Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I don't want to go armed. I want the freedom to go about unarmed. That's what a civil society is all about. That's why our ancestors braved dangers, fought Indians, and carved a nation out of wilderness: in the hope that their children would be free to walk about unarmed.

Robert Heinlein was a great writer, but his dictum that "an armed society is a polite society" has poisoned a lot of otherwise clever minds. A society in which everyone goes armed is _not_ a polite one, it is a fearful, unstable, and violent one.

If "Grim" likes the idea of being manly and carrying a weapon about to show it, let him move to Somalia. I am going to show _my_ manhood by being a citizen in a civil society and showing my son there is more to being a man than swaggering about brandishing knives.

Posted by Trimegistus at September 12, 2006 06:34 AM

> I don't want to go armed.

Then don't.

> I want the freedom to go about unarmed.

That freedom is provided by people who go about armed.

> showing my son there is more to being a man than swaggering about brandishing knives.

How about teaching your son not to make stupid and unfounded assumptions? How about teaching him to not start gibbering at the sight of a weapon?

Someone carrying is not necessarily brandishing or swaggering, even if that's what you'd do if you carried. (What - you'd carry appropriately? What makes you special?)

Posted by Andy Freeman at September 12, 2006 08:13 AM

Trimegistus, level 27 prig, "forgets" that his social disapproval doesn't work only people he has reason to fear.

Posted by Andy Freeman at September 12, 2006 08:18 AM

I knew the weapon fetishists would come out of the woodwork.

Look, I don't have a problem with people owning and carrying weapons. I was contesting the specific point referenced in the link: that carrying pointy bits of metal will somehow make men act more manly. That's wrong, and insulting me doesn't change that.

Universal armament is no basis for a stable, civil society. Think of some examples: gangstas who get into shootouts over being "dissed," or Hobbesian nightmares like Somalia. Being armed doesn't make you a good person. In a stable society it's fine if people do own weapons, but they shouldn't deceive themselves that owning one makes them somehow autonomous.

I'm a middle-aged man with bad vision. What's the most effective weapon for me? A knife depends on my untrained reflexes and sedentary physique; a gun depends on my bad eyes. For me, the best weapon is a phone connected to an effective police department.

Posted by Trimegistus at September 12, 2006 08:32 AM

I'm a middle-aged man with bad vision. What's the most effective weapon for me?

From the looks of things, an attitude.

Posted by McGehee at September 12, 2006 08:52 AM

I'm a middle-aged man with bad vision. What's the most effective weapon for me?

You could try one of these.

Posted by Leland at September 12, 2006 09:13 AM

Let me counter point Trimegistus. I ALWAYS go armed. I carry a quick opening, very sharp knife. 3 ¾ “ blade, 8” overall length when opened. It ain’t exactly a Bowie, in other words. In almost 40 years of carrying a knife, including 5 years in the Navy visiting foreign countries, and even more years traveling for civilian business, and pleasure, in 47 American states and 3 provinces of Canada, I’ve pulled it twice. In almost 15,000 days, I've had to defend myself a total of 5 minutes. I can't say how much time of pain and suffering or time recouping lost money or goods I saved.

I’m sure that Trimegistus, and others will knee jerk and say stuff like, “..well Steve stay out of those parts of town”, or “Steve, quit drinking in those d@mn biker bars!!” Neither occasion was like that at all.

The first time I pulled the knife I was in an airport parking garage, in broad daylight, with a female co-worker. Several young guys were walking toward us, horsing around, pushing and shoving. My co-worker was pretty oblivious to their act, I immediately wondered if they were just trying to work their way toward us. Sure enough one of them shoved his buddy right at her, I jumped in her way and Bozo bounced off me instead. As he picked himself up the others started to circle behind us and I pulled out my knife. Well they got very quiet, and were very compliant when I asked them to move away.

The second time I was at a drive-thru window at Bojangles, getting fried chicken for lunch for my work group. The guys in front of me were pulling one of the oldest scams in the drive-thru’s history. They were getting food, looking in bags giving food back, getting more food, getting drinks, tasting drinks, giving drinks back, getting different and bigger drinks back, paying, getting change, giving money back, getting more change back, swapping money. It’s an old scam, if it’s played right it confuses the person inside and you get more food than you paid for and somebody good at the scam can actually get more food and get some of their money back.

Anyway, as this was gong on the person inside is rushed to get rid of this customer and the cars are building up behind him. He finally pulled off and I pulled up and paid. I look up and he is blowing his horn, arm out the window, motioning for me to back-up. How do you back-up, with five cars behind you, at a drive-thru? I shrugged at him and just sat there. This guy comes out of his car, and he’s B-I-G! He comes up and pounds on the hood of my car and starts pointing and gesturing for me to back up. I just pulled out that knife and started tapping it on the steering wheel.

His entire demeanor changed, and he yelled, “…oh! Big man’s got a knife!”

But he got in his over “blinged” Escalade and left.

I am not mean, I am not bad, I am not antagonistic, but there are many people out there who are. I have no idea if any of these people I’ve written about meant any real harm, but I was not willing to be harmed, or to see a young woman be harmed, to find out. Trimegistus , so long as they exist and so long as they are willing to live and act uncivilized, I will go armed.

There is a line in the movie “The Shootist”, where John Wayne tells Ron Howard he has a code of rules he lives by. He says,

"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them."

I live by this same kind of code. I did long before I ever heard the line spoken. I agree completely with the sentiment. It's not that these weapons make me more "manly" as you've said, they make me more safe because they let the cowards quit hiding behind a false bravado, or in a crowd.

Trimegistus, as has been stated, and I agree, it is your God given and legal right to go unarmed. Just don’t expect everyone to abide by your idea of the expectation of civility. That and I just hope you never have to fly ever or go through a drive-thru window.

Posted by Steve at September 12, 2006 09:25 AM

There is, of course, the point that going armed (and I presume that some limits are set - I hope nobody is proposing that walking around with an RPG becomes legal) might just get you into a situation that you can't get out of.

You are carrying a pistol? Fine. Your right. And the next thug you run into might be carrying a MAC-10. Criminals don't care about the law. That's why they're called criminals.

In addition, the easy availability of guns, without very severe social controls (including severe penalties for violent crime), makes it more likely that a minor domestic (for example) dispute will escalate into a murder.

This is a matter of attitude. Every Swiss household has a loaded assault rifle, ready for use, in it - it's a legal requirement. Despite this, the Swiss murder rate is a tenth that of even the UK. And a hundredth that of the US.

The only time you need to carry a weapon is when the law won't protect you, and society is breaking down or already broken. And in that case, the law also won't protect those incapable of protecting themselves - of which society has many.

