So should "politeness" be based on mutual respect and a desire to be kind to one another, or on fear that the other person may pull a gun if they don't take a liking to your sass? Because it the latter sounds less like politeness and more like being bullied.
(h/t +George Wiman)
Embedded Link
Hullabaloo
Digby’s Hullabaloo 2801 Ocean Park Blvd. Box 157. Santa Monica, Ca 90405. Infomania Buzzflash · Cursor · Raw Story · Salon · Slate · Prospect · New Republic · Common Dreams · AmericanPoliticsJournal · Smirking Chimp · Crisis Papers MediA-Go-Go BagNewsNotes · Crooks and Liars …
60 view(s)
It sounds nice to be nice, but I'm not planning on a sociopath being nice. I'll be nice as ever, but I'll also hang on to my defensive tools.
Sheep get eaten for a reason: predators don't respect easy prey.
+Ryan M. Danks The problem is, you also end up arming the predators, too. And the sociopaths. And just the sheep with poor judgment about when it's appropriate to use deadly force against someone they think is possibly preying on them with too-loud music.
No system is perfect, but one allows you to defend yourself and your family, while the other leaves you at the mercy of others.
One requires you worry about everyone, the other only that you worry about actual miscreants.
You don't have to worry about everyone. It's exactly the same as a "gunless" society.
Sure, someone could get up and put a weapon in your face because you offended them, played music they didn't like, cut them off on the road, etc., but a big guy could get up and knock you out (potentially kill you) for the same reasons. And they know you don't have a weapon, so they won't be shy about it.
Weapons are great equalizers for weak, elderly, or otherwise average individuals against those prone to (and physically equipped for) violence.
There's irresponsibility and violent crime in society. That's never going to change. At least allowing weapons gives the average citizen a chance in a violent encounter against one or more assailants.
I guess the question comes down to whether you are (a) more concerned about criminals than (deadly-weapon-empowered) idiots, and (b) confident that you'll be able to outdraw a criminal in case of a problem.
What worries you is, indeed, at the heart of the argument. Though I would argue that "deadly-weapon-empowered idiots" are criminals. They are not deploying their weapons according to the law, and thus should have their right to bear arms removed, as it is now infringing on the rights of others and breaking established laws.
I am more confident that I'm able to outdraw an assailant than I am confident that I'll be healthy and fit enough everyday to fight off an attacker (or several) barehanded. Even injured, I can draw and squeeze a trigger, but not necessarily fight back in hand-to-hand combat.
+Ryan M. Danks The problem is the risk from deadly-weapon-empowered idiots can have lethal consequences in demonstrating they are not deploying their weapons according to the law.
And, yes, I agree that having a gun is an equalizer in an attack against one or several aggressors. That said, I've never personally been in a circumstance where one was needed, and, assuming someone did decide they wanted my wallet, or my car, I would likely be more willing to turn them over than want to fight with deadly force to avoid doing so.
It's fortunate that most have not been in such a circumstance. However, to put the point in context of the potential danger, and hoping not to offend, what if the villain wanted your wife or daughter?
Money is easy to part with, and I would likely give it up to an armed assailant, despite being armed myself, so as to avoid a violent encounter, but I would not be so consensual to imminent harm to myself or my family.
Without a defensive tool at least equal to the threat, I am very likely to lose, and the consequences of failure could be greater than requiring loan money for a time.
+Ryan M. Danks Until I'm convinced that the imminent risk of such an attack is higher than the risk of having a bunch of ordinary folk carrying and being ready to exercise their individual judgments about which situations call for waving their guns around, I just don't see it as a positive trade-off. Not to minimize the potential costm but realizing there's a risk in either direction.
Fair enough. I think we've come to a close here, so I'll leave it with something facetious.
Without firearms in the hands of civilians, we'd be limited to baseball bats and knives to defend ourselves during the zombie apocalypse. 🙂
+Ryan M. Danks Well, then, okay, now you've given me something new to worry about … thanks!
1) Sociopath does not equal killer, and vice-versa.
2) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26222578
3) Even if what Ryan says is true then (it isn’t) then armed lunatic vs armed normal person still isn’t equal. Because normal people pause before killing.
@LH. Yup, yup, yup.