PDA

View Full Version : A Modest Proposal Regarding Gun - Related Killings



BrianY
07-25-2012, 03:31 PM
The NRA reminds us that guns don't kill people. People kill people. Obviously, this is true.

However, it is also indisputable fact that some people use guns to kill people.

Therefore if we want to prevent people from being killed with guns, we have to do one of two things:

1) Eliminate the guns

or

2) Eliminate the people

The NRA does not want to eliminate guns and I agree with them. We should, instead, eliminate people.

Mass incarcerations or executions of people who posess guns is the only way to prevent gun-related murders. After all, it is only logical that those who have guns are the most likey people to use them (it's pretty hard to use a gun when you don't have one....). Some gun advocates will undoubtedly object to this on the grounds that not all gun owners are criminals and that the majority of gun-related crimes are committed by those who posess the weapons illegally. However, as recent events have clearly demonstrated, the fact that the guns may have been obtained legally and that the perpetrator has no previous criminal record has no bearing on whether a person may choose to commit murder using a gun. Nor is it possible to predict which gun owner is likely to 'snap" and use his weapon in a crime. It is better, therefore, to be 'safe than sorry" and assume that anyone possesing a gun is a potential murderer and to deal with them accordingly.

Under this policly, guns will be allowed to exist and guns manufacturers and gun sellers will be allowed to continue their trade. Only those people who - legally or not - posess a gun will face incarceration or death. After all, guns are not the problem. People with guns are.

I hope you will agree that this policy is reasonable and consistent with the NRA's message about guns and gun-related deaths. I urge you to contact your Senators and Representatives and demand that they pass this measure immediately so that the scourge of gun deaths can be eliminated from this great land and our children and grandchildren can live their lives free from this terror.

John Smith
07-25-2012, 04:44 PM
Personally, and sadly, I don't think there is a solution to this problem. It's part of what our nation is.

Bob Adams
07-25-2012, 04:57 PM
Best to say nothing and have folks wonder if you are an arse than start a thread like this and prove it.

skuthorp
07-25-2012, 05:00 PM
Best to say nothing and have folks wonder if you are an arse than start a thread like this and prove it.

One more to Mr Pavlov.

Bob Adams
07-25-2012, 06:02 PM
One more to Mr Pavlov.

Fooking amazing. A person starts a thread that although clearly satire, is sick regardless, then I get insulted for calling him out. No worries, I do not respond to a bell and am quite independant in my thinking. Perhaps others here are the ones to salivate at the sight of a gun thread. Look in the mirror, for an example.

Flying Orca
07-25-2012, 06:04 PM
a thread that although is clearly satire, is sick regardless

Wot's sick about it, then?

Bob Adams
07-25-2012, 06:06 PM
Wot's sick about it, then?

Most of it:


Mass incarcerations or executions of people who posess guns is the only way to prevent gun-related murders. After all, it is only logical that those who have guns are the most likey people to use them (it's pretty hard to use a gun when you don't have one....). Some gun advocates will undoubtedly object to this on the grounds that not all gun owners are criminals and that the majority of gun-related crimes are committed by those who posess the weapons illegally. However, as recent events have clearly demonstrated, the fact that the guns may have been obtained legally and that the perpetrator has no previous criminal record has no bearing on whether a person may choose to commit murder using a gun. Nor is it possible to predict which gun owner is likely to 'snap" and use his weapon in a crime. It is better, therefore, to be 'safe than sorry" and assume that anyone possesing a gun is a potential murderer and to deal with them accordingly.

Glen Longino
07-25-2012, 06:19 PM
That's upside down, think about it...what would our friend in Colorado do if he came in the door and EVERYONE inside opened up?

There would be a lot more dead people!

Kevin T
07-25-2012, 06:21 PM
Fooking amazing. A person starts a thread that although clearly satire, is sick regardless, then I get insulted for calling him out. No worries, I do not respond to a bell and am quite independant in my thinking. Perhaps others here are the ones to salivate at the sight of a gun thread. Look in the mirror, for an example.

Bob, I mean absolutely no disrespect in this question, but your signature line, is it purely tongue in cheek, or what?

You quote one of the greatest pacifists of all time, in fact a man so utterly committed to non violence that he would rather die then strike out against the oppression of the British rule that yoked his nation for more than 350 years, and through his nonviolent actions brought down the British empire in India, and yet at any mention of guns or gun control you jump to the ramparts. You're pulling our leg with the signature line, right?

