You see, that’s the problem. The anti-gun gang says, “We think people should not have guns.” But “people” means individuals like catsix. “People” means me. Why shouldn’t I have a gun? Why shouldn’t catsix? Why shouldn’t almost all of the other gun owners in this country? It’s the ones who really shouldn’t be allowed to have guns – the robbers, the rapists, the murderers, the mentally ill, drug users, etc. that we need to restrict. And we already have laws for that.
Well, Jojo’s position seems to be that you shouldn’t because they are dangerous and unnecessary. The pro-gun gang obviously disagrees, but for some reason often feels compelled to attempt to support their side by making ridiculous claims about the dangers of being unarmed.
Lamia, you’ll have to forgive me for asking you to explain something that must seem terribly obvious to you, but what is ridiculous about a causal link between lack of self-defense ability and a state of being unarmed?
I’ll do better than that, just this once I’ll forgive you for misrepresenting my position too.
Does lack of a firearm reduce a person’s self-defense options? Sure. So does lack of a cannon or nuclear warhead. Luckily, there are many other self-defense options available. Even more luckily, in most self-defense situations weapons are unnecessary. In many the use of even unarmed violence is unnecessary.
While many in the “pro-gun camp” are happy to paint a picture of the world as a place where the unarmed woman will be instantly robbed, raped, and murdered as soon as she sets foot outside her door – or even before she sets foot outside her door – it just isn’t true. Believe me, if we truly lived in such a nightmare world I’d be the first to start packing a pistol. But many people in the real world will never be the victim of a serious violent crime, regardless of their gun-carrying status. This is because crime is the exception, not the norm. Additionally, some people who do habitually carry a gun will be the victim of violent crime anyway, because simply having a gun and knowing how to use it is not always enough to stop an attacker.
Anyone who wishes to defend gun ownership is going to have to do better than “But the evil criminals will kill me the instant I give up my gun!” Frankly, I think people who think that way are the last people who should have guns, because they are clearly out of touch with reality.
Oh, I see, a crime will happen to an insignificant minority of the population that we may safely ignore. The danger is, on a societal level, insignificant. Hey, you are willing to take that risk, and you are obviously a calm, sane rational person, so it thus follows directly as a consequence that the rest of us don’t need to own a gun for the purposes of self defense. Because, as you admit, if there were “really” a need, you’d be the first one chattering to have the right to bear arms! I think I got it now.
Next on Lamia’s list: suing ADT home alarm system company for preying on people’s irrational fears. Fight the good fight, m’dear.
I believe the tactic that remains is “lie there and take it like a bitch.” Thankfully, only a small percentage of women need to worry about rape. We’ll just provide them counselling and pepper spray. Oo, oo, the kind with the dye in it!
Thanks, but no thanks.
Having been there I can say that those ‘other means’ of self defense were worth diddly complete squat to me when I desperately needed some way to even the playing field so that I had any kind of decent odds of getting out of that situation with my skin intact.
The ‘pro-gun’ gang believes that people should have the free choice to decide what their individual level of preparedness for potentially being the target of violent crime will be.
You on the other hand have decided that those who will one day be attacked are such an ‘insignificant’ portion of the population that you’re willing to say that owning a gun as a potential self defense tool is utterly silly and that you don’t think it should happen at all.
What I want to know is who gave you the right to decide which gambles to take with my life?
You decided that owning and/or carrying a gun isn’t worth it to you because the likelihood that you will be attacked does not in your mind reach a high enough risk level. I have decided that the risk level, while small, is still existent and that I will prepare for such events to the best of my ability.
I have made the same assessment about fires in my home, and thus have smoke detectors and a fire extinguisher. The risk, small though it is, that I will ever need to rely on one of these devices to save my life, exists. I have chosen to be prepared.
However, you also seem to equate preparedness with paranoia. That’s unfortunate, because they’re not the same thing. Being prepared is having a fire extinguisher and knowing how to operate it. Being paranoid is pointing the fire extinguisher at the stove every time you fry a hamburger. Being prepared, to me, is owning a gun and practicing with it. Being paranoid would be stalking my yard like a swat team every time I leave the house.
I don’t do the latter.
But back to my question:
Why do you think you should decide what gambles to take with my life?
Johnny, erislover, catsox , et al–
Admittedly, I come down on the anti-gun side, but I’m not rabid about it, but what is so hard about what Lamia said in her first post that is so hard to get your mind around? SMUsax said-
to which Lamia replied–
She’s refuting his assertion that denying a woman a gun is denying her life. I have to agree that this assertion is not true. My Gramma made it to 80 without owning a gun. If there is one white crow, not all crow are black. Will that do, or shall I draw a diagram?
