On Terror and Intentions
Today is Tuesday, 6 July 2010.
“weinerdogsrulz” made the following comment on “More Terror”: “And, although I obviously agree with your outrage at the Supreme Court decision which is the subject of our discussion, I must still disagree with your characterization of the Justices as "terror-loving." It seems to me that "terror" or "terrorism" is the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) to inculcate fear in order to achieve goals that are political or religious, or ideological. (Much like "robbery" - obtaining money or other property by use of force, threat of force, or fear.) Terrorism is the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion and intimidation.”
I’m not content with such a narrow definition of “terror”. I choose a spectrum of activities, including that which you describe, but also the husband who beats or threatens to beat his wife, the thug who shoves a pistol in a shopkeeper’s face, etc.
“Further, it seems to me that one must "intend" the terror or terrorism - that is, one must be determined to perform a particular act or to act in a particular manner for a specific reason. One must have a particular aim or design; in the case of terror, that aim is to inculcate fear in order to coerce. Using these definitions, then, one cannot say that the Justices rendering the decision are "terror-loving" or "terrorists." Although their decision certainly renders nearly impossible reducing the number of handguns available to criminals and others of their ilk, or eliminating them altogether, it seems clear that the Justices have not "intended" terror. Nor can it be fairly said that they savor, enjoy or "love" the unintended results of having made handguns accessible to criminals and jugheads. Thus, they should not be labeled "terror-loving."
The Justices in question “intended”, in my moral universe, whatever would happen as a result of ratifying promiscuous ownership of handguns, because they are damn well aware of the history of same, and the consequences certain to ensue. They don’t need to foresee that Bill Rehnquist will engage in a public shootout in which a stray bullet splatters the brains of a specific three-year-old over a sidewalk (oops, emotional again!), they need only to know that such acts are certain to occur. They “intend” all the consequences which flow from their decision. And, under my definition, they thereby “intend” “terror”. And, if they don’t “love” such terror, why have they gone to such lengths to ensure so much of it will ensue?
“(Similarly, when a person having had too much to drink undertakes the drive home, and his driving results in an accident killing and/or maiming others, or resulting in mayhem and property damage, the impaired driver did not "intend" to kill and/or maim - he merely intended to drive while impaired. Although one oftentimes logically flows from the other, there is no specific intent present.)”
Again, I argue that the driver “intended” whatever he knew might result from his choice to drive drunk, from an uneventful drive home to mowing down a family of four crossing the street. (And splattering their brains… well, by now, you can complete the sentence. ) I’m a firm believer in the philosophical concept known as the Law of Unintended Consequences, particularly when they are, in fact, foreseeable and therefore intended.
“Because reasonable minds can apparently differ respecting the accessibility, registration and proper ownership/use of handguns (and ALL guns, for that matter), it is abundantly clear to me that there needs to be a significant shift in the Court.”
I would argue that putting handguns in the hands of tens of millions of Americans, some of them criminals, many of them predisposed to violence, and very few trained in combat use of firearms, is inherently unreasonable, and that those who advocate same proceed from fatally flawed premises and reasoning. Damn straight, SCOTUS needs housecleaning.
Full Disclosure: I was once involved in an incident at 14th Street and Fifth Avenue in New York City, when a person or persons unknown fired rounds, one of which struck a wall approximately a foot from me. However, I had made the arguments above many times before.
“weinerdogsrulz” made the following comment on “More Terror”: “And, although I obviously agree with your outrage at the Supreme Court decision which is the subject of our discussion, I must still disagree with your characterization of the Justices as "terror-loving." It seems to me that "terror" or "terrorism" is the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) to inculcate fear in order to achieve goals that are political or religious, or ideological. (Much like "robbery" - obtaining money or other property by use of force, threat of force, or fear.) Terrorism is the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion and intimidation.”
I’m not content with such a narrow definition of “terror”. I choose a spectrum of activities, including that which you describe, but also the husband who beats or threatens to beat his wife, the thug who shoves a pistol in a shopkeeper’s face, etc.
