Firearms

[phaseshiftR1111]

hey!

What do you all think of firearms? I had a question...

I own many rifles, handguns, etc. I love target shooting... I go when I can it's just ammo is so expensive. I am trying to get my concealed weapons license. I think weapons (in the hands of right people) is a fun hobby! I don't hunt... The way I see it I have meat available to me I don't need to kill to survive. I could never shoot an animal. I don't judge people who do hunt. A LOT of my family does.

I do have a few guns in drawers throughout the house. I am not paranoid, it's just places up here have been broken into before.

I wanted to ask...

What effect would it have on your spiritually if someone broke into your house and threatened to kill you or your family and you ended up shooting them? I always wondered this...

It would be so hard for me. I would just point it at them most likely and call the police after. I would suffer greatly from shooting a living being of any kind. Hell, when I shoot in nature I make sure I don't shoot at plants... etc. It's just how I am. However... I have stopped at gas stations a few times unarmed and was scared to death a few times. I seen fights... I have heard gunfire as I was pumping gas... and the police aren't ALWAYS there. As far as I am concerned I am going to protect myself. I just wonder what effect that would have on your consciousness.... If you killed someone defending yourself.

What do you all think about this?

[Stillwater]

My opinions...

I detest weapons of all kinds, and I think firearms are necessary pillar of society. I believe, at least in the western societies I have lived in, it is best for a large percentage of the citzenry to keep and maintain firearms, although I think in most situations those firearms don't need to be walking the streets, and that if you need a gun to go to a certain place, maybe you shouldn't be going there anyhow if you can help it.

As far as shooting a person while you are trapped in your home and your family is endangered... if you are forced to, and you have no other real options because of the circumstance, using the minimum amount of force necessary to take control of the sitatuation seems perfectly reasonable to me. If that minimum amount is firing a gun, then so be it. I am not one of those who believe any person who trespasses onto your property ought to be shot dead, but I can conceive of dire situations in which it is either fire or allow ghastly things to occur.

I don't really see this as a gun issue per se though, but rather a "use of force issue" as you have framed it at least, and what you really seem to be asking is if there are circumstances when it is best to use a fair amount of force to solve a problem. I don't see guns themselves as spiritually significant, in a positive or negative way. I think the relevant factors are your intention (your reason for wanting to use force, and your desires for all relevant agents good and bad), the level of force used relative to the threat, the necessity to use force given the situation, and the stakes.

If I put myself in that position, and it were only my life at stake, I would weigh whether it were more important for me to be safe or the intruder, if there was time available. I don't particularly need to live at this point, and in some cases, the human life of the intruder might be more valuable than mine. I don't on the other hand fault others for defending themselves against any aggressor. If I was standing in protection of others, my hand would need to be much faster to act. We can't be bogged down weighing the extreme long term future karma of such situations against present need. I think if the decision for all intents appeared to be the correct one in the present given what information you had, if there is such a thing as karma, then I would expect the effect to be minimal.

For instance, let's give two situations:

1) A person sees someone who they suspect is about to break into an empty house, and they fire a gun and hit the person, injuring them. Later it turns out their guess was correct, and the person was a burglar.

2) A person is in charge of the safety of several others, and another person draws a firearm and points it at a crowd, and prepares to shoot. The original person fires at the potential perpetrator and kills them. Later it turns out the weapon was actually a toy gun, but for all intents and purposes was identical to a real one, and made the same sounds, and the threat appeared very real, immediate, and extreme.

If I was in charge of Karma, I would place more blame on the first person than the second, because they used more force than was necessary and for insufficient reason. I don't find the outcome as important as the intent.

At least that is how I weigh things.

[phaseshiftR1111]

Stillwater I totally agree on that. You would have to be absolute certain. Maybe someone who looks like they are breaking into your house actually needs help. I am not into the whole if you come on my property I will shoot you thing. I would need to have my life in immediate danger. If I suspected something I wouldn't even think of a gun at that point.

[desert-rat]

I enjoy shooting at junk out in the desert . Its been a while since I have done it tho. I have shot a few rattle snakes , but only because they were close to people . I really hope no person makes me shot him/her .    As long as I can by my meet at the store that is what I will do .

[Astralzombie]

I grew up in the gun culture and until very recently, I was very involved in it. I have an uncle who tattooed the sec. amnd. on his forearm.

Today, guns play no part in my life whatsoever. I just don't need them.

I can honestly say that I am not willing to kill someone just because they are trying to kill me. However, in the defense of an innocent (at least to my knowledge at the time), I am capable of doing unmentionable things to stop it.

[CFTraveler]

I too grew up with guns, and always hated them, because I was afraid of them.  However, after practicing shooting (in a range) I find target shooting just another skill, like martial arts, and find that knives truly give me the heebie jeebies- I cannot walk into a knife shop.
Anyway, like AZ, I'm not a pacifist in some circumstances.

[Szaxx]

Im happy they're banned in the U.K.
It's far easier to pacify an aggressor with words. If they insist on being violently unsavoury there's always the martial arts. I enjoyed these arts many years ago and they do work.
From acupressure to relieve pain to giving extreme pain without damage to that person. It doesn't kill unlike using a gun can.
The intent behind the use of ANY weapon is where the side effects lie. Both here and in the NP.
Deliberately abusing them for negative reasons works in more ways than most think.

[Stillwater]

There is a bit of a cultural divide between the US and the UK on this issue for obvious reasons. I tend to agree with the US side of the issue; firearms are principally a check to government totalitarianism- the reasoning being that if the population has the means of resistance, then there is only so much injustice that they can be subjected to before a reaction is caused; disarming a population renders them the captives of their government. the Federalist Papers, which are a collection of writings prior to the writing of the US constitution make explicitly clear that such was the true and intended purpose of the US second constitutional amendment that so many people like to quote.

That is more or less my reason for supporting their proliferation here; I don't particularly like gun culture or glamorization of weapons, but I view them as socially necessary.

[Astralzombie]

There is a bit of a cultural divide between the US and the UK on this issue for obvious reasons. I tend to agree with the US side of the issue; firearms are principally a check to government totalitarianism- the reasoning being that if the population has the means of resistance, then there is only so much injustice that they can be subjected to before a reaction is caused; disarming a population renders them the captives of their government. the Federalist Papers, which are a collection of writings prior to the writing of the US constitution make explicitly clear that such was the true and intended purpose of the US second constitutional amendment that so many people like to quote.

That is more or less my reason for supporting their proliferation here; I don't particularly like gun culture or glamorization of weapons, but I view them as socially necessary.

Many state circuit courts and a few federal courts have already ruled that it is not enough to just dissect the exact language of the constitution in order to derive it's exact meaning. Language changes over time but the intent does not.

Therefore they have ruled that since there are many documents such as the federalists papers and personal correspondence between the Founding Fathers that clearly state their intent and purpose behind the sec amnd, these documents must be referred to.

[desert-rat]

On the 2nd admendent . Its more of a basic rite , or freedom .  Like life liberty and    the pursuit  of happiness . Many people shoot for sport of just for fun .  On another forum I got in a discussion on guns , a lady from the U.K. said any one with money could get a gun in the U.K. ( not legal tho.) She said there was a lot of people stabbed there .  I told her to get a tazzer , or pepper spray .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://home.nra.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness

[Fwewyu Tìomumä]

Interesting topic; I'm gonna have to toss in my 2 cents worth

Although I am still young (20 yrs.), I grew up around firearms. My father occasionally went hunting, but we mostly did target shooting together. I can say that I know how to handle and care for weapons properly. I plan, as soon as I graduate college, to purchase a handgun of my own for safety reasons, as well as for fun. A concealed carry license sounds like a neat idea too.

