Put here instead of Cafe Society because of the inevitable debate that will follow.
Tonight (Friday 4-10-09 10:00 pm Eastern 9:00 pm Central) ABC’s 20/20 will air a show addressing the subject of armed self-defense. From the promos I’ve seen and discussions I’ve read on the Internet it looks like it will be anti-gun, with a scenerio supposedly demonstrating that being armed would not save you if a gunman attacked you unexpectedly. I haven’t been able to find a video clip of the promo but here’s my description:
[voiceover:] “When it comes to protecting yourself…”
[stock footage of police standoffs and SWAT team mobilizations]
[voiceover:] “You may think ‘If I only had a gun’…”
[the segment theme picture, a hand holding a revolver]
[voiceover:] “But would you be able to defend yourself in a crisis?”
[simulation of a gunman opening fire on a roomful of people]
[voiceover:] “And what about the pull of guns on kids?”
[footage of kids playing with guns: a toddler stares down the barrel of a revolver; one young child laughs and points a gun at another; a teen pretends to hold a gun to his head]
[voiceover:] “Diane Sawyer investigates with David Moore. ‘If I only had a gun’.”
[the segment theme picture, a hand holding a revolver]
In a recent gun control thread, I remember saying it’s unfortunate that these issues don’t get a lot of discussion in the press or TV news. I wouldn’t expect much, but if they’re at least willing to debate the positives and negatives of carrying a gun or costs and benefits of no-gun zones around schools, that’s probably a good thing.
Indeed, “defend yourself” is one of a wide variety of possible uses for a gun. My personal favorite is as a seed, bury it somewhere and see if a Smith and Wesson tree sprouts…
In a pinch, I find a pistol to be a great substitute hammer. You just have to grip the barrel firmly, and make sure it’s fully loaded so you get the advantage of the extra weight.
I have a room full of hammers, but I’m saving them to defend myself when the One World Government agents kick in my screen door.
I win something for stating the blazingly, blndingly obvious?
Oh oh oh, do I win the internet? I’ve always wanted to win the internet.
After we get done debating whether or not the ability to accurately place a piece of lead with massive kinetic energy in the body of someone trying to harm you would allow you to defend yourself from them, we can also debate whether or not dihydrogen monoxide is wet at room temperature and if an ongoing stellar nuclear reaction is bright.
Anything else you feel needs to be debated, in the meanwhile?
Do you suspect, perhaps, that the real question is “Are guns as effective a tool of self-defense as is commonly supposed?”
Also, I often hear: “Boo hoo, the media is so biased against guns, they always highlight guns being used to murder people and never their less criminal uses.” Now you tell me, “Stupid 20/20 special, of course guns can kill people. Case closed.”
There’s a difference between “blazingly, blindingly obvious” and “true”.
You seem to be taking “the ability to accurately place”, etc. as a given. Maybe that’s the point of the debate. In the real world, in the midst of a daily routine, taken completely by surprise, how many people could properly identify a target and use a firearm in a way that would do more good than harm?
You’re shifting the goalposts. The question isn’t “how proficient is the average person with a gun?” but “are guns effective tools of self defense?”
It’s presupposed that one must use any tool properly in order for it to be effective.
If someone asked “Is Banzai a technique for artfully trimming miniature trees?”
Is the answer “Yes, Banzai trees can be truly spectacular.” or “No. Because most people don’t know how to do it properly.”
How about “Is a crane an effective tool to move heavy loads up to high places?”
Is the answer “Yes, that is a crane’s function.” Or is it “No, because without proper training the average person is much more likely to make a mess of things than use the crane properly.”
