Turid
New Arrival
Posts: 3
|
Post by Turid on May 4, 2005 15:13:00 GMT -5
Of course EVERYTHING would have been a whole lot easier if EVERYONE accepted personal responsibility! However, I do not think that is the case. Unfortunately.
OK. I understand what you mean. I strongly disagree though. My thoughts on this, is that there should not be legal to have a gun unless it was for a specific purpose. Like police for example. My position on this, is that the best would be to go in the opposite direction. If guns were confiscated, and it would no longer be allowed for an ordinary person to own a gun, burglaries of homes, attacks on civilians w/deadly weapon would be much less common because the access to firearms would be a lot more difficult.
Of course, people who are 100% capable and ready to accept personal responsibility would most likely not use a weapon unless some self-defense situation should occur.
On the other hand, we know what happens once "some can have weapon" and others not. You'll totally lose control and there will be smuggling of weapons that cannot be traced, (a huge problem as it is) the illegal weapon trade would blossom as never before, and if you thought it was bad as it is, I don't even dare think about how bad it would be if you allowed a chosen few to own guns and the rest not. The only answer to this is to take away the possibility for everyone. (Meaning everyone who do not need a firearm for some specific job).
Well.... You know well enough that I never indicated that would dramatically increase the number of bad people with guns either. What I was trying to say was that if the "good guys" (defined by you), were allowed to have guns, the bad guys (also defined by you), would of course make sure they had enough firearms to make sure they could create enough damage to be on top of it all at all times. Why not rather work towards getting rid of it all? I realize that illegal firearms is a totally different question, but wouldn't it be a lot easier for the authorities to deal with the problem represented by illegal firearms, if there were less legal firearms too?
Honestly: Do you really want the madness to stop? Do you seriously believe that more weapons for people like yourself would do anything but escalating the problem, since we all know - sad as it is - that the more weapon X has, the more Y will get.
I can't find your logic. I understand your fear of crime and that you feel that you need to be protected from crime. Believe me: I am TRYING to understand what you mean, and I understand your fear!! But I am failing miserably in finding logic in what you're saying.
Turid
|
|
|
Post by oztash on May 4, 2005 22:24:29 GMT -5
Just wanted to jump in here and say that truth said if GOOD people had guns....Truth, most people on death row would have been considerd good people on the out side, by their family's and friends...No one is born bad, there are people on death row who are there for protecting themselves and familys's, self defence.....Would you kill someone to protect yourself or family, and is it possible that if you killed someone in self-defense that you could end up on death row... I think I would if I had to. I guess that what iam trying to say( not very well- sorry) is that not all people who kill are bad guys/girls, but one thing we all are is HUMAN.
Tasha
|
|
Turid
New Arrival
Posts: 3
|
Post by Turid on May 5, 2005 7:12:37 GMT -5
Just wanted to jump in here and say that truth said if GOOD people had guns....Truth, most people on death row would have been considerd good people on the out side, by their family's and friends...No one is born bad, there are people on death row who are there for protecting themselves and familys's, self defence.....Would you kill someone to protect yourself or family, and is it possible that if you killed someone in self-defense that you could end up on death row... I think I would if I had to. I guess that what iam trying to say( not very well- sorry) is that not all people who kill are bad guys/girls, but one thing we all are is HUMAN. Tasha Thanks for this Tasha. You pointed out an issue I was trying to explain, but you did so much more effectively than I did, and pointed to the problem that it would be a major problem to pinpoint "who are the good guys" and "who the bad guys are". We also know that the good guys, equipped with guns because they were police officers also commit murder. Not many years ago, there was a situation in which a person was shot in the back while he was on his way home. He was in the process of opening the door to his own home, while he was shot in the back by some swat team. After a while, the truth about this particular case was revealed. Which was that the police didn't even have probable cause to make an arrest. I do not remember at the top of my head where this event occurred, but I'll find out if it's of interest. That is only one ! (1) case that I've heard about. which is only one in the series of many others. So - who are the good guys? Who are the bad guys. Does a police badge automatically make somebody a "good guy"? I wish that was the fact, but it isn't. Thanks for this, Tasha! Love, Turid
|
|
|
Post by truth1 on May 5, 2005 8:12:41 GMT -5
Tasha,
I am sure that there were some people that thought Jeffery Dahmer and John Gacy were "good" people. Ann Rule wrote a book about Ted Bundy called "The Stranger Beside Me". In it she explains how she did volunteer work and the man next to her answering calls was Ted Bundy. She said she was a nice guy and she could not believe he could commit such awful crimes. The fact of the matter is that Ted Bundy was able to put on a front. Of course killers are not walking around constantly being evil and wishing to kill people. And I am sure that to some people they were nice and respectful. However, that may not be who they really are. But, people tend to stick up for the bad guy. Hell, there were women that had lined up to marry Richard "Nightstalker" Ramirez. So, just because a handful of people say someone is "good" does not make it so. To put it quite simply: good people do not go around robbing or killing people.