Of course, if you want to be able to carry a gun because it looks cool, then welcome to the Wild West - or an inner city anywhere, it comes to the same.

You want to be safe on the streets? Get rid of PC and "human rights" legislation. A weapon won't help.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at September 12, 2006 09:30 AM

The only time you need to carry a weapon is when the law won't protect you, and society is breaking down or already broken.

Fascinating. Since the law fails to protect at least a hundred thousand women a year from being raped in the US (to pick an obvious and undercounted example), which stage would you say we're in? I don't own a gun; is it time for me to get one?

You want to be safe on the streets? Get rid of PC and "human rights" legislation. A weapon won't help.

But you just said that if the law might not protect me, I need a weapon. Clearly the law didn't protect tens of thousands of murder victims last year, and I'd like to avoid being on this year's list. You know, if you're contradicting yourself within a couple paragraphs, perhaps your view is a little too black and white.

Posted by Roy S at September 12, 2006 09:56 AM

I grew up in South East Alaska, near Ketchikan.
In the summer time the fishing fleet doubled the population. The fleet is largely young, male and
not attached or asociated with the town(s).

A real recipe for lots of petty crime.
Every one was armed, with a big fishing knife as
an absolute minimum. There was zero petty crime,
there was zero crime at all. It was a very polite
and civilized society.

I vividly remember a scene at a bar, one of the
fishermen was a bit wasted and passed out.
He was laying in a chair with bunches of 100
dollar bills falling out of his pants pocket.

The patrons Took his $$$ folded it nicely and buttoned it in to his shirt pocket so he would not loose it. They then tried to wake him up, asked what boat he was on and put him on a Cab headed back to his boat.

Why did they do this? You never know if his best buddy was near by, so maybe they did it out of fear, maybe they did it because an armed society is a polite society.

If one looks at crime statistics the safeest places in america are the places with the highest
level of legal gun ownership.

When Florida enacted the right to carry law
crime in Florida declined.

In the UK many of the home robberies are done
when people are home, not only can you rob the home, you can also rob the defenceless homeowner at the same time. In America where the right
to defend ones self with deadly force long established, home robbries are almost always done when no one is home.

I fear that the anti gun crowd will eventually
try and disarm the american populace. Toward that end I spent four and half years in the Dojo making sure they won't disarm me.

Paul

Posted by Paul Breed at September 12, 2006 10:09 AM

But the proof is in the pudding. In states where there are concealed carry laws, crime, especially one-on-one, and break-ins are down. The thugs of the world don't want to take on a possible victim who might be armed.

FC, I think you've got it partly right. It's not the laid back attitude of the Swiss that keeps them from murdering each other. It's the attitude of knowing there might be IMMEDIATE reprisal, for committing an assault, robbery or murder.

Herr Hausen Robber thinks to himself, "I could break into Hansel und Gretels einfamilienhaus und shteal all der Hummels!! But Hansel might be bushtin der cap'n in mein arsen!!"

That's the difference in Herr Hausen Robber's attitude, and in Billy, Julio, Kareem and Sharnell's attitudes about robbery, murder and carjacking.

Posted by Steve at September 12, 2006 10:19 AM

This is timely. A few weekends ago, my wife and I both heard very unusual sounds coming from the ground floor. It sure sounded like someone was in the house moving things around.

We headed back to my teenage son's beadroom which has a 12 guage shotgun on a wall rack with shells in the belt. I blocked the door, while he loaded the shotgun and the wife called 911. The police found no sign of a breakin, and we never could find what made those weird noises.

But I can't tell you the comfort I had knowing that my son and I could protect the family until the police did show up. My wife had been hesitant to having handguns in the house, but now she wants one seeing how awkward a shotgun is to handle in a small room or narrow hallway.

Posted by Orville at September 12, 2006 11:46 AM

> For me, the best weapon is a phone connected to an effective police department.

That's nice but few of us are Trimegistus so why should his limitations limit our choices?

Posted by Andy Freeman at September 12, 2006 12:18 PM

> You are carrying a pistol? Fine. Your right. And the next thug you run into might be carrying a MAC-10.

So what? Very few guns protect the wielder from being shot.

Thugs already have the power of life-or-death over their victims. Armed victims do nothing but increase the risk to thugs.

Why are you folks so damn concerned about the safety of thugs?

Posted by Andy Freeman at September 12, 2006 12:21 PM

> In addition, the easy availability of guns, without very severe social controls (including severe penalties for violent crime), makes it more likely that a minor domestic (for example) dispute will escalate into a murder.

That's not actually true.

We know quite a lot about folks who commit violence, including domestic violence. While they could be "ordinary folks who just got mad", they aren't - they're folks who have a long history of violence. And, yes, they commit on folks they know more often than strangers. (Acquaintance gives both opportunity and motive.)

And, for what's its worth, domestic violence is typically committed with weapons of strength, fists, feet, improvised clubs, and knives, not guns. (Those folks don't need a gun to "take care of the little woman.")

Yes, most murderers are convicted just once of murder, but that's a consequence of "murder is a young man's crime" and "murder sentences are typically long enough that murderers are not young when they're released". That doesn't make murderers choir boys.

Posted by Andy Freeman at September 12, 2006 12:28 PM

I am always armed (except when I fly commercial and I think that's wrong but won't go into that here). I carry at least one knife, sometimes three. One day not so long ago I was opening my car door when I was grabbed from behind. "Hi, honey, I'm coming home with you," he said. I continued reaching into the car, grabbed the Fairbain-Sykes that lived between the driver and passenger seats, turned around and said "No you're not either."

Bad guy last seen heading toward New Mexico and accelerating.

In retrospect I should have said "Yes you are" and done a number of other things to reduce the bad guy's outlook on life, but I was late getting dinner ready and my mind was focused on that, not dealing with some juvie creep. The point is, I was able to defend myself. And perhaps saved other females from this jerk's unwanted attention.

Understanding and carrying weapons means you care about your life as well as the lives of your loved ones and friends. You can't save the world, or your life, by being shocked and saddened and saying "Let's talk"; the bad guy might just not want to talk. It takes force to end force.

Posted by Aleta Jackson\ at September 12, 2006 12:53 PM

Aleta is a woman after my own heart.

It takes force to end force.

Thugs, indeed, don't want to talk. They want blood and money, usually in that order. I'm always amazed at how quickly they run, when stood up to.

Posted by Steve at September 12, 2006 01:43 PM

I carry a 9mm Makarov tucked inside the waistband of my pants just about everywhere I go.

So far all of you anti self-defense types who are trying to define why I carry and why you think I should not have missed the mark by a mile.

