice to minimise the risks of hot-headed people losing their temper with a dangerous weapon to hand - after all, everyone has a breaking point. Let's say that someone has found out that he has been cuckolded, and takes his grievance out in public, to deal with the offender. They exchange words, one or other sees red, and hauls out his piece. At this point, at least one person is in deadly danger - the victim. Also in danger are bystanders, who might just get caught in the crossfire, or catch a stray bullet. And finally, there's always some mug who'll try to de-escalate the situation, to the extent of taking a bullet. Something about 'defending what's right with their lives' - ring any oath-related bells?

There we see someone who didn't intend to become a criminal, but who found a deadly weapon at hand when otherwise it might just have been a broken nose and an assault rap. I know there are things that would make me lose my sense of what's right, even if only for the two seconds required, and I don't expect there are many emotionally normal people who don't have a breaking point - Therefore, I see gun-control helping to keep this type of 'accidental' violence to a minimum.

As to sword styles, I've studied a few - several styles of fencing, for all three weapons, a (very) little kendo, a little more nempo (I think that's how it's spelled, based on a boken rather than a metal sword, but the yin/yang shift doesn't affect the basics, just the impressibits I can't do anyway. Yet.), european style rapier, english style broadsword, and more than any of my teachers really approve of 'open combat' (Or brawling with three feet of sharpened steel). I don't really intend to use any of these, beyond possibly the fencing - I just like the ability to use them as meditation exercises.

That's about my two shillings, so I'll sign off now.

TGFW :wink:
No, I'm normal, I tell you... Normal, I say!!

Pat - CI in the order of the Knights of Jubal
User avatar
Dafodarian
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Wales

Postby NR Pax on Tue Dec 10, 2002 9:06 pm

Dafodarian wrote:For my part, it's not so much that 'criminals will be better behaved', but rather 'criminals won't feel the need to carry firearms, and hence are less likely to kill me outright or even greviously wound me unintentionally'.


The problem is that criminals feel no need to behave according to society's norms. If a criminal knows that the chance of armed resistance is slim, it encourages gun related violence.

I also feel it to be a wise choice to minimise the risks of hot-headed people losing their temper with a dangerous weapon to hand - after all, everyone has a breaking point.


Yes they do. The benefit of being properly trained with a weapon is that the rules of when to use it are drilled into you quite thoroughly. And gun ownership does not equate to an increase in gun violence nor does gun control equate a decrease.

(Quick disclaimer: Yes, I believe we are going to see things differently on this issue. That's life for ya. 8) )

I just like the ability to use them as meditation exercises.


It sounds like a lot of fun. I have studied Fencing (Foil only, and not for a long time), Aikido (Bokken and Jo staff) as well as being taught knife techniques in the Marine Corps.
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 Dafodarian on Wed Dec 11, 2002 5:21 am

NR Pax wrote:(Quick disclaimer: Yes, I believe we are going to see things differently on this issue. That's life for ya. 8) )


Looks like an 'Agree to disagree' to me, we could spend months quoting and counter-quoting statistics and psychosocial theories and still get nowhere. To quote (Mirth paraphrasing Billy Pilgrim), "So it goes".

Io follow up the other part, which style of foil do you use? I personally prefer the french-grip, but I understand that a lot of places don't even teach it anymore. It's been a while since I was on the competition circuit, anyway...

And what techniques did you learn in knife-fighting? I've always wanted to learn a little (If only for proper competence with an off-hand short-blade, or knife-and-cloak styles), but it's rather difficult to find an instructor who can teach more than "you try and stick the sharp bit in the other guy before he sticks it in you" - not terribly effective, and definitely no style, form, poetry or grace - which are the part I look for.

Then, moving on from knives, back to gun control (sorry), the easy availability of knives in this country, coupled with the more-or-less slap-on-the-wrist punishments for carrying one, make them a far more common choice for crime - especially considering how hard the police bring the hammer down on even carrying a firearm. It's not so much a matter of 'abiding by social norms' as easy math that all but the slowest of criminals can follow - you carry a knife, because in the face of an unarmed victim it's 98% as effective, and the police have far more serious things to do than stop every slightly shady character they see on the off-chance they're carrying a shiv. Plus, they don't put half as much man-power into a stabbing (as long as it's non-lethal) as they do into gun-crime.

Either way - shake hands and call it personal preference? :)
No, I'm normal, I tell you... Normal, I say!!

Pat - CI in the order of the Knights of Jubal
User avatar
Dafodarian
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Wales

Postby NR Pax on Wed Dec 11, 2002 9:56 pm

Dafodarian wrote:Io follow up the other part, which style of foil do you use?


Can't remember. It was about 14 years ago.

And what techniques did you learn in knife-fighting?


Through the Marine Corps, it was basically keeping it close to your body and attacking by way of punching and slashing. Through Aikido, it focused on taking the knife away.


(If only for proper competence with an off-hand short-blade, or knife-and-cloak styles)


Such as Florentine style? Perhaps a SCA Chapter in your area would be a good reference (OK, I admit that I don't know if you have one in your area).


Either way - shake hands and call it personal preference? :)


Absolutely. I wasn't getting agitated over this at all. I disagree with your position, but you've explained your opinion quite well.
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 Dafodarian on Fri Dec 13, 2002 1:21 am

Sorry it's been a couple of days - 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.
No, I'm normal, I tell you... Normal, I say!!

Pat - CI in the order of the Knights of Jubal
User avatar
Dafodarian
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Wales

 
PreviousNext

Return to Eqvites Ivbalis, Order of the Knights of Jubal

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest