This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

[Pertinacious Tom]

...I repeat: IMO MLK's gun permit would have been inconsequential...yep, whether granted or not.

I think you are confusing non-violence, practiced by Quakers and such, with non-aggression of the type advocated by MLK.

He owned guns for a reason. Quakers don't for a different reason.

He applied for a permit for a reason. Your suggestion that the racist denial of it was inconsequential suggests he had no reason and really didn't care if the government discriminated against him based on his race. I think his whole life demonstrates the opposite.

 

[plchacker]

Society itself bears the costs of our guns, and, even after Heller, regulations and laws still need to be considered.

This is not an either/or matter, as if all your guns are at risk. That is called imagining.

You are far more obsessed with guns than I am. For me shooting and gunsmithing is a family tradition. I don't have the time or desire to read most of your cut and paste job. You will not change my thoughts about gun ownership in the slightest. I have no desire to change your mind, as you are clearly in the minority. So along those lines please do not expect any further discussion with me about your obsession.

 

[plchacker]

Oh looky it's plchacker!

He always appears when Nanny/Dog/NGS are getting butt fucked. Right on time, but not sure why he bothers, doesn't save anything that I can see. Just looks like another sock.

Come to Alabama and I'll buy you a beer. I thought the first time you made a similar post that your were just pissed. The second time I concluded that you were drunk. Now you are bordering on stalking. Strange bird, you.

 

[jocal505]

We've already fuking gone thru this-----4000 of those 11,500 'homicides' are legit self defense shootings and another 4000 are by law enforcement. That leaves less than 4000 'real homicides' a year. Which is like fuking nothing, considering how many guns and how many people in America own them....like millions upon millions.

Do the math....

Nope. You used grandiose, sweeping, non-categorized, vague figures. Without documentation.

Which does not meet the standards of Political Anarchy, or the big boy code of these forums.

Even for lowbrows, that's poor entertainment.

I challenge YOU to do the math, and to present it here.

No you dipshit, YOU keep posting the same stats show approx.11,500 gun 'homicides a year here---but you haven't shown the breakdown on those nor discerned for us the various classifications of these homicides, they're just lumped into one big bunch. Regular 'murders', self defense 'murders' and law enforcement 'murders'. Which we all know happen every minute here in this country. Ergo the phrase '11,500 homicides a year' is very misleading---and just plain wrong. 'Cuz even you are smart enough to know that a legit self-defence killing is not a homicide. Nor is it a homicide when a cop drops some criminal fuck stick. So if you want to refute my pretty damn close numbers & break down and not look like an idiot here, I suggest you jump on it and defend your constant use of a useless & misleading stat. Otherwise just admit that you've been wrong and haven't the fukiest idea what you're talking about....

You are making broad claims without mathematics to back up the claims.

Your bottom line sounds like huffing and puffing.

Here's your math so far, Boothy:

11,500 homicides less unspecified numbers of "self defense "murders' and law enforcement 'murders'" equals 4000, you say.

Stand behind your claim. Show a break down your 7,500 self defense and LE killings from some credible sources.

Since the FBI counts an average around 200 justifiable homicides per year, all you need to do is demonstrate 7,200 cop killings per year.

 

[jocal505]

The figure that's wrong is your 4000 number.

The figure unpresented is your LE fatal shooting number.

You are tossing around assfacts (your term). Ahem, then you failed (twice) to back up your own argument.

That's not how the big boys do it on PA.

 

[Rockdog]

This might help. Not a bad effort to 19 May 2015.

Gun Violence Archive 2015 Toll of Gun Violence

Total Number of Incidents: 17,937

Number of Deaths1: 4,656

Number of Injuries1: 8,790

Number of Children (age 0-11) Killed/Injured1: 237

Number of Teens (age 12-17) Killed/Injured1: 861

Mass Shooting2: 95

Officer Involved Shooting2: 1,611

Home Invasion2: 812

Defensive Use2: 473

Accidental Shooting2: 761

Notice the number of accidental over the Defensive use.

Notice shit happens. Its a dangerous world out there. You better not come here. Its too dangerous for you.

 

[Rockdog]

You must have missed some earlier posts Rockdog, I have no intention to return, been there got the T-shirt. NEXT!

Oh, good. You recovered from your injuries then?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Nearly died there, thanks for asking.

Did all the guns almost cause you to commit self-murder?

 

[Rockdog]

Nearly died there, thanks for asking.

Watch your p's & Q's and don't look'em in the eye and they won't shoot you.

