Finding antis

[trinydex]

Even somebody who thinks the world would be a better place without guns will admit this caveat when pressed. They will then retort something about training and having law enforcement (the professionals) to do that part domestically and the military protect against external threats. You can then point out:

just to add to this point, we don't require training for any other amendment, that includes free speech, not incriminating yourself (in fact we MANDATE that we ourselves be infORMED of our right not to incriminate ourselves!), having a religion etc. that type of mentality just doesn't stand up to "fundamental right" test.

i'm sure they'd then fall back on, well guns are made to kill people. that's when you really need to find it in them that such a tool is either acceptable or if you're lucky, essential. that's usually why i answer that specific argument with "so?", if they're too closed minded to see the tool for what it is you can't really convince them otherwise. if they can't EVER see a purpose for a tool that's made to kill (human or animal) then they've got their mind made up on "alternative" solutions, all of which i'll argue are inferior and less efficacious.

[trinydex]

The basic truism that humans always have and always will find reason to harm or kill other human beings is never confronted. Were we to seriously think about it though, we know that there are times when killing is justified (for self-preservation if nothing else). We also know that the credible threat of force alone is often sufficient to deter people from exercising their baser human instincts. These thoughts are just too distasteful though and people would rather not think about them.

makes me think of that line from the unit. chaplin says something to the affect of, murder is the unnecessary taking of life. killing is many times necessary.

They pass off the distasteful aspects of dealing with violence onto the police. Over the course of the twentieth century, the police have slowly taken a greater and greater role in dealing with interpersonal conflicts. The tendency of bureaucratic creep is facilitated by the advent of technologies such as cars, police radio, and 911 call center. These have allowed police to step in for the basic societal vigilance and conflict management that were once considered a basic aspect of living amongst other human beings. It was Sir Robert Peel, the father of the modern notion of a police force, who said:

"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen."

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that, even if you expose some people to firearms and take away their elemental fear of guns; you are still left with the more intellectual problem of them thinking anything "made for killing" is automatically evil. To do away with that, they must be forced to face the reality that violence is not always something you can or should run away from. Man's nobility lies in knowing that it can and should be avoided whenever possible, his honor lies in knowing when to face it head on.

-Pete

these days you also run into the problem the movie crash is about,

"It's the sense of touch. In any real city, you walk, you know? You brush past people, people bump into you. In L.A., nobody touches you. We're always behind this metal and glass."

people hardly know how to interract with others anymore, that coupled with the population density and with density coming the statistical inevitability of disagreement and disagreeability... sigh.

[sb_pete]

makes me think of that line from the unit. chaplin says something to the affect of, murder is the unnecessary taking of life. killing is many times necessary.

Very true, I remember that. I think you also have to add the proviso that the end being sought (for which the killing is found necessary) must be a just one. The morality and importance of the end in the name of which the killing is done is, of course, a potentially very sticky subject.

I think he was referring to the Catholic mistranslation of the traditional 6th (Catholic 5th) commandment.
- In the original and in most renderings, the commandment is "thou shalt not murder."
- The Catholic rendition is changed to "thou shalt not kill."

The difference is VERY significant. I am not a religious guy and am really not steeped in Biblical/Talmudic lore enough to have some kind of theological debate. That said, I think the fact that American society is steeped in the tradition that "thou shalt not kill" is very revealing. Defining the difference between justified killing and unjustified killing (murder/manslaughter) is a very important debate that all societies must have. By nature, I think it is a debate which should always be ongoing. I sometimes wonder whether the legal muddle we have over various forms of manslaughter (both negligent and self-defense related) are more a cause or a symptom of our society's unwillingness to come to terms with this debate. Even when it comes to legal executions (the ultimate iteration of justified killing - the state, acting on behalf of the people, has ruled that a person should die), we hide the proceedings and go to great lengths not to ensure that the execution is carried out swiftly and humanely, but rather that it is not "cruel and unusual." Yes, "cruel and unusual" is Constitutional wording, but it seems to me that the focus is really more on assuaging the guilt of those who bear responsibility for the killing (collectively, the people of the state).

-Pete

[sb_pete]

these days you also run into the problem the movie crash is about,

"It's the sense of touch. In any real city, you walk, you know? You brush past people, people bump into you. In L.A., nobody touches you. We're always behind this metal and glass."

people hardly know how to interract with others anymore, that coupled with the population density and with density coming the statistical inevitability of disagreement and disagreeability... sigh.

I really think that is overly apathetic (not that we're on what you might call a happy happy joy joy subject or anything but still...).

Really though, people interact on a personal level all the time, even in LA. There is a much discussed problem of anonymity inherent in city life which has been hotly debated since the 19th century when large impersonal cities really began to take root in Europe and America. It was the advent of modern sanitation and public works that allowed the cities to develop. But it was the rise of middle classes and the accompanying leisure and freedom of movement that create the anonymity issue. There had certainly been large cities before (Edo, Japan, Imperial China, and others) but the lack of a middle class meant these were really large concentrations of island villages.

These kinds of interconnected island villages (eg. neighborhoods) still exist. Even in suburban and exurban America, people have communities. What changes is the geographical cohesiveness of it all. An individual may be on a first name basis with many people as they go about their daily life (dry cleaner, mailman, food establishments, etc ad nauseum), but they also interact with many more people anonymously. Because of the car culture, the personal interactions take place over a wider geographical area with a whole lot of unavoidable anonymity in the middle. The "community" loses geographical cohesiveness and becomes a more fluid concept shaped by networks of acquaintanceship. There are many upsides to this and peoples' home/work/travel preferences seem to indicate that they like this lifestyle. The downside is the increase in anonymous encounters and a consequent lack of consequence for bad behavior (you won't see them again so who cares if your an a** to them). Throw in big box stores with high employee turnovers on the outskirts of town, and interactions with strangers tend to become more circumscribed, sure. But the notion that people are isolated from each other and separated by a wall of glass and steel (cars) is a bit melodramatic if you ask me. It did win them an Oscar though, so who am I to talk

-Pete

[sb_pete]

just to add to this point, we don't require training for any other amendment, that includes free speech, not incriminating yourself (in fact we MANDATE that we ourselves be infORMED of our right not to incriminate ourselves!), having a religion etc. that type of mentality just doesn't stand up to "fundamental right" test.

True, but we do allow limitations on just about all those rights:
Off the top of my head:

1A - Freedom of speech ** except in cases of libel, incite to violence, etc.

1A - Freedom of the Press ** again except in cases of libel, incite to violence, but also exceptions like protecting sources from criminal prosecutions (eg. Judith Miller in the Plame Affair).

1A - Freedom of Assembly ** Except in cases where it blocks traffic without a permit, hinders national security, blocks access to medical or other essential services, etc. etc.

1A - Freedom of Petition ** Except where it conflicts with campaign finance law, integrity of judicial independence, etc.

1A - Freedom from "establishment of religion" **except for establishment that there is a God, eg. "in God we trust," "...One Nation Under God," etc.

1A - Free exercise of religion ** except in the case of human sacrifice, etc. etc.

Most of those are pretty much undisputed restrictions. Most of us (myself included) would find people taking objection to many such restrictions as cynical at best, reprehensible at worst. BUT they ARE restrictions on our Constitutionally protected rights. They should be acknowledged as such.

On another note, to use a popular term of a noted contemporary politician and legal scholar, they are what many would term "common sense regulations." That should give us all pause for thought...

-Pete

[trinydex]

Very true, I remember that. I think you also have to add the proviso that the end being sought (for which the killing is found necessary) must be a just one. The morality and importance of the end in the name of which the killing is done is, of course, a potentially very sticky subject.

I think he was referring to the Catholic mistranslation of the traditional 6th (Catholic 5th) commandment.
- In the original and in most renderings, the commandment is "thou shalt not murder."
- The Catholic rendition is changed to "thou shalt not kill."

The difference is VERY significant. I am not a religious guy and am really not steeped in Biblical/Talmudic lore enough to have some kind of theological debate. That said, I think the fact that American society is steeped in the tradition that "thou shalt not kill" is very revealing. Defining the difference between justified killing and unjustified killing (murder/manslaughter) is a very important debate that all societies must have. By nature, I think it is a debate which should always be ongoing. I sometimes wonder whether the legal muddle we have over various forms of manslaughter (both negligent and self-defense related) are more a cause or a symptom of our society's unwillingness to come to terms with this debate. Even when it comes to legal executions (the ultimate iteration of justified killing - the state, acting on behalf of the people, has ruled that a person should die), we hide the proceedings and go to great lengths not to ensure that the execution is carried out swiftly and humanely, but rather that it is not "cruel and unusual." Yes, "cruel and unusual" is Constitutional wording, but it seems to me that the focus is really more on assuaging the guilt of those who bear responsibility for the killing (collectively, the people of the state).

-Pete

i think the latter subject hs everything to do with the evolution of punishment. in the old days cruel and unusual punishment was common. slavery, execution, public execution, public execution via entertainment, etc. somewhere along the way that sentiment was lost... are you saying that our "modern society" doesn't like tackling that question? they had it sussed out in the olden days? i wonder if it's technology or maybe even the rise of the middle class or leisure that created these new sentiments. perhaps science and technology brought along things that challenge certain aspects of morality or brought about a new critiquing system (although i think the classic philosophers had it pretty well sussed out)? lots of angles to attack this bug from. ultimately it's about the value of humanity right? and how somehow humans have become worth more over time... i think that sounds like a rise of the middle class type thing... that would be directly linked to some sort of philosophy or social architecture involving human capital, but then there's also the legalistic aspect of "the least of us" which begs that the 'floor' or 'baseline' level of value be "raised." i don't know you. have anymore thoughts on this?

I really think that is overly apathetic (not that we're on what you might call a happy happy joy joy subject or anything but still...).

Really though, people interact on a personal level all the time, even in LA. There is a much discussed problem of anonymity inherent in city life which has been hotly debated since the 19th century when large impersonal cities really began to take root in Europe and America. It was the advent of modern sanitation and public works that allowed the cities to develop. But it was the rise of middle classes and the accompanying leisure and freedom of movement that create the anonymity issue. There had certainly been large cities before (Edo, Japan, Imperial China, and others) but the lack of a middle class meant these were really large concentrations of island villages.

These kinds of interconnected island villages (eg. neighborhoods) still exist. Even in suburban and exurban America, people have communities. What changes is the geographical cohesiveness of it all. An individual may be on a first name basis with many people as they go about their daily life (dry cleaner, mailman, food establishments, etc ad nauseum), but they also interact with many more people anonymously. Because of the car culture, the personal interactions take place over a wider geographical area with a whole lot of unavoidable anonymity in the middle. The "community" loses geographical cohesiveness and becomes a more fluid concept shaped by networks of acquaintanceship. There are many upsides to this and peoples' home/work/travel preferences seem to indicate that they like this lifestyle. The downside is the increase in anonymous encounters and a consequent lack of consequence for bad behavior (you won't see them again so who cares if your an a** to them). Throw in big box stores with high employee turnovers on the outskirts of town, and interactions with strangers tend to become more circumscribed, sure. But the notion that people are isolated from each other and separated by a wall of glass and steel (cars) is a bit melodramatic if you ask me. It did win them an Oscar though, so who am I to talk

-Pete

i'm not necessarily saying that there's no personal interactions or relations out there. it's just that phenomenon that you've given the background on feeds the problem previously discussed, the duty of all citizens which today is many times deferred to the police instead of being taken up by each individual personally to the standard of the police.

True, but we do allow limitations on just about all those rights:
Off the top of my head:

1A - Freedom of speech ** except in cases of libel, incite to violence, etc.

1A - Freedom of the Press ** again except in cases of libel, incite to violence, but also exceptions like protecting sources from criminal prosecutions (eg. Judith Miller in the Plame Affair).