Hopefully none of you or I will be faced with a situation to protect ones self or family that might call for being armed, but if I do I will be prepared. Therefore what you think about my being armed matters not at all.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 12, 2006 03:03 PM

People always misconstrue Heinlein.What he meant wasn't that everybody would be excessively polite to each other just because "He's got a gun!",but because in such a society,bad guys are in short supply,either because they've decided to be out of town by sundown or they've assumed room temperature.
No one has anything to fear from armed honest citizens.

Posted by Frantic Freddie at September 12, 2006 03:22 PM

> You can't save the world, or your life, by being shocked and saddened
> and saying "Let's talk"; the bad guy might just not want to talk. It
> takes force to end force.

I remember when Ronald Reagan spoke to a military group being picketed by "peace" protestors. He opened by saying, "The Bible says blessed are the peacemakers. That's why I'm hear with you instead of that lot outside."

I also recall a Jewish Rabbi who told his followers to sell their spare clothing to buy swords for self defense.

Posted by Edward Wright at September 12, 2006 03:23 PM

Andy, I am not at all sure you got my point.

If you are not carrying a gun, you, if you have any sense at all, will not go into certain areas and will avoid certain situations.

If you (and I am using the general "you" here, not you personally) might just get a little careless, thinking that you can get yourself out of a bad situation because you have a gun.

By the way, on the subject of pistol via SMG; well, you might win that one - but will probably not. A pistol is not particularly accurate, even if you are well trained - which most people are not. And even if they are, a lot of people would freeze, or do something else inappropriate, the first time they get into a firefight - which might well also be the last.

With an SMG, spray and pray might well work - it only takes one bullet.

Of course, all the people commenting here pro-guns are expert marksmen with combat experience. Yeah right.

The best protection for an individual is a well-funded police force not hogtied by endless PC regulations, and a legal system that puts murderous thugs behind bars for a very long time - or underground. Oh, and a society where most people are properly brought up and are basically honest and unlikely to commit violence in the first place.

Neither the US nor the UK are in that state.

If you are in a job that requires you to go to dubious areas, find another line of work - and let the scum kill each other instead of honest folk.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at September 12, 2006 05:37 PM

Freddie:

How about an armed, generally honest citizen who just happens at the moment to be drunk or high? Or is just generally incompetent? Guns go off by accident sometimes. And they don't aim themselves.

Actually, I think a reasonable compromise would be a large knife or shortsword; you can't hit innocent bystanders with it, and it isn't all that difficult to use - at least against an untrained opponent. If you are up against a trained martial artist, you have already lost.

Guns belong with professionals.

Of course, if you spend a lot of time out in the real boondocks where dangerous animals are roaming, then a gun might be useful on occasion. But on the other hand, if you spend a lot of time somewhere like that you probably know what you are doing. Most Americans, I venture to suggest, don't. Regardless of your Wild West fantasies.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at September 12, 2006 05:52 PM

FC: "By the way, on the subject of pistol via SMG.."

By the way, the entire pistol v SMG is just a silly premise. What are the chances that I will happen upon someone with a MAC10? On the other hand if I am confronted by someone with a knife or a handgun, two much much more likely scenarios, I am at least as well armed if not more so than my assailant. No one, not even the most elite of special forces troops, can be armed such they can defeat ANY threat they might encounter. But they, and I, can be armed such that any threat that is likely to be encountered can be twharted.

FC: "The best protection for an individual is a well-funded police force"

Another silly argument. A few years ago I lived next door to my widowed mother separated by a pasture about 200 yards across. My oldest son happened to see a man run through our yard, up the road, into my mothers yard and behind her house. I jump in the car, armed, and quickly drive up to her house. Too make a long story short I apprehended the guy while he was trying to beat down my mothers’ back door and held him for the police who took 30 MINUTES to get there. I don’t know what he would have been capable of but he was wanted on charges of arson.

A police force is the primary tool for law enforcement, but they cannot be everywhere at once. You can trust you and your family’s safety to them in the hope that they will get to you quickly enough when you need them but I will not.

And one further point; the above did not happen in what you referred to as a “dubious area”. It was in a very quite, boring rural neighborhood.

Oh, almost forgot. I scored 100% on both my written and range tests when obtaining my CWP. In ~5 seconds I can put 8 rounds into a dinner plate at 20 yards with a 4 inch barrel pistol. So "yeah right".

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 12, 2006 06:14 PM

I'm rather intrigued by the example of the Sikhs, who are religiously obligated to carry a kirpan blade wherever they go. In fact, they often get a religous exemption to carry their blades in places they wouldn't otherwise be able to, as in the case of Canadian schools.

I wonder how difficult it would be to create a recognized religion which obligated the carry of handguns...

Posted by Neil H. at September 12, 2006 06:52 PM

" You are carrying a pistol? Fine. Your right. And the next thug you run into might be carrying a MAC-10."

I will take my chances with training and my H&K USP Compact .40S&W or Springfield 1911 .45ACP over a thug and a piss poor unweildy example of a machine pistol. Christian, until you actually experience these weapnos first hand, you won't realize that a higher cyclic and a bigger magazine do not necessairly translate to a significant advantage, especially in untrained hands.

Full auto is not like in the movies, it takes skill to wield it with effiacy, especially in lightweight, high cyclic machine pistols like the Ingram series. An MP-5 they ain't.

"Guns belong with professionals."

Lest see...years in the Military, several perfect qualification scores, Primary Marksmanship Instructor and competetive shooter on the State National Guard Team. Also recieved instruction from Pat Rogers, perhaps the foremost shooting instructor on the planet, on my own dime recently.....

Is that professional enough?

Aleta,

Nice choice in Dagger.

Cecil,

I have three Bulgy Maks and a CZ-83 in that caliber, I love to shoot my pistols in that caliber, they are a fun guns. The 83 is double stack 12 rounds.

That said, get someting for carry that at least starts in "Four" for the caliber. the USP compact .40 is almost as light as the steel framed Makarov.

Posted by at September 12, 2006 06:53 PM

Sorry, that one was mine.

Posted by Mike Puckett at September 12, 2006 07:01 PM

I like my p229 sig sauer sub compact in .357sig. Sig's make good conceal & carry weapons because they have a special lock out mechanism in the firing pin that prevents a round from going off unless the trigger is fully depressed. Sigs are also the #1 amongst FBI, DEA Texas Rangers, yada yada yada. If anything I think the Military should get rid of that god awful m9 and give our soldiers fighting in Iraq a real side arm they can actually defend themselves with. My vote would be a P229 since you can drop in barrels of larger caliber when needed.