However, I don't hunt, and I've never killed an animal. I don't plan on hunting for sport, because I love animals and I think it might be kinda hard killing one for "fun". Although, I wouldn't have a problem shooting a deer if I was starving to death, but that's a different thing. As far as shooting other humans...The only time I would shoot someone would be in defense of my self or others. I would speculate that killing another person would probably weigh on my conscience for a while, but I really have no idea. I've heard of people that have been forced to shoot someone that say they have nightmares often about the experience, and I've heard of people that have had a similar traumatic experience and do not feel any repercussions. It's a really subjective matter.

So, I basically agree with what Stillwater said 

[desert-rat]

When I said sport shooting I meant shooting at targets , not hunting .  If you eat the meet and respect the animal , I see no problem with hunting for food , but its not really my thing . 

[Thread Killer]

firearms are principally a check to government totalitarianism. 
Without cohesiveness and organization, I don't see how this could be so. At best, you'd have isolated pockets of resistance that might amount to small guerrilla actions. Do you think there is any group large enough, organized and well armed that could could be a plausible threat at the state level?
Guns aren't banned in Canada and yet, culturally, we don't see guns as a mechanism of "freedom" or the instrument of a shaky detente between the government and citizenry. The Swiss citizenry have a lot of guns as do the Israelis, but for different reasons than you American folks. In those other instances, guns are actually in the service OF the government in the form of citizen participation in the armies.
Stillwater. You, no doubt, are versed in your nations' history. From the time your country became free of the British, there have been small scale tyrannies. Denying pay to revolutionary soldiers and putting down the insurrection. Labor riots. WW1 vets marching on Washington, put down by Ike and Patton no less. All these and more have not inspired the collective ire to rise up en mass and affect systemic change. And all the guns in all the citizens hands won't change it. Because y'all won't agree. One mans totalitarianism is anothers perfect market conditions... or something.

[Astralzombie]

firearms are principally a check to government totalitarianism. 
Without cohesiveness and organization, I don't see how this could be so. At best, you'd have isolated pockets of resistance that might amount to small guerrilla actions. Do you think there is any group large enough, organized and well armed that could could be a plausible threat at the state level?
Guns aren't banned in Canada and yet, culturally, we don't see guns as a mechanism of "freedom" or the instrument of a shaky detente between the government and citizenry. The Swiss citizenry have a lot of guns as do the Israelis, but for different reasons than you American folks. In those other instances, guns are actually in the service OF the government in the form of citizen participation in the armies.
Stillwater. You, no doubt, are versed in your nations' history. From the time your country became free of the British, there have been small scale tyrannies. Denying pay to revolutionary soldiers and putting down the insurrection. Labor riots. WW1 vets marching on Washington, put down by Ike and Patton no less. All these and more have not inspired the collective ire to rise up en mass and affect systemic change. And all the guns in all the citizens hands won't change it. Because y'all won't agree. One mans totalitarianism is anothers perfect market conditions... or something.

Most Americans don't view it as a shaky instrument but rather quite the opposite, a concrete foundation and the issue is only brought up from time to time as a healthy reminder.

But you are very wrong. Every one of the events you listed brought about systematic change the way it was intended, through democracy. We were never meant to settle every injustice from the government with a gun.

[Stillwater]

Hi Threadkiller, good to see you.

Don't get me wrong, I think in this day and age a new American resistance would be a mess. There is not enough cultural unity or unity of ideas for it to be cohesive, you are right in that. But the very presence of those means of resistance sets the stage for the discussion. If that resistance presented itself, I think at some point a considerable percentage of those called to enforce government edicts against them would abandon their posts, as only so many people are willing to fire upon their own countrymen en mass. Beyond that, if the will of greater than 80% of the country was with resistance, even if they weren't active participants, there are limits on how long the fighting element of the remaining 20% could maintain the energy, transportation, and  manufacturing / materials infrastructure to support its fighting machine in such a large and frontierless arena. If that means of resistance wasn't present, that moment could never occur and any number of Orwellian schemes would be free to transpire for quite awhile without a means of change. So in that sense the guns aren't significant because I expect them to be used, but rather because the very idea that they could be puts limits on what society may or may not become.

I do not think our current government is an Orwellian dystopia yet, but in my mind the seeds are there for it to become a terrible force in less than 20 years. The US government gets more credit for mass surveillance than the UK or China and Russia do when those others have comparable programs, but even so that apparatus is being used for harassment and worse today. You might have heard the story where people of a certain political bent were singled out by the IRS for much greater tax audit scrutiny. There is plenty of evidence that individuals with views deemed incendiary are being intensely watched, so that later when those people may align their writings or speeches against US government interests, there will be enough material on them that they may "character assassinated" before they gain a larger following. In such a climate, where those with even the potential to speak words against a political regime are pre-emptively targeted for social removal, I think this population should have any means available to it if it ever becomes too much, even if there are few with any real means to use them effectively. In fact, I think the idea that a resistance would use its weapons ineptly against an expert and supremely organized and armed adversary is an argument even more so that those few and limited weapons should never be taken from them.

I am not completely familiar with the Canadian government, so I can't speak from any great knowledge base, but from my perspective that government seems amazingly benevolent and informed compared to this one. There is a powerful thread of collusion between corporate elements and government here that is a great corrupting force that the Canadians seem to have suffered to a much lesser degree. Our medical system is setup as massively for-profit industry while I tend to view yours as fairly progressive. The US has built much of its power around heavy-handed military pressure and the threat of massive and purposeless devastation. Again, Canada has seemed content to stay out of such things. I think a lot of it may be tied to the idea that Canada is a very resource-rich nation with a very small population to benefit from those great resources, similarly to how Norway or Denmark have become very progressive nations under similar circumstances. There are also powerful banking interests which seem to be rooted here and in the UK that have shaped the forms of our societies and their corresponding governments. I guess the point of this huge ramble is that I think it is quite logical to argue that the US government is a far more fearsome force than the current Canadian government, lol. Even if only one third of people's suspicions against it have substance, it may pose a great threat to the world at large.

This is also speculation on my part, but I think the unwillingness to align to unified ideologies and causes is partially natural, and partially engineered. We live in a very polyphonous society; so many people have a voice, that while they may all be entertained, there are too many concepts and speakers out there for any of them to reap much of the total interest. This is also true in places like Germany where there are 20 viable political parties, and sometimes the labor party wins out, sometimes the green, sometimes the progressive, etc. That whole dialogue in the US is more contained to the media, because there is an artificial power establishment which doesn't allow anyone who doesn't identify with the red or blue parties here to have any say. Beyond that, as I mentioned before, I don't think a Martin Luther King or such a figure could arise nearly as easily today, because I feel they would be immediately targeted for character assassination for the political threat they posed to established interests. It could happen, but I think the energy required to achieve such a figure, and among so many other potential figures, is much higher, perhaps prohibitively high.

[phaseshiftR1111]

See I think its fascinating I have something that can shoot at 3.500 FPS and I take war... and ALL of that out of guns. I go shooting and its just "fun"

Not once do I think about negative stuff. However... I would like to carry for protection but. My dad is a cop and he told me in the academy they were taught verbal judo. 90% of the time if the person is not on drugs you can talk them out of acting like a loon and turn their whole mood around. It's interesting stuff

[Stillwater]

My dad is a cop and he told me in the academy they were taught verbal judo. 90% of the time if the person is not on drugs you can talk them out of acting like a loon and turn their whole mood around. It's interesting stuff

Very true.

I think more police should be heavily pushed toward "verbal Judo" because there is a particular tendency toward heavy-handedness today, and shooting first and sorting it out later.

Ideas and presentation have a powerful and under-appreciated effect. Socrates knew that, and it was one of the factors that led to his demise.

[phaseshiftR1111]

Very true.

I think more police should be heavily pushed toward "verbal Judo" because there is a particular tendency toward heavy-handedness today, and shooting first and sorting it out later.