 

[Rockdog]

It doesn't have to. His gun will go violent itself and start shooting people.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

We spend a lot of time together here. To aid our mutual understanding, and for the benefit of our guns in the USA, please give this post a careful read.

For the benefit of an important discussion, let's avoid personal attacks and spurious comments.

Gun Ownership Is Declining...So Why Is the Gun Lobby So Powerful?

March 25, 2015

by Bernie Horn

This post first appeared at Campaign for America’s Future.

...

Intelligent discussion from the SA Gun Club, if possible, is welcome.

Hmmm... following that link and links on the page, I got here.

In 2010-14, household firearms ownership was higher among households with white respondents (39.0%) than among those with black respondents (18.1%)(Table 4).

So if guns cause violence and whites own guns at more than twice the rate of blacks, how did jocal show at post 127 that the homicide rate among blacks is six times higher than among whites?

Maybe the gun ownership rate is not the problem?

Oooo another post pointing out how bad black Americans are.

Oooh, another post that won't address whether the gun ownership rates causes the difference in behavior. What a shocker.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

...In the case of MLK, whom I used to work for, it led to Tom Ray repeatedly insisting I am a racist--for not supporting Tom's thoughtless, dangerous policies.

...

No, you continue to misunderstand.

It's your support of a policy that you know has been (and will be) applied in a racially discriminatory manner that seems racist to me.

Yes, it was a big deal that MLK got "dissed on da permit."

 

[jocal505]

...In the case of MLK, whom I used to work for, it led to Tom Ray repeatedly insisting I am a racist--for not supporting Tom's thoughtless, dangerous policies.

...

No, you continue to misunderstand.

It's your support of a policy that you know has been (and will be) applied in a racially discriminatory manner that seems racist to me.

Yes, it was a big deal that MLK got "dissed on da permit."

More race baiting. One gent to another, you were asked you to knock it off.

ANY law can be applied with discrimination. You are trying to hide an indiscriminate gun permit policy behind the discrimination of racism.

I don't "know" that may issue is a racial sledgehammer (so don't mis-quote me). In fact, any racial application of "may issue" should be, and can be, sorted.

I welcome such sorting...while the content of character of gunowners is examined openly and fairly, before firearms purchases in the retail or secondary markets.

Six Baltimore officers were just indicted for conduct that would have passed before George Zimmerman came along.

Thanks, George. Thanks SYG.

You see, Tom, gun behavior and race are getting sorted, in fits and starts.

"If you don't agree with my pro-gun policy, you are a racist."

Your argument is hollow, elementary, and promotes misunderstanding. For guns.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

...In the case of MLK, whom I used to work for, it led to Tom Ray repeatedly insisting I am a racist--for not supporting Tom's thoughtless, dangerous policies.

...

No, you continue to misunderstand.

It's your support of a policy that you know has been (and will be) applied in a racially discriminatory manner that seems racist to me.

Yes, it was a big deal that MLK got "dissed on da permit."

ANY law can be applied with discrimination. You are trying to hide an indiscriminate gun permit policy behind the discrimination of racism.

I don't "know" that may issue is a racial sledgehammer (so don't mis-quote me). In fact, any racial application of "may issue" should be, and can be, sorted.

I welcome such sorting...while the content of character of gunowners is examined openly and fairly, before firearms purchases in the retail or secondary markets.

No other laws can LEGALLY be applied with racial discrimination.

There's no reason the list of disqualifying reasons under a "shall issue" system could not be long. It could even be written by you, if you were willing to in any way limit the authority of LEO's in this area.

And no, racist applications of "may issue" can't be "sorted" in any way. If a sheriff has unlimited authority and no reason to explain his decisions, there's no way to "sort" them, is there?

I think a fair examination of "character" would have objective standards for success or failure. The complete lack of standards and utter faith in the good character and judgement of those with badges of a "may issue" scheme is not for me.

But you've jumped from permission to carry to permission to purchase like we have in North Carolina. Like "may issue" carry laws, "may issue" purchase permit laws have a racist history.

You didn't answer the questions asked above about that history:

Who would be considered to be a person of "good moral character" in 1919 to a legislature that was composed primarily of white Democrat segregationists who were sympathetic to the KKK? And what do you think the Clerk of the Superior Court is going to consider by "etc." which is actually included in the text of the bill? I think any intelligent person could reasonably assume that a person of "good moral character" would tend to be white, probably a Democrat (unless living in the mountains), a segregationist, a church-goer, and someone who owned property. It would not have been an African-American nor would it have been a populist, socialist, or union organizer.