Posted by Josh Reiter at September 12, 2006 07:46 PM

You can swap .357Sig and .40S&W barrels on most such pistols as they use the same parent case (the .40S&W).

Posted by Mike Puckett at September 12, 2006 08:00 PM

> If you are not carrying a gun, you, if you have any sense at all, will not go into certain areas and will avoid certain situations.

Bzzt, wrong. Whether or not I'm carrying has very little to do with whether I have to go into certain areas/situations.

> By the way, on the subject of pistol via SMG; well, you might win that one - but will probably not. A pistol is not particularly accurate, even if you are well trained - which most people are not.

More babble. The bad guy loses if he gets shot, whether or not he shoots me. At typical self-defense ranges, pistols are more than accurate enough.

> The best protection for an individual is a well-funded police force not hogtied by endless PC regulations, and a legal system that puts murderous thugs behind bars for a very long time - or underground.

Since that's not going to happen, there's no point in discussing how effective it is, let alone using it as a reason to not do things that we can do.

Posted by Andy Freeman at September 12, 2006 10:55 PM

> How about an armed, generally honest citizen who just happens at the moment to be drunk or high?

What about them? Lots of things are possible, but few happen often enough to worry about.

> Actually, I think a reasonable compromise would be a large knife or shortsword;

And completely useless for most potential victims and in most situations. It also requires more training than a handgun. (Christian hasn't figured out that a couple of the folks he's debating are instructors. His qualifications appear to be ignorance and an immature macho.)

I'm not afraid of the folks who are disarmed by gun control, so why is Christian? (His imagination isn't actually a compelling reason.)

Posted by Andy Freeman at September 12, 2006 11:03 PM

I was perfectly aware that a lot of these people were qualified. But laws generally apply to everyone.

So, let's see. The people posting here are arms instructors and they are perfectly qualified to carry a weapon, and safe enough with it from the point of view of innocent bystanders - and incidentally themselves.

Not that the personal safety of someone who thinks he's Rambo and blows his own foot off is any concern of mine.

So, because of the safety of that 0.001%, it is then perfectly OK for anyone and everyone in the US, most of whom couldn't hit a barn door at ten feet and have no training in target discrimination either, to also carry a weapon.

Brilliant.

Incidentally, I have personal knowledge of the above problem. Most Brits get very little if any training with weapons - one fine day I was on a rifle range, having had maybe an hour's instruction my entire life, and the teacher (yes, it was a school cadet force trip) passed in front of the line of shooters passing out live ammo. Yes, of course he was an idiot. One with military fantasies, apparently - he called himself "Colonel".

Well, I had been told (yes, before he'd finished) to load and cock the weapon - and thought the safety was on, and that I would just aim down range and see how small the target was.

The bullet missed him by about a foot. A .303 bullet, effective range of about half a mile, at three feet. I wonder how long I would have spent in jail?

Would you or would you not agree that someone with no training is more of a danger to himself and innocent bystanders than to any potential assailant?

A recognised weapons qualification, possession of which allows carrying of weapons with no other questions asked - now THAT I could agree with. Maybe even one mandated by law as part of a high school education. As long as there are harsh penalties for carrying without it.

You need a license, not all that easy to get, to drive a car, and although cars can and do kill, they aren't designed to! Well, easy maybe, but certainly not all that cheap or quick.

Hmmm... target discrimination. On second thoughts, maybe Americans aren't big on that. Maybe that's why the UK lost half as many troops in the first Gulf War to "friendly fire" as to enemy action.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at September 13, 2006 12:25 AM

So, because of the safety of that 0.001%, it is then perfectly OK for anyone and everyone in the US, most of whom couldn't hit a barn door at ten feet and have no training in target discrimination either, to also carry a weapon.

The answer to this my friend is absolutely, unequivocally, resoundingly, positively, YES!

I refer you to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Fletcher, I think what you continually fail to take into full consideration is what many of us have said repeatedly. The mere sight of any defensive weapons, or the possibility of being shot, cut, or even beat with a cudgel, will keep 99% of the thugs, mugs and pugs of the world away from you and the rest of us. They are cowards who knowingly prey on people they ASSUME are defenseless. Your assumption that you will be accidentally shot by "granny" with her Glock 9mm, before you get attacked by Bubba bare handed floors me.

Bubba is out there everyday, robbing people, stealing cars and running amok. Granny will only pull her pistol if and when Bubba is at her bedroom window at 3:15 in the morning. She won't get drunk at a canasta party and start brandishing, and accidently shoot Aunt Betsy. The @ssholes who get drunk and brandish knives guns and cudgels are already doing it. They'll probably get shot by some cop or well heeled citizen either way.

Posted by Steve at September 13, 2006 03:54 AM

In the USA, carrying a weapon is a right.

With rights come responsibilities, whether in law or not. The responsibility in this case is to get trained well enough to know what you are doing with the weapon. A responsibility which is far too seldom discharged, from what I hear.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Does that or does that imply that the keeping of weapons is supposed to go along with some sort of militia training? Note "well regulated".

Also note that the type of arms is not specified, nor the conditions under which you can bear them. A possible interpretation is that you are supposed to be under arms while discharging your duty to keep up some degree of militia training.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at September 13, 2006 04:51 AM

Oops! Grammatical error. "Does that or does that not" was intended.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at September 13, 2006 04:58 AM

Fletcher, one cannot legally carry a weapon in the US without a weapons permit, which you cannot obtain without proper training (Vermont aside). Therefore whatever you have heard is in error, as is your entire premise.

You also have completely misinterpreted the Second Amendment. There are innumerable quotes from the very men who drafted the US Constitution that proves beyond any doubt that their intent was that all Americans had the right to possess firearms. Their being so armed constituted a “Militia” but being a member of a formal militia was not a requirement, being an American was the only prerequisite.

Don’t concentrate just on the words “A well regulated Militia” but on the history of the drafting of the Second Amendment. The meaning is clear when taken in historical context.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 13, 2006 05:16 AM

Fletcher,
I completely agree that with rights go responsibilities. Wholeheartedly I agree. But the thugs don't follow these rules. Guns, and self protection in general, have gotten a bad rap from the MSM and the anti-gun crowd.

When we started teaching kids to not defend themselves against school yard bullies we went wrong. When we started teaching women to "lie back, grit your teeth and he won't hurt you", we went completely wrong. When we started teaching people in banks, stores, other businesses and in their homes to not fight back, to not defend themselves we went absolutely wrong.

I don't think anyone here is advocating handing out loaded guns, to drunks, at sporting events, or in bars or other high tension, high emotion situations. But the assumption that EVERYBODY needs to be trained to the level of an expert / gun trainer level of proficiency is ridiculous. There has to be some middle ground between drunks waving RPGs around and in everybody being a gun expert, crack shot, gun smith.

The assumption that the founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment to mean only "well regulated" militia is, as Cecil said, ignoring history. We are probably more threatened by outside forces, in our streets and daily lives, than ever before. I for one will go down fighting. As of yet simply showing my weapons, has saved my hide from overbearing cowardly scoundrels.

Posted by Steve at September 13, 2006 05:42 AM

Does that or does that imply that the keeping of weapons is supposed to go along with some sort of militia training? Note "well regulated".

It does not. A purpose clause implies nothing. The only significant part of the amendment is the one that says "the right of the people shall not be infringed."

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 13, 2006 05:58 AM

And "Well Regulated" in 1792, when the 2nd Amendment was penned, meant something entirely different that today.

Back then it meant to put into good working order, i.e. well maintained.

The phrase "Government Regulation" would have been considered an oxymoron by the founding fathers..

Posted by Mike Puckett at September 13, 2006 06:01 AM

"I don't think anyone here is advocating handing out loaded guns, to drunks, at sporting events, or in bars or other high tension, high emotion situations."

Sure. I agree. Nobody sane would advocate that.

But in a society where everybody is allowed to carry a weapon, said drunks and football fans may ALREADY be carrying when they enter such a situation.

In my opinion, the Swiss have it right. They have an absolutely minute standing army - but just about their entire male population is subject to callup at need. And they are properly trained and armed, as well.

This has several advantages. They are arguably better defended, at less cost, than the US. They have far fewer problems with armed crime, and I would imagine far fewer gun accidents than in the US. And, perhaps most important, because they don't have a large standing army they cannot, under any circumstances, indulge in the sort of ill-advised adventure that Mr. Bush went for in 2002.

I am by no means implying that anyone allowed to have a gun should be trained to instructor standards - but something equivalent to military basic weapon training might help. If nothing else, because such training gives you respect for guns.

"Your weapon is your friend. Look after it."

"If you think your weapon has been made safe, look again - you may be wrong."

"Many people are killed by unloaded guns."

"Never point a weapon at anyone or anything you don't intend to kill - whether you think it's safe or not."

My extremely limited gun training included this lot. Along with the little-known fact that full-bore (.303, for example) rifle BLANKS can kill at several yards. However, I wouldn't, even if legally allowed, pick up a weapon without supervision until I'd had a lot more training.

This whole discussion is of academic interest to me and I have no stake in it - I come from the UK, where even the cops don't routinely carry guns.

But the gung-ho mentality that universal gun ownership encourages DOES affect me. It might, for example, be London or Birmingham that goes up in the first mushroom cloud, not New York or Washington.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at September 13, 2006 06:45 AM

A cop with a gun is much more liekly to shoot an innocent by mistake than an armed citizen.

The ratio of justfied shooting to shootings in error is over 2:1 better for armed civilians than cops.

This is not the numer of shootings, this is the ratio of shooting the bad guy vs shooting the wrong person. We would have fewer accidental shootings of the wrong person if we armed all the honest citizens and disarmed the cops. This very statistic makes the argument that we need more police, not guns false. I can't immediatly find the study, but if I remeber correctly the cops error rate was 8 or 10% and the armed citizens error rate was 2%.

Posted by Paul Breed at September 13, 2006 08:39 AM

"But in a society where everybody is allowed to carry a weapon"

Fletcher, you keep repeating this and it simply is not relevant.

To carry a weapon in public in the US you must be licensed to do so and this means undergoing training.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 13, 2006 09:04 AM

> The people posting here are arms instructors and they are perfectly qualified to carry a weapon, and safe enough with it from the point of view of innocent bystanders - and incidentally themselves.

The mutineer isn't reading. The instructors are telling him that he's wrong about both guns and people. They happen to have experience with both. FC has experience with neither.

FC is predicting the consequences of certain activities. While he may believe that is "reasoning" is sound, we have actual experience that shows that the consequences that he predicts don't actually happen.

Note that our actual experience helps us mitigate some of the problems.

Speaking of factual errors, there's no license required to buy or operate a car in the US. There are requirements for drivers on public roads or cars driven on public roads.

I could point out how the "license guns like cars" argument would actually reduce gun control in most US jurisdictions but instead I'll point out something that learned folk the FC seem to miss, something that makes the comparison stupid.

The problems with guns and cars are significantly different. Car problems are almost entirely competence related; few people intend to get in accidents. Gun problems are almost all intentional - they're trying to rob and kill.

Posted by Andy Freeman at September 13, 2006 09:15 AM

> Would you or would you not agree that someone with no training is more of a danger to himself and innocent bystanders than to any potential assailant?

No, I would not agree. I don't agree because the available evidence shows that the untrained are not a significant danger. Training would make them somewhat more effective, but mostly only in the uncommon case, when they actually shoot.

You see, most "with gun" self-defenses don't involve shooting anyone, so marksmanship is typically irrelevant.

Guns and society scholarship is an empirical field, and FC simply doesn't know the relevant facts.

Posted by Andy Freeman at September 13, 2006 09:20 AM

Cecil, how good is that training as a whole? Would you go into combat alongside someone with only that training?

As for the cars vs. guns argument - well, buying a car and using it on private land without a license is OK in the UK, too. But how relevant is that? To use it in public you need a license - and over here, at least, that takes a probable minimum of 20-30 hours of training, spread over several weeks, in the practical aspects plus some training in basic traffic law. Cost is significant, especially for the young people most likely to need such training.

How long does it take to train for a gun license in the USA, on average? And is it enough? I confess to not knowing.

I return, also, the point, not addressed by anyone so far, that carrying a weapon might tempt one to risk situations easier to get into than out of. If you are stupid - which a fair number of people are.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at September 13, 2006 11:49 AM

Trimegistus thinks his best weapon is a telephone connection to the police department. Good luck on that. Hope you're somehow able to fend off your attacker with love beads or incense or something while you're making the call, dealing with a moronic "911" operator, and then waiting 15-20 minutes for the cops to arrive.

Posted by Bilwick at September 13, 2006 12:47 PM

FC: "Would you go into combat alongside someone with only that training?"

No, I wouldn't. But that is another silly argument. Can you drive a car? I suspect so, but does your drivers license qualify you to race in the Daytona 500? If not, by your own "logic", your driving skills are not good enough for you to drive a car on public roads.

FC: “I return, also, the point, not addressed by anyone so far, that carrying a weapon might tempt one to risk situations easier to get into than out of. If you are stupid - which a fair number of people are.”

