Sunday, October 10, 2010

Tulsa - 2 Dead 1 Wounded

Only the shooter is responsible for the shooting. No problem. But who is responsible for the easy access to guns in Oklahoma? They have to answer for their part, at least they should have to if we're going to all be responsible for our own actions.

What do you think?  Please leave a comment.

12 comments:

  1. "But who is responsible for the easy access to guns in Oklahoma?"

    Before we can answer that, we need to have proof that this happened because the shooter had "easy access" to a firearm, and that THAT was the cause of the crime, not the fact that he was scumbag criminal intent upon hurting people.

    Good luck. This message will self-destruct in ten seconds.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You have to keep in mind that any access is considered "easy access".

    ReplyDelete
  3. They have to answer for their part, at least they should have to if we're going to all be responsible for our own actions.

    When are you going to take responsibility for the laws you've broken Mikey?

    What should happen to someone who has admitted to breaking firearm related crimes?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Neither "person of interest" is 21, meaning that they had to get a pistol illegally in the first place.

    Damn those thieving criminals! Damn them to heck!

    ReplyDelete
  5. But who is responsible for the easy access to guns in Oklahoma

    OK--I'll play. Is it King George III, for getting his ass handed to him in the 1780's, while simultaneously giving Americans a superb incentive to value their fundamental human right to keep and bear arms?

    Yeah--somebody oughtta do something about him.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "fundamental human right to keep and bear arms"

    Ha. Zorro is always good for a laugh.

    Now it's my turn to say, I'll play.

    What are the other "fundamental human rights?"

    I thought you guys said one of them is "self-defense" and by extension (or should I say spinning) you need guns to be equipped to do that.

    Now I notice you've abbreviated the thing down to consider gun ownership itself as a "fundamental human right."

    Can you clarify?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:

    Now I notice you've abbreviated the thing down to consider gun ownership itself as a "fundamental human right."

    Well, until someone figures out a martial art that allows one to drop a threat at government-paid murderer Lon Horiuchi's maximum range (and this notional martial art would have to, of course, be one that the vast majority of people could become proficient in, despite physical infirmities), I kinda see the fundamental human right to keep and bear arms as being more or less interchangeable with the fundamental human right of self-defense (which I see as itself being a logical extension of the fundamental human right to life).

    Probably not something I'd submit in a philosophy paper without going into a long justification, but I figured that for the purposes of a blog comment, it's close enough for disco.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Of course it's close enough for you. It's convenient as can be.

    So, the fundamental human right to life leads to that of self-defense which requires weapons. Is that about it?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:

    So, the fundamental human right to life leads to that of self-defense which requires weapons. Is that about it?

    That's a kinda quick and dirty summation, but if I were required to sum up my position in about a dozen words, I could do worse than that.

    What part of it do you find erroneous? Is life not a fundamental human right? If it is, can there really be a right to life, without the right to defend that life? If there is a right to defend one's life, do you argue that armed self-defense is not vastly more effective than unarmed self-defense?

    ReplyDelete
  10. @Zorro--I would add only one thing, to that excellent summation: Humans are the only living creatures on earth to create and use tools. Monkeys have displayed an ability to use sticks to catch ants from anthills, but they did not create tools, they used them.

    As such, it could be argued that because we can both create and use tools, that it is an inherent or natural ability, and as such, the use of those tools would also be a natural or inherent ability.

    Therefore, to deny that use of our tools for self defense, is to deny the natural right of self defense.

    I'm sure Guy Cabot would disagree, which of course would only further prove it correct.

    ReplyDelete
  11. That's a very good point, Anon--humans, far more than any other species on Earth, require tools for nearly everything we do to survive, including defending ourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yes all good points guys. I think you might want to consider shoulder-launched missile launchers as absolutely necessary for the protection of yourself and your family and therefor a basic and natural human right.

    But what if something REALLY bad happens? I mean, you could conceivably need a small nuclear divice - you've seen Red Dawn. If they come en force you might be obliged to do something heroic.

    ReplyDelete