Martin Sims, Part Deux
Martin, I apologise for the flippant tone I have taken with you. Your anonymity allows me to be flip without worrying about your reaction. It's as though you're not real and in the blog world, you're not. I can't contact you as you can me. You accuse me of being venemous. That's your take. If I had your email address, as you have mine, I would write to you personally. Since most of my readers likely agree with my viewpoints on gun control, I will share your words with them, thus giving you a wider berth than you have in my comments section. Mr. Sims, your convictions frighten me.
Mr. Sim's words follow:
Martin Sims has left a new comment on your post "Gun Control '07":
You cannot accept my reasoning and logic because you are approaching this debate from a purely emotional point of view. The degree to which you rely on emotional arguments must be what is making you so contemptuous of mine. That is the reason you are so venomous in your denunciation of me. Your desire to utilize personal attacks on somebody you don’t know rather than directly debating each of the points I made, should at least suggest to you that your own arguments are rationalizations you prefer to believe rather than a doctrine that can be explained in logical terms.I believe in the logic I have used and have little doubt that it will (as it has) stand the test of time. I hold dear the integrity of the values I impart to others, and I appreciate the sincerity of your convictions as well. However, you and those that choose to blame inanimate objects for the evil that is perpetrated by human beings are deluding yourselves. Such delusions cannot be satiated by logic or by reasonable communication. Debate is such an important component of our political and legal system for the very fact that it weeds out emotion from logic and generally provides us with the clearest view of the truth. The truth is that we need reasonable, practical approaches to dealing with violence of the scale and nature seen in recent weeks and in past years. The truth is that the 2nd amendment will not be overturned, ever! An example of this reality can be seen in a recent Supreme Court ruling that has shut down Washington DC’s 30 year ban on handguns as unconstitutional.
posted by Lin @ 4:29 PM
7 Comments:
I don't share your viewpoint on gun control, but I do recognize that this is your blog and you're free to post your opinions! Apparently this guy just couldn't resist starting something.
Martin Sims --What an Asshole!!!
Why doesn't anybody want to talk to the issue? The issue isn't whether or not you like me or the way I phrase my points. The issue is simple, what can be done to address the reality of escalating acts of violence occurring within American educational institutions?
The VA Tech horror was enacted on a gun free campus, meaning that even those students who held concealed carry permits and had the benefit of firearms training, were unable to do anything to prevent or even minimize the horrific affects of one mans murderous rampage. This fact should help to illustrate the reality that the only people that obey gun policies and laws are the law abiding citizens that such policies and laws turn into victims unable to defend or protect themselves.
Why would the judge who had the opportunity and responsibility to have the man committed, allow him to commit himself and in so doing prevent the stalking of two women and statements suggesting suicidal ideation from going into the mans permanent record?
The military is using a new technology consisting of ballistics triangulation algorithms. The system has a better than 99% reliability rate in identifying gun shots and much more. I have to wonder if such a system could be a first gap measure that would provide the ability to immediately identify a “shots fired” incident, sound an audible alert and dispatch SWAT and other emergency resources. Being a technology consultant, I know first hand the prevalence of Audio/Video surveillance systems already in use at high schools and colleges alike. With a ballistics triangulation and or identification system tied into an existing surveillance system, police could potentially be automatically, during mobilization, linked into the cameras and audio pickups in the area where the event is occurring. This would allow the authorities to have a plan formulated and be able to immediately go operational upon reaching their destination.
I do not understand why so few people are talking about practical and realistic measures that can taken to deal with the issue at hand. Why insist on debating an amendment that is never going to be overturned and has in fact been recently reinforced by the United States Supreme Court?
Martin, I will respond to your points when I have time. It won't be today, though. And you are correct, the issue isn't whether or not I agree with you or your points of view. More later. Thank you for keeping your words reasoned and to the point. That is admirable in a debate and I'm obviously not a debater.
Dear Lin, thank you for your consideration. I believe I have fixed the problem that was making me anonymous, however, you will now have much more of my opinions at your disposal. I am certain that my reasoning and logic will inspire you, but you will have to let me know if the inspiration is to debate or regurgitate. Sincerely, Martin Sims
I was going to be quiet on this whole thing but something Martin said irked me. He would rather the students at VA tech tote guns to school in the event of a deranged person coming in to shoot them up? What??? So we could have gunfight at the OK corral? I can only imagine how many more people might have been killed in the foray if the students were toting guns.
Imagine the fear of driving if everyone toted guns. I know quite a few drivers that would have whipped a pistol on me by now (I'm an agressive driver, and not a good one).
He did say something that I absolutely agreed with though. That being that guns are inanimate objects and the evil comes from the user, not the gun itself. That doesn't mean we should all be carrying them though.
What is possibility without probability? Is it possible that every student and teacher on campus would not only want to carry a gun but would also pass the background check and training required to prove their individual marksmanship as well as their understanding of the laws of their state and that they would somehow still have ended up in an "OK Coral" style gun battle? It certainly is possible, but not very probable. More probable is that students and teachers with such training would have secured their locations and moved to eliminate the threat. Following training, they would not have drawn their weapons or discharged them without a clear threat and target, because to draw your weapon as a threat rather than to eliminate one is illegal. Eliminating the threat was not possible though because even those teachers and students that had attained concealed weapons permits and training were not allowed to bring their weapons onto the campus. The reality is that the gunmen would still have killed, but who is to say how he would have reacted if challenged. Is it possible that the murderer would have run away if challenged, yes, but only as likely as the possibility that he would have stood his ground. I believe that if students and faculty (with concealed carry permits) had been allowed to carry their weapons onto campus that some of them would have heard, would have responded, and that they would have saved lives by putting their own lives on the line.
Post a Comment
<< Home