Agree with you Cam. +1 to Hunter.CameronPoe wrote:
D & ST Gold. HunterOfSkulls is fast becoming a contender for Hall of Fame entry. +1Vilham wrote:
Hunterofskulls just destroyed that whole article.
Its an interesting argument in the OP but reality dictates otherwise. A study in the New England Journal of Medicine reported that gun owners were 2.7 times more likely to be murdered than non-owners
What i'd like to add to what HoS wrote is that the issue of owning guns is based on circular argumentations: "I need a gun because it ensures that I can keep myself safe and I feel unsafe because there are others with guns around." What this ignores is that statistics show that countries without guns have far far fewer murders per capita than those that do.
As HoS points out, guns are actually a force multiplier which have the tendency to turn bad decisions into disastrous decisions.
What i'd like to add to what HoS wrote is that the issue of owning guns is based on circular argumentations: "I need a gun because it ensures that I can keep myself safe and I feel unsafe because there are others with guns around." What this ignores is that statistics show that countries without guns have far far fewer murders per capita than those that do.
As HoS points out, guns are actually a force multiplier which have the tendency to turn bad decisions into disastrous decisions.
I agree completely, Hunter quite effectively crushed that whole article.paranoid101 wrote:
Agree with you Cam. +1 to Hunter.CameronPoe wrote:
D & ST Gold. HunterOfSkulls is fast becoming a contender for Hall of Fame entry. +1Vilham wrote:
Hunterofskulls just destroyed that whole article.
I'm aware that my say isn’t as influential as some others here in D & DT. But I’m sure my +1 does exactly the same as everyone else
+1 hunter
/win
nice post
nice post
Everything I could and couldn't have thought of, HunterOfSkulls just said.
I'd like to add that this author of the article is obviously looking for sympathy, as his specific examples just happen to have an elderly man, a woman and a gay guy as the victims. Ironic how these people are first of all less likely to have a gun, since the idea of possessing a gun appeals more to young to middle aged men. A woman is far less likely to want something that dangerous, as - is my belief - with the gay person and elderly man.
...and how the hell can a gay guy fend off 7 guys with baseball bats? If these guys come after him, they'll do it well, as they'll probably already know who he is - gay people aren't always wearing those colorful clothes that you see on TV.
-konfusion
I'd like to add that this author of the article is obviously looking for sympathy, as his specific examples just happen to have an elderly man, a woman and a gay guy as the victims. Ironic how these people are first of all less likely to have a gun, since the idea of possessing a gun appeals more to young to middle aged men. A woman is far less likely to want something that dangerous, as - is my belief - with the gay person and elderly man.
...and how the hell can a gay guy fend off 7 guys with baseball bats? If these guys come after him, they'll do it well, as they'll probably already know who he is - gay people aren't always wearing those colorful clothes that you see on TV.
-konfusion
While I am a gun owner, I don't feel the need to carry one on me at all times. As such, I do not agree with the OP, and HoS has made some very valid points.
Well this guy won't be winning any awards for psychology. What about instinct, mental illnesses, compassion etc. There is no expert in the World who would agree that Reason and Force are the only two factors in decision making. What an idiot...D6717C wrote:
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
Um no. That implies that everyone is a wannabe criminal and guns are the only thing stopping all out carnage. What about morality, a sense of community and the threat of prison? They also remove "force from the menu". A gun could be a factor as to why a robber might think twice but it is not the only reason.D6717C wrote:
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
What if I have a bigger gun? What if there are two of us with guns? What if I just shoot you without warning and take your stuff? You can't talk about a gun as if it is infallible source of protection. Are you saying that a gun carrier has never had a crime committed against them?D6717C wrote:
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
Not if you both have guns it doesn't. A 19 year old gang banger is going to be faster on the draw than a 75 year old man for example. This also implies that every crime should end up in a Wild West type shoot out. Is it not possible that the death of a person (despite being a mugger) might be less morally acceptable than the robbery of an old man?D6717C wrote:
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
Has this guy ever left the USA? He seems to think that if guns were removed from the states, then American society would disintegrate into a "Lord of the Flies" type world where the young and fit go around killing anyone they consider different to them. I'm sorry but quite a lot of countries are civilised without guns. I feel sorry for this chap, he doesn't seem to have much faith in Human nature.D6717C wrote:
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
So he's recycling the same point from a couple of paragraphs ago because he's running out of predictable and old pro-gun excuses. It is also very short-sighted as he seems to be saying that the winner of a fight is determined by purely body mass. I'm sure some people from the martial arts world would disagree with him here and it is yet another example of this guy's simplistic argument style.D6717C wrote:
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favour of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
Furthermore, he also implies that all muggers are big burly weightlifter types and is actually exposing himself to a counterargument. Because conversely, the gun allows a smaller guy to mug a bigger guy because the "field is now level" (as he says). Without guns, weedy people would never be muggers so it works both ways, tit.
