It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Armed bystander almost shot hero that disarmed AZ shooter
Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Kharron
I think a logical conclusion is that you can own what you want on your property as long as you have no mental conditions, but in the public, create two kinds of permit. Permit A is for home owners, permit B is for public areas. And permit B would have higher standards. IQ tests, clear criminal background, etc etc. That way you can be comforted in the knowledge that when you see a gun owner in the public locals, they are intelligent and slow to anger.
However, even in a cattle town like Abilene, Kan., the murder rate was much lower than in most modern American cities. Larry Schweikart, a historian at the University of Dayton, estimates that there were probably fewer than a dozen bank robberies in the entire period from 1859 through 1900 in all the frontier West. Schweikart summarizes: "The record is shockingly clear: There are more bank robberies in modern-day Dayton, Ohio, in a year than there were in the entire Old West in a decade, perhaps in the entire frontier period!"
Such low rates of robbery, burglary, and theft cannot be attributed to swift and certain justice meted out by the criminal justice system in Aurora or Bodie. Rarely were any robbers, burglars, or thieves even arrested. Law officers often had a rather casual approach to their job, and some operated on both sides of the law: a gang leader and several of his men served as officers for a time in Aurora, and several Bodie officers may have cooperated with robbers. On the rare occasions when a suspect actually was arrested, chances were good that, if prosecuted, he would not be convicted. Since so few men were convicted, it hardly seems possible that the normal punishment that followed—imprisonment in jail or the penitentiary—could have served as much of a deterrent.
There seems to be little question that the principal deterrent to robbery, burglary, and theft in Bodie and Aurora was the armed citizenry. Not only were the citizens armed but often they had professional training and experience in the use of firearms. Many of the residents of Aurora had fought in the Mexican War and those of Bodie in the Civil War. This was especially true of the Irish-born residents who had arrived in the United States just in time, and in such a condition, to make them likely candidates for service in the wars. Thus the citizens had arms, knew how to use them, and were willing to fight with deadly force to protect their persons or property
Originally posted by purplemer
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread
The point I was making ist the one used by some feminist's about how men are violent, how a mans "appendage" is a weapon against women. All sex is rape, all weapons equal murder.
Thank you for your imformative reply. It is nice to see a egocentric thinking in a ecofeminist way. The true feminist movement is only just starting and it about how we relate our culture and ourselves to our mother planet. The industriliation of our home planet and our technocentric view points are bringing biosphere to the brink of collapse. This is the rape of the planet and such extremities are caused by our technocentric attitudes and our ultra egotistical society.
Feminstic socities are far more peaceful and you have to go back premetal age to find them. The removal of the worship of the phalic.. ie the gun will go a long way towards bringing peace to home. The freudian connection that you made between the gun...the pennis...and sex is a postive step towards understanding this process
We have been conditioned with the beleif system we have. But remember it is only a beleif system and it can change...
What kind of world do you want to life in..?
Originally posted by MikeNice81
I just wanted to add a couple of pictures to aid in discussion.
edit on 22-1-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
“The gun has been called the great equalizer, meaning that a small person with a gun is equal to a large person, but it is a great equalizer in another way, too. It insures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed. When the British forgot that they got a revolution. And, as a result, we Americans got a Constitution; a Constitution that, as those who wrote it were determined, would keep men free. If we give up part of that Constitution we give up part of our freedom and increase the chance that we will lose it all. I am not ready to take that risk. I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive.”
Those who hammer their guns into ploughs will plough for those who do not.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Even in Matrifocal societies, there was always a warrior class. Weapons are necessary. One day you will be slaying the King Stag and the people devouring the meat. The next you will be defending from Romans. The weapon is the same, the use is different. I do think that the PTB have abused the "need" for industrialization. Not so much for the manufacturing but the way they do it. i.e. strip mining for coal? I'm dead against that when we all know there are alternatives that will never see the light of day (besides the "bloom box's" used at Google HQ). My wife (a feminist as well) says in an oblique manner, industrialization somewhat spurred the equality movement with women being allowed to work. I disagreed with her and said that I saw it as stripping "womanhood" from women and their role as the prime "child raiser" (for lack of better terminology). I dont imply that women should be "barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen" but having a mother actually RAISE HER CHILD is not replaceable. It wasnt easy to keep the bills paid but my daughter is VASTLY superior to those raised in "day care" centers. She is also raised to be a strong woman! (not hard, she IS German LOL) when the kid turned 5 and went to school, my wife went back to work. Believe it or not, I am somewhat of a feminst. Hell, religiously I range somewhere between pagan and gnostic as they both serve the Goddess! But remember, the Goddess has a dark face as well and there are times she makes war. Hell hath no fury..? Our culture would do better to embrace the feminine more. The Catholics were close but they sterilized Her and made Her to a sempering, weak, shell. Yes, I do see Mary as the Goddess as well. We are horribly out of balance and there is Evil in the world. We must accept that. We cant destroy it entirely. There is the White Lodge and the Black. They are codependant on the other. So long as there is Evil, the Good must stand against it. Weapons are a necessity at our level of human evolution. In a thousand years and Majick is restored, there will still be weapons. Those will be the weapons of the soul and mind. Weapons will always exist. I am a Defender and have been forever. Over life times my weapons have changed, the need for them never has. While you tend Her alter, I will tend to the perimeter that you may do Her work. We all serve in our own capacity. Blessed Be. Please respond. I'm enjoying this. Damn shame your across the pond. I'd like to meet you (with my wife) over a pint.
There are other significant reasons why these peoples would have seen earlier times as a Golden Age. There is a great deal of evidence suggesting that prehistoric human beings were much less war-like than later peoples. Archaeological studies throughout the world have found hardly any evidence of warfare during the whole of the hunter-gatherer phase of history. There are, in fact, just two indisputable cases of group violence during all of these tens of thousands of years
The lack of evidence for warfare is striking. There are no signs of violent death, no signs of damage or disruption by warfare, and although many other artefacts have been found, including massive numbers of tools and pots, there is a complete absence of weapons. As Ferguson points out, “it is difficult to understand how war could have been common earlier in each area and remain so invisible.”
Contemporary indigenous peoples are sexually egalitarian too. Before European conquest and colonisation, many of them traced descent and ownership of property through the mother’s rather than the father’s side of the family
All of this strongly argues against the idea that prehistoric human beings were brutes whose only concern was survival, and whose lives were full of cruelty and conflict, as men competed against each other for status and food and sex. Warfare, social oppression and male domination – and an existence that was “nasty, brutish and short” – belong to a later phase of human history. Evidence from artwork, cemeteries and battle sites suggests there was an “eruption” of these social pathologies during the fourth millennium BCE, starting in the Middle East and central Asia. The root cause of this change seems to have been environmental
Originally posted by Primordial
Armed bystander almost shot hero that disarmed AZ shooter
If his weapon didn't discharge then he didn't almost shoot anybody.
The way I see it, if he had gotten there sooner he could have potentially stopped the gunman from shooting a bunch of people.
So rather than 'he almost shot an innocent man', really, he almost saved a bunch of people.
See how twisting things around works?edit on 21-1-2011 by Primordial because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by purplemer
Actually, as I stated earlier your logic is flawed.
The reason countries seek nukes is as a deterrent to their enemies that have them.
Countries don't want to nuke countries that can nuke them back.