1A - Freedom of Assembly ** Except in cases where it blocks traffic without a permit, hinders national security, blocks access to medical or other essential services, etc. etc.

1A - Freedom of Petition ** Except where it conflicts with campaign finance law, integrity of judicial independence, etc.

1A - Freedom from "establishment of religion" **except for establishment that there is a God, eg. "in God we trust," "...One Nation Under God," etc.

1A - Free exercise of religion ** except in the case of human sacrifice, etc. etc.

Most of those are pretty much undisputed restrictions. Most of us (myself included) would find people taking objection to many such restrictions as cynical at best, reprehensible at worst. BUT they ARE restrictions on our Constitutionally protected rights. They should be acknowledged as such.

On another note, to use a popular term of a noted contemporary politician and legal scholar, they are what many would term "common sense regulations." That should give us all pause for thought...

-Pete

i think thomas paine would either have no pause at all or he'd roll in his grave. common sense was afterall his book hahaha. i like to call it the libertarian manifesto

the issue with limitations on fundamental liberties i think is directly linked to population density and technology. actually that could be technology by itself since technology allows for population density. as more and more technology arrives in conjunction with human nature we'll get more and more "common sense" and hence less and less liberties... someone gonna call me the unabomber yet?

[sb_pete]

i think the latter subject hs everything to do with the evolution of punishment. in the old days cruel and unusual punishment was common. slavery, execution, public execution, public execution via entertainment, etc. somewhere along the way that sentiment was lost... are you saying that our "modern society" doesn't like tackling that question? they had it sussed out in the olden days? i wonder if it's technology or maybe even the rise of the middle class or leisure that created these new sentiments. perhaps science and technology brought along things that challenge certain aspects of morality or brought about a new critiquing system (although i think the classic philosophers had it pretty well sussed out)? lots of angles to attack this bug from. ultimately it's about the value of humanity right? and how somehow humans have become worth more over time... i think that sounds like a rise of the middle class type thing... that would be directly linked to some sort of philosophy or social architecture involving human capital, but then there's also the legalistic aspect of "the least of us" which begs that the 'floor' or 'baseline' level of value be "raised." i don't know you. have anymore thoughts on this?

Very good points. I think you're spot on in highlighting the "value of humanity", although I would say more the "value of the [hu]man" as we are talking about the individual here. The rise of the middle class, I think, has everything to do with that one. Increase in leisure and labor mobility equates to an increase in both sense of self worth and ability to practically apply that self worth (move jobs, homes, lifestyles, etc.). Throw in some extra education, voting rights and media exposure to injustices (both real and drummed up) beyond one's immediate scope of acquaintances, and you have a formula which leads to an increase in the valuation of a human life.

Another factor, of course is the advances of modern medicine. Specifically the reduction in childhood mortality rates and extension of life expectancies.

This increased valuation of human life probably plays a role in making the question of when killing is justified a harder one to answer.

As I sit here and think about it though, there is a part of our society that thinks deeply about this subject. This is why we are having debates about duty to retreat laws, castle exceptions, etc. There is certainly also a fair body of literature relating to the morality and psychological effects of killing for soldiers and police. I think it is probably too much to ask to think that society as a whole could engage in these kinds of debates openly and honestly. Certainly, I can think of no historical precedent for such. Like you point out, cruel punishments were common and often presented as sport or entertainment a century or two ago (their decline coinciding with the rise of the modern penitentiary system). It's not that death was more thought about, it was just more common and experienced first-hand more often.

Yet the unhealthy thing, to my way of thinking, is how we compartmentalize and push out of mind the subject entirely. We have an all volunteer military and law enforcement system. Moreover, we pretty much always have. Even during drafts, the draftees were temporary and existed alongside the regular military. We have never had a citizen army along the lines of the Swiss or Israelis. As a result, there is a bit of a de facto (but not de jure) caste system from which these aspects of society draw their people. An oft quoted Marine (I think it was Gen Mattis who said it first) sentiment comes to mind, "America is not at war, the Marine Corps is at war, America is at the mall."