Do you think things have changed so much? I don't.

 

[jocal505]

...In the case of MLK, whom I used to work for, it led to Tom Ray repeatedly insisting I am a racist--for not supporting Tom's thoughtless, dangerous policies.

...

No, you continue to misunderstand.

It's your support of a policy that you know has been (and will be) applied in a racially discriminatory manner that seems racist to me. Forty days of this? You're sort of an idiot, I take it.

Yes, it was a big deal that MLK got "dissed on da permit."

ANY law can be applied with discrimination. You are trying to hide an indiscriminate gun permit policy behind the discrimination of racism.

The gun permit process in not necessarily LE; magistrates or court clerks or gun clubs could do it.

I don't "know" that may issue is a racial sledgehammer (so don't mis-quote me). In fact, any racial application of "may issue" should be, and can be, sorted.

I welcome such sorting...while the content of character of gunowners is examined openly and fairly, before firearms purchases in the retail or secondary markets.

????

No other laws can LEGALLY be applied with racial discrimination. No racist application of ANY law is legal. What clause in "may issue" specifies that racist denials are legal, or even acceptable?

There's no reason the list of disqualifying reasons under a "shall issue" system could not be long. It could even be written by you, if you were willing to in any way limit the authority of LEO's in this area. Again, court clerks, magistrates, or gun clubs could do it.

And no, racist applications of "may issue" can't be "sorted" in any way.Bullshit. If a sheriff has unlimited authority WHAT??? and no reason to explain his decisions, risk assessment for firearms is already wide-open; permit denial could encourage stability, since further training or counselling could improve or offset one's risk assessment there's no way to "sort" them, is there? Double straw man noted, but you have given this little thought. (Too busy with race-baiting?)

I think a fair examination of "character" would have objective standards for success or failure. Yes, they would be any evidence-based "high risk" quantifications set by the social sciences. The complete lack of standards and utter faith in the good character and judgement of those with badges ???? The Badgeless One fears badges. of a "may issue" scheme is not for me. Well, carefulness applied to gun carriers is not for you.

But you've jumped from permission to carry to permission to purchase like we have in North Carolina. Like "may issue" carry laws, "may issue" purchase permit laws have a racist history. Therefore, just cancel "may issue" laws in their entirety, for guns, and to fight racism.

You didn't answer the questions asked above about that history: Get used to that.

Who would be considered to be a person of "good moral character" in 1919 to a legislature that was composed primarily of white Democrat segregationists who were sympathetic to the KKK? And what do you think the Clerk of the Superior Court is going to consider by "etc." which is actually included in the text of the bill? I think any intelligent person could reasonably assume that a person of "good moral character" would tend to be white, probably a Democrat (unless living in the mountains), a segregationist, a church-goer, and someone who owned property. It would not have been an African-American nor would it have been a populist, socialist, or union organizer. Zzzzzz...To demonstrate racism in X spot in 1919 is unremarkable. It does not prove that 1919 racial bias In NC makes "may issue" impossible today, or tomorrow, or in other places in 1919.
Federal monitors can sort such racism by court mandate. But such monitors don't come in and cancel laws just because individuals (ahem, not "the government") abuse them.

Do you think things have changed so much? I don't.

Things will never change if folks cling to racial misunderstandings, to employ race-baiting endlessly.

Tom, in the life of this thread, uniquely your own, your progression is disappointing.

You've dropped like a dud in my estimation. Often, a messenger reflects the message he carries.

NIce to have met you.

Why did you introduce us to Rev. Mosteller...twice? What is your takeaway with his situation?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

No other laws can LEGALLY be applied with racial discrimination.

There's no reason the list of disqualifying reasons under a "shall issue" system could not be long. It could even be written by you, if you were willing to in any way limit the authority of LEO's in this area.

And no, racist applications of "may issue" can't be "sorted" in any way. If a sheriff has unlimited authority

...No racist application of ANY law is legal. What clause in "may issue" specifies that racist denials are legal, or even acceptable?...

Again, court clerks, magistrates, or gun clubs could do it.

Bullshit.

WHAT???

A better question would be: what clause do you think prevents them? A sheriff can deny a permit for any reason at all and all he has to say is "no" with no explanation required, no recourse for the citizen.

After he says "no" there is no further role for court clerks, magistrates, or gun clubs. They have no authority and the sheriff doesn't have to explain himself to them or anyone else.