Ideas and presentation have a powerful and under-appreciated effect. Socrates knew that, and it was one of the factors that led to his demise.

I agree stillwater. I used to do police ride alongs and the cops that were aggressive it never ended well for both people. The officer and the suspect. One time I saw an officer taze this guy for not following commands. I saw almost the exact same situation with another officer and the guy was very violent and puffing his chest out at the officer. The officer used this verbal judo and I noticed after about two minutes the guy apologized and him and the officer were actually laughing together and he was let off with a warning.

I have talked to cops that swear by it. I know my dad does. I wish all officers were like that but you will always have the aggressive ones when there could have been no violence at all.

[Szaxx]

Verbal judo 
If that fails aikido.

[Thread Killer]

"I am not completely familiar with the Canadian government."
Ours is as tightly controlled by corporate interest and has all the spying paranoia as your country, but on a smaller scale. Our differences lie in some cultural imperative. Our iconography is a cop and a beaver.  That authority was looked upon as strength and stability. We just don't see the government as an antagonist to the degree that Americans do. This statement is, of course, a generalization.
"This is also speculation on my part, but I think the unwillingness to align to unified ideologies and causes is partially natural, and partially engineered"
I couldn't agree more. From the engineered side, it is my opinion that the over emphasis of individual rights has had the effect of weakening any potential collective action. A new spin on divide and conquer, as it were.
Guns are a technology. I remember we were talking about MT Keshe and his outrageous technology claims. To quote you.
" These solutions to world problems through abundance are perhaps well-thought and positive directions of future study, but I am afraid you can't really improve our probelms with technology"
I agree. And the technology of guns will not advance the human cause.
"Our problems cannot ultimately be solved by technology, as much as I am an enthusiast- our problems relate to flaws in human nature, and social structures which have allowed us to magnify those flaws into forces of global plunder and build institutions to enslave (yes, today) fellow humans." - Stillwater
You're just so quotable! 

[CFTraveler]

When I said sport shooting I meant shooting at targets , not hunting . 

Me too, or shooting anyone.  Even though there are circumstances in which I think I could kill someone, it's probably something that I couldn't live with, and would haunt me forever.  Just clarifying.

[desert-rat]

There have only been a few times when I thought I might need to use a gun , other than to kill a rattle snake .  Hear in AZ and in many other U.S. states you can only use deadly force on some one if you can prove they intend to hurt you . We do get what are called "road rage" incidents where some one gets shot . The summer heat makes some people kinda funny .(115-122f((dry heat)  )     Out in the desert I let rattle snakes crall away . 

[Stillwater]

Hehe, you have a long memory for this stuff Threadkiller, but I think I need to point out a semantic difference between intent of those quotes and how they were employed here.

When I used the umbrella term "technology" in that situation, I think it was understood from context that I was referring specifically to technological development, because if I recall that thread was about how technologically-induced abundance would alleviate human suffering. I made that statement because I feel it is clear that we have sufficient technology at this time for all humans and other creatures to be treated with respect and care, and to live worthwhile lives, if we had the corresponding ideologies for that to be possible.

I was not in fact saying that all solutions to our problems could be solved without the use of any technologies (perhaps that is true also, but I don't have enough information to argue that far).

There are all sorts of situations, such as a building on fire, where using our current technologies leaves us better than not using them.

If we substitute those intended meanings into that statement and apply it to this context, I suppose it would come out something like this:

"The problems of the current era in the US are not due to lack of development in the area of firearms, and deadlier weapons for all will not lead to a safer future"

But here in this thread I am not arguing that we need bigger and better guns and then everything would be solved. I am rather arguing that we need some means of resisting a possible dystopian system, after the fact of its development.

[Thread Killer]

Either way, I smile when we engage each other over anything. Always a pleasure. Always original. Cheers.

[Stillwater]

Indeed. For me I think it is that I sometimes read your posts in the Dr. Strangelove voice 

Does that mean other people read my posts as proclamations from Krishna, lol?