It is not just that we tried to do away with cruel and unusual punishments (a laudable and noble goal), but rather that we have tried to make punishments sanitary, anonymous, and out of sight. Sure, executions make the news, but merely as a piece of text or spoken word.

The analogy of tap water comes to mind (sausage making or plumbing also work). When people turn on the tap and water comes out every time, they don't have to think about it. They can take it for granted. The practical and moral consequences and compromises involved in making that happen don't have to be considered. Whether 14 million plus people in the LA basin should have easy, cheap tap water (for example) is a real question though. Reservoirs must be made that bury existing areas, downstream flows are disrupted, groundwater is sucked dry, etc. These actions can have serious consequences. Providing LA with water destroyed the Owens Valley and led to the California Water Wars, it changed the geography of surrounding verdant areas with damns and reservoirs. It is also a major part of the disputes over the 200 mile distant Colorado River, the overuse of which severely impacts Northern Mexico. Nobody gives this any thought though. As long as the taps flow and the water is cheap, the issue is out of sight and out of mind. Such issues are dealt with by expert bureaucrats and politicians.

The same goes for the instances in which our society deems killing is justified. Executions are hidden away and sanitized. Images of soldiers' coffins are kept out of the media. The only images of dead bodies that make it back from war coverage are those of dead non-combatants. We talk about unjustified killings, murders, war crimes, etc. We shake our heads and make comments about what a dangerous place the world can be. But the only justified killings which make it into the public consciousness are the sacred and the profane. Stories of heroism like Medal of Honor winners make it. Stories that stand out as ridiculous like the Texan who shot one of the guys robbing his neighbor make it.

I am not saying that people should go around constantly thinking about whether or not they are going to have to kill a fellow citizen today. However, when we've hit the point that people get squeemish about watching the seafood chef take the lobster out of the tank, maybe it is time to think about whether protecting society from the dangers that face it has gone so far as to make it more susceptible to those dangers in the first place...

-Pete

[sb_pete]

i'm not necessarily saying that there's no personal interactions or relations out there. it's just that phenomenon that you've given the background on feeds the problem previously discussed, the duty of all citizens which today is many times deferred to the police instead of being taken up by each individual personally to the standard of the police.

Agreed, I think that the movie Crash went too far is all. Typical Hollywood I guess, but drama is not supposed to be reality. The hype around that movie had it made out as Homer's frickin' Iliad for LA though.

Couldn't agree more on the duty of citizens. I think the Robert Peel quote said it best. I remember an event I witnessed a few years back when I was in Amsterdam:

I was in a bike rental shop when the guy renting the bike looked up and made a comment. I turned around and saw out the window a man running off with somebody's bag. Just then, a well dressed man on a bicycle extended his arm and cloths-lined the thief, who went down almost comically hard onto the concrete. Five or six citizens rushed up, stripped the bag from the dazed thief and yelled obscenities at him. The woman arrived, took her bag, spat an insult at the thief, thanked the well dressed man on the bike, and walked off. The other citizens then went about their business while the thief stumbled off amidst the glares of other citizens. The entire event took about a minute

No police were involved. The woman seemed to think getting knocked senseless and subjected to the insults of the other citizens was punishment enough for the unsuccessful robbery attempt. The other citizens accepted this and went about their way. There was something beautiful about the whole thing to me - theft, recovery, punishment, resolution - all in about a minute. That ought to be a slogan.

i think thomas paine would either have no pause at all or he'd roll in his grave. common sense was afterall his book hahaha. i like to call it the libertarian manifesto

the issue with limitations on fundamental liberties i think is directly linked to population density and technology. actually that could be technology by itself since technology allows for population density. as more and more technology arrives in conjunction with human nature we'll get more and more "common sense" and hence less and less liberties... someone gonna call me the unabomber yet?

lol, nah, won't call you the unabomber. As it is almost 4am though, I will call it a night.

