Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Tool?.... Weapon?

Posted by ronalawn82 z9FL (ronalawn08@gmail.com) on
Sun, Dec 23, 12 at 12:00

A long time ago and a far way from here, I had the great experience of living in a Wapishana village. In my short stint as a teacher, I observed that the tool for obtaining meat and fish was the 'bow and arrow'. Every home had at least one; and it was used in fishing and killing small animals.
Whenever there was a fight it was usually 'man to man; hand to hand'. The head teacher, the Touchau (village captain), the shopkeeper and the Government's DFO (District Field Officer) each possessed a gun - the "Savage 410" combination rifle or shotgun.
Life was simple.
Life was good.
The first weapon used was the bow and arrow, hitherto a tool. I suppose that when 'man to man; hand to hand' became inadequate, protagonists turned to what was readily available and had a certain "ease-of-use", the result of practice.
Some years later I worked in an agricultural environment where the cutlass (machete) was the single tool that was required in any field operation - even a field mechanic killing a snake! Again readily available and easy to use, the result of practice.
The weapon most often used to disfigure, maim or kill was the cutlass.
Here in the United States when I read of the gun being used in every event from road rage to mass murder, forgive me if I conclude that the weapon must be readily available and is "user-friendly" - if you will please pardon the inappropriate use of the term.
My opinion is that any effort to reduce the use of the gun as a weapon against society must start at the intersection of availability - and correct use and care.


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Tool?.... Weapon?

  • Posted by tapla z5b-6a mid-MI (My Page) on
    Sun, Dec 23, 12 at 14:51

By definition, the law abiding are just that, and are no threat to anyone unless they break from that mold - no matter what type of weapon they have at their disposal. There was never anything to stop one tribe from overcoming another and appropriating their weapons and using them against them. If village A has only sticks to defend, and village B has bows and arrows, it's more likely that the better armed village will be overrun.

The idea that reducing the use of a gun as a weapon of society does indeed depend on availability, but that thought needs to be refined. It depends on eliminating availability to criminals and madmen. The argument that these criminals can steal any one of the millions of guns owned by the law abiding, and therefore guns or certain types of guns should be banned doesn't hold water. Who would suggest that you shouldn't be allowed to carry cash or keep cash in your home because of the eventuality that a criminal might appropriate that cash and convert it into his/her gun of choice? Are we willing to ban swimming pools because someone might drown, or airplanes because they sometimes fall from the sky, killing those on board and those whose heads they might drop onto?

Fearing the gun instead of the madman or criminal is as irrational and misplaced as the fear of flying. Only the very seasoned fliers don't get a little rush of adrenalin caused by fear when about to take off and land, even while the rational mind understands it's safer on a plane than crossing the street.

When you propose to take guns out of society, or limit their availability, you must start by ensuring the criminal element are relieved of their potential monopoly on deadly force BEFORE you disarm the law abiding citizenry. Can anyone show how any other plan might work? We KNOW we can wave a magic wand and make guns disappear, so we have to work within the reality that criminals are always going to have guns, and they will pay ANYTHING to ensure they have what they believe to be the upper hand in any confrontation.

I strongly agree that education of gun owners and non owners alike, particularly with regard to safe and responsible handling, would go a long way toward easing tensions. In addition to being certified to teach multiple firearms disciplines, I am also certified as a range officer. One of my favorite opportunities to volunteer is when the local gun shop sponsors a local 'Women's Outdoor Sports Assn.' indoor shoot. The assn advertises locally & invites women to the shop to try shooting. They are guided by experienced and often certified instructors in the safe handling of guns, and are provided opportunity to shoot on indoor rifle, pistol, air rifle, and archery ranges.

Women arrive in droves. They shoot their stick-on targets at close range, and often delight in pealing them off the backstop and sticking them to their shirts/blouses to show how well they have done, with broad smiles and happy countenances being the unexcepted rule. Of course, they all arrive predisposed to having a fun afternoon, and I have never seen ANY indication of disappointment - not once. Many, many times, I've heard comments that clearly illustrate quite the opposite of the adage that 'familiarity breeds contempt'. Quite the opposite is true, in fact, and becoming a little more familiar with something often alleviates the irrational fear of that which is not understand.

If all someone understands, or feels all they need to understand is that a gun in the hands of a madman is capable of creating massive mayhem, then the level understanding is extremely limited and its scope very narrow.

Al


 o
RE: Tool?.... Weapon?

It depends on eliminating availability to criminals and madmen.

You try explaining that to this criminal/madman/father.

-Ron-

Here is a link that might be useful: Man Kills Son


 o
RE: Tool?.... Weapon?

Whenever there was a fight it was usually 'man to man; hand to hand'. The head teacher, the Touchau (village captain), the shopkeeper and the Government's DFO (District Field Officer) each possessed a gun - the "Savage 410" combination rifle or shotgun.

I chuckled when I read the man to man; hand to hand........The man to man is out of shape physically and mentally. The diet is poor the strength matches the diet. They would not be able to win a hand to hand hence the need of the gun. It is what makes them a man.

There are probably more NRA than USMAF (United States Martial Arts Federation) members in the US. They would run for the hills if they had to put that kind of effort of defending themselves it they could even stand up long enough to defend themselves.


 o
RE: Tool?.... Weapon?

They would run for the hills if they had to put that kind of effort...

They'd have a heart attack if they had to run. I have a relative who's big time into guns. He's my height and would make two of me. I don't think he could run to the fridge.

