January 26th, 2007 04:07 PM
Originally Posted by raevan
I sent her an e-mail with two court cases to ponder, the one from my sig, and Hertzler vs, city of San Jose. I didn't tell her what they were about, but that they would interest her as a woman, and might be food for thought for her next article, that she should dig into the details of what brought about the cases too. Maybe a little dose of "no duty to protect, even with a protection order" will spark a little glimmer of thought into maybe she just might be thinking about the wrong side of things. Also, both cases were against women, let her "elders" explain that one.
Nahhhh, I'm just wasting my time.
Not expecting a response.
"fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia,(D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand
January 26th, 2007 06:36 PM
Sent her this. I'm not expecting much back, but since the alternative is complaining to the choir here, I went ahead and sent it off.
I'm sure you have heard from others in response to your article, but I hope you will take the time to read and think about these few major points.
First is the idea that any manner of regulation aimed at law-abiding people will have a significant effect on criminals, who are by definition not law-abiding, and will not follow these regulations anyway. Attacking someone is already illegal no matter where you go, and anyone who is willing to break those laws isn't going to lose any sleep about breaking a few others. You could argue that a "crime of passion" prevents a person from thinking clearly about breaking laws, but this just confirms that laws against a particular object will not stop (or even slow) crime. Someone who has decided (even in a moment) to attack another person will simply use whatever is closest, even their own fists if nothing else is handy.
This brings up the second point. And that is your apparent fixation on the objects used in acts of violence, not the actions themselves. I hope you can agree that a handgun (or any other firearm) is by far not the only thing one person can use to harm another. Targetting an object for regulation rather than an action (even if we assume the regulations to be 100% adhered to) only invites the use of a different object. To eliminate the action, target the action itself, and those who perform it. Anything else will be ineffective.
I also must take issue with your statistical comparison of the UK and the US. I don't know if you have intentionally tried to mislead people by comparing murders with "gun-related fatalities" or if you simply don't know the difference, so let me explain. The definition of "murder" is very narrow, while the figure you cite for the US includes accidental shootings, suicides, and justified homicide, none of which can be considered murder. In addition, you completely ignore the concept of per capita statistics when comparing two countries of radically different population sizes.
Finally, I'd like to refer you to a quote by Ben Franklin. I'm sure you've heard it before, but it bears repeating - "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." This is just as true today as ever. The right to bear arms is one of the essential liberties, and eliminating it in the name of safety will both fail to make people any safer and take away an important freedom.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts about this. Feel free to email me back if you have any comments.
January 26th, 2007 10:38 PM
Bob, that is a terrific letter. Well done.
January 26th, 2007 11:31 PM
well, thank you. I only hope she thinks the same.
Originally Posted by Ron
January 27th, 2007 04:18 PM
Well, to start with, what is the racial makeup of Windsor? I'll bet it doesn't have anywhere near the same racial/ethnic makeup of Detroit, and probably doesn't have the slums, either.
In 1999, 337 homicides committed with firearms occurred in Detroit. In that same time frame, in Windsor, Ontario, a city located a half-mile from the American metropolis, only one person suffered died from a gunshot wound. While Windsor's population accounts for merely one-fifth of that of Detroit, the difference remains staggering. Why the astounding discrepancy?
Oliver Wendell Holmes did not write the U.S. Constitution. So he can have said anything he wanted, it doesn't necessarily have a valid bearing on what rights we ARE to enjoy.
However, as Oliver Wendell Holmes wisely commented, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." Social contract requires the relinquishing of certain freedoms in exchange for a safer society. Gun-control, a concept proven to increase the level of security, involves the surrendering of certain firearms, and presents the opportunity to live in a less dangerous environment.
This writer obviously does not know how to follow a line of thought or an analogy to its logical conclusion and meaning.
Sure, the right to swing a fist ends at another person's nose. How does that relate to guns? It doesn't mean I can't MAKE a fist. It means I can't HIT people with it. Likewise, I can HAVE a gun; I just do NOT have the right to SHOOT whoever I want with it! DUH! In the same way, we are allowed to have CARS (which aren't even constitutionally protected), and we are not told that we can't have them at all because we don't have the right to run people over.
Now, will the author kindly cite what study has "proven" gun control to increase levels of security? What a wild claim to have made with absolutely no citation to substantiate it! We have seen statistics about security and gun crime and homicide in Britain, and these rates have suffered after the gun ban.