That's why it's not "bullshit" to say these can't be sorted. Just like when MLK had his permit denied for racist reasons, there's no appeal, no provision in the law to "sort" a denial, and no reason to "sort" a denial since there are no limits on the authority of a sheriff in a "may issue" situation.

You seem surprised and disbelieving, but you also seem unable to find for me any limits on the power of a sheriff. Have you got any examples of denials being sorted? Ever? Feel free to go back to the last century if you want, but you will find none.

 

[jocal505]

So you finally admit that you hate black people. Thanx for that, you just made our lives that much simpler....

Not gonna bite on this today. We'll toss it around later, maybe.

But this is getting good. The conversation is just starting.

 

[jocal505]

jocal, again I know I'm wasting my time on you, but I think this whole may issue thing has gotten lost in all of Tom's race stuff. What he is saying 100% valid, sometimes tho he can be a bit pedantic in continuing to hammer a theme.

So let's distill this down to simple facts. I believe from your rantings postings that you believe that "shall issue" means there are no disqualifying grounds to deny a permit and that anyone who shows up at the po-leece station will be allowed to have a gun. I think you are overly getting hung up on the word "SHALL". I think what you're missing is it really means "shall issue AS LONG AS there are no already pre-defined reasons to deny one, such as a felony conviction, drug use, domestic abuse, mental instability, etc. Those and many more will disqualify you from buying and carrying a gun in SHALL ISSUE States. But the point is its not an arbitrary process where the po-leece chief can look at you and say "nope" just because he doesn't like you or how you look. I don't want some gov't functionary making those kinds of arbitrary and capricious decisions when it comes to a constitutional right. I know you are ok with that, but we are not.

Contrast that with "MAY ISSUE" states:

May-Issue[SIZE=small][edit][/SIZE]A May-Issue jurisdiction is one that requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun, and where the granting of such permits is partially at the discretion of local authorities (frequently the sheriff's department or police), with a few states consolidating this discretionary power under state-level law enforcement.

The law typically states that a granting authority "may issue" a permit if various criteria are met, or that the permit applicant must have "good cause" (or similar) to carry a concealed weapon. In most such situations, self-defense in and of itself often does not satisfy the "good cause" requirement, and issuing authorities in some May-Issue jurisdictions have been known to arbitrarily deny applications for CCW permits without providing the applicant with any substantive reason for the denial. Some May-Issue jurisdictions require a permit-holder to provide justification for continued need for a concealed carry permit upon renewal, and may deny the renewal of an expiring permit without sufficient showing of "good cause." Some of these jurisdictions may revoke a permit after it has been issued when the issuing authority in its discretion has determined that the "good cause" used in approving the permit application no longer exists. Other May-Issue jurisdictions allow for automatic renewal of the permit, as long as the permit-holder completes any required firearms safety training and files the renewal application before the permit expires.

How do you "sort" out these issues if you don't even know why you're being denied? As Tom rightly said, race is one of the arbitrary reasons people are denied permits. Looks is another. The wrong political bent is another. The size of your wallet is another. And so on.

So your continued accusation that "SHALL ISSUE" states proliferate guns and put guns in the hands of bad guys is a BIG FAT LIE! That is absolutely and demonstrably false. Even shall issue states deny permits to people who don't qualify under the pre-defined guidelines. If you don't like the disqualifying items in your state and want to make them tougher - then lobby your congress critter to change it. But allowing a single individual gov't official at the po-leece station the power to decide your constitutional rights based on a whim or on how he or she feels that day is no way to run a nation.

jocal, again I know I'm wasting my time on you, but I think this whole may issue thing has gotten lost in all of Tom's race stuff. What he is saying 100% valid, sometimes tho he can be a bit pedantic in continuing to hammer a theme.

So let's distill this down to simple facts. I believe from your rantings postings that you believe that "shall issue" means there are no disqualifying grounds to deny a permit and that anyone who shows up at the po-leece station will be allowed to have a gun. I think you are overly getting hung up on the word "SHALL". I think what you're missing is it really means "shall issue AS LONG AS there are no already pre-defined reasons to deny one, such as a felony conviction, drug use, domestic abuse, mental instability, etc. Those and many more will disqualify you from buying and carrying a gun in SHALL ISSUE States. But the point is its not an arbitrary process where the po-leece chief can look at you and say "nope" just because he doesn't like you or how you look. I don't want some gov't functionary making those kinds of arbitrary and capricious decisions when it comes to a constitutional right. I know you are ok with that, but we are not.