-Ron-


 o
RE: Tool?.... Weapon?

  • Posted by tapla z5b-6a mid-MI (My Page) on
    Sun, Dec 23, 12 at 18:01

Ron - you had to take only a part of my statement out of context to use it to make your point. What I said was, "The idea that reducing the use of a gun as a weapon of society does indeed depend on availability, but that thought needs to be refined. It depends on eliminating availability to criminals and madmen." If you wish to critique the statement, feel free, but keeping it intact will bolster your credibility.

I'm no more willing to relinquish my right to own a gun because of someone else's negligence than you are to give up your privilege of driving because a drunk driver struck and killed a child somewhere. Both are tragedies of horrible magnitude, but the drunk driver killing a child is actually more reprehensible than the child killed by accidental discharge - because the drunk driver KNEW he was impaired when he got behind the wheel and the symptoms of that impairment left him compromised. The father was negligent and SHOULD have known the gun was loaded. There is a difference between 'knew' and 'should have known'. On its face, it doesn't look like the father made a conscious decision that lead to the death of his child.

The drunk driver would deserve a more severe punishment than the father, though I suspect the state could never meet out a punishment more sever or lengthy than the father is already certain to suffer.

You can't seize on an event and say, "SEE, here's proof" - it has to be put into perspective.

Al


 o
RE: Tool?.... Weapon?

My opinion is that any effort to reduce the use of the gun as a weapon against society must start at the intersection of availability - and correct use and care.

Although this needs to be addressed, as well as respect for the weapon and the safety thereof, and respect for what it can do if used improperly, that's not where to start. Where you start has no direct connection to firearms, per se. Where you start is by instilling in our children a respect for human life. That's what it all comes down to. Do that, and the rest, for the most part, falls into place.


 o
RE: Tool?.... Weapon?

Where you start is by instilling in our children a respect for human life.

Kinda tough when our own gvt invades Iraq, Afghanistan, and continue using drones to blast targets and collaterals from the sky, and the entire society glorifies the military, dares not criticize anything they do .

/just sayin'.


 o
RE: Tool?.... Weapon?

PLEASE-- KEEP just sayin!! That's part of it!!


 o
RE: Tool?.... Weapon?

The NRA is one stage set in the kabuki theater called Armed and Arms America. We give lip service to peace and diplomacy and wield the very big stick of military and paramilitary force in the world. Then we weep when some of our own innocents suffer. Unless they are brown and poor and urban, then the wailing is a bit less extravagant.

God forbid that we limit military arms and their civilian analogs to military and police forces.

There is a madness spreading over this land.

This post was edited by marshallz10 on Mon, Dec 24, 12 at 1:59


 o
RE: Tool?.... Weapon?

These dead children are mere collateral damage.

The weapon most often used to disfigure, maim or kill was the cutlass.
Here in the United States when I read of the gun being used in every event from road rage to mass murder, forgive me if I conclude that the weapon must be readily available and is "user-friendly" - if you will please pardon the inappropriate use of the term.

My opinion is that any effort to reduce the use of the gun as a weapon against society must start at the intersection of availability - and correct use and care.

I think the best way to achieve this will be by introducing long overdue liability.


 o
RE: Tool?.... Weapon?

Coming to think of it...

...the use of the gun as a weapon against society is at the core of this.


 o
RE: Tool?.... Weapon?

bill_vincent, you stated, "Where you start is by instilling in our children a respect for human life."
I want to agree with you but these thoughts lead me to 'despair'.
1. Every good thing (like the respect for human life) we know, was learnt at home, in a school or in a church - but not necessarily in that order.
2. Over the last fifty? years or so, we have witnessed the erosion of the influence of each of these Institutions.
So, where do we start?
So, where can we start?
Here is one suggestion.
"Put father back at the head of the family."


 o
RE: Tool?.... Weapon?

So the problem is sexual madness, not so much missing or ineffectual fathers, according to the article. These subjects are way too complex to be cured with one or a few magic bullets. Too many families have no fathers or step fathers or distant divorced fathers or incarcerated fathers.

As noted earlier, there is no respect for human life because this is not part of government policy. We are supposedly at perpetual war against subhuman forces and human life "there" is expendable. The hypocrisy of all this rhetoric.


 o
RE: Tool?.... Weapon?

What does a father bossing everyone around in the family have to do with anything?

I doubt very much that home, school, and church are no longer major influences on children growing up. And I must wonder why anyone thinks men know more about raising families than women do.

Kate


 o
RE: Tool?.... Weapon?

Perhaps it is a form of wishful thinking and passing the buck.


 o
RE: Tool?.... Weapon?

".....magic bullets...."

I saw what you did there.


 o
RE: Tool?.... Weapon?

:) think it helped?


 o
RE: Tool?.... Weapon?

marshallz10, you wrote, "As noted earlier, there is no respect for human life because this is not part of government policy.""
Am I to infer that the population's respect for human life will (or must) change as does Government? Or even as the policies of the same Government change?
Tell me, please that I have misunderstood the intent of your communication.


 o
RE: Tool?.... Weapon?

Both Parties are war parties heavy into imperialistic dreams, at least in so far as justifications for maintaining such large military institutions and installations. So, we are not going to get a real change in public policy toward human rights, aside from rhetorics favored by one branch or the other of the Republicrat Party. I doubt the opinions of the general population have much impact on this as long as "we support our troops" and "my country, right or wrong" continue to hold political favor.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here