How can any environment be less dangerous when the potential victims have been deprived of the most effective means of self defense? That kind of environment is less dangerous only for the criminal.
Is this essayist unaware of the increase in gun crime that has exploded in recent years in Britain?!
America's closest sovereign ally chose protection over freedom. The United Kingdom's gun-control policies, considered to be among the strictest of any country, necessitate a rigid registration of allotted weapons, and ban handguns. . . . "self-defense" does not qualify as satisfactory explanation for gun ownership.
And any society that stipulates that "self defense" is not a valid reason for having a weapon is a degenerate, sick, loathesome society.
After all, what more noble reason could there BE for gun ownership?!
Are they saying that hunting, or curio collecting is more noble, and therefore more worthy of protecting, than self-defense?!
The NRA has a membership of about 4 million people; estimates say that there are 80 million gun owners. It is hardly valid to claim that opposition to gun control and gun bans is "led by the unifying voice of the NRA" when less than 1 in 20 gun owners are members.
In recent polls, only half of Americans favored stricter gun-control guidelines. The opposition, led by the unifying voice of the NRA, presents a hefty obstacle. In all probability, more moderate restrictions may be in order.
Could it be that those Americans who oppose gun bans, who want the option of protecting themselves and their families, do so because they have thought the issue through on their own, and not because they are blindly following the NRA? (Even though that would be more sensible than supporting gun bans anyway.)
No. The primary objective should always be fighting crime and criminals while preserving as many liberties of the people as possible. One should not start with the idea of the proposed solution; one should start with a goal, and look for what methods might help achieve it. This girl has it backwards. Outlawing guns is not an objective, unless the simple ownership of guns is an evil, and it is not.
The primary objective should be the outlawing of handguns.
The right to bear arms does not conflict with the right to life.
The right to bear arms, an important freedom, should not conflict with the right to life. When these two intentions conflict, perhaps the premier form of self-defense is not the purchasing of weapons, but the relinquishing of guns.
When these two intentions conflict, we imprison the offender.
This person just finished agreeing that self defense is not a legitimate reason to have guns, but then claims to agree that the right to bear arms is an important freedom. Why, then? Because it's important to have the right to own antiques? Because it's important to be able to hunt? She agrees for all the wrong reasons, and disagrees for all the wrong reasons.
She shows all the signs of having a very limited analytical ability, of having done very little research, and having very little understanding of the concepts involved in this issue. Overall, the article suffers from being based on faulty preconceived notions, and logical fallacies galore.
Stay in school, Julia. But avail yourself of some contrary opinions for a change. Your ultra-leftist teachers are crippling your mind.
January 27th, 2007 04:22 PM
Originally Posted by Team American
January 27th, 2007 04:26 PM
I'd give her an 'F' for appearing to have done next to NO research.
Originally Posted by raevan
She claims things like "gun control is proved to increase security" but makes no citation to back up the wild claim.
January 28th, 2007 03:59 AM
Has anyone who sent a response to this young lady heard back from her? I sent her a letter on 1-23-07, but have not heard back from her.
"The Army and the Navy are run like traditional military services. The Air Force is run like a corporation. But the Marine Corps is a religion." — Navy Admiral
niversity of S
usic and C
January 28th, 2007 05:14 AM
My own feeling is that no one's gonna hear back from her.
Come on, she's a high school senior. She's probably spooked out of her mind that so many GUN LOVERS wrote to tell her how WRONG she is! The girl is probably in a catatonic hoplophobic coma of terror!
Not only that, but when someone is as deeply entrenched in her anti-gun wrongness as she is, the last thing that person wants to do is confront those she knows can easily smack down her ridiculous position on the issue.
February 5th, 2007 11:13 PM
Yeah, I have not heard anything back either. Its very disturbing... But i wonder what they're teaching at this Mayo High School
February 6th, 2007 09:45 AM
Her Mommy told her to say that.
By randytulsa2 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: January 11th, 2010, 07:09 PM
By Desk Jockey in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: December 10th, 2008, 06:56 AM
By Reborn in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Last Post: May 30th, 2008, 11:12 AM
By Janq in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: September 17th, 2007, 02:34 PM
By P95Carry in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: October 27th, 2005, 04:48 PM
Search tags for this page
3 sided sword outlawed
helping misguided teen
Click on a term to search for related topics.
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors