Is the damage to society from guns worth the freedom to have guns?

Status
Not open for further replies.
As someone who has never owned a gun and somehow manages to navigate this scary, scary world without one, I see the scale weigh on the side of too much damage.
Click to expand...

And, statistically, you probably never will be in a situation in which a gun would be required to extract yourself. Your success rate in navigating this scary, scary world unharmed has thus far been 100%. For those who do come under deadly threat, their success rate is zero.

Those people who have never been in a serious highway accident still wear seat belts, and chefs who've never had a stove fire still keep a fire extinguisher handy...or at least they do if they're smart. The adage about "Hope for the best/Prepare for the worst" is a good rule to observe.

I once heard a wise man address the question of carrying a defensive sidearm in today's increasingly perilous world, and he spoke from real experience.

"A pistol is a lot like an ambulance. We don't need one very often, but when we do, we need it desperately and we need it immediately."
 
There are bad people out there who will do bad things to you given the chance. I want to be able to defend myself from those people. Removing guns from the hands of law abiding citizens only leaves them defenseless for the wolves, since the bad people do not obey laws and can always get guns on the so called black market. Or anything else they want for that matter, from organs to babies to women to drugs to...

Many people go blissfully through life without ever running into some one who will do them harm, and that is a good thing, but many will suffer the opposite fate, and be robbed, raped, murdered, and even worse. A gun gives them a very good chance to defend themselves, and that is exactly what happens millions of times in the USA. Guns stop many rapes, murders etc every year.

A country where the politicians are afraid to let free men own arms, is a country to be wary of. I want to be free, in a free country. If I am not allowed to own a gun, I am not free, but a merely subject to the government.

Regulation leads to confiscation which has lead to genocide or other government atrocities in many counties. It never leads to less crime or more freedom.
 
Walkalong said:
There are bad people out there who will do bad things to you given the chance.
Click to expand...

I'll direct you to an incident that occurred in Early, TX just this past sunday (29th of July) at an RV park. A man got upset that a couple's dogs had "messed" on his "lawn" (this is an RV park so I'm confused at the term lawn). He argued with the male owner of the dogs, went into his RV and returned to shoot and kill the owner and his dog then shot the man's female companion and another dog with a handgun but apparently also had a rifle with him.
Another occupant of the park heard the shots, got his .357 revolver, and from about 75 yards (so the report goes) fires and hits the bad guy in the thigh just as the police arrive. The police officer is scrambling for his AR while the bad guy chambers another round and shoots at the guy that shot him in the leg. The "good guy" with the revolver then states in his televised interview "I then put another 4 rounds into him" (the bad guy).

So...damage to society/freedom to have guns related? Hmmmm....I'm going with the good guy eliminating further casualties and glad he had his .357 and knew how to use it.
 
Here's a fun counter-point to the OP's premise:

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/07/mailvox-aussie-logic.html

The focus is on guns and social damage. If I recall, some horrific ethnic cleansing in Africa were accomplished by militia armed with machetes and clubs 'cause bullets get expensive before long.

You read much like a graduate fellow of the Frankfurt School with strong anti-Chomsky leanings but I'm undecided if you are channeling Fromm or Marcuse. Regardless, you are one of the faithful.
 
I'm 78 years old. My back hurts. I have arthritis in my shoulders. I'm gonna go all Karate or Krav Maga on some streetworm that tries to mug me? After all, I'm a fairly easy kill--from a physical ability standpoint. Don't need a broken hip at my age, either. So, no, I'm gonna put the laser dot in his big middle and give a whole new meaning to "light him up".

Folks don't need guns to do bad things. Guns are quite effective tools to end that nonsense--and often are only tool for the job.

That's been obvious for many and many a generation, but young folks like the OP don't seem to know much history. Fortunately, ignorance is indeed curable.
 
Fortunately, ignorance is indeed curable.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Who was it that said:

"Every man should have to fight for his life one time, so that he can understand that eggs don't come from the market and protection doesn't come from policemen."

There are bad people out there who will do bad things to you given the chance.
Click to expand...

Yes. Morlock eat Eloi.
 
