Oleg Volk
Moderator Emeritus
This is where we stand after several back-and-forth emails.
Anyone care to address specific points? I'll point the gentleman who originated the discussion to this thread.
>There's a small chance that one won't do well under stress. That
>chance is, in my opinion, much smaller than not doing well if under
>the same stress and unarmed to begin with.
Or perhaps overreact with fatal consequences?
>Moreover, smart folks don't seek trouble.
I'm not concerned about smart folks. I'm concerned with the other 90% of the
population.
>My chance of getting into
>a fight is low due to my choices of behavior. If I get into a fight
>in my lifetime, I have a good chance of having Betty or another
>friend by my side, so even if I am out cold, my backup might save
>the day.
Again, an overreaction to a "bar fight" or some otherwise miniscule
altercation that might end up with someone dead. The average argument might be enhanced with fatal consequences if a gun were strapped to ones' leg.
>Having guns isn't a perfect choice. Fire extinguishers aren't
>perfect, either...but both solve more problems than they create.
>Same with surgery, cars, any other technology.
Fire extinguishers aren't used to commit crimes, nor is surgery. Cars maybe
but they aren't so easily concealed or disposed of. Why inject more weapons
into the public domain? (Even if they're privately owned, there is a chance
they'll be lost or stolen)
>Driving is a more complex activity than
>shooting but it is similar enough: driving creates problems but they
>aren't as severe as the problems solved by it (efficient
>transportation, no injuries from kicking horses, no manure in the
>streets, independence of public transportation, etc.)
But to someone who's committing a crime (including a legal gun owner), what
would they most likely think of first? Gun or car? I don't think it's
correct to relate guns with any other "tools" out there.
>General public doesn't carry guns.
I'm thinking about what many gun proponents want, which is a basically a
militia state. That is, they want guns in the hands of just about everyone,
or at least the right to do so.
>Some are unsafe to self and others, but
>they are rare.
I don't see how you could possibly know this as a fact.
>Can't trample on the rights of the rest based on the
>mis-deeds of a few careless or stupid people.
Yes, this happens all the time. Otherwise I'd be bungie-jumping or rock
climbing on the Pacific Coast (both illegal because of inexperienced people
getting injured or dying). Furthermore, rights are only defined by those who
govern us.
>Actually, most people are cool-headed. Outside of the turf wars,
>people seldom use violence.
This concept is foreign to me. Obviously, perhaps due to geographic
location, you don't live near me (California).
>Trust to friends is an issue which you may wish to address
>regardless of firearms. If I don't trust a person to come to my home
>armed, I wouldn't trust them in general.
It's not a moral trust, it's more of a practical trust. That is, with the
best intentions I've had people accidentally break things at my house...just
because they are friends doesn't mean that they are fit to carry a weapon.
>That is their problem. I can't vouch for crazy or unstable or
>irresponsible people, only for myself. And I say that making public
>policy based on the worst examples of humanity is detrimental to the
>good of every individual, and to the good of all.
But it is OUR problem as a society. You *must* consider them when pushing an initiative such as this. To ignore that factor, which is great enough to be
considered, would be deadly. And I can say the opposite: making public
policy based on a few people in some rural state carrying concealed weapons
is also detrimental--you *must* consider the whole. I don't care how many
guns you have--someone always has more, bigger, stronger, etc.
>Using a gun inside a vehicle is very hard, maybe that's why few
>people do so?
Road rage often (mostly?) involves two parties pulled over or in a parking
lot--what would maybe be a fistfight might be more if Steve the Businessman
is stressed and pissed and has a gun.
>I am not suggesting that guns solve problems. People solve problems,
>mainly through negotiating, retreating, reasoning, sometimes through
>using tools including guns. But exclusion of guns from the full set
>of available tools is what I am unhappy about.
I agree 99%, but I think we each lean a little on different sides of the
fence, if you will.
It has been informative and you may keep replying if you like though I think
I get your point completely.
Anyone care to address specific points? I'll point the gentleman who originated the discussion to this thread.