Ted Nugent goes nuts. (NRA)

[Midnight Son]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=529&e=3&u=/ap/20050417/ap_en_mu/people_nugent

With an assault weapon in each hand, rocker and gun rights advocate Ted Nugent urged National Rifle Association members to be "hardcore, radical extremists demanding the right to self defense."

Speaking at the NRA's annual convention Saturday, Nugent said each NRA member should try to enroll 10 new members over the next year and associate only with other members.

"Let's next year sit here and say, 'Holy smokes, the NRA has 40 million members now,'" he said. "No one is allowed at our barbecues unless they are an NRA member. Do that in your life."

Nugent sang and played a guitar painted with red and white stripes for the crowd at Houston's downtown convention center.

He drew the most cheers when he told gun owners they should never give up their right to bear arms and should use their guns to protect themselves if needed.

"Remember the Alamo! Shoot 'em!" he screamed to applause. "To show you how radical I am, I want carjackers dead. I want rapists dead. I want burglars dead. I want child molesters dead. I want the bad guys dead. No court case. No parole. No early release. I want 'em dead. Get a gun and when they attack you, shoot 'em."

In the words of Rick James: "Cocaine is a hell of a drug."

[chet]

I applaud his move. As a member of the NRA i think it is high time we rocked out...

And thanks to whoever paid my dues so I can walk around with an official NRA membership card.

Chet

[mouselock]

Nugent has been crazy for a long, long time.

And supposedly has never touched drugs.

The dude is just crazy enough that I believe the latter. There's some type of miswiring that drugs just can't approximate.

[Squirrel Killer]

To show you how radical I am, I want carjackers dead. I want rapists dead. I want burglars dead. I want child molesters dead. I want the bad guys dead. No court case. No parole. No early release. I want 'em dead.

New Model Army said it better... "No police, no summons, no courts of law / No proper procedure, no rules of war / No mitigating circumstance / No lawyers fees, no second chance." Although it was just as fucking crazy then too.

[Timemaster Tim]

Nugent has been crazy for a long, long time.

And supposedly has never touched drugs.

The dude is just crazy enough that I believe the latter. There's some type of miswiring that drugs just can't approximate.

I'd agree. He's insisted he never does drug, and has done anti-drug PSAs. The guy is just nuts, but he has a following.

[Rollory]

Ok, I'll bite.

Sex offenders of nearly any stripe - rapists and pedophiles in particular - have been repeatedly shown to be repeat offenders if and when given the chance. If you are capable of performing the act once, you are strongly predisposed to doing it again.

Carjackers are just stupid. There's no excuse.

Burglars are not reliably peaceful in their taking of stuff that belongs to you, and they do it more often when they have less to fear from homeowners defending their property. They do it less often when there is a real fear of what the homeowner might do.

What exactly is wrong with giving such people the benefit of the doubt and equal rights and all that jazz right up to the point where they cross the line, and then killing them?

Yes, some proportion of the dead would include innocents who were framed or in the wrong place at the wrong time. That is a tragedy. Is it a bigger tragedy than not avoiding the crimes and ruined lives that the far larger guilty proportion would commit otherwise?

[Jason McCullough]

Please, it's not like Ted is using complicated recidivism analysis. He's just a fucking loon who likes to kill things.

[Case]

Yes, some proportion of the dead would include innocents who were framed or in the wrong place at the wrong time. That is a tragedy. Is it a bigger tragedy than not avoiding the crimes and ruined lives that the far larger guilty proportion would commit otherwise?

And people think there is no American equivalent to the Taliban.

[Equis]

Yes, some proportion of the dead would include innocents who were framed or in the wrong place at the wrong time. That is a tragedy.


Wow, just wow.

I mean really, what else do i have to say.

Too bad dude, your sacrificed was for the greater good.
I'm sorry i'm such a trigger happy nutcase, but I'm only doing my part to protect society.


Is it a bigger tragedy than not avoiding the crimes and ruined lives that the far larger guilty proportion would commit otherwise?

Is this question rhetorical?
if not, well no.

Our duty as a civilization was to protect those unable to protect themselves. The old, the infirm and sometimes, you know, when we feel like it, the weak and the innocent.