“Further, it seems to me that one must "intend" the terror or terrorism - that is, one must be determined to perform a particular act or to act in a particular manner for a specific reason. One must have a particular aim or design; in the case of terror, that aim is to inculcate fear in order to coerce. Using these definitions, then, one cannot say that the Justices rendering the decision are "terror-loving" or "terrorists." Although their decision certainly renders nearly impossible reducing the number of handguns available to criminals and others of their ilk, or eliminating them altogether, it seems clear that the Justices have not "intended" terror. Nor can it be fairly said that they savor, enjoy or "love" the unintended results of having made handguns accessible to criminals and jugheads. Thus, they should not be labeled "terror-loving."
The Justices in question “intended”, in my moral universe, whatever would happen as a result of ratifying promiscuous ownership of handguns, because they are damn well aware of the history of same, and the consequences certain to ensue. They don’t need to foresee that Bill Rehnquist will engage in a public shootout in which a stray bullet splatters the brains of a specific three-year-old over a sidewalk (oops, emotional again!), they need only to know that such acts are certain to occur. They “intend” all the consequences which flow from their decision. And, under my definition, they thereby “intend” “terror”. And, if they don’t “love” such terror, why have they gone to such lengths to ensure so much of it will ensue?
“(Similarly, when a person having had too much to drink undertakes the drive home, and his driving results in an accident killing and/or maiming others, or resulting in mayhem and property damage, the impaired driver did not "intend" to kill and/or maim - he merely intended to drive while impaired. Although one oftentimes logically flows from the other, there is no specific intent present.)”
Again, I argue that the driver “intended” whatever he knew might result from his choice to drive drunk, from an uneventful drive home to mowing down a family of four crossing the street. (And splattering their brains… well, by now, you can complete the sentence. ) I’m a firm believer in the philosophical concept known as the Law of Unintended Consequences, particularly when they are, in fact, foreseeable and therefore intended.
“Because reasonable minds can apparently differ respecting the accessibility, registration and proper ownership/use of handguns (and ALL guns, for that matter), it is abundantly clear to me that there needs to be a significant shift in the Court.”
I would argue that putting handguns in the hands of tens of millions of Americans, some of them criminals, many of them predisposed to violence, and very few trained in combat use of firearms, is inherently unreasonable, and that those who advocate same proceed from fatally flawed premises and reasoning. Damn straight, SCOTUS needs housecleaning.
Full Disclosure: I was once involved in an incident at 14th Street and Fifth Avenue in New York City, when a person or persons unknown fired rounds, one of which struck a wall approximately a foot from me. However, I had made the arguments above many times before.
posted by HH at 3:30 PM
1 Comments:
Obviously, this is YOUR blog - meaning for your purposes and not necessarily for the edification and/or enjoyment of others. It is therefore yours to express your opinions, and refuse to change them or reconsider them even in the face of irrefutable logic to the contrary.
Your blog for 6 July, contained my comments on "More Terror" and your rebuttal to the thoughts contained therein. You responsed that you're "not content with such a narrow definition of 'terror'". Obviously, you can define "terror" or "terrorism" any way you wish - it's your blog - but the fact remains that "terror" or "terrorism" is the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) to inculcate fear in order to achieve goals that are political or religious, or ideological. Terrorism is the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion and intimidation - of society or governments. The "broader" spectrum of activities that you describe (including the husband who beats or threatens to beat his wife, the thug who shoves a pistol in a shopkeeper's face, etc.) are crimes which occur daily and are routinely prosecuted by the local District Attorneys on behalf of the State. The husband who beats his wife is guilty of domestic violence, and the thug who shoves a pistol in the shopkeeper's face (presumably to obtain money) is guilty of attempted robbery (or, if he is rewarded with money, robbery). These common criminals are not "terrorists" in that their goals are not political or ideological - their goals are far more immediate and "self-serving". In any event, I believe that we have beaten this horse to death. It is certainly and undoubtedly your prerogative to choose, adopt and use any definitions you feel best serve your purposes on YOUR blog.
Looking forward to more of your thoughts (not necessarily on this subject).
Post a Comment
<< Home