Contrast that with "MAY ISSUE" states:

May-Issue[SIZE=small][edit][/SIZE]A May-Issue jurisdiction is one that requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun, and where the granting of such permits is partially at the discretion of local authorities (frequently the sheriff's department or police), with a few states consolidating this discretionary power under state-level law enforcement.

The law typically states that a granting authority "may issue" a permit if various criteria are met, or that the permit applicant must have "good cause" (or similar) to carry a concealed weapon. In most such situations, self-defense in and of itself often does not satisfy the "good cause" requirement, and issuing authorities in some May-Issue jurisdictions have been known to arbitrarily deny applications for CCW permits without providing the applicant with any substantive reason for the denial. Some May-Issue jurisdictions require a permit-holder to provide justification for continued need for a concealed carry permit upon renewal, and may deny the renewal of an expiring permit without sufficient showing of "good cause." Some of these jurisdictions may revoke a permit after it has been issued when the issuing authority in its discretion has determined that the "good cause" used in approving the permit application no longer exists. Other May-Issue jurisdictions allow for automatic renewal of the permit, as long as the permit-holder completes any required firearms safety training and files the renewal application before the permit expires.

How do you "sort" out these issues if you don't even know why you're being denied? As Tom rightly said, race is one of the arbitrary reasons people are denied permits. Looks is another. The wrong political bent is another. The size of your wallet is another. And so on.

So your continued accusation that "SHALL ISSUE" states proliferate guns and put guns in the hands of bad guys is a BIG FAT LIE! That is absolutely and demonstrably false. Even shall issue states deny permits to people who don't qualify under the pre-defined guidelines. If you don't like the disqualifying items in your state and want to make them tougher - then lobby your congress critter to change it. But allowing a single individual gov't official at the po-leece station the power to decide your constitutional rights based on a whim or on how he or she feels that day is no way to run a nation.

Jeff

Pretty thoughtful post. It has the kind of tone that induces thoughtful response, too.

I come here hoping to read stuff like that.

But the content shows you gave no thought to, and have not absorbed, my red ink suggestions to Tom.

To make our conversation worthwhile, give these grounded ideas the consideration they deserve.

A few particulars you mention are quite valid. They are the valuable basis for valid improvements (as are most of Tom's pet bitches). They are fine tuning. They merely focus on the sorting we need.

Look, friend, "shall issue" killed a bluegrass associate of mine. Tom posted the typical, minimal, shall issue restrictions, called it evidence of discretion, and the bastard then added a fucking smiley face!

The law which killed Drew (and several others) was pushed through by Alan Gottlieb's local SAF crowd. The heart of the law which killed Drew, which I posted twice, basically said SHALL NOT BE DENIED without evidence of two weeks of involuntary incarceration. Ian Stawicki, who had terrorized his grown siblings for five years in three cities (including several violent episodes, permanent injury to a brother, and the trashing of a girlfriends' house) had never been involuntarily incarcerated. His father (a former firearms instructor by one account) went to authorities, who suggested waiting for the behavior to get worse. It did.

I am discussing gun-collection options which could be fairly applied. MANY other problems are inherent in the status quo. Shall issue," state-by-state, is a litany of dangerous weaknesses: I read them yesterday, and it's so bad it will take me a few hours to organize the horror. Jeff, the laws are a chain of dangerous gun lobby snow-jobs.

The problem: gun culture encourages minimal restrictions, and rewards wild gun justification philosophy. The profile itself is reckless, and dangerous. This stuff erodes the credibility, image, and stature of the second, of course.

IMO, for your own sakes gun clubs and gun publications need to apply pressure for stable, positive behavior. Certain failures to meet gun purchase standards, or gun permit standards, should be reversible, IMO. (If the stats on that effort show a public health failure, address that for what it is.)

Let's say that upon examination brought by the SA Gun Club, accredited authorities find that jocal505 is not fit to have a weapon. They should define the terms of my failure. Since my legal record lacks violent misdemeanors, and such, counselling could be applied, or specified weapons training could be applied, in the hopes that I could meet the standards. If violent misdemeanants can be demonstrated to have been rehabilitated with gun club group counseling (or anything else), they should be re-considered for a permit or a purchase, IMO.

If social science says counseling, or public service, or the Flying Spaghetti Factory, will re-constitute certain felons, also fine.

FFS hit the nail on the head. Since international gun damage figures show the US has a gun problem, benchmarks could be set to guide gun restrictions, and thus offset (de-tune) the effects of present gun lobby legislation. Consider what worked with auto safety (then with mandated gas mileage goals). If deaths and injuries were not diminished at an acceptable rate, more onerous restrictions were applied. If gun owners and the gun industry could get ahead of the damage control, then less restrictive applications could apply. Win-win: loose cannons would have to clean it up.