-Pete

[trinydex]

(their decline coinciding with the rise of the modern penitentiary system).

and this is going to be food for the libertarians, the modern penitentiary system was made possible only by the expansion of government and massive tax revenue generation. this is apparently also something that "the people" continue to find worthy of funds.

this "personal" or cultural philosophy then begs the question of technology again because as technology progresses, the cogs in the sociotechnilogical machine must get more and more specialized. statistically less and less people will fit such a pattern or at LEAST more and more people will be found "incapable." some won't seek empowerment through other means, but many WILL! power is such an odd and balancing thing because you can create it and satisfy it in so many different ways. with the way technology is today, i'm shocked that anyone would suggest survival of the fittest in any sense, why? because with the gun, anyone can be the fittest and no man is an island and no army is big enough. people unwilling to make concession make for huge problems of power struggle.

Yet the unhealthy thing, to my way of thinking, is how we compartmentalize and push out of mind the subject entirely.

i mentioned this just above but this goes right back to technology and common sense. thomas paine outlines very well how it makes sense and it's natural to make people specialize, to specialize beaureus and branches of this or that. technology requires us to be specialized, we're a programmer, or a scientist or an operator or a fisherman, everyone has their own special thing they keep doing. so of course our prison system and even out very basic thoughts and philosophies become disconnected, each thought or each view appropriate for its own little section of life.

It is not just that we tried to do away with cruel and unusual punishments (a laudable and noble goal), but rather that we have tried to make punishments sanitary, anonymous, and out of sight. Sure, executions make the news, but merely as a piece of text or spoken word.

and i just can't see through this part. i don't understand why we can sensationalize certain types of death and then ignore others or try to hide from yet others. why do we like to "hate ourselves" by saying how "bad" we are for killing innocents. yet we never say look how good of a job we're doing killing this bad guy (of course that sounds faux pas already right?). but not even that, what happened to look, this man has done terrible things, be reminded if you do terrible things you will follow in his terminal foosteps. why is deterrance bad? does it make 'us' feel naughty inside?

I am not saying that people should go around constantly thinking about whether or not they are going to have to kill a fellow citizen today. However, when we've hit the point that people get squeemish about watching the seafood chef take the lobster out of the tank, maybe it is time to think about whether protecting society from the dangers that face it has gone so far as to make it more susceptible to those dangers in the first place...

in this day and age, especially with america or at least california's education system where engineers never want to write or think about a piece of writing ever again in their lives after frosh year, we can't realistically expect people to have developed opinions about any of this stuff. killing, philosophy, hell we can't even expect most people to have a well reasoned personal culture that they adhere by. and alas, NOT having a rigid character that you pattern yourself after IS a type of character and many people are categorized into such. does it have to do with too much mtv, too much leisure, or is it too much specialization? too much requisite education before you can have this sorted out in the "real big picture." because we have to admit, it's easy to reason in a small microcosm, but frequently those reasonings are ignorant or wrong. and this of course links directly back to the antigun person who's just never thought of guns and never had someone to tell them all about it.

I was in a bike rental shop when the guy renting the bike looked up and made a comment. I turned around and saw out the window a man running off with somebody's bag. Just then, a well dressed man on a bicycle extended his arm and cloths-lined the thief, who went down almost comically hard onto the concrete. Five or six citizens rushed up, stripped the bag from the dazed thief and yelled obscenities at him. The woman arrived, took her bag, spat an insult at the thief, thanked the well dressed man on the bike, and walked off. The other citizens then went about their business while the thief stumbled off amidst the glares of other citizens. The entire event took about a minute

No police were involved. The woman seemed to think getting knocked senseless and subjected to the insults of the other citizens was punishment enough for the unsuccessful robbery attempt. The other citizens accepted this and went about their way. There was something beautiful about the whole thing to me - theft, recovery, punishment, resolution - all in about a minute. That ought to be a slogan.

i wonder if this type of community is contagious you know. maybe if people start stepping up, the right things will be done more often.