|
|
|
Post by oztash on May 5, 2005 8:42:47 GMT -5
Turid & Truth Glad I could add something to the subject..
Tasha
|
|
|
Post by truth1 on May 5, 2005 8:48:48 GMT -5
Tasha,
Did you understand what I wrote?
|
|
|
Post by damaris on May 5, 2005 9:45:53 GMT -5
Nice posts Turids! I like reading this debate, it's interesting.
|
|
Turid
New Arrival
Posts: 3
|
Post by Turid on May 5, 2005 9:55:31 GMT -5
I hope you don't mind me responding although the comment was meant for Tasha. What you're saying is exactly what many here and I have been trying to say: "We have no way of knowing who the bad guys and the good guys are". I do think Jeffrey Dahmer would have a hard time being considered as a good guy though, but if we're left with Gacy and Bundy, it's a totally diffrent matter. John Wayne Gacy was considered an OK business man and one who was seen as an "asset to the community" in which he lived. Going by that definition, Gacy would have been a "good guy" judging by your standards. Consequently, he would also be one of those you wouldn't think twice about ok'ing his right to own firearms.
If we talk about Ted Bundy, the matter gets worse. Bundy was also seen as an asset to his community. He was by any standards (apprarently) a good guy. He was a mediocre law student, and also a psychology student who would volunteer his spare time to a support phone for abused children and women. Also, he was doing a whole lot during the republican elections.
To be short: Theodore Robert Bundy would also be considered a good guy by anyone's standards. According to your standards, he would also be one of the people who would be allowed to own firearms.
OK. Then I guess we've stopped discussing the impossibility of allowing firearms to the "good people". As you point out yourself, recognizing the "good people" from the "bad ones" is not possible.
One thing is to stick up for the bad guy. It's quite another to be able to feel compassion for a person who have been considered "unfit to live". However, I believe we agree about one thing: I've also seen people who DEFEND people like Ramirez. Although I am universially opposed to the death penalty, there is no way I could even dream of defending his actions. I can feel sorry for a person because he has been sentenced to death. That is because the death penalty is way too extreme, and also because there is no reason why this person couldn't simply be confined to a prison for the rest of his life. As most of us know, all the letters the inmates write are being read and sencored by the prison. The fact that some manage to run scams - not only money scams, but also scams that have in some instances resulted in a third person's death, should call for an absolute mail restriction on that person.
As I said: I do feel sorry for Ramirez' victim's families, AND I feel sorry for Ramirez because the autorities didn't simply decide to lock him up for life - with mail restrictions if needed - which he proved - by himself - was necessary.
I don't feel I need to respond to this. I don't understand why anyone would - in their wildest dreams - even think about marrying Ramirez, so I'm in no better position to explain that than what you are.
Then you go on saying: "So just because a handful of people say someone is "good" does not make it so."
True. And that is why you can't possibly separate those who are "good guys" and "bad guys". As you say: "Just because a handful of people (which might be your own statements in many instances), does not make it so".
I agree 100% on that.
"When you say: "Good people" don't go around killing people, let me remind you that no one would ever believe that Theordore Robert Bundy would ever harm anyone with a firearm BEFORE they knew he was a serial killer.
So - how do you recognize the "bad ones" from the "good ones", when you express in your posting that those who might look like good people, are in some instances anything but good?
Turid
|
|
Turid
New Arrival
Posts: 3
|
Post by Turid on May 5, 2005 9:57:10 GMT -5
Nice posts Turids! I like reading this debate, it's interesting. Thanks a BUNCH Damaris!! It's always interesting to discuss different opinions when it can be done in a respectful manner! Love, Turid
|
|
Turid
New Arrival
Posts: 3
|
Post by Turid on May 5, 2005 9:58:03 GMT -5
Turid & Truth Glad I could add something to the subject.. Tasha .....just keep it coming, Tasha!! Love, Turid
|
|
|
Post by oztash on May 5, 2005 10:02:19 GMT -5
Truth Yes i understand what your saying.... I love that we can all come here and discuss many different issues, even though we have different views...
Tasha
|
|
|
Post by truth1 on May 5, 2005 10:25:17 GMT -5
Turid,
The whole Bundy and Dahmer thing happened because someone mentioned that some of the people on death row would be considered good people. My whole argument is that the people that would never use a gun to harm anyone are good people. I am NOT talking about how people perceive them.
|
|
Turid
New Arrival
Posts: 3
|
Post by Turid on May 5, 2005 11:32:07 GMT -5
I don't think I read the posting you're referring to. Anyway: It is true that some of the people on death row would be considered good people - now - as there most assuredly are people in there who have succeeded in the transforming themselves and also can be considered totally rehabilitated regardless of "who they might have been" out there, and regardless of what they did in the past. (Am I responding to something else right now?).
In any case, I don't know of anyone in their right minds who would consider Dahmer, Gacy and Bundy as "good people". Not after spending years in prison, and neither did any of them ever come to terms with the magnitude of their crimes before they died. As you may know: I do not agree that they should have been executed, but confined to a maximum security prison for the rest of their lives.
But who knows? If I knew Gacy and Bundy before their crimes were revealed, I might even have liked them! (If they didn't kill me first, that is). Which doesn't make it much easier to decide who "the good" and the " bads" are.
Yes - some of the guys most definetely have turned out to be truly wonderful people.
Dahmer, Gacy and Bundy did not.
But - somebody have to percieve the people you refer to - somehow - as "good people" in order to separate the "good people" from the "bad". When you say: "My whole argument is that the people that would never use a gun to harm anyone are good people", then you're implicating that it's possible to determine who are bad and who are good well before a tragedy occur. Once a murder has occurred, it's too late to be pondering over that.
OK: You're not talking about how people percieve them. But then: How can you decide who are mature and balanced enough to carry firearms if you can't go by perception?
Seems to me that your opinion is based on the idea that you can separate good people from bad people beforehand. Simply because you're now saying that the "good people" are those who are carrying firearms, without killing people. This thread has shown that if you do that, you're basing your opinions on something that can show to be really dangerous .
The "good people" are - according to you - those who are balanced enough to do so, and to those who takes responsibility for their own action.
BUT:
There is one question I'd like you to answer for me:
How do you know that before it's too late?
Turid
|
|
|
Post by truth1 on May 5, 2005 11:52:03 GMT -5
That was not my intention at all. Not judging someone before a tragedy occurs. Maybe I did not explain it right. I mean if you consider all the people in the world that would never kill anyone (obviously I am not talking about self defense), those are the people I would consider "good". I was not speaking in an absolute manner. Look at it this way (no matter how absurd it is), imagine someone will commit a violent murder in 20 years. That person would be considered a "bad" person. The "bad" people are people that have the mental capacity to shoot someone in the head after robbing them, or stab someone 50 times. You cannot tell me that these people are "good". I don't know if I am making this more complicated than I have to.
|
|
jj
New Arrival
Posts: 5
|
Post by jj on May 5, 2005 12:05:30 GMT -5
By the way, there is a BIG difference between malnutrition and eating cold food. People survive in prison (including death row) for years eating the food they serve. They are there to be punished--not to eat steak. I know that is not what you are arguing; however, you see my point. These people are eating! I feel absolutely no sympathy for those in prison that have to eat cold slop. Yes, they are human--but they did things in society that separated them from the majority. I do know there is documentation of rat parts being found in the food, worms and the guards have even put trays on the trash cans as they are passing out the food. The "Bean" slots are so filthy from food falling off the tray and not cleaned up but just left there. No, they should not be fed steak and lobster, but this is against the law anywhere, to include prisons to have such unsanitary conditions.
|
|