Too often, enlightenment comes in the ER and is codified during rehab and physical therapy. Survivors of violence who choose strength and train become wonderful teachers of self-reliance, witnessed many times during over a dozen years as a volunteer with a rural EMS agency.
 
I would rather we ban deadly trampolines since they kill or injure more people than firearms and are not specifically named in the Bill of Rights as a protected right not to be denied to all citizens.

Why?

Because:

http://www.fscip.org/tramp.html

Besides, firearms aren’t even close to the top killer in American society.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm/

And if you’ve never seen a bottle pick itself up and pour itself then you should also admit you’ve never seen a gun point itself at a person and pull its own trigger.
 
Trisha said:
Here's a fun counter-point to the OP's premise:

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/07/mailvox-aussie-logic.html

The focus is on guns and social damage. If I recall, some horrific ethnic cleansing in Africa were accomplished by militia armed with machetes and clubs 'cause bullets get expensive before long.

You read much like a graduate fellow of the Frankfurt School with strong anti-Chomsky leanings but I'm undecided if you are channeling Fromm or Marcuse. Regardless, you are one of the faithful.
Click to expand...
Trish... there are multiple ways to counter-point the premise. For the more logical thinker your article is good with the numbers. Mine is going for the more emotional thinker who says, regardless of all "evidence," that guns are "bad because they hurt people."

We can tell them all day long that, no, it is the PEOPLE who use guns who hurt other people. They are not going to listen to that argument, though. Mine is a different approach that clearly states that people hurting other people, regardless of how it is done, is part and parcel of freedom. If you then want to attempt to stop other people from hurting innocent people, you have to be willing to give up a chunk of that freedom. In some ways it is much more of a pro-freedom article than it is pro-firearm.

And bite your tongue about Fromm... I'd rather mistakenly be called an outright gun hater than be compared to David Frumm. :)
 
Last edited:
Art Eatman said:
I'm 78 years old. My back hurts. I have arthritis in my shoulders. I'm gonna go all Karate or Krav Maga on some streetworm that tries to mug me? After all, I'm a fairly easy kill--from a physical ability standpoint. Don't need a broken hip at my age, either. So, no, I'm gonna put the laser dot in his big middle and give a whole new meaning to "light him up".

Folks don't need guns to do bad things. Guns are quite effective tools to end that nonsense--and often are only tool for the job.

That's been obvious for many and many a generation, but young folks like the OP don't seem to know much history. Fortunately, ignorance is indeed curable.
Click to expand...
Art, did you actually read the article or are you assuming you know what is in it?
 
Maximumbob54 said:
And if you’ve never seen a bottle pick itself up and pour itself then you should also admit you’ve never seen a gun point itself at a person and pull its own trigger.
Click to expand...

I think that is quite clear in the article as a correlation but for those who have trouble with nuance I might put it in.
 
JackBurtonJr said:
yes I know the damage is not done from the guns but from the choices of people, but headlines are written to attack hits from Google, not to be accurate.
Click to expand...
Good to see your willingness to deceive people, just as long as you benefit from it. You may as well have sent us a link to a tabloid, then asked us to critique the lies in it.

Why mods didn't close this thread a long time ago is beyond me.
 
If you then want to attempt to stop other people from hurting innocent people, you have to be willing to give up a chunk of that freedom. In some ways it is much more of a pro-freedom article than it is pro-firearm.
Click to expand...
Almost an accurate assessment. A better way to say it would be, "If you want to PRETEND that you could stop other people from hurting innocent people...," because we cannot do that -- we've tried every possible social model for eons now -- and it doesn't work. All we can do is penalize (i.e.- "victimize") the "good" people who agree to go along with the program.

In the mean time, plenty of liars will sell the gullible on the idea that THIS TIME it will work and really, really be for the good of all. We promise. Just trust us.
 
Sam1911 said:
Almost an accurate assessment. A better way to say it would be, "If you want to PRETEND that you could stop other people from hurting innocent people...," because we cannot do that -- we've tried every possible social model for eons now -- and it doesn't work. All we can do is penalize (i.e.- "victimize") the "good" people who agree to go along with the program.

In the mean time, plenty of liars will sell the gullible on the idea that THIS TIME it will work and really, really be for the good of all. We promise. Just trust us.
Click to expand...
Well, Sam, seeing you're a moderator I am glad that you got more out of the discussion than bob did. :)

As are as "pretend," for these people who believe in gun control it is not pretend. They really believe it. They know in their hearts that if gun control is done one more time with just the right key or combination it will work. Really. Honestly.

As I mentioned before, the soft core believers are the ones whom we can reach. The hard core ones I think are beyond simple persuasion. But those who are believers merely because of happenstance and upbringing... those we can persuade. But we sometimes have to start where they are... not where we want them to be.
 
Bobson said:
Good to see your willingness to deceive people, just as long as you benefit from it. You may as well have sent us a link to a tabloid, then asked us to critique the lies in it.

Why mods didn't close this thread a long time ago is beyond me.
Click to expand...
Bob... you're welcome to point out any "lies" in the article.
 
citizenzen said:
The wikipedia page for John Lott mentions and National Academy of Sciences study on the issue. Here an excerpt from the Major Conclusions ...
...For example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime ...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
[1] Yes, current data and research is inconclusive one way or the other on the question of whether the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime. But that appears to focus on crime rate statistics.

[2] However, the Major Conclusion section included the following:
Empirical research on firearms and violence has resulted in important findings that can inform policy decisions....that firearms are used defensively many times per day,...
Click to expand...

[3] We further have the data I've referred to before regarding incidents of successful DGU.

[4] So whether or not we can conclusive establish that right-to-carry laws have led to an increase or a decrease in violent crime rate, we can hypothesize that right-to-carry laws have allowed private citizens to prevent the occurrence of violent crimes and to avoid becoming victims of violent crime.
 
But we sometimes have to start where they are... not where we want them to be.
Click to expand...
I'm really not sure what that means.

I accept that they are where they are. But that's because of ignorance and fear. I won't justify or coddle that ignorance and fear, but counter and refute it.

I can be a very gentle and understanding persuader, but I'm not going to lie or lend verity to fear.
 
JackBurtonJr said:
Bob... you're welcome to point out any "lies" in the article.
Click to expand...
I didn't say your article contains lies; I said you're deceiving people, and I stand by that. I might have used the word misleading instead of deceiving to get my point across more effectively.

As a writer, you know how easy it is to twist information to present an idea that may or may not be the truth. In this case, your essay is about violence by people, through objects. The idea to be extracted is that if guns didn't exist, there might be less violence in our society. I can't say that's an outright lie, but it is ridiculously improbable, and therefore, extremely misleading.

ETA: My point is that I could use this topic to write articles supporting both sides of this issue, and I wouldn't have to change too much either way. Having said that, if I wanted to write a pro-gun article, there are far better ways to do it than this; whereas if I wanted to write an anti-gun article, this wouldn't be a bad route to take. The reason is that the truth about violence is naturally supportive of the RKBA. In contrast, an anti-gun article must rely on deception and weak logical conclusions if its going to win anybody over.
 
Last edited:
Sam1911 said:
I'm really not sure what that means.

I accept that they are where they are. But that's because of ignorance and fear. I won't justify or coddle that ignorance and fear, but counter and refute it.

I can be a very gentle and understanding persuader, but I'm not going to lie or lend verity to fear.
Click to expand...

Ah, but Sam, the question is then "how" is the ignorance and fear properly countered and refuted. And the answer to that is "it depends."

Some people respond better to some styles of persuasion than others, and some people better use some styles of persuasion than others. The idea situation is to match both the anti-gun person and the pro-gun person up who have similar styles so that the best persuasive job can be done.

Acknowledging where someone is at is neither justifying or coddling them. It is a statement of fact.

For instance, if I give feedback to an anti-gun person by saying, "Fred, you believe that all guns are evil and should be abolished" that is indeed a statement of fact. That is exactly what Fred believes. The statement in itself doesn't say anything about where Fred himself is in error or not and is a completely true statement.

However, it allows me to then, now that Fred and I are on the same page, to walk Fred thru either emotionally or logically to show him the error of his belief. I have a starting point. I know the direction to go, and how far Fred needs to go.

But the key is the starting point. If I don't start there... the Fred and I may just be on two separate journeys and wind up speaking past one another.

That's why my starting point of the article sounds so false so some people. They know that Fred is incorrect in believing that gun are evil, and they simply cannot accept that the statement, ""Fred, you believe that all guns are evil and should be abolished" is both a true and accurate statement, and yet false at the same time. They focus on the falsity of the statement without seen the truth of it.

There are certainly many different ways to persuade someone. If other people feel more comfortable using other ways that is fine with me.
 
Art Eatman said:
I'm 78 years old. My back hurts. I have arthritis in my shoulders. I'm gonna go all Karate or Krav Maga on some streetworm that tries to mug me? After all, I'm a fairly easy kill--from a physical ability standpoint. Don't need a broken hip at my age, either. So, no, I'm gonna put the laser dot in his big middle and give a whole new meaning to "light him up".

Folks don't need guns to do bad things. Guns are quite effective tools to end that nonsense--and often are only tool for the job.

That's been obvious for many and many a generation, but young folks like the OP don't seem to know much history. Fortunately, ignorance is indeed curable.
Click to expand...

I'm not as old as you yet, but I've come to the same conclusions, sans Krav Maga. :)
 
Now, after having read the article, I can say my opinion has not changed. Before I go any further, let me make myself clear in stating I don't mean this to come across as being personal or insulting. I'm commenting on what you wrote, not on what you believe.

I think comparing the existence of guns to the existence of alcohol is a poor choice. Alcohol isn't a tool or a weapon, and it can't be used against others without using violence first. [I actually do support the prohibition of alcohol as earnestly as I support ridding the world of heroin and meth, but that's neither here nor there.]

On the other hand, firearms are weapons. I understand that they can be used as tools in recreation, and that's great, but they were created through the constant search for a better way to kill people. The world was a violent place before guns existed, it was a violent place before bows existed, it was a violent place before swords or knives existed. The earliest documented act of violence was performed with a rock. Violence will never, ever go away. It just won't. Guns have absolutely nothing to do with that. And even entertaining the notion that guns are related in any way whatsoever is a step in the wrong direction.

As I said earlier - Your article is fairly well-written, and I understand that its meant to be supportive of the RKBA, I just think there are much better ways to go about it.
 
(sigh)

Homo Sapiens is the apex super-predator omnivore, bar none.

Protecting the innocent means surrendering the very birthright we own, intrinsic to us as we are not yet prey mammals (despite the cellophane prayers of some)?

You ascribe to Lenin, methinks. Sly dialogue maneuvers work with the sophomoric, those you target to "feel" instead of thinking first about the second and third order consequences. Tenor and cadence in communication are the basis for NLP and oratory, codified in MSM. Validated in targeted demographic test audiences through retinal tracking and respiration rates.

Have you ever been in a fistfight in earnest - something of substance, enduring more than 20 seconds?

Just curious - 'cause as a former commercial truck driver, you don't seem to know how to start the Pork Chop Express much less drive it through a downpour (metaphorically speaking, of course).
 
If you then want to attempt to stop other people from hurting innocent people, you have to be willing to give up a chunk of that freedom
Click to expand...
That is simply wrong, and one line the antis like to use to sell gun control. It is always about taking more freedom.

It's the old government line, "you'll be safer if we take care of you" baloney.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

JackBurtonJr
  • Locked
Is the damage to society from the misuse of guns worth the freedom to have guns?
2
Replies
45
Views
1K
Robert
Robert
C
  • Locked
Essay: The Gun Debate Itself Makes Children and Society Less Safe
Replies
18
Views
987
beatledog7
B
A
  • Locked
Reply from Google re Gun Ads
Replies
19
Views
2K
spacemanspiff
S
F
  • Locked
Why you should carry every day
Replies
5
Views
530
Ninj500
N
W
  • Locked
From England:21 Gun Salute For Charlton Heston
Replies
2
Views
626
Coyote Blue
C
Back
Top