We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
– found on the WAGC website.
(hat-tip to commenter Marcy Quice)
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Oh, I like that one, I really do… that is fabulous!
The sad thing is that many people really think that way.
Fantastic quote. And this absolutely pins their attitude down. We could widen the scope of this analysis and say….
LEFTISM: The belief that helpless victims are somehow morally superior to those who have had the tenacity to take responsibility for themselves.
Zing! Right on target!
You fail to understand the complexity of the problem, as seen by the police and others employed by governments.
It is the need to do something.
Now, if you are dead, the thing to do is bury you. It´s pretty clear than doing something else is not the best decision.
However, if you are alive and have fired a bullet, something else must be done with you. So …
The solutiuon is, of course, to provide government with much less money. Then, even they would have to agree that much less must be done, so perhaps only those things obviously and necessarily important should be done.
Best regards
Morally superior? Not sure – but definitely more titillating. I particularly like the ‘strangled with her pantyhose’ – so much sexier than stabbed or beaten unconscious, don’t you think?
Gosh what a cynic I am. I could pose the question whether a dead man with a bullet in his heart is morally superior to someone asking a stranger for directions late at night, but hey, what’s the point….
As a matter of fact “strangled with pantyhouse” is not an uncommon murder. According to FBI Uniform Crime Statistics from the Chicago office, during the years leading up to the scary-looking-firearms ban, it was more common than “shot with a military-caliber rifle”.
As for what’s the point… it looks like you are suggesting that the risk that an armed citizen will mistakenly shoot an individual asking for directions because of a percieved threat outways the benefit of real threats getting shot. Hate to disappoint you, but it just doesn’t happen often enough to be a problem.
Well that tells me everything about you I need to know.
Strange. Up until I bought a more concealable pistol I used to carry my USP under my armpit in plain view when I walked from my office to my car at night (it was too bothersome to stick it in the front of my pants only to pull it back out 30 seconds later when I sat down). I had, and still have, people walk up and ask directions all the time. They never seemed to look at or think twice about the gun under my arm.
Unfortunately it never kept bums from walking up to me and pan-handling either. At least it let them know that pan-handling was as far as they should be taking their money-for-nothing enterprise.
Man control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to men respecting women physically, sexually and with the knowledge that raping them will result in their castration.
I’m sure the perp’s subsequent castration (if he’s even caught) means a heck of a lot to the raped, murdered woman.
I’m also sure the perp’s death at the hands of a woman’s gun would mean a lot to future perps who decide to carry guns themselves. Then what?
Melika – Best to just lie back and enjoy it then I take it?
Almost all potential rapists will be more physically powerful than the woman they intend to rape. Thus if the woman is not carrying a gun then he can easily rape and kill her if he so desires.
If many women decide to carry a gun and as Melika suggests, the potential rapists who didn’t previously carry a gun start doing so, the new condition is still better for a woman. Why? Well, before when the woman is disarmed, she had almost a zero chance of defending herself against a much stronger assailant. With a gun, even if the potential rapist has one as well, she at least has a chance to defend herself. She had none in the previous scenario.
It is truly amazing that the idea of self-defense has itself become controversial. No concern for the woman lying dead in the alley. No concern for the next victim trying to walk to her car after some overtime, later than usual, alone on a dark street.
Only sarcastic snark about the terrible thought that someone, somewhere, might have a gun.
Well, I hate to tell you, but lots of someones already have lots of guns, lots of knives, lots of seething desires that do not require your agreement or voluntary compliance, and few, if any, inhibitions about carrying these fantasies out on any available vulnerable target, regardless of age, sex, or disability.
Your fear of an instrumentality is obscuring a clear appreciation of where the threat to you and yours actually lies.
A culture which has abandoned morality and self-discipline, as ours generally has, offers no safe haven to a defenseless potential vicitm.
So he doesn’t obey laws against rape, but he’ll magically obey gun control laws if they’re passed?
“I’m sure the perp’s subsequent castration….”
…… if only…….
Right now perps of all heinous persuasions know that they have little chance of any meaningful punishment. How is sentenceing a perv to prison, with limitless access to sex, a punishment?? Deranged people get pleasure form stuff that anyone else would cringe at. But if you give them the fear of certain death or castration, then their derangred minds might start processing in a different way.
So what if an innocent person is put to death or castrated?
Hmmmm, dunno.
But I do know of the many degenerates released by the intellectually and morally halt judges and parole boards that then rape and murder yet again.
Is it better one innocent person be punished than the guily go free to maime and murder again?
“Is it better one innocent person be punished than the guily go free to maime and murder again?”
If you mean killing or castrating an innocent person then… uhhh… FUCK NO! I can think of few things worse than the idea of an innocent individual being given a permanent punishment by the state. I find it disgusting and almost grotesque. Perhaps that is an irrational response since by thug or by state one dies the same way, but it seems to make me queasy to think of someone innocent being put to death while all those around them seem to think they are carrying out justice. At least a violent thug would have no such pretensions.
So I would argue that if there is any doubt in the least about someone’s conviction (and there nearly always will be), they shouldn’t be subject to the death penalty or permanent castration (unless the elect for it themselves perhaps).
The quote comes from L. Neil Smith (not a source I’d expect to see quoted here), and refers to the Boston Strangler (Boston being a city with very restrictive gun control and self defense laws).
Widespread gun ownership raises the marginal cost of an individual resorting to using their weapon. If most women are unarmed, the risk of capture or injury a strangler runs when he attacks decreases. If most women are armed, he has to be a lot more careful and the odds are sooner or later he’s going to get shot if he isn’t caught.
I should have said “individual resorting to using their weapon offensively.”
I blogged this exchange the other day:
Interviewer:
Genesis Elijah (an excellent black rapper from Brixton):
Aside form the obvious quality of the opinion did you notice what he didn’t do? He didn’t advocate gun control. He didn’t even suggest the community should attempt some kind of gun control within itself. He said that “we” need to change “our condition” and get control of their own “situation”. Who they are precisely and what the situation is I don’t decern, but I’m assuming he means poverty.
He then continues into a stunning rant about the media. Good stuff.
Sheesh. This guy sounds like a member of MENSA compared to the dregs of society we have in the rap industry here in America.