No you carry it because you fancy yourself as some kind of Magnum PI type, I bet he skanks when he walks too. Real men don't need guns, but try telling this over-compensating twat.D6717C wrote:
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
SEREMAKER or deeznutz posted a topic a few months ago about how some drunk 20 year olds or so wanted to rough up him and his wife, he didn't pull out a gun, she just moved his shirt out of the way to show that he had one and they backed off, no one got hurt.
People here aren't saying that you can't use a gun for protection, we're just ripping on the author's shoddy, unrealistic arguments.
This is the best.....I love watching you guys battle it out in D & S T. Here's were I stand on this. I only agree partially with what the guy wrote in the article, but I am for owning and possessing firearms, so I posted it. I'm not going to pick it apart like Hunter did, which I might add I don't agree with him either but I commend him for providing such an intelligent counter to the author.
I carry a gun every where I go, but not because I want to shoot it out with a gangbanger, fight crime on my days off, feel like a bad-ass or have a small dick. I carry mine because I see on a daily basis all kinds of fucked up violence that occurs, and I choose to have it as an option to protect myself. I refuse to be a victim.
I am all for citizens carrying firearms, however I believe they should be competent and trained to use them. I am a Police Officer, and a Firearms Instructor. I know when to use my gun and the legalities involved. People that are not mature and responsible have no business owning a gun. This also goes for arrogant assholes that own guns because they feel "tough". Guns do not make you tough.
I agree, to a point, that a society that allows it's citizens to own guns will experience more violence because of this fact. I believe that this is mostly due to the fact that asshole criminals steal, buy, or do what it takes to possess and use them. Most of this violence is not from regular legal gun owning follks. But living in the U.S. provides me the right to own one, and regardless of how you feel about our rights you should respect them. I don't think there is anything wrong with contries that don't allow gun ownership, it's just a different way to run your society.
Bottom line is, a gun is only an option. An option to be used only when necessary. But until the end of time there will be people in society that choose not to conform, and prey on the innocent. Like I said, I choose not to be a victim.
I carry a gun every where I go, but not because I want to shoot it out with a gangbanger, fight crime on my days off, feel like a bad-ass or have a small dick. I carry mine because I see on a daily basis all kinds of fucked up violence that occurs, and I choose to have it as an option to protect myself. I refuse to be a victim.
I am all for citizens carrying firearms, however I believe they should be competent and trained to use them. I am a Police Officer, and a Firearms Instructor. I know when to use my gun and the legalities involved. People that are not mature and responsible have no business owning a gun. This also goes for arrogant assholes that own guns because they feel "tough". Guns do not make you tough.
I agree, to a point, that a society that allows it's citizens to own guns will experience more violence because of this fact. I believe that this is mostly due to the fact that asshole criminals steal, buy, or do what it takes to possess and use them. Most of this violence is not from regular legal gun owning follks. But living in the U.S. provides me the right to own one, and regardless of how you feel about our rights you should respect them. I don't think there is anything wrong with contries that don't allow gun ownership, it's just a different way to run your society.
Bottom line is, a gun is only an option. An option to be used only when necessary. But until the end of time there will be people in society that choose not to conform, and prey on the innocent. Like I said, I choose not to be a victim.