Arizona congresswoman shot

[Kaonohi]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

Because many of us still believe that the concept of non-violence is of higher value than self-interest (and that the two do not have to be mutually exclusive).

Gandhi used non-violence to make sweeping changes for good in his society, yet he died by violence; shot by an assassin. Quite a hero, and totally unattached to his continuance of life. His self-interest existed, though, he wanted to make a better world through non-violence. A noble goal, and he made some progress.

Maybe this is the yin and yang - many people who have stood against violence have suffered from violence.

There is another way to stand against violence, that is by removing violent elements from society. One way is to incarcerate violent people; another is to practice self-defence. I don't fantasize that there is any one 'right answer,' any more than I believe there is one 'right' religion.

I would love to live in a non-violent world, but I don't believe it is within our capacity to create it. If you got a plan, go for it. Show me.

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

It was John Lennon who composed Imagine.

I can't believe you actually invoked Lennon's name in defense of your position on guns, even tho he's probably would have agreed, to a point... What would you say now, John?

At age 40 he'd shed his fear of murder and was imagining another 40 years of the recent bliss he'd found, and we know the rest of the story.

[matapule]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

If you got a plan, go for it. Show me.

No guns except for law enforcement.

[matapule]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

What would you say now, John?
.

I resolutely believe he would still say the same thing.

[matapule]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

many people who have stood against violence have suffered from violence.

Yes, that's true, but far more who stood against violence have lived to ripe old age.

When are you going to apologize to Frankie? Oua okuke laupisi.

[bjd392]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

No guns except for law enforcement.

Good luck with that one. There are some LEOs I wouldn't even trust with a gun... especially some 21 y/o fresh out of boot probie. Then again there are some LEOs you can't trust, period (a fine plug for that other thread).

If the number of guns a person owns makes one more likely to commit crimes, then start hoisting your red flags on me. I owned all of mine for over a decade. Loughner was only a couple days. Responsible owners earn that extra notch and laugh in the face of that proposal.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

No guns except for law enforcement.

A noble, but misguided plan, because it works out to be 'No guns except for law enforcement and criminals.'
Lawbreakers, by definition, don't adhere to the law, so they will have guns, law enforcement will have guns and law-abiding citizens, even those trained extensively in the use of guns, will be disarmed, and will be easy targets for criminals.
I'd go for that plan, if it would work.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

Yes, that's true, but far more who stood against violence have lived to ripe old age.

I'd love to see your statistics on that.

When are you going to apologize to Frankie? Oua okuke laupisi.

What is this? What reason do I have to apologise to Frankie? He got his definitions wrong and I got my state-statistics wrong. So what? Are you his mother now? He doesn't listen to me anyway - an apology is a waste.
Get real and mind your own business; if he wanted an apology he'd ask for one - he's smart enough - he doesn't need you for a nursemaid.

[bjd392]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

I'd go for that plan, if it would work.

I wouldn't, even if it did.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

I wouldn't, even if it did.

Good point, it sounds like the old dictatorships: Nazi Germany, Saddam's Iraq, all those only allowed the 'law enforcement' to have weapons.

I like the American style better. Maybe we lose a few dozen innocents every year, but we don't lose 4 million Jews, 8 million Sunnis, 10 million Cambodians, etc. (not responsible for mistakes in numbers or political affiliations - these are estimates).

Fact is, even though we have innocents die in America, the numbers pale when compared to dictator states who banned civilian weapons and only allowed guns in the hands of 'law enforcement.'

I changed my mind.

OK, nobody's perfect, but our system is better than theirs.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

There is another way to stand against violence, that is by removing violent elements from society. One way is to incarcerate violent people; another is to practice self-defence. I don't fantasize that there is any one 'right answer,' any more than I believe there is one 'right' religion.

I would love to live in a non-violent world, but I don't believe it is within our capacity to create it. If you got a plan, go for it. Show me.

And how do we "remov(e) violent elements from society" when, in many cases, we don't know of their violent nature until they have committed a violent act? Wasn't there a movie about locking up people who had criminal thoughts?

And who is in charge of deciding who we remove from society? Dictator states do a really good job of handling that concern, it appears.

Violence brings about change faster than non-violence, but the healing period following is much longer and more painful.

If you do not believe humans have the capacity to create a non-violent world, then you will not have any motivation to make it so. The plan is to start with yourself.

[matapule]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

an apology is a waste..

I'm disappointed. We are never going to advance as a society if we want to lower ourselves to the lowest common denominator (I'm not going to apologize since he didn't). No wonder we have so many gun loving citizens - justice comes out of the muzzle of a gun.

This attitude is disheartening, but we shall overcome.

[matapule]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

I wouldn't, even if it did.

That plan has worked in other civilizations and other nations much better than the current system is working in the US. I know, I lived in Tonga.

[Kalalau]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

San Diego stations are saying the Loughner trial has been moved here because all the Arizona judges reused themselves from the case, having been personally acquainted with presiding judge Roll who was killed. It will be held before a judge Burns, known for moving trials along, but its expected to drag out if an insanity defense is used. A friend practices in the federal system here, I am sure he will have some interesting news as the trial moves along.

As to the gun debate, if we can all agree that criminals should not have guns and that violently insane people like Loughner should not have guns, we need to accept some form of licensing. You can't drive a car without proving ability, why shouldn't the same be true of operating a gun. As to accepting a few dozen deaths a year...to be completely honest can you accept the pointless slaughter (or worse permanent maiming) of the dearest person in your life as one of those few dozen. Say, a beloved innocent little daughter having her spinal cord severed and a few organs destroyed so she is on machines and in pain for the rest of her life--acceptable or not?

[Kaonohi]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

As to the gun debate, if we can all agree that criminals should not have guns and that violently insane people like Loughner should not have guns, we need to accept some form of licensing. You can't drive a car without proving ability, why shouldn't the same be true of operating a gun.

Whatever anyone else says, I can get behind training and licensing for firearm owners.

As to accepting a few dozen deaths a year...to be completely honest can you accept the pointless slaughter (or worse permanent maiming) of the dearest person in your life as one of those few dozen. Say, a beloved innocent little daughter having her spinal cord severed and a few organs destroyed so she is on machines and in pain for the rest of her life--acceptable or not?

If I bought into that senseless rhetoric I would be on the bandwagon to ban cars, which kill more innocents annually than any guns ever did.

In fact, I'd be willing to bet, that if statistics on such things were kept (and they are not, at least not completely and adequately), that guns used by law-abiding citizens, by percentage, kill fewer innocents and save more lives than cars, which kill more innocents and save hardly any lives.

I guess the answer is to ban private vehicles before we ban guns!

Considering how many people die or are maimed in traffic mishaps every day, how can you possibly support vehicle ownership?