Something is inherently wrong with society if it produces such ruined lives and crimes. Giving guns to people is like amputating the arm when it gets infected, rather then searching for the cure. Or better yet, a vaccine so the arm won't get infected ever again.

[Nick Walter]

Yes, some proportion of the dead would include innocents who were framed or in the wrong place at the wrong time. That is a tragedy. Is it a bigger tragedy than not avoiding the crimes and ruined lives that the far larger guilty proportion would commit otherwise?

I'm going to disagree with you, but you raise an excellent point even if itsn't applicable. I'm a believer that society can sacrifice a few lives for the greater good if required, which is why I don't think wars or the death penalty are inherently immoral. The reason I disagree is that an armed populace, willing to shoot, creates more problems than it solves.

If I was in the burglary or carjacking line of work, and suddenly everyone was armed, I'd change lines of work real fast. To armed robbery or simple murder/theft. Escalating the level of danger to the criminal escalates the crimes.

[MikeSofaer]

Escalating the level of danger to the criminal escalates the crimes.I don't think research bears this assertion out.

I think people should think of themselves as the first line of defense against criminals; the cops can't be everywhere that you are, but you can. Be aware of your surroundings, and if you're living somewhere really dangerous, carry a weapon.

I think everyone should be familiar with guns. Just going to a shooting range and using a deadly weapon against paper really makes you understand that you can and must take responsibility for your actions. It makes you realize that you can hold a gun and not be a danger to those around you.

But I don't think people should feel empwered to kill anyone for any reason other than it being the only safe way to stop someone from doing immediate harm. "Kill all them lowlifes" talk is distasteful to me, and I worry that some of it might be racist.

[Nick Walter]

Escalating the level of danger to the criminal escalates the crimes.I don't think research bears this assertion out.


I'd love to see some good research on this topic. Sadly, I've never seen any research on this topic that didn't come from an obviously biased source so I don't believe any of the stuff I've read to date.

[Derek Meister]

I think people should think of themselves as the first line of defense against criminals; the cops can't be everywhere that you are, but you can. Be aware of your surroundings, and if you're living somewhere really dangerous, carry a weapon.

I'm of two minds on this issue. I can understand the reasoning, but worry that convincing large segments of the population to carry deadly weaponry will only make the streets less safe due to, well, the lack of solid quick decision skills the average person has under stress.

I'm not saying everyone who owns a gun is dangerous and believe that gun safety classes can be a significant plus, but I worry about the number of accidental shootings caused by someone who's armed, in an unfamiliar place who comes across someone unexpected and overreacts.

At the same time, I also have to wonder just how useful convincing thousands of people who wouldn't be able to react in time to the average crime would be helpful.

Still, like Nick, I wish more unbiased research was available to make a better decision either way. Personally, I think I'd feel safer with a Taser gun in a house with family and kids than a regular pistol.

[MikeSofaer]

I didn't say carry a firearm. Tasers and Mace are weapons, too, and there are plenty of situations where it makes sense to carry them. I do think that people can be trained to understand the likely impact of shooting someone on everyone concerned, and that in some situations for some people it's reasonable to carry a firearm.

I'm convinced that any adult who is educated on the topic should be allowed to decide for himself if he wants to be armed and bear the resposibility that being armed carries. So I agree with the NRA about that, but I often feel there's something askew about them.

[Jason McCullough]

If I was in the burglary or carjacking line of work, and suddenly everyone was armed, I'd change lines of work real fast. To armed robbery or simple murder/theft. Escalating the level of danger to the criminal escalates the crimes.

.....and that's why you're not in that line of the work in the first place. What I've read of the analysis of how criminals think seems to indicate that their expectation of getting caught, or anything at all, is nearly zero. It's not like cultures where everyone was armed had low crime rates.

[MikeSofaer]

It's not like cultures where everyone was armed had low crime rates.
What's the mugging rate in Israel?

[Rollory]

Wow, just wow.

I mean really, what else do i have to say.

Too bad dude, your sacrificed was for the greater good.
I'm sorry i'm such a trigger happy nutcase, but I'm only doing my part to protect society.

So what exactly about those innocent deaths upsets you? The fact that they died at all? The fact that the death was avoidable?

Why aren't you equally upset about deaths from car accidents? There's way more of those.

Is this question rhetorical?
if not, well no.

It was not a rhetorical question; I don't see the answer as being clear at all.