Just curious.

htom
07-25-2012, 06:38 PM
:snort: Gandhi objected to the British laws banning firearms ownership in India. He urged people to be trained in their use. That said, he greatly objected to their being used for murder -- but considered that a fault of the murderer, not the firearm.

A small part of our problem is the "don't warehouse the crazy people" movement. True, they should not be warehoused. But some of them get worse and worse, and end up as mass murderers before they're warehoused in prison. We need better mental health facilities.

Glen Longino
07-25-2012, 06:48 PM
"We need better mental health facilities."

I've begun to think that All gun owners should be required to present a Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory to their state prior to buying any gun.
In Texas only police officers and lawyers are required to take the test, to my knowledge.
And just for fun, how about we test all school teachers, preachers, and candidates for public office?;)

Bob Adams
07-25-2012, 06:52 PM
Bob, I mean absolutely no disrespect in this question, but your signature line, is it purely tongue in cheek, or what?

You quote one of the greatest pacifists of all time, in fact a man so utterly committed to non violence that he would rather die then strike out against the oppression of the British rule that yoked his nation for more than 350 years, and through his nonviolent actions brought down the British empire in India, and yet at any mention of guns or gun control you jump to the ramparts. You're pulling our leg with the signature line, right?

Just curious.

Not at all, Gandhi is the man I admire most after Jesus Christ, a man of peace himself. That said, passive non violence is pretty ineffective agasinst a druggie in your house in the middle of the night. I am a non violent person, unless my hand is forced. My gun is always the last resort. Want unspeakable violence? Look at the solution this thread suggests.

htom
07-25-2012, 07:01 PM
Gandhi, btw, was not a pacifist. He considered pacifists to be cowards. Gandhi's non-violence is very different than pacifism.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
07-25-2012, 07:36 PM
Move to Canada, the UK, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Holland, ...problem solved.

Shang
07-25-2012, 07:42 PM
One more to Mr Pavlov.

Ivan Pavlov had a pack of very intelligent dogs, who taught him to ring a bell just before they salivated.

Glen Longino
07-25-2012, 07:42 PM
Move to Canada, the UK, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Holland, ...problem solved.

Well sure, but will any of them take a Texan?
No?
I figgered!;)

Phillip Allen
07-25-2012, 07:46 PM
Wot's sick about it, then?

suggesting killing off people... tough question

Tom Montgomery
07-25-2012, 08:13 PM
Fooking amazing. A person starts a thread that although clearly satire, is sick regardless, then I get insulted for calling him out. No worries, I do not respond to a bell and am quite independant in my thinking. Perhaps others here are the ones to salivate at the sight of a gun thread. Look in the mirror, for an example.
Suggesting that the British should eat Irish babies was sick satire as well. And classic.

2MeterTroll
07-25-2012, 09:19 PM
but apt. i think we should eat the victims of gun violence. only then will we know the taste of fear. consumerism does not stop at the grocery isle.

Kevin T
07-26-2012, 03:12 PM
:snort: Gandhi objected to the British laws banning firearms ownership in India. He urged people to be trained in their use. That said, he greatly objected to their being used for murder -- but considered that a fault of the murderer, not the firearm.

A small part of our problem is the "don't warehouse the crazy people" movement. True, they should not be warehoused. But some of them get worse and worse, and end up as mass murderers before they're warehoused in prison. We need better mental health facilities.

I call Horse Hockey, it wasn't an issue of individual firearm ownership and being trained in them, it was in relation to the Indian Arms Act of 1878 and how it related to military weapons and the training therein for military reasons and the defense of a nation, not individual protection.

He also took issue with British rule that would not allow India to develop its own standing army as part of the denial in India moving towards independence.

And lastly your claim at #14 that Gandhi's embrace of nonviolence and pacifism are somehow not related beggars all reason.

The definition of pacifism is a committment to nonviolence by any measure. If there is some dictionary that claims that pacifism and nonviolence are not related and two different things I would love to see it and you have my apologies in advance.

htom
07-26-2012, 05:14 PM
You haven't been reading Gandhi's actual writings, have you? Probably reading Fischer or Erickson, devout pacifists who quoted MKG out of context and ignored much. Their bad, not yours.

