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. 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. 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. 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 guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender. 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 [armed] 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. 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 favor 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 weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable. 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.
I really like this passage. I don't remember who wrote it first. I thought it was Massad Ayoob but I could be wrong.
Oh, you WANT an accident to happen to my family... >>>mod edit PA>>> To imply that an accident were to happen to me with a gun, is to imply that I am irresponsible. <<<mod edit PA>>> Just because you don't trust yourself with a gun, don't throw the rest of us in with your pathetic lot. The only time my gun leaves the safe is if it is in a holster on my hip, and I never put it down. The ONLY time a gun discharges is when the trigger is pulled, it will never just go off by itself, that is impossible. My family and everyone around me when I am in public are 10X more safe. I am trained and I happen to be a gun safety advocate. Accidents don't happen with me. If these accidents were more prominent like your making it sound, with 80 million+ gun owners, we would be in a world of (*)(*)(*)(*). <<<mod edit>>> PA
"The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret) originally by Marko Kloos The wording of this letter felt as if every sentence covered my feeling about the situation.
Better to have and not need than to need and not have......... Knowledge about firearms would benefit everyone whether you need it or not.......
Must be a horrible feeling to know that you live in an area where you have to carry a gun all the time; tho' I don't buy your concept of elderly being on equal footing with a 19 year old gang banger if they are armed.
Accidents happen to people who don't fully understand the safety aspect, and scince accidents are rare compared to the amount of gun owners in America, I claim your little accident theory eroneous at best. - - - Updated - - - How does it not? There are plenty of reports supporting this.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/Suspected-robber-shot-by-elderly-man-4345986.php http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ear-old-woman-shoots-and-kills-home-intruder/ http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder911-operators-shoot/story?id=15285605 These are things that we call a clue.
I don't have an accident theory pal. I just know they happen and owning and carrying handguns increases the odds of them happening and if one happens with your gun , I hope it remains a family affair! cheers!
Most (but not all) elderly cannot physically handle a gun such as a shotgun, high powered rifle or handgun; their reflexes are slow, some of them due to advanced age cannot make rational decisions; it would be like allowing a small child to arm themself with a gun. Its just too dangerous.
There are probably close to 80-90 million senior citizens in this country; can you provide me with at least 1 million cited examples like the 3 you posted??
A representative sample is enough to prove our point. Can you provide examples that refute our point that a senior has the same maximum force level without a gun in their possession?
So you are concerned about the accident equation eh? Hmmmm What else should we legislate? What do you propose as a solution to the accident equation?
Doesn't matter where you live eh? Besides protecting myself from the evil in humans, I like having protection against aggressive animals. Besides if we get a few more hundreds of thousands of citizens with guns, it won't matter about the gang banger with a gun eh? - - - Updated - - - Rest assured...It does
How about these examples: http://habaneroheat.blogspot.com/2006/02/update-on-vice-president-cheney.html http://mortality-rates.findthedata.org/l/10466/Accidental-discharge-of-firearms http://mortality-rates.findthedata.org/l/10572/Accidental-discharge-of-firearms http://mortality-rates.findthedata.org/l/13267/Accidental-discharge-of-firearms http://www.kaaltv.com/article/stories/s2862534.shtml http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/12/11/man-shoots-granddaughter-thinking-shes-an-intruder/ http://articles.ky3.com/2011-10-22/grandfather_30311868 http://www.connectamarillo.com/news/story.aspx?id=621143 http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2145433
- - - Updated - - - So let me get this straight, old people should just die at the hands of criminals because you think they aren't capable of using a weapon to protect themselves, How Obama-care of you. - - - Updated - - - LOL no I think it's drama with no basis in reality actually