Our duty as a civilization was to protect those unable to protect themselves. The old, the infirm and sometimes, you know, when we feel like it, the weak and the innocent.

That is exactly why quickly killing repeat violent criminals seems to me to be a good idea. The increased number of people hurt by bullets going where they shouldn't could very well be less than the number of people who would have been hurt had those criminals continued on their path.

Something is inherently wrong with society

That is a statement I will never disagree with.

if it produces such ruined lives and crimes. Giving guns to people is like amputating the arm when it gets infected, rather then searching for the cure. Or better yet, a vaccine so the arm won't get infected ever again.

And yet, if we can't find the cure, and are looking and looking and no obvious solution presents itself, should we let it just sit there?

[Rollory]

It's not like cultures where everyone was armed had low crime rates.
What's the mugging rate in Israel?

Don't know about Israel, but I do know that the violent crime rate in Britain has jumped something like 700% since the 1950s, and closely tracks increased restrictions on personal weapons.

I have also seen various studies to the effect that de-escalating the danger to the criminal is what actually increases the violence of the crime (Britain again being the source for the data).

My sources, however, would be denounced by most here as hopelessly biased, so I won't bother digging up the links.

[Samurai]

What I've read of the analysis of how criminals think seems to indicate that their expectation of getting caught, or anything at all, is nearly zero.

I would bet a drawn weapon would deter a criminal really fast. If not, the bullet fired in self defense surely would.

[Jason McCullough]

Deter them if they're in the process of already robbing you, yeah. But that's horse/barn door.

[mouselock]

Deter them if they're in the process of already robbing you, yeah. But that's horse/barn door.

Sure, but even dogs eventually learn that if you push the button that gives you a shock, you're going to get a shock, so maybe you ought not to push the button.

[Ben]

Except they don't. "Oh, man, I'm poor. I know, I'll rob that guy. I bet he has, oh, a 40% chance of being armed. I'd say I can get, oh, $500 in total value from him, maybe a bit more. Probably get 3 years if he's not but I get caught later... Hmm, carry the three... Robbing him has a total EV of $8. I'm going to do it!"


That's not how it works. General deterence is a myth created by politicians. Being tough on crime is easy political capital.

Yes, after a guy gets shot, he won't rob people again. But is that the plan? Shoot each individual criminal until they stop?

[Samurai]

I don't really believe deterrence works either. I don't believe that criminals think "well my state has concealed carry, I better go live in a state like Illinois that doesn't and go rob people there."

I just think that if I have the choice between being mugged/murdered/assaulted, or pulling a gun and driving the criminal off, I would choose the latter any day of the week.

You may not be able to deter a criminal from initiating a crime on you, but you can certainly try to prevent him from following through with it.

[mouselock]

Except they don't. "Oh, man, I'm poor. I know, I'll rob that guy. I bet he has, oh, a 40% chance of being armed. I'd say I can get, oh, $500 in total value from him, maybe a bit more. Probably get 3 years if he's not but I get caught later... Hmm, carry the three... Robbing him has a total EV of $8. I'm going to do it!"


That's not how it works. General deterence is a myth created by politicians. Being tough on crime is easy political capital.

Yes, after a guy gets shot, he won't rob people again. But is that the plan? Shoot each individual criminal until they stop?

Just enough so that they begin to think "Ah, fuck it, he's got probably an 85-90% chance of being armed, and it seems like a lot of folks have gotten crippled and killed from being shot by victims."

I'm not saying it'd work, mind you, but the idea has a certain logical appeal. The problems are that a) Logic and criminal behavior don't intersect as often as they should and b) The idea of having the populace 85%+ armed is truly fucking scary.

[Anders Hallin]

Don't know about Israel, but I do know that the violent crime rate in Britain has jumped something like 700% since the 1950s, and closely tracks increased restrictions on personal weapons.
It's interesting to note that every industrialized country apart from Japan has a similar development.

