Guns and Crime

BadgerKustoms wrote: Human, a being with the ability to do either great good.... or great bad. Limiting the tools, only makes them more creative. Oh they'll learn, they'll learn a means of destruction to acheive their goal and then carry it out. It can be argued that once that mindset is in place, no manner of "teaching" will ever prevail. Learn yourself, stick to what you've learned, lead by example and with any luck others will follow suit. This unfortunately doesn't mean the world will be a better place. Its a sad fact that there are those who don't want peace at all.


Badger

With all due respect back at ya. For the most part, I totally agree with your post and position, especially this last. That being said, the TEACH PEACE ending I use frequently is an allusion to the word PEACE in my avatar and in my signature. It is an acronym (you can see for yourself what it stands for). For additional information on what I, personally, stand for, you can visit our website (also in my signature).

PEACE means different things to different people. For me, it follows the intent of the acronym - empowering people and helping them to empower themselves - pretty much to do the exact thing you talk about. Your last three sentences, in particular, say it all in my opinion. In essence, what I take away from what you're saying (and, please correct me if I'm wrong) is that you basically must learn first and then, leading by example, you help teach others who, hopefully, will follow suit.

While I get your point when you posit that teaching peace may be a misguided sentiment, I would offer that "learning peace" may be a pre-requisite for teaching peace, but the two go inherently hand-in-hand. Without one, you cannot have the other. It also is a critical aspect of reaching a point in our lives whereby, if we actually find that inner peace, we may just be able to help others to achieve it by helping them empower themselves. Don't know if that makes any sense, but that's how I see it.

My apologies ZHawke, while I quoted you're particular words, my post was not intended to single you out in any way. I should have made that clear in my post, sorry about that. I have read and understood your points, familiarized myself with your links, etc., I was merely capitalizing on the very thing you've mentioned here.

ZHawke wrote: PEACE means different things to different people.

This is definitely true and while sometimes there is a certain 'common ground' associated with the term, there are of course the vast differences. If I might quote this sentence to assist the point:

ZHawke wrote: In essence, what I take away from what you're saying (and, please correct me if I'm wrong) is that you basically must learn first and then, leading by example, you help teach others who, hopefully, will follow suit.

I would certainly say you're close, (common ground), but I myself don't necessarily retain that peace in trying to teach others. Perhaps my own flaw, folly or quirk of sorts. And again on a personal note, I tend to find myself in roles of leadership NOT by choice, but because through my own independent actions, words, ideals, etc., somehow seem to get elected. In that sense, my 'peace' as it were becomes interupted because now I have to focus on a group. Being put in a position of such responsibility can be a little less than comfortable. Instead I'd favor others to learn for themselves what peace is, how to maintain it in themselves and only they can decide when encountered with violence will they evade to maintain, or counter to maintain. But when that can't happen, I usually recognize that I was chosen because they haven't attained that kind of knowledge and by process of default realize that whether I want to or not, I was the best suitable candidate for a given situation.

Badger

BadgerKustoms wrote: My apologies ZHawke, while I quoted you're particular words, my post was not intended to single you out in any way. I should have made that clear in my post, sorry about that. I have read and understood your points, familiarized myself with your links, etc., I was merely capitalizing on the very thing you've mentioned here.

ZHawke wrote: PEACE means different things to different people.

This is definitely true and while sometimes there is a certain 'common ground' associated with the term, there are of course the vast differences. If I might quote this sentence to assist the point:

ZHawke wrote: In essence, what I take away from what you're saying (and, please correct me if I'm wrong) is that you basically must learn first and then, leading by example, you help teach others who, hopefully, will follow suit.

I would certainly say you're close, (common ground), but I myself don't necessarily retain that peace in trying to teach others. Perhaps my own flaw, folly or quirk of sorts. And again on a personal note, I tend to find myself in roles of leadership NOT by choice, but because through my own independent actions, words, ideals, etc., somehow seem to get elected. In that sense, my 'peace' as it were becomes interupted because now I have to focus on a group. Being put in a position of such responsibility can be a little less than comfortable. Instead I'd favor others to learn for themselves what peace is, how to maintain it in themselves and only they can decide when encountered with violence will they evade to maintain, or counter to maintain. But when that can't happen, I usually recognize that I was chosen because they haven't attained that kind of knowledge and by process of default realize that whether I want to or not, I was the best suitable candidate for a given situation.

Badger

No apology necessary, Badger. Better you getting "elected' to lead than me. In my previous life, my job was to facilitate. Often times, because of the line of work I was in, that translated into a position of leadership. I still try very hard to facilitate, sometimes with a modicum of success, other times with no success at all.

Had an interesting conversation with my sis in law regarding this topic. I sort of think she brought it up looking for a heated debate or something to liven up the festivities but that just wasn't going to be the reaction. She's self proclaimed liberal, voted for our current dude in charge, quite a bit opposite of my family and I, and very anti assault weapons, unless and I quote:

Well unless you or the boys have them, then that's ok.

(The boys she is referring to are my sons, the younger of which is currently in the US Army and she already knows the type of tools he gets to work with on a routine basis.) The word "irony" suddenly held quite a bit of weight to it.

Her rationalization of that comment led to the points of (verbatim):

1. If the US is ever attacked or invaded, Zach (my son) would be fighting of course, but she knows that our home and lands would be very safe to bring her family to because we're self sufficient and well educated in the use of these kind of tools. (She did make it perfectly clear that her own boys (ages 9 and 7) are not to touch these, nor to be trained on them. I agreed, but told her that should such an event occur and they desire to learn I will direct them back to her for approval until such time they reach 18 years of age. Then its "Sorry Pam, an adult asked to learn and we'll oblige that".)

2. She's seen first hand the discipline, awareness factors regarding safety and the use of these tools in our hands. Her confidence was reassured, and honestly had I known a few years back when they came up to the range she was so anti 'assault weapons' I might not have invited them in the first place.... but kudos to her for stepping up anyway and things working out like they did.

Its just interesting to know that someone who is strongly opposed to them would be 'ok' with it if its someone she knows personally. We discussed that I happen to train and shoot with quite a few people and the point was emphasized heavily that I don't do that with just anyone. They have to be assessed, proven, and always be responsible because the priviledge to participate with us can be revoked at any time safety is in question. "So is it ok if my friends play too?" A joke to lighten the mood, but the point was made. Its our job (tactical shooting enthusiasts), to reinforce such responsibility with our fellow shooters and those interested.

Responsibility can be taught and reinforced. Mental health, not so much. It could perhaps be regulated through the use of medications or certain psychiatric therapy but if a person is "off" you can't always just reinforce the correct manners. Some who commit crimes can not always be properly "rehabilitated" because the nature of their mindset is heavily ingrained into their being. Someone mentally ill, or determined to commit crime doesn't care about responsibility, they don't care from "who" or "where" they obtain the tools to perform their task, they'll find a way. If that means illegally entering a home, taking lives, stealing, etc., to accomplish that, there are those out there who will do just that.

Again, it begins within, and of oneself. All any of the rest of us can do is keep our eyes open to anything that seems unusual and perhaps make a mention of it. I'm definitely not saying alert the presses unless something is seriously off, but just make a cognitive note of details and point things out to others, be it authorities, co-workers, employers, etc. In closing, its nice to know that some are open to thoughts. Merry Christmas, Hearty Yule, and Happy Holidays everyone.

Hails,
Badger