In answer to Emeryville's Ken James - Guns defensive or offensive
Watch the video at youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdqWI8HCNf8
Police Chief Ken James of Emeryville California had some interesting words for we fellow individuals.
He said, "The idea that a gun is a defensive weapon is a myth. A gun is not a defensive weapon. A gun is an offensive weapon used to intimidate and used to show power. Police officers do not carry a gun as a defensive weapon, to defend themselves or their other officers. They carry a gun to be able to do their job in a safe and effective manner."
IS A GUN DEFENSIVE or OFFENSIVE?
The quality and disposition of inanimate objects is directly related to the condition to which it becomes animated. That is to say, no object of itself can have an emotional state. One can not apply an emotional adjective. Imagine if we pulled some other random adjective's out of a hat and applied them to a firearm:
"The idea that a gun is a Happy weapon is a myth."
"The idea that a gun is a Troubled weapon is a myth."
"The idea that a gun is a Zany weapon is a myth."
Such descriptive words express the disposition of people, not objects. Saying the gun is heavy or huge or curved, are far better descriptive words to define the condition of the object. But to apply an emotional state to an inanimate object is to play at philosophy. And, Police Chief, I'll be your huckleberry.
Emotional states are purely a human invention. They are words to describe some action so that those that witness this behavior can understand the feelings and reasons for the state. When a person applies an emotional state to an inanimate object they are giving this object authoritative power to be considered in equal terms to human conditions. We use emotional states to have empathetic inference between each other, thus, giving a dead thing this same state indicates that it too has some reference to your humanity. If we were instead to change out the word gun, in the Police Cheif's statement and replace it with chapstick, I think we could all see just how absurd the notion is to begin with. The object itself suddenly becomes an absurd joke and an impossibly misplaced notion, founded on zero logical sense, and contains a very child like view of property and the nature of actual intent. After all, defensive and offensive are nature of intent and an object has no intent, if the object could, it would, simply remain at rest and never move (Newton's first law).
But, as I said, Cheif, I'll be your huckleberry.
Now, I'll let your falsely attributing a human position about the condition he finds himself in to an inanimate object slide. I'll let you have this ridiculous argument. Because, frankly the most important part of your little speech was the end part.
You said the point of a firearm is to intimidate and show power. Which translated to human means, that you believe a firearm's purpose is to control the behavior of other people (we'll put aside the idea that a charging bear can't rationalize this ridiculous notion...but whatever). Does this mean that if an officer isn't getting his way he is licensed to simply pull his gun? If I get pulled over for speeding and the officer wants to search my car and I refuse, does he have the right (obviously the power is there as you claim) to point his firearm at me and force me to comply? Of course, I doubt many officers would agree that they have that power (I'd bet that few if any would assume that a firearm's purpose was to do as you claim, but again...I'm playing your side for the moment) and would never use their firearms in such a manner...let's hope.
Now, if you're right, and a firearm's purpose is to force compliance from others, then by your very logic, in order to ensure a free society, shouldn't We The People have just as many arms, just as many tanks, just as many tools of intimidation that those in authority make for themselves? After all, if we are a free people, under a Constitution that followed the notion of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness", wouldn't we need the same tools to show power against any possible tyrannical entities that tell us we can't have those tools to show power?
Then if your intent is to disarm citizens are you suggesting that only you should have the authority to intimidate and show power? By that logic does that not make We The People are nothing but slaves to your intent? Have we then no say in any matter else face the wrath of an agency that has the tools to manipulate one into submission? You sir, seem to have not read your history and are either ignorant or an enemy of mankind. And although I believe in staying from casting stone, are you not at least intelligent enough to realize, you are the exact kind of person (ignorant or an enemy of mankind) that you would keep from having a gun?
Now back to reality.
A firearm is a tool. Currently it is the best equalizing tool invented to level the playing field against two foes. GunSaveLives.com has shows (I think they are currently over one thousand defensive uses of a firearm already this year) that a firearm can be used by an individual to protect themselves against an attack. A tool is just that, the better designed the tool, the more efficient, the more effective and the easier it is for the person controlling it.
What this means, is that a firearms purpose is to allow the individual using to end the situation as quickly and safely (for herself) as possible. If I was fifteen feet tall, made of stone and steel and had the strength of a hundred men, I wouldn't need a firearm, as my natural tools would be enough for me to exert force (when needed) and stop any aggression against me. My muscles wouldn't be defensive or offensive only my intent would hold such social views.
But I'm not made of stone and steel and a firearm allows me to equalize the situation, whether it's home invaders or a charging mountain lion.