[Case]

The issue of British crime rates is a controversial one, due to changes in the reporting methodology. Here's an abstract from www.guninformation.org:

"MYTH: The crime rate has been skyrocketing in the UK and Australia since stricter gun control laws were enacted in the 1990's.
TRUTH: The truth is that the UK police has changed its system for recording crime since implementing new gun control laws. This change in recording crime made it appear that the crime rate went up. The British Crime Survey, which was unaffected by this change, shows a decrease in crime. Go to the section under violent crime in the British Crime Survey. "The increase in violent crime recorded by police, in contrast to estimates provided from the BCS, appears to be largely due to increased recording by police forces. Taking into account recording changes, the real trend in violence against the person in 2001/02 is estimated to have been a reduction of around five percent(see Chapter 3)."(source- PDF file) So when you take into account changes in recording crime, there was an actual decrease in the violent crime rate. Since 1997, the overall UK crime rate has fallen by 27%. Burglary has dropped 39%. Vehicle thefts have dropped 32%. Violent crime has declined 26%(source). The claim that following the gun ban Australia experienced big increases in crime has been refuted as an urban legend at www.snopes.com, a website that is devoted to exposing urban legends."Given this context, any claims based on statistics (even accurate ones) which posit a cause-and-effect relationship between the gun buyback program and increased crime rates because 'criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed' are automatically suspect, since the average Australian citizen didn't own firearms even before the buyback." (source). Australia's homicide rate is lower than the homicide rate in the US and there has been little variation in Australia's homicide rate since their gun buyback (source)."

Digging this up took a little google-fu. For one thing, if you search for "British crime rates", sites which would tend to be against gun control often show up early in a google search (sources like Newsmax, sweetliberty.org and firearmsandliberty.com, to name three).

[Derek Meister]

I have to admit, I don't personally understand the thought process that leads people to believe that having most of the population armed would allow the average person on the street to stop a criminal who wants to do them harm.

What, is everyone in this theoretical universe a quickdraw gunslinger in the same way that everyone in the movies seems to be able to fight with the same poorly choreographed martial arts technique?

Why the assumption that only the good, law-abiding citizens would have firearms? Why wouldn't the criminals be equally armed?

Why the assumption that the average Joe would be able to get the drop on a criminal in the average crime? I would think criminals in this theoretical world would be more likely to shoot a victim

I'm not for going further with "gun control" by any means, but I certainly wouldn't be for encouraging large portions of the population to arm themselves with firearms either.

God knows, putting criminal acts aside, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the only reason we don't see more killings over arguments about videogames and the like is simply the fact that no one had access to a firearm at the time.

[Jason McCullough]

Except they don't. "Oh, man, I'm poor. I know, I'll rob that guy. I bet he has, oh, a 40% chance of being armed. I'd say I can get, oh, $500 in total value from him, maybe a bit more. Probably get 3 years if he's not but I get caught later... Hmm, carry the three... Robbing him has a total EV of $8. I'm going to do it!"


That's not how it works. General deterence is a myth created by politicians. Being tough on crime is easy political capital.

Yes, after a guy gets shot, he won't rob people again. But is that the plan? Shoot each individual criminal until they stop?

Just enough so that they begin to think "Ah, fuck it, he's got probably an 85-90% chance of being armed, and it seems like a lot of folks have gotten crippled and killed from being shot by victims."

I'm not saying it'd work, mind you, but the idea has a certain logical appeal. The problems are that a) Logic and criminal behavior don't intersect as often as they should and b) The idea of having the populace 85%+ armed is truly fucking scary.

Why not wish for a pony while you're at it? The US already has the highest gun ownership and carry rates of any first world country; how on earth would you increase it any?

[Tyrion Lannister]

I'm with Ted. I want to be able to go out, and bring down a perp with my bare hands, a hunting knife, Taser, cross-bow, high powered rifle, shotgun, or preferably a fully automatic with a self-feeding clip. Then I could take him home, debone him (always a good family activity to do with the kids - they learn so much), freeze the choice cuts and mulch the rest. No part wasted.

Society will be improved.

[mouselock]

Why not wish for a pony while you're at it? The US already has the highest gun ownership and carry rates of any first world country; how on earth would you increase it any?

Well:

A) I"m not wishing for anything, I'm just pointing out the basis of the other side's arguments so you can debate the merit of that, rather than on hystrionics, which has a disconcerting tendancy to happen in this forum.

B) How would you increase it? Concerted efforts to inform the public that guns themselves aren't inherently dangerous, but instead, like a car or any other large piece of machinery, can be dangerous if misused. Among other things, this would include toning down the "OMG, you keep a gun in the house you sick bastard, you know your kid's going to find it one day and blow his head off, don't you" rhetoric.

