Joined: Dec 18, 2004 Posts: 4364 Location: One Mile From the Columbia River
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 9:24 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
Pops wrote:
BigTex wrote:
eastbay wrote:
As for the rest, I'll pm you, how's that. After kung fu practice tonight.
eastbay, I didn't know you were coming over tonight.
I'll throw some tofu in the wok.
Funny guys. I'm eating tofu, vegetables, and noodles as we speak.
Yeah, BT, I now have all but two locked safely away. Those two are stashed here and there around the house in case of a 'problem'.
And DomusAlbion, thanks for the offer to babysit my arsenal. I'll keep you in mind if the annoyance of their presence gets much worse. _________________ Everything is Impermanent. Shakyamuni Buddha
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 9:30 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
Pops wrote:
Funny thing is I fit under so many flags I probably fit under none.
Anyone else out here?
I am my own person and will never let an ideology or party define who I am.
I lived in socialist-leaning democracies in Europe for almost 11 years, so I understand thinking for the good of group. But my family is from Texas (going way back) and I have learned from them the power of being able to take care of oneself in any situation. Thus the acceptance of guns as the tools that they are.
I could be called a libertarian, but paleo-conservative fits too. I also have a hankering for zen philosophy.
Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 5:44 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
Legless_Marine wrote:
{Hey guys, I split this from the five rules thread so we can keep that thread on topic. Pops}
Iaato wrote:
Ha. While I have entrenched a commie leftist attitude about civil liberties recently, I have learned that the redneck right has a real point about guns. I have developed a new fondness for guns, and am taking up target practice.
I've always had a distaste for guns, and subscribe to Heinlein's philosophy that guns, in a survival situation, make you dumb.
Thoughts?
Ok.
Theres books worth of reasons to refute your ridiculous claim, but I just dont want to be bothered trying to show you the harsh reality we live in.
I'll just leave it at this.
In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.
In the land of the disarmed, the man with the pistol is king. _________________ "Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the
Abyss, the Abyss gazes also into you."
Ammo at a gunfight is like bubblegum in grade school: If you havent brought enough for everyone, you're in trouble
Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 6:48 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
Specop_007 wrote:
Theres books worth of reasons to refute your ridiculous claim, but I just dont want to be bothered trying to show you the harsh reality we live in.
That's unnecessarily harsh. I didn't make a "Claim", I stated an opinion. Your response is unhelpful and insulting.
I have been impressed by some of the even-handed responses in this thread, but people who see guns as a small component of a larger survival strategy.
Likewise, I've been disappointed by other responses by those who have added no insight, other than to re-affirm their own belief in survival through superior firepower.
Joined: Aug 03, 2006 Posts: 4262 Location: Graceland
Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 8:57 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
Legless_Marine wrote:
Specop_007 wrote:
Theres books worth of reasons to refute your ridiculous claim, but I just dont want to be bothered trying to show you the harsh reality we live in.
That's unnecessarily harsh. I didn't make a "Claim", I stated an opinion. Your response is unhelpful and insulting.
I have been impressed by some of the even-handed responses in this thread, but people who see guns as a small component of a larger survival strategy.
Likewise, I've been disappointed by other responses by those who have added no insight, other than to re-affirm their own belief in survival through superior firepower.
There is a samurai saying: "weapons are instruments of ill omen."
There is a lot of wisdom in this saying, and here is why:
The need to use a weapon usually signals a series of strategic failures. Most problems that are foreseeable have solutions that allow violence to be avoided. If you get to the point where violence is no longer avoidable, you have to ask yourself what you did to find yourself in that situation. Could you have used a better strategy to avoid the need to get into a gunfight that will put you at risk that is unnecessary?
This is kind of a cheap example, but anyone who has seen "I Am Legend" will agree that the hero's best strategy was to avoid contact with the zombies, rather than trying to win in a gun battle--there was simply too much risk for him to engage them, rather than just avoid them, though of course he killed a few here and there as needed.
So I think that it's a perfectly valid point to be skeptical of the value of weapons as tools for long term survival, other than for hunting.
Obviously, however, if you've got a zombie swarm headed your way, you want all the heat you can pack, and that makes sense. However, once the zombie swarm has been thinned, skinned and pinned, the longer term survival problems are still going to be there--food, water, medicine, shelter, power, community, etc.
The fact that Robert Heinlein wrote of a situation where guns were not the ideal tools is interesting, because there's not a more gung-ho kick-ass guy than Robert Heinlein. If you look at suggested reading for new Marines, you will always see one or two Robert Heinlein books. He was a Naval Academy guy as well, so he had some first hand experience with some of what he wrote about. _________________
Joined: Dec 18, 2004 Posts: 4364 Location: One Mile From the Columbia River
Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 9:08 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
Good point BT. Not always, of course, but I would suggest generally speaking if it becomes necessary to use firearms it's because you've made a strategic error somewhere.
The trick afterwards is to learn and not repeat the errors. _________________ Everything is Impermanent. Shakyamuni Buddha
Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 9:13 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
I agree, Big Tex, Here's what you said:
There is a samurai saying: "weapons are instruments of ill omen."
There is a lot of wisdom in this saying, and here is why:
The need to use a weapon usually signals a series of strategic failures. Most problems that are foreseeable have solutions that allow violence to be avoided. If you get to the point where violence is no longer avoidable, you have to ask yourself what you did to find yourself in that situation. Could you have used a better strategy to avoid the need to get into a gunfight that will put you at risk that is unnecessary? " Big Tex
I lived in Guatemala in the early 80's. The place was really scary then, but having a gun would not have helped. The army and the guerillas were heavily armed and fighting it out. Having a gun would have identified me with one of the factions and could have gotten me killed very easily.