The empirical evidence represented by the US states that have gone to a concealed weapons program proves the above premise wrong. But don’t let a little thing like facts interfere with your preconceived ideas.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 13, 2006 01:26 PM

In July, 1985, my house was broken into at about 3 ayem. I lived alone. As the window shattered I did two things: I reached for the phone and a weapon. While calling the police, I walked out into the living room to confront the bad guys, several juvenals who realized quickly they were in a Bad Situation. They were caught and taken away.
A few months later the police came by to tell me that it appeared that I had, and I quote, "reformed those guys by scaring the excrement out of them."
Never mind that I chose the katana over the M-1 for reasons that still escape me. The kids are probably okay now, I was not raped or robbed or killed, and the police had less paperwork to fill out.
Being armed is Good. Being a willing victim is Bad.

Posted by Aleta Jackson at September 13, 2006 01:32 PM

"FC: “I return, also, the point, not addressed by anyone so far, that carrying a weapon might tempt one to risk situations easier to get into than out of. If you are stupid - which a fair number of people are.”

Exactly, that hypotheses has been well tested in the US by hundreds of thousands of permit holders over the last 15 years. It has proven to be such a rare thing, it is for all intents and purposes, a statistical outlier.

Posted by Mike Puckett at September 13, 2006 05:28 PM

> Would you go into combat alongside someone with only that training?

Irrelevant. In combat, I'm depending on my cohort to protect me and to successfully attack others. Neither of those are true of self-defense.

> I return, also, the point, not addressed by anyone so far, that carrying a weapon might tempt one to risk situations easier to get into than out of.

Perhaps because we understand the difference between "there might have been some way to avoid that" (while understanding that we don't know all relevant factors, so it may have actually been that person's best move) and "they deserved it".

Note that "bad areas" exist because bad people are not effectively resisted in those areas. By definition, "the authorities" have failed to provide effective resistance in those areas, so it's unclear why additional resistance is inappropriate.

In "bad areas", a thug is going to attack someone. Are we better off if the thug attacks someone helpless or someone who can effectively resist? (That's not a rhetorical question.)

> If you are stupid - which a fair number of people are.

Ah yes, the English affection for irony.

Posted by Andy Freeman at September 13, 2006 11:13 PM

I grew up in South East Alaska, near Ketchikan.
In the summer time the fishing fleet doubled the population. The fleet is largely young, male and
not attached or asociated with the town(s).

There was zero petty crime, there was zero crime at all. It was a very polite and civilized society.

The most likely reason is that all of the seasonal workers you describe had steady employment and a large disposable income. Economic security in general keeps crime to a minimum.

As for the Swiss, everyone who keeps a gun in their house is required by law to take a year of training on how to use it responsibly.

I think a similar program should be enacted in the US and Australia. If you want to own a firearm, spend a year in the reserve forces to learn about civic responsibility. And no I'm not a hypocrite, I took a semester off from uni last year to become a signals officer.

Posted by Chris Mann at September 14, 2006 02:26 AM

"If you want to own a firearm, spend a year in the reserve forces to learn about civic responsibility."

That pesky Second Amendment be damned huh?

What's next Chris; require a certain level of education or an intelligence test before one can exercise free speech?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 14, 2006 05:16 AM

"But the gung-ho mentality that universal gun ownership encourages DOES affect me. It might, for example, be London or Birmingham that goes up in the first mushroom cloud, not New York or Washington."

Balderdash! You keep making leaps in logic of that magnitude and you will permenantly sprain something. That is about the biggest piece of nonsense tripe I have read in an age.

Posted by Mike Puckett at September 14, 2006 05:56 AM

Mike:

OK, let's fill in some of the steps in that "leap". The gung-ho, blow something up and then find out what it was, mentality pervades the US armed forces, and to some extent the US psyche, partly as a result of the common ownership of deadly weapons and the fantasies of the Old West. In essence, some of you still think, in general, that you are living on the wild frontier where "a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do" and might makes right, and you have Injuns to deal with.

This attitude made Mr. Bush (and I think it is relevant that he is a Texan) into the sort of adventurist that has got the USA, convinced that their political system is best and that anyone who has it explained to them at the point of a gun will agree, into a long, expensive, bloody and unpopular war that couldn't have been better designed as a recruitment ad for jihadists if you'd tried. To our shame, the worst leader the UK has had in a century or more went along with it.

You did OBL's job for him, and he or his successor is laughing.

And now you are so embroiled in Iraq and so internationally unpopular that you can't do anything useful about a far more dangerous enemy. Hence the massively greater likelihood of some city somewhere in the West going up in smoke. And, given the fact that London has turned into Londonistan, it might just be one in the UK.

Sufficiently explained?

Andy:

I presume you are implying that I am stupid and my arguments are worthless because I disagree with you. Wonderful ad hominem argument.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at September 14, 2006 06:43 AM

There's nothing wrong with disliking guns. However, some reasons for disliking guns are factually wrong and the ones that FC has trotted out are in that category.

I've pointed out that FC's "facts" usually aren't true and the ones that are don't mean what he thinks that they do. I've pointed out that he's predicted effects of certain things that didn't happen when those things occurred.

I'm not suggesting that FC is stupid because he disagrees with me, but because he's persistently and vocally wrong. Maybe he'll become smarter on the subject in the future, but for now, he is stupid.

It's unclear how that's my fault or why it's poor form to point it out. Then again, I come from a primitive culture where telling the truth about someone can't be a crime.

Would it help if I apologised for FC's failings?

BTW - FC is an interesting pseudonym if that's what it is. Does he think of himself as a young Brando? The real Bounty mutineers were deservedly slaughtered by Pacific Islanders....

Posted by Andy Freeman at September 14, 2006 08:45 AM

The real Bounty mutineers were deservedly slaughtered by Pacific Islanders....
If so, then how come their descendants still live on Pitcairn Island? AFAIK, when British Admiralty finally got around to sending a punitive expedition to Pitcairn, the only mutineer still alive was 70 years old, and the island was populated by mutineers' children. Somehow I do not see Pacific Islanders slaughtering the men and leaving women and children alone. At the very least they would have taken said women and children with them.

Posted by Ilya at September 14, 2006 11:35 AM

The real Bounty mutineers were deservedly slaughtered by Pacific Islanders....

If so, then how come their descendants still live on Pitcairn Island?

Umm, perhaps because they procreated prior to be slaughtered and it was actually the women doing the final slaughtering. You check out the Pitcairn Island's website for the story. Here is the critical paragraph:

The little colony was not a happy one, in great measure due to the inequality between the British mutineers and the Polynesian men regarding sharing the women and the land. The mutineers had plenty of female companionship and the Polynesians very little, and dissention, then murder were the result. On September 20, 1793 five of the whites, including Christian, and all of the Polynesian men were killed. Most of the remaining mutineers died or were killed by the Tahitian women, especially after a method to make spirits was discovered. Only Adams and Ned Young remained. Ned Young died of asthma in 1800.

