I agree. I am just saying that from the article; it sounds like he knew the people and was caught off guard with them. A baseball bat would have been a nice equalizer too.

I hear ya, but when you are at the moment in the ambush when you realize you have been ambushed, if you still have time to do something it is far more likely you can pull a gun out of a hidden place, than a bat.

. . and I know that this is not your point. My point is that we want good guys to have weapons to protect themselves, even those of us who seek to ban guns would want one if they found themselves in that situation and thought they could use it to save themselves or their loved ones.

The problem that we ALL have with guns in society is making sure that only the good guys have them.

The problems we face are numerous, the two biggest ones: how do you tell who is a bad guy; How do you keep bad guys from getting a small easily concealable item

History is full of examples of governments trying and failing to be able to prevent people from getting easily concealable items, usually at great cost.

It seems to me that the main narrative we hear is one that has stopped asking these questions. It assumes they are answered.

I think you bring up a good point? Who are the bad guys? My niece married a good guy but when he started drinking and having domestic squabbles; he threatened to shoot her and the kids with his rifle. The police removed weapons immediately and he is banned from ever owning a weapon again.

So long as the standard of evidence is high, I agree with removing weapons from a person who threatens preemptive violence against others.

Actually this is a problem here in the US, both our standards of evidence are often inconsistent, we also often disregard serious threats.

Sometimes here we also disregard serious threats and then someone dies. Had a house only about a block from me where the husband threatened his wife but she would not call police. Her family and friends knew but no one got involved as they are Indian and that is just not done. She was killed my him and the police were threatened with a law suit as they attended the home due to neighbors calling about the fights but the wife denied he did anything wrong. Messed up world we live in.

Rape is wrong for the same reason all preemptive violence/force is wrong. It violates the rights of the individual.

Conceptually it is interesting to see those that are quick to remove other rights fight for this same autonomy, use the same language, point out the same absurd conclusions of not respecting those rights, but then fail to see the comparisons.

I think you bring up a good point? Who are the bad guys? My niece married a good guy but when he started drinking and having domestic squabbles; he threatened to shoot her and the kids with his rifle. The police removed weapons immediately and he is banned from ever owning a weapon again.

Although the comparison is not there.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt because you can bring an intelligent argument to the table making it at least interesting. Regarding guns, the rights of a gun toter should not outweigh the rights of those who do not want to have their children shot by said gun toter or his family or friends or whoever steals his gun. Comparison is not there.

The point of the thread was that when a man gets raped by a women, there is never NEVER anyone to say he asked for it by how he dressed, how he spoke, how he acted, etc...

Mind you, it missed all of the respondents on the thread also that no one said this.

Rape is wrong for the same reason all preemptive violence/force is wrong. It violates the rights of the individual.

Although the comparison is not there.

The point of the thread was that when a man gets raped by a women, there is never NEVER anyone to say he asked for it by how he dressed, how he spoke, how he acted, etc...

Mind you, it missed all of the respondents on the thread also that no one said this.

It seems to me that the main narrative we hear is one that has stopped asking these questions. It assumes they are answered.

Regarding guns, the rights of a gun toter should not outweigh the rights of those who do not want to have their children shot by said gun toter or his family or friends or whoever steals his gun. Comparison is not there.

The non-aggression principle (NAP)—also called the non-aggression axiom, the zero aggression principle (ZAP), the anti-coercion principle, or the non-initiation of force—is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. NAP and property rights are closely linked, since what aggression is depends on what a person's rights are.[1] Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner’s free will and interfere with his right to self-determination or the principle of self-ownership.

I dont think so. Preemptive force is the problem amongst both topics, and they are intimately connected.


Is it ok to get what you want through preemptive force? Either yes, or no. If it is not ok to rape, which is the act of forced sex, then it is not ok to disarm someone who has harmed no one with that weapon. That person may just be the women defending herself from the preemptive violence of rape and the possibility of death.



You assume much to get to this from just the fact that a gun is owned and being carried.

You are failing to ask questions, you believe you have all the anwsers already. Its a shame.

What would it take to disarm America? Preemptive force regardless of any crimes committed by the individuals involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

Sorry but because a gun toter cannot guarantee they will not be irresponsible with their weapon (allow the kids to get it, let it get stolen, etc...) or lose their mind and kill/let others kill/ with said weapon, the preemptive isn't really an argument per se. If you want to skip that part like most will fine.

There will be more laws to try to prevent the children from being mowed down the classroom. And if that doesn't work there will be more laws.

Guns are not a deterrent to crime or we would have the smallest crime rate in this country. This country would be utopia if guns were the answer.

Oh and thanks for side lining me on this thread

So you are saying that because men have the ability to rape, that all men should be locked up?


Until anything that can do harm is locked away?

Considering I am not anti gun, I don't think that applies to me. You can try that argument with a full out anti gun person though and see how it goes.

I stand for the non crazy gun owners to have a weapon that they never brandish, the kids never see it, they do not believe it will save them in the middle of the night since they don't keep it loaded because of the kids, they have it just in case someday they need to hunt a rabbit for food, etc...

None of which changes the fact that guns do not deter crime if it were true this country would be almost crimeless.

I understand that you want to narrowly define what a gun can do, or how it can be used to minimize its importance, but that does nothing to address my points.

My points are about banning or restricting property rights based on the potential for harm, not actual harm that has been done by an actual individual.

That is preemptive violence, just as rape is preemptive violence. Unsolicited and not in response to aggression or violence, but a response to the potential for violence.

This thread is about how this person who was raped who was male happened to not have his state of mind, state of dress, actions, location, etc... blamed for the crime committed against him.