Regarding gambling with your safety, catsix , and all of ours, society does it all the time. A Geo Metro is no match for an old Barracuda in an accident, but society has determined that the benefits of better mileage outweigh the protection afforded by driving a hulking mass of steel. Something like 140 people were hit last year on city streets in San Francisco, yet plans for skywalks throughout downtown have yet to be made. We don’t have enough police officers to prevent all, or even most, crime, but funding to pay cops like ballplayers has yet to be found. You can reduce your personal risk, and take steps to prevent being crushed in an auto accident by buying a Volvo, an by being hit crossing the street by being really cautious, or only walking on quiet streets, or by arming yourself, but don’t delude yourself by thinking that you’ve eliminated all risk, or that your life isn’t being gambled with constantly.
Sounds kinda like MadMax to me.
Right, because it’s always a black man. Or did you just throw that in so you could bitch about profiling?
Right. And what exactly is stopping these people from borrowing a gun from their law abiding brother? Oh, the law. So banning all guns will mean that only criminals will have them- I assume you hold that central tenet of the pro-gun crowd. But, if law abiding citizens are allowed to have guns, and criminals aren’t allowed to, then only law abiding citizens will have guns- and also the criminals who would have to break the law to get a gun. Clearly, the current system doesn’t really work.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Great Dave *
**
Right, because it’s always a black man. Or did you just throw that in so you could bitch about profiling?
No, its because the story was a real story, one that I am extremely familiar with.
Read the actual events others have posted. The current system is better than the alternative.
I fail to see how the story being real and well known to you has to do with it. It just seems that, in general, if the person is black, it is so stated, but if the person is white, no mention of race is made. Perhaps the reason is because as whites, one of the first things about black people we notice is that they are black, and vice versa. I think I remember something from Psych 101 along those lines.
–simulpost–
Johnny-- I’m not saying that the only alternative to what we have now is a universal ban on guns, just that the one we have now is working out real well. Agreed? Or perhaps 10,000 handgun deaths are well within your bounds for tolerable loss.
If one could only start the world over, one could consider starting it without civilian gun ownership. Unfortunately, gun ownership is so widespread that there’s no way to eliminate guns. One can only eliminate guns from law-abiding citizens.
E.g, in Sydney, Australia, armed hold-ups have increased massively following the introduction of gun bans a few years ago.
http://timblair.blogspot.com/?/2002_03_31_timblair_archive.html
erl, I said I would forgive you once for misrepresenting my position.
Well GD, I guess this about covers your statement of "So banning all guns will mean that only criminals will have them- I assume you hold that central tenet of the pro-gun crowd. "
It is what happened in Australia, England, and probably anywhere else it has been tried.
If you bothered to look you can find statements from the criminals themselves that they would be less likely to attack/rob someone if they had a suspicion that they might be armed. Its called a deterrent (sp?).
My suggestion for all who believe that individuals do not have a right to self defense, particularly within their own home, is to place a sign in your yard declaring your home to be a gun free zone. You talk the talk, walk the walk.
Guns?
Fools!
The second amendment clearly states that inorder to maintain your SECURITY and FREEDOM, the people must have the right to keep and bear ARMS.
ARMS… tanks, bazokas, F-16’s, A-10 Thunderbolts, Heavy Artillary, and perhaps a Nuklear missile or two…
If you READ IT for yourself, it’s meaning is quite clear. Anyone who say you don’t need and can’t have a (particular) weapon is INFRINGING your RIGHTS.
So answer the following question before you freak out on me.
Drive-by shootings has become a major problem in many large cities all over the US. Would you be willing to drive-by and shoot at my house if you KNEW that I had a Hummer with a 50mm fully automatic cannon in a top mounted turit just sitting in the garage?
Now that would take a bit outa crime!
This is the REASON for the Second Amendment. God Bless America!
In Muslim countries, a woman’s skin must by fully covered, but women in American have the right to bare arms.
Hudley - here is what I said:
My point is that while a total ban might not work, the patchwork system of regulations we have no isn’t so hot, either. I realize, december, that it’d be practically impossible to start from scratch. But we’re pretty smart people, aren’t we? Not just the ones on this board, but the US population in general. Surely we can come up with some solution. Like instead of spending billions on the War on (some) Drugs, we could use the money to create a less violent culture. Call me crazy, but I think that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, the cure here being more guns.
and ps- december how’s that joke go about distributing guns to ursine mammals? something about the right to arm bears?
From the context, I believe he was refering to his “tiny girl” example. It is still hyperbole, I’ll give you that.
Let me see if I have your posistion clear: you think that crime happens too rarely for it to be a sufficient reason for law-abiding people to be armed?
It’s been posted recently in another thread, but I’ll mention it here again. The estimates for defensive guns uses in this country range from a conservative 83,000 per year to a liberal 2 million. Even if you only accept the low end as accurate (which is unlikely, since it only shows reported defensive gun uses), there are 83,000 people per year that have used their guns to protect themselves. Still not sufficient?
That’s obviously not what she’s saying, Demise, else I wouldn’t have been accused of misrepresenting her again.
Can’t figure out what she is saying, but I guess it is just because my mind is clouded with violent fantasies of shooting my gun at everything within sight in the illusional, personal world where crime affects people and the police aren’t there to stop it.