I mean, I'm all for making sure that little Johnny can't run down the street and buy a gun, and that his dad isn't a besotten drunk who's unlikely to actually teach him gun responsibility. However, seeing as we tend to be able to get kids through their rough formative years without plowing down many other people behind the wheels of a car, a contraption whereby death is an incidental side effect of lack of attention, it seems that maybe if we were a bit more aboveboard in how we regarded guns as a society (and, in fact, any weapon), we could have an armed society without all the stigma attached.

Of course, it would also help if the mere act of firing a gun wasn't portrayed as a near orgasmic experience in 85% of the media we ingest.

So yeah, about that pony.. :P

[Bren]

I recommend y'all sleep with a fully loaded and cocked revolver under your pillow. For your personal safety, y'know.

[Derek Meister]

However, seeing as we tend to be able to get kids through their rough formative years without plowing down many other people behind the wheels of a car, a contraption whereby death is an incidental side effect of lack of attention [...]

I seem to recall auto accidents being one of the top five killers of teenagers.

I know the AAA likes to mention the statistic that teen drivers are responsible for 14% of all automobile fatalities, while making up only 10% of the total drivers on the road.

[mouselock]

However, seeing as we tend to be able to get kids through their rough formative years without plowing down many other people behind the wheels of a car, a contraption whereby death is an incidental side effect of lack of attention [...]

I seem to recall auto accidents being one of the top five killers of teenagers.

I know the AAA likes to mention the statistic that teen drivers are responsible for 14% of all automobile fatalities, while making up only 10% of the total drivers on the road.

Those numbers aren't all that skewed, actually.

And the point still being we manage to get most teens through the years of driving, and that's an activity that's not generally seen as inherently deadly. Assumably handling a gun would be.

If you grow up in parts of the country where guns are very much a normal part of culture, the tendancy for folks to feel the only way to protect a child from a gun is to prevent them from ever seeing one lessens. Instead people teach their children to understand and respect the guns. I think that's a pretty useful object lesson regardless of the subject, and I'd imagine there's nothing more inherently dangerous about a child who's been taught to respect a gun wielding one than there is about a child who's been taught to respect a car being behind the wheel. However, there sure as hell is something more inherently dangerous about being a criminal in a subsection of society which openly embraces guns and isn't afraid to have a loaded shotgun behind the bedroom door in case of attempted burglary. Because, y'know, the chances of a burglar getting shot climb pretty dramatically if the intended victims know how to use, and have access to, a loaded gun.

So the question becomes, could that type of model extend indefinitely? There's nothing about us as people that says it couldn't, so it must be something about the society we live under as a whole that makes it so that if our population were 85% armed instead of 40% or whatever, everything would suddenly go to hell.

[Jason McCullough]

It's not the guns per se; the Swiss are armed to the teeth. A culture where you're encouraged at every turn to Kill Those That Done You Wrong (tm) might be. Don't even get me started on the American fetish for vigilantes.[/i]

[Derek Meister]

Because, y'know, the chances of a burglar getting shot climb pretty dramatically if the intended victims know how to use, and have access to, a loaded gun.

I imagine the chances of heated argument ending in a fatality climb pretty dramatically if one or more parties have access to a loaded gun as well.

Again, I believe the majority of people who now own firearms treat them properly and safely, but I also do not believe that trying to encourage large segments of the population who never felt the need to get one previously and train themselves with them is going to do anything but significantly raise the risk to the average citizen, and not just the criminals.

I'm just pretty cynical about our society being able to handle firearms in the numbers that some wish they were at.

[mouselock]

I'm just pretty cynical about our society being able to handle firearms in the numbers that some wish they were at.

Yeah, and I can see that. But I think the equilibrium number is probably a lot higher, and a lot of the stuff that makes you nervous comes about because we have this stupid dichotomy of "They're great" or "They're evil". I think that dichotomy exists a lot in our society in all sorts of ways, and causes trouble most everywhere it does.

Then again, I still want a pony, too, so wtf do I know?

[Desslock]

I recommend y'all sleep with a fully loaded and cocked revolver under your pillow. For your personal safety, y'know.


http://missi.blogweb.de/images/images102.jpg

You dropped this in the other thread