The easiest of Gandhi's works to find (and it's easy to understand) is probably All Men Are Brothers, which has long chapters on both non-violence and proper conduct. Running away is not Gandhi's non-violence. Gandhi wants us to throw ourselves on the advancing bayonets. Failing that ... kill the bayonetters.

http://www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/phil8.htm :


Between Cowardice And Violence

I WOULD risk violence a thousand times rather than risk the emasculation of a whole race.

Violence the Choice

I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence... I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.

But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment. Forgiveness adorns a soldier...But abstinence is forgiveness only when there is the power to punish; it is meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a helpless creature....

But I do not believe India to be helpless....I do not believe myself to be a helpless creature....Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.

We do want to drive out the best in the man, but we do not want on that account to emasculate him. And in the process of finding his own status, the beast in him is bound now and again to put up his ugly appearance.

The world is not entirely governed by logic. Life itself involves some kind of violence and we have to choose the path of least violence.

No Cowardice

I want both the Hindus and Mussalmans to cultivate the cool courage to die without killing. But if one has not that courage, I want him to cultivate the art of killing and being killed rather than, in a cowardly manner, flee from danger. For the latter, in spite of his flight, does commit mental himsa. He flees because he has not the courage to be killed in the act of killing.

My method of nonviolence can never lead toloss of strength, but it alone will make it possible, if the nation wills it, to offer disciplined and concerted violence in time of danger.

My creed of nonviolence is an extremely active force. It has no room for cowardice or even weakness. There is hope for a violent man to be some day non-violent, but there is none for a coward. I have, therefore, said more than once....that, if we do not know how to defend ourselves, our women and our places of worship by the force of suffering, i.e., nonviolence, we must, if we are men, be at least able to defend all these by fighting.

No matter how weak a person is in body, if it is a shame to flee, he will stand his ground and die at his post. This would be nonviolence and bravery. No matter how weak he is, he will use what strength he has in inflicting injury on his opponent, and die in the attempt. This is bravery, but not nonviolence. If, when his duty is to face danger, he flees, it is cowardice. In the first case, the man will have love or charity in him. In the second and third cases, there would be a dislike or distrust and fear.

My nonviolence does admit of people, who cannot or will not be nonviolent, holding and making effective use of arms. Let me repeat for the thousandth time that nonviolence is of the strongest, not of the weak.

To run away from danger, instead of facing it, is to deny one's faith in man and God, even one's own self. It were better for one to drown oneself than live to declare such bankruptcy of faith.

Self-defence by Violence

I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.

The strength to kill is not essential for self-defence; one ought to have the strength to die. When a man is fully ready to die, he will not even desire to offer violence. Indeed, I may put it down as a self-evident proposition that the desire to kill is in inverse proportion to the desire to die. And history is replete with instances of men who, by dying with courage and compassion on their lips, converted the hearts of their violent opponents.

Nonviolence cannot be taught to a person who fears to die and has no power of resistance. A helpless mouse is not nonviolent because he is always eaten by pussy. He would gladly eat the murderess if he could, but he ever tries to flee from her. We do not call him a coward, because he is made by nature to behave no better than he does.

But a man who, when faced by danger, behaves like a mouse, is rightly called a coward. He harbors violence and hatred in his heart and would kill his enemy if he could without hurting himself. He is a stranger to nonviolence. All sermonizing on it will be lost on him. Bravery is foreign to his nature. Before he can understand nonviolence, he has to be taught to stand his ground and even suffer death, in the attempt to defend himself against the aggressor who bids fair to overwhelm him. To do otherwise would be to confirm his cowardice and take him further away from nonviolence.

Whilst I may not actually help anyone to retaliate, I must not let a coward seek shelter behind nonviolence so-called. Not knowing the stuff of which nonviolence is made, many have honestly believed that running away from danger every time was a virtue compared to offering resistance, especially when it was fraught with danger to one's life. As a teacher of nonviolence I must, so far as it is possible for me, guard against such an unmanly belief.

Self-defence....is the only honourable course where there is unreadiness for self-immolation.

Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defence or for the defence of the defenceless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission. The latter befits neither man nor woman. Under violence, there are many stages and varieties of bravery. Every man must judge this for himself. No other person can or has the right.

Source: The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi