[email protected]
Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2008
- Messages
- 5
My parents are violently anti-gun Democrats. Over the last 8 months, I’ve been learning more about guns and figuring out that their position didn’t make any sense to me. Eventually, I made up my mind, so I bought a gun and joined what they consider to be the Dark Side.
Recently, though, I’ve been getting in a lot of gun-related arguments with my father, a very emotional man whose only experience with guns was having a couple of junkies shove one in his face as a cab driver 30 years ago. He seems to have a somewhat alarming view of humans; his opinion is that people are basically fundamentally irrational, irresponsible, emotional powderkegs who can’t be trusted with weapons. When I bring up the police and military, he strangely enough says it’s okay for them to carry, though! When I mention that civilians can get training equal to or superior to that of law enforcement, he says that training is basically irrelevant because:
“[the police] operate in social situations that come with codes of honor, notions of duty, interdependence, etc, that are always being reinforced, in subtle and not so subtle ways, while an individual, even with impeccable training, is still an individual… Social pressure can help some groups to respect gun use, rather than abuse it… A cohesive group can keep individuals in line better than an individual can keep an individual in line”
I just have no frame of reference for addressing this. It’s always been my opinion that we’re masters of our own destinies and responsible for our actions — and that a part of that packaged deal is that we possess the capacity for rational thought and wise decision-making. He’s basically arguing against all of this. Is there any possible way I can respond?
Recently, though, I’ve been getting in a lot of gun-related arguments with my father, a very emotional man whose only experience with guns was having a couple of junkies shove one in his face as a cab driver 30 years ago. He seems to have a somewhat alarming view of humans; his opinion is that people are basically fundamentally irrational, irresponsible, emotional powderkegs who can’t be trusted with weapons. When I bring up the police and military, he strangely enough says it’s okay for them to carry, though! When I mention that civilians can get training equal to or superior to that of law enforcement, he says that training is basically irrelevant because:
“[the police] operate in social situations that come with codes of honor, notions of duty, interdependence, etc, that are always being reinforced, in subtle and not so subtle ways, while an individual, even with impeccable training, is still an individual… Social pressure can help some groups to respect gun use, rather than abuse it… A cohesive group can keep individuals in line better than an individual can keep an individual in line”
I just have no frame of reference for addressing this. It’s always been my opinion that we’re masters of our own destinies and responsible for our actions — and that a part of that packaged deal is that we possess the capacity for rational thought and wise decision-making. He’s basically arguing against all of this. Is there any possible way I can respond?