Police Chief Ken James of Emeryville California had some interesting words for we fellow individuals.
He said, "The idea that a gun is a defensive weapon is a myth. A gun is not a defensive weapon. A gun is an offensive weapon used to intimidate and used to show power. Police officers do not carry a gun as a defensive weapon, to defend themselves or their other officers. They carry a gun to be able to do their job in a safe and effective manner."
IS A GUN DEFENSIVE or OFFENSIVE?
The quality and disposition of inanimate objects is directly related to the condition to which it becomes animated. That is to say, no object of itself can have an emotional state. One can not apply an emotional adjective. Imagine if we pulled some other random adjective's out of a hat and applied them to a firearm:
"The idea that a gun is a Happy weapon is a myth."
"The idea that a gun is a Troubled weapon is a myth."
"The idea that a gun is a Zany weapon is a myth."
Such descriptive words express the disposition of people, not objects. Saying the gun is heavy or huge or curved, are far better descriptive words to define the condition of the object. But to apply an emotional state to an inanimate object is to play at philosophy. And, Police Chief, I'll be your huckleberry.
Emotional states are purely a human invention. They are words to describe some action so that those that witness this behavior can understand the feelings and reasons for the state. When a person applies an emotional state to an inanimate object they are giving this object authoritative power to be considered in equal terms to human conditions. We use emotional states to have empathetic inference between each other, thus, giving a dead thing this same state indicates that it too has some reference to your humanity. If we were instead to change out the word gun, in the Police Cheif's statement and replace it with chapstick, I think we could all see just how absurd the notion is to begin with. The object itself suddenly becomes an absurd joke and an impossibly misplaced notion, founded on zero logical sense, and contains a very child like view of property and the nature of actual intent. After all, defensive and offensive are nature of intent and an object has no intent, if the object could, it would, simply remain at rest and never move (Newton's first law).
But, as I said, Cheif, I'll be your huckleberry.
Now, I'll let your falsely attributing a human position about the condition he finds himself in to an inanimate object slide. I'll let you have this ridiculous argument. Because, frankly the most important part of your little speech was the end part.
You said the point of a firearm is to intimidate and show power. Which translated to human means, that you believe a firearm's purpose is to control the behavior of other people (we'll put aside the idea that a charging bear can't rationalize this ridiculous notion...but whatever). Does this mean that if an officer isn't getting his way he is licensed to simply pull his gun? If I get pulled over for speeding and the officer wants to search my car and I refuse, does he have the right (obviously the power is there as you claim) to point his firearm at me and force me to comply? Of course, I doubt many officers would agree that they have that power (I'd bet that few if any would assume that a firearm's purpose was to do as you claim, but again...I'm playing your side for the moment) and would never use their firearms in such a manner...let's hope.
Now, if you're right, and a firearm's purpose is to force compliance from others, then by your very logic, in order to ensure a free society, shouldn't We The People have just as many arms, just as many tanks, just as many tools of intimidation that those in authority make for themselves? After all, if we are a free people, under a Constitution that followed the notion of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness", wouldn't we need the same tools to show power against any possible tyrannical entities that tell us we can't have those tools to show power?
Then if your intent is to disarm citizens are you suggesting that only you should have the authority to intimidate and show power? By that logic does that not make We The People are nothing but slaves to your intent? Have we then no say in any matter else face the wrath of an agency that has the tools to manipulate one into submission? You sir, seem to have not read your history and are either ignorant or an enemy of mankind. And although I believe in staying from casting stone, are you not at least intelligent enough to realize, you are the exact kind of person (ignorant or an enemy of mankind) that you would keep from having a gun?
Now back to reality.
A firearm is a tool. Currently it is the best equalizing tool invented to level the playing field against two foes. GunSaveLives.com has shows (I think they are currently over one thousand defensive uses of a firearm already this year) that a firearm can be used by an individual to protect themselves against an attack. A tool is just that, the better designed the tool, the more efficient, the more effective and the easier it is for the person controlling it.
What this means, is that a firearms purpose is to allow the individual using to end the situation as quickly and safely (for herself) as possible. If I was fifteen feet tall, made of stone and steel and had the strength of a hundred men, I wouldn't need a firearm, as my natural tools would be enough for me to exert force (when needed) and stop any aggression against me. My muscles wouldn't be defensive or offensive only my intent would hold such social views.
But I'm not made of stone and steel and a firearm allows me to equalize the situation, whether it's home invaders or a charging mountain lion.
Comments
Post a Comment