The net effect would reverse the present irresponsibility of the gun culture. The gun culture would begin to self-police, to encourage mental stability, thorough gun safety education, responsibility, and culturally positive behaviors. (Sadly, where this breaks down is that the last item is being shouted down by anti-authority elements.)

 

[jocal505]

No other laws can LEGALLY be applied with racial discrimination.

There's no reason the list of disqualifying reasons under a "shall issue" system could not be long. It could even be written by you, if you were willing to in any way limit the authority of LEO's in this area.

And no, racist applications of "may issue" can't be "sorted" in any way. If a sheriff has unlimited authority

...No racist application of ANY law is legal. What clause in "may issue" specifies that racist denials are legal, or even acceptable?...

Again, court clerks, magistrates, or gun clubs could do it.

Bullshit.

WHAT???

A better question would be: what clause do you think prevents them? A sheriff can deny a permit for any reason at all and all he has to say is "no" with no explanation required, no recourse for the citizen.

After he says "no" there is no further role for court clerks, magistrates, or gun clubs. They have no authority and the sheriff doesn't have to explain himself to them or anyone else.

That's why it's not "bullshit" to say these can't be sorted. Just like when MLK had his permit denied for racist reasons, there's no appeal, no provision in the law to "sort" a denial, and no reason to "sort" a denial since there are no limits on the authority of a sheriff in a "may issue" situation.

You seem surprised and disbelieving, but you also seem unable to find for me any limits on the power of a sheriff. Have you got any examples of denials being sorted? Ever? Feel free to go back to the last century if you want, but you will find none.

You are ranting half-truths. And I have no foundation to define the authority of sheriffs, but sheriffs around here deal with formidible exposure from newspapers. Our sheriff gets her wings clipped all da time.

Ahem, the research others are asking for could, and would, generate evidence-based particulars for an individual's gun suitability, or lack of suitability.

It seems you see a need for appeals, specifics, and recourse after gun permit denials, and for gun purchase denials. Got it.

I got it long ago. I think you are right, Tom. You should propose some specifics, and flesh out your idea.

You say that sorting is not possible...as we sort these problems.

I see what you did.

With a not-very-sharp combo of no background checks and no gun permit checks, you are being quite careless about who gets guns.

No wonder we have a gun problem. (It doesn't have to be like this.)

Why grant criminals & whack jobs a pipeline of guns within the unregulated secondary market, then give them a permit without a proper examination?

Both seem to contribute to the problem.

 

[jocal505]

Ignore all of randumbs BS trolls. Why don't you bite on this one for a while - I took the time to actually try to appeal to that kernal of common sense you have buried somewhere deep down inside you that has been begging to get out.

And while you're at it. Maybe you can answer the question about whether a woman who shoots her rapist is a vigilante? What is her mindset when leaving the house with a pistol that day?

Actually, LenP already asked this pretty intelligent question. He framed Gandhi against ISIS, basically.

Gandhi would fail. I agree. In the act of forcible rape, sure, a gun would be convenient...but statistically it would get used on a member of one's social circle. Especially in college.

But this goes to another poster's recent comment that pinheads only see in black and white, and in good-and-bad absolutes.

It's like Tom, who likes to find an exception, then claim that it disproves a broad body of scientific conclusion.

This non-violent stuff is a mixed bag. I warned all of you that this would get subtle. Three years ago I hit that, twice.

It took a long time to get here, but we can finally discuss it.

Pay attention.

Non violence is not going to work as an absolute. Correct.

But neither is violence, mate.

Violence begets violence, however. (Your self-defense beliefs demonstrate that, actually.)

But non-violence does not beget violence...yet it can rule over the violent (e.g. civilized societies).

Thus the irony and power of "the meek shall inherit the earth."

The idea is to be a living, dynamic application of non-violence, to break the chain, the cycle, of violence.

And to be the best you can be. YOU rise above the orbit of violence.

YOU are the difference.

I did ghetto work and have found that this bit works far more often than it doesn't work.

I would not have survived one day with a gun doing the social work I did. That whole vibe, that dynamic, is just wrong.

The gun triggers an animal-like instinct, all around.

And that's a wrong-ass, violence-based way to develop a society, IMO.

The direction of society should be mapped around our better instincts, IMO.

If you've had children, you are familiar with those very admirable, finer, qualities.