Uechi-Ryu.com

Robb ,

This is really my fight ! So we continue !

You wrote < Mr. Castanet:

OK, you're out. But, who in Richmond is experiencing the 50% of the
violence that hasn't been reduced? <

Well we have reached the " Pons Asinorum " of the debate !

How about defining your question ! Let me ask you another couple : What do you perceive the difference to be between the 50% that is out and the 50% that is still in ?
Who do you think was experiencing that level of violence before the reduction ? Who do you think was causing the majority of the violence before the reduction ? How do you think the reduction was achieved ? How much violence do you think the 50% Rich Castanet represents was experiencing before the reduction ?


------------------
Van Canna

Mr. Canna:

Thanks for the offer. I do, however, have some concern as to whether this is the appropriate forum, but since Lori Sensei has not booted us yet, what the heck.

I am deeply troubled by your most recent post. Not for the issues you raise, but how you raised them. Answering a question with a question. You act like you have either been hanging out with attorneys or politicians. Please, be careful.

I owe Mr. Castanet an appology. He said that crime had dropped 50%, and since I had beed discussing violence, I made an assumption he saw a correlation. That may, or may not, be the case. But, in any event, whether one is discussing crime or violence, to say there is 50% decrease is to imply there remains some level of crime or violence. Now perhaps one can isolate oneself from crime or violence when it drops below a certain level. Clearly the rise in home security firms, gated communities, and electronic security leads people to believe they can isolate themselves from crime and violence. My question was rather direct...even with a 50% reduction, is there not someone being victimized by crime or violence.

To be even more direct, who pays for all this reduction. Who pays for the prisons and the correctional officers? Who pays for the children whose parents are locked away? Who pays for the lose of the convicted from the workforce? Who pays when the criminal is released? Who pays...?

Get tough. We have more people in prison today than any other nation in the world. Yet, violent death is fast approaching as the number one killer of all our young men, of any race or ethicity. And while you decry the solution is to arm ourselves, the truth is we are armed. We are armed, we are violent, and we must change if we are to endure as a civilized people.

"Hand guns are made for killin', they ain't good for nothing else."

Peace,
Robb in Sacramento

Robb,

< I am deeply troubled by your most recent post. Not for the issues
you raise, but how you raised them. Answering a question with a
question. You act like you have either been hanging out with
attorneys or politicians. Please, be careful.<

Again don't get personal ! You ask loaded questions and you tell me to be careful ? What do you mean by that ? Careful of what ? In my business I argue with lawyers every day ! You don't ask loaded questions and get away with them !

And you do not answer questions { another common ploy } ! Have you given up on the second amendment ?

I knew at some point you would be getting shrill in your "arguments"! As DR knight pointed out yours is nothing more than propaganda BS , not supported by any solid evidence you have presented so far ! You are bouncing all over this thread like a rabbit on a pogo stick !

< "Hand guns are made for killin', they ain't good for nothing else.">

You would not be saying that if I pulled a gun and shot two punks holding a knife at your throat in a dark parking lot while one was sodomizing your wife and the other telling you __ you would be next !

Killing is not always wrong , but a pacifist like you will never understand ! You still have not answered why you are into karate and whether you train in Kobudo ! Just curious : who is your teacher ? Do you like full contact sparring ? Ever laid it on the line in an open tournament ? Tell us what you are made of !

Biblical scholars tell us that in the original Hebrew , the sixth commandment was " thou shall not murder " Not " thou shall not kill " !

Like Contemporary American law , the scripture defines murder as the illegal killing of the innocent by the criminals , and accepts killing undertaken in defense of certain entities , including innocent life ! Discuss it with your religious leader , who will tell you the same .

Again , I am puzzled at what you are doing in such a fierce martial art to start with !

Same question was asked by Gary Khoury sensei and Tracy Rose sensei !

------------------
Van Canna


[This message has been edited by Van Canna (edited 05-30-99).]

Robb: apology accepted. I answered your question in the other thread, and made an important note on the stats used in reports that single out Richmond as a violent place. Please read it.

In Virginia, cities are considered discreet locals, unlike most other areas. The greater metro area population exceeds 900,000, and some outlying counties experience ZERO handgun murders in a typical year. This region is a really safe place to have a family.

Regards, Rich

Robb ,

You wrote < I am deeply troubled by your most recent post , Answering a question with a question. You act like you have either been hanging out with
attorneys or politicians. Please, be careful. you apparently
believe the solution lies in the barrel of a gun ; you clearly feel
the police should be given free rein ; You clearly believe we would all be better off if we all packed a piece. <


Then __ You wrote < The vituperative and personal
nature of your response…… >

As expected , you do not disappoint me !

Some of our readers might disagree with the above and then agree that you were trying to impress us by coming off snobbish and patronizing by your choice of words , syntax , your metaphors and your petulance of what should, otherwise , have been persuasive ! Then you try to shift the emotional balance of the debate by feeling victimized ! You dwell in rhetoric , and specious construction of your verbal mirage bull s*** aimed at greasing the realities of our society while attempting to conceal your insults !


Judging by initial reactions to our debate , it appears that after the fluff of your argument settled , there is nothing substantial left that would make any sense to the majority of our readers who espouse the martial concept !

Your argument carries no "punch" as the majority of the e-mail I have received would suggest that you do not really understand what the argument is about ! You know , like the story of the boxer who windmills 200 punches per round and never hits the opponent once !


Then you write : < Who I train with, why I train, or what I had for
breakfast won't add anything to a discussion of guns and violence <

The point you are missing is that in order for you to blend and empathize and more likely to understand and reason with other people you deal with in very sensitive matters such as these , you must really know who you are and convey to others matching concerns and experiences in order to achieve some modicum of persuasion ! You remind me of how Dukakis was done in, during his candidacy , by the blurting out of a senseless answer to a question of what he would do to the assailant he caught raping his wife upon coming home one night !

As to judicious use of violence , you might keep in mind that even Christ resorted to violence when he smashed the property of money changers and kicked them and beat them with his strength of a carpenter right out of his father's temple !

I fully agree ; back to our neutral corners and motion to adjourn !

Thank you for the stimulating debate !



------------------
Van Canna


[This message has been edited by Van Canna (edited 05-30-99).]

[This message has been edited by Van Canna (edited 05-30-99).]

Mr. Canna:

No personal offense was intended. The vituperative and personal nature of your response, however, suggests we each move to neutral corner. Who I train with, why I train, or what I had for breakfast won't add anything to a discussion of guns and violence and whether stricter control on guns would lessen or increase violence. You clearly believe we would all be better off if we all packed a piece. I clearly believe we have too many guns in the hands of people who should not have them. We disagree.

Peace
Robb in Sacramento

I invite you gentle readers to my realities forum where This thread has been shifted to so as not to clutter Lori's page !

Feel free to engage and , foremost , to enjoy !

Peace ,



------------------
Van Canna