It's different here. I hope... _________________ Deep in the mud and slime of things, even there, something sings.
Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 3:30 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
Thirty years ago anyone who knew me well could have easily categorized me as a pacifist. Also a bleeding heart liberal. As the years went by, circumstance and growing awareness has tempered me into a paleo-conservative-libertarian-anti-civ-curmudgeon. Whenever I face a problematic decision I ask myself, "What would my ancestor of 25,000 years ago do in this situation?" That generally clears it up for me. I believe that my ancestor would be genuinely puzzled that there is any controversy about guns at all. To him it would be like having a philosophical problem with rocks. _________________ "I've been dazed and confused for so long it's not true."
Led Zeppelin
Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 4:40 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
BigTex wrote:
There is a samurai saying: "weapons are instruments of ill omen."
There is a lot of wisdom in this saying, and here is why:
The need to use a weapon usually signals a series of strategic failures. Most problems that are foreseeable have solutions that allow violence to be avoided. If you get to the point where violence is no longer avoidable, you have to ask yourself what you did to find yourself in that situation. Could you have used a better strategy to avoid the need to get into a gunfight that will put you at risk that is unnecessary?
Your argument is valid, to a point, and then it completely breaks down. I completely agree that one should plan to not put oneself in harms way. Strategic planning in this regard is the best prevention for these kinds of situations where deadly force may be used.
However, when thugs invade your property (home invasion, car jacking, burglary, etc) with the intent to use deadly force on you and your family or deprive you of your Liberty, this situation was not caused by your actions and realistically could not have been prevented by strategic planning on your part, unless you happened to live in an ultra-wealthy neighborhood and live within something akin to the well-guarded walls of Fort Knox. There exist evil men in the night who will do you harm, and your strategic planning has not one iota of control over their decision to attemp to carry out their plans against you and your family.
Let's use an example where a burglar is shot by a home owner. It is not untrue to say that the logic within your argument would place the blame on the home owner, actually. The home owner did not take strategic steps to prevent the burglar from attempting and completing the burglary in the first place. Therefore, it is the home owners fault that the burglar was in the house and the shooting of the burglar occurred. I reject this type of reasoning completely. These are the sorts of arguments which Great Britain has used in the last few years to emasculate their population, and I pity those who have to live under such pathetic laws which render the individual helpless to take care of themselves, their families and their property.
Joined: Aug 03, 2006 Posts: 4262 Location: Graceland
Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 6:53 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
GeoJAP wrote:
BigTex wrote:
There is a samurai saying: "weapons are instruments of ill omen."
There is a lot of wisdom in this saying, and here is why:
The need to use a weapon usually signals a series of strategic failures. Most problems that are foreseeable have solutions that allow violence to be avoided. If you get to the point where violence is no longer avoidable, you have to ask yourself what you did to find yourself in that situation. Could you have used a better strategy to avoid the need to get into a gunfight that will put you at risk that is unnecessary?
Your argument is valid, to a point, and then it completely breaks down. I completely agree that one should plan to not put oneself in harms way. Strategic planning in this regard is the best prevention for these kinds of situations where deadly force may be used.
However, when thugs invade your property (home invasion, car jacking, burglary, etc) with the intent to use deadly force on you and your family or deprive you of your Liberty, this situation was not caused by your actions and realistically could not have been prevented by strategic planning on your part, unless you happened to live in an ultra-wealthy neighborhood and live within something akin to the well-guarded walls of Fort Knox. There exist evil men in the night who will do you harm, and your strategic planning has not one iota of control over their decision to attemp to carry out their plans against you and your family.
Let's use an example where a burglar is shot by a home owner. It is not untrue to say that the logic within your argument would place the blame on the home owner, actually. The home owner did not take strategic steps to prevent the burglar from attempting and completing the burglary in the first place. Therefore, it is the home owners fault that the burglar was in the house and the shooting of the burglar occurred. I reject this type of reasoning completely. These are the sorts of arguments which Great Britain has used in the last few years to emasculate their population, and I pity those who have to live under such pathetic laws which render the individual helpless to take care of themselves, their families and their property.
You're misunderstanding some of my argument.
I'm not saying anything is anyone's FAULT. I'm not interested in the question of fault or blame too much at all.
What I am interested in is how I can take maximum responsibility for what happens to me.
The ONLY thing I am saying is that any time you ever find yourself needing to use violence to protect yourself, your family, or your property, it should never be a surprise to you. This possibility should have been part of your strategic planning all along.
If this possibility has been part of your planning all along, you will find that the number of situations in which you actually need to use violence will plummet. It's just not that hard to avoid if you are strategic about it.
But when faced with the need to use violence, by all means do so. It's just that over time anyone's batting average in violent confrontations is going to be below a thousand; thus, avoiding them as much as you can is probably wise.
But again, I'm not saying you caused or were to blame for anything bad that may happen to you. In retrospect, however, you can often look at a situation and realize that if you had been thinking more strategically, you might have gotten a better outcome.
Most risks that can be foreseen can be prevented. _________________
Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 7:23 pm Post subject: Re: Guns?
Sounds good; fair enough. I just wanted to establish with somewhat of a definitive nature the causality for situations like this. The oppressed should never be blamed for the aggressor's actions because "they weren't strategic enough".
But I agree, in a pragmatic sense, that 95% of all situations can be avoided with sound preparation and forethought.
Knock on wood, but I have never, ever had any situation (such as we are discussing now) happen to me at home or in my travels around four continents. I recognized what places I could stick my nose into and when I needed to stay out of sight. It's not that hard if you think before hand.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