Posted by Leland at September 14, 2006 01:09 PM

Mmmm... I guess Pitcairn Island should have had stronger gun control laws.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 14, 2006 01:37 PM

"OK, let's fill in some of the steps in that "leap". The gung-ho, blow something up and then find out what it was, mentality pervades the US armed forces, and to some extent the US psyche, partly as a result of the common ownership of deadly weapons and the fantasies of the Old West."

Having been an American all my life and having served in the US Army, I can tell you that you are simply full of crap and haven't a clue about whence you speak. To put it kindly, your premis is not only flawed, its badly cliched as well.

Perhaps I should start making authoratative statements on the poor state of Dental Hygine in Britan when I have never been there? It would be no less arrogant on my part.

Posted by Mike Puckett at September 14, 2006 01:51 PM

Perhaps then, Mike, you can explain to me why the UK suffered half as many casualties in the first Gulf War by friendly fire as to enemy action.

"It's not American, kill it!" "Oops."

Or a famous quotation from a German captive at Monte Cassino: "When the British bomb, we duck. When we bomb, the British duck. When the Americans bomb, everybody ducks."

Posted by Fletcher Christian at September 14, 2006 03:22 PM

Perhaps then, Mike, you can explain to me why the UK suffered half as many casualties in the first Gulf War by friendly fire as to enemy action.

I'll take this one Mike. The UK suffered 47 deaths in the Persian Gulf War. 9 of them were killed in a single incident of friendly fire. Considering the efforts and success of the Persian Gulf War, 47 loses is unprecendented on the low side. It is certianly unfortunate that 9 soldiers were killed by friendly fire, but such an incident doesn't lend credibility to a callous argument such as:
"It's not American, kill it!" "Oops."

No one need presume your intelligence, Fletcher; as your arguments make it clear where you stand in that department.

Posted by Leland at September 15, 2006 05:32 AM

Another point to consider in terms of lose of British troops. On the 22nd of March 2003, two British helicopters collided in mid-air killing 7 troops. The day before, 8 died in another accident helicopter accident aboard a US CH-46. That's two incidents a day apart with deaths just shy of the 9 lost in the 1991 friendly fire incident. How do these incidents stack up with this claim:
"It's not American, kill it!" "Oops."

Posted by Leland at September 15, 2006 05:55 AM

The sources I consulted told me 27 UK deaths in the first Gulf War. Sources sometimes differ; maybe the timespan they considered after the relevant incident was different.

Yes, the helicopter accidents were unfortunate. Accidents happen. However, those two were probably due to pilot error, low visibility, mechanical failure or possibly all three; the loss of a Warrior with all its crew was someone being trigger-happy.

I resent being called callous. It wasn't your country's soldiers who were killed by an undertrained, trigger-happy moron. Or maybe quite a few were?

The Monte Cassino quotation stands. Apparently it was a well-known and widely circulated comment. Such a saying usually has basis in fact.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at September 15, 2006 12:16 PM

It was your country’s soldiers killed by a couple of "undertrained, moronic" British pilots colliding with each other; but in that instance you graciously write that off as an unfortunate accident. Seems more than a little hypocritical to me.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 15, 2006 12:53 PM

The sources I consulted told me 27 UK deaths in the first Gulf War.

My source is the UK Ministry of Defense and the Royal Navy, what's yours?

The Monte Cassino quotation stands. If you want to quote captured German soldiers in WWII to support your views... well, that to says a lot about you.

Posted by Leland at September 15, 2006 01:47 PM

"I resent being called callous. It wasn't your country's soldiers who were killed by an undertrained, trigger-happy moron. Or maybe quite a few were?
"

Tough shit! If you keep driving down this road, callous will be the least of insults hurled in your non-thinking direction.

Please keep on weasling though, it is entertaining to watch you squirm to defend your mythological world views.

Posted by Mike Puckett at September 15, 2006 03:09 PM

Mike:

Such as the myth that the American political and legal system is the best one that ever has been or will be developed? The same political and legal system that turned organised crime from a minor nuisance to a major threat? I refer specifically to your Eighteenth Amendment. "You're completely free in speech and action as long as you agree with me." The same system that allows, in fact requires, schools in certain states to teach biology in a way that predates Mohammed by three thousand years?

Leland: Well, the German soldiers captured at Cassino belonged to an army that by their discipline and toughness managed to hold off half the world for several years. The morals and politics of their commanders are irrelevant - for the most part they were just disciplined soldiers doing what they were told.

Actually, the actions of the USAF in that particular battle were counterproductive even in a military sense. Counterproductive military action seems to be a continuing American habit. As does grossly excessive use of force - Grenada comes to mind.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at September 16, 2006 08:45 PM

"Such as the myth that the American political and legal system is the best one that ever has been or will be developed?"

Strawman, no one has asid that. I will say it is better thatn that Orwellian nightmare you folks seem to be hell bent on creating.

"The same political and legal system that turned organised crime from a minor nuisance to a major threat?"

And organized crime is a shadow of its former self, this isnt 1940 anymore. Another strawman.

At least we don't havet to fear being beaten by Yobs and charged by the police if we fight back. How are you enjoying the legal system in Liliput there Gulliver?

"I refer specifically to your Eighteenth Amendment. "You're completely free in speech and action as long as you agree with me.""

The eighteenth amendment was repealed. Our system is capable of self-correction. When is yours going to self-correct and unod it prohibition lo lawful ownership of most firearms? Its nice that the Yob and Thugs are the only people in GB that have the means of deadly force besides the government. Time you learned your lesson in the black market.

"The same system that allows, in fact requires, schools in certain states to teach biology in a way that predates Mohammed by three thousand years?""

More nonsense strawman arguments.

Posted by Mike Puckett at September 17, 2006 08:09 AM

Mike:

is it or is not a fact that in certain states in the US, there are movements (which might well succeed) to ban the teaching of evolution, or at least to give "Intelligent Design" equal class time with it?

What's next - Aristotelian physics? Or teaching that the world is flat - after all, the Bible says that too.

Actually, although the problem is nowhere near as universal as in the Muslim world, you have your own violent fundamentalist nutcases - such as those who make a habit of bombing abortion clinics and assaulting members of their staff.

Yes, you are right - the UK is turning Orwellian. Hopefully, in a year or two we will be getting rid of the politicos responsible for it. As you might or might not know, our system is capable of self-correction as well.

Whether the world of 1984 is preferable to the world of Mad Max is an interesting question. I submit that the US has more Abandoned Areas than has the UK, even in proportion. Go into one of those with your knife or reasonably small pistol, and your life expectancy might well be measurable in minutes.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at September 18, 2006 02:17 AM

"is it or is not a fact that in certain states in the US, there are movements (which might well succeed) to ban the teaching of evolution, or at least to give "Intelligent Design" equal class time with it?
"

Very low proability of sucess. Even at that, giving ID an equal platform hardly qualifies as pre-mohammedian.

"What's next - Aristotelian physics? Or teaching that the world is flat - after all, the Bible says that too."

Actually, it doesn't. Care to spew more hyperbolic bullshit?

"Actually, although the problem is nowhere near as universal as in the Muslim world, you have your own violent fundamentalist nutcases - such as those who make a habit of bombing abortion clinics and assaulting members of their staff."

One cannot equate what amounts to a statistical outlier abnormal event to global islamofascisim with a straight face can they?

"Whether the world of 1984 is preferable to the world of Mad Max is an interesting question. I submit that the US has more Abandoned Areas than has the UK, even in proportion. Go into one of those with your knife or reasonably small pistol, and your life expectancy might well be measurable in minutes."

LOL! Stop watching the BBC for your newsource on the US.

Mad Max! LOL!!!

What a crock of shit!

Posted by Mike Puckett at September 18, 2006 08:52 AM

Mike:

Orwellian! LOL!

I can respond to arguments that way, too.

As a problem, violent Christian fundamentalism is nowhere near as much of a problem. However, for the people blown up, and the buildings burnt down, dead is still dead and destroyed is still destroyed.

Job 38:12-13 Edges?

"The earth takes shape like clay under a seal." (Job 38:14)

"[T]he devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them"
(Matthew 4:1-12) Try seeing the other side of a sphere from a mountain however high.

The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth. (Daniel 4:10-11) Ditto.

Psalms 136:6

Isaiah 40:22

No explicit statement, I grant you. The fact remains that the Bible is obviously a book written by many different authors over several thousand years, and badly translated several times; but a significant proportion of Americans believe in its literal truth, and some of them wish to stop anyone else learning anything different.

It has been said that democracy is the dictatorship of the majority. I suspect that the USA is closer to that than any other country that calls itself democratic.

The real form of government in the USA is plutocracy; when was the last time anyone who wasn't a multimillionaire got into the White House?

Posted by Fletcher Christian at September 18, 2006 04:50 PM

Your biblical fu is weak. The Bible actually mentions the world was round, I will post more later.

"Orwellian! LOL!"

As he laughs at the survelance camera.....

The difference is in your case it is true.

Posted by Mike Puckett at September 19, 2006 10:19 AM

Here you go:

The bible and the flat earth

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html

Posted by Mike Puckett at September 19, 2006 06:19 PM

Here you go:

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/tektonics/flat_earth_bible.html

We could swap sources forever. However, the real point is that arguments from authority are held in logic and in the sciences to be invalid. Another point is that the viewpoint that the Bible supports a flat Earth is at least arguable.

Fundamentalist Christians argue from authority, an authority which is suspect in most rational people's eyes because the authority is the Bible, which is a 3000-year-old book written by many hands in many languages and badly translated several times.

As an example of this, one edition of the King James Bible was famous for omitting one word from one of the commandments and therefore commanding its readers to commit adultery. According to a fundamentalist viewpoint, things could have got really interesting. After all, the Bible is an infallible guide to morality, right?

Posted by Fletcher Christian at September 20, 2006 02:43 AM

"one cannot legally carry a weapon in the US without a weapons permit, which you cannot obtain without proper training"

While this statement may be true in some states it is certainly not true for all of the country. It is perfectly legal to carry a gun without a weapons permit as long as it is not concealed. This is why several states have a 'concealed carry permit' and not a carry permit.

Posted by Frank at September 20, 2006 03:20 PM

"As an example of this, one edition of the King James Bible was famous for omitting one word from one of the commandments and therefore commanding its readers to commit adultery. According to a fundamentalist viewpoint, things could have got really interesting. After all, the Bible is an infallible guide to morality, right?"

I think such a misprint would be recognized as what it is by the most ardent Fundamentalist. I hope you are joking.

Posted by Mike Puckett at September 20, 2006 03:29 PM

Mike:

Sort of joking, maybe making a point. The point being that during one of its many mistranslations, the sense of what the original text may have said (which is now unknowable) might have been radically changed by just such a minor error.

I'm not sure about his, but I believe that in the original text of whatever book of the New Testament mentioned Mary having a virgin birth, the actual word used (in Aramaic?) translates better as "young woman". And in fact she was married.

Support for this is the huge list of begats at the beginning of the New Testament. If Jesus wasn't the son of Joseph, what's the point?

But in fact this mistranslation led to Mariolatry, one of the main tenets of the Catholic Church - which is still, I believe, the biggest denomination.

Small errors can have rather large consequences.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at September 21, 2006 12:19 PM

FC - It might be best if, before you commented on something, you read the text. There is no way a single word or even sentence could have been mistranslated to change the meaning of the parentage of Mary’s first born. There is the part about an angel of the lord coming to her. She tells the angel that she has never been with a man. At this time Mary was Joseph’s ‘espoused wife’ a sort of engagement. That they had not been together as man and wife is also evidenced by Joseph contemplating ‘putting her away privately’ when he learned that she was pregnant as he knew it wasn’t his child. He was visited by an angel telling him the child was of God. Etc.. etc. A lot of places in the text would have to have been changed to create the effect that you suggest.

Posted by Frank at September 22, 2006 08:42 AM

Which text, Frank?

There are major inconsistencies between the four Gospels. I confess to not remembering the details - in my opinion, the whole subject is irrelevant anyway. The entire Bible is a story which is either of doubtful accuracy or allegorical or both, even if the translation errors are not taken into account.

If you want to witness the glory of God and his works, and if you live somewhere suitable, go out one dark, clear night and look up. If the Noumenon doesn't smash you in the face, then I am sorry for you. And if you still think that God is concerned which bits of us we bring into contact with other people's bits, I am even sorrier.

I might have mentioned the obvious fact that at least the Catholic ritual amounts to ritual cannibalism.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at September 22, 2006 07:01 PM

FC – good question.
Any four eye-witness accounts will have inconsistencies and the longer after the event the more inconsistencies.
Good point, contemplating while looking up on a clear night is healthy.
I would not even attempt to be an apologist for Catholicism.

Posted by Frank at September 25, 2006 11:37 AM

Post a comment