Anyone get what this guy is aiming at?

[Picknlittle]

Read this article, came up when I was googling something:

http://www.spectacle.org/798/jethic.html

To me he comes off as an elitist, talking down to gun owners like we are children.

Seems to be going to the extreme IMO, in determining the gun owners want to shoot people at some level AND, that owning a gun changes us.

Anyway, wanted to get some thoughts from the THR group on his diatribe. In the end, I was not really sure WHAT he was trying to say.

On some level I understand his thinkng, but don't really buy it.
We buy insurance in hopes we never need it, but also understand the day may come when we will.
I have several hammers, nails are pretty safe in general, because ownership hasn't transformed me into a carpenter or a roofer.
I hope my wife doesn't want me to repair anything, but I know at some point,it'will be necessary.

 

[MachIVshooter]

"To put it as bluntly as I can, I think that the ownership of handguns is connected in some people with a worldview which divides our fellows into categories of people who can and cannot be shot with them. An unused handgun, kept for contingencies, is an unrealized potentiality similar to scuba gear kept in the closet or an undriven jeep. Yes, I can plink at cans or take the gun to the range; I can also breathe on the scuba tank in my living room or in the swimming pool, or drive the jeep in the driveway. Humans want to use the tools they love, and the complete fulfillment of the handgun involves the killing of another human being."

Where is the decree written that at some point every firearms should/must be used to take a life? I appearently missed that one.

You could draw a paralell like this, but I would make the comaprison to such things as seat belts and defibrillators. Yes, I want to know they work. No, I don't ever want to have to use them. Of course, this really only applies to dedicated defensive handguns.

 

[Caliper_Mi]

I think that the ownership of handguns is connected in some people with a worldview which divides our fellows into categories of people who can and cannot be shot with them.

Disagree. I do not look at people and think "can shoot that guy" or "can't shoot that guy". Unless you are in the military, on the field of battle or have a mental problem (like a KKK member?) I don't think most people do that.

I simply let people choose for themselves which category they fall into. Break into my house and you have just jumped into the category of "fair game". But, I didn't make that choice, the BG did. Really, I would much rather go through life without pointing a gun at anyone in anger, but I would also rather live to a ripe old age and die peacefully in my sleep with that memory than die early without it.

At least some of the people who keep these weapons around have thoughts about using them to kill humans.

That depends on these "thoughts". Is metal preparation bad? Police practice hostage situations not because they wish to be in one but so that can properly handle one should the situation arise.

What will I become through the use of it?

This argument completely ignores human intellect and free will. What, are my guns whispering evil deeds to me while I sleep? I think the writer of this essay needs to ask himself if the tool changes the user, or if the user seeks out tools they are inclined towards? I tend to think the latter. If the user finds that they are inclined towards, say, a darker use of the tool, then they need to do some self reflection. However, I am never in favor of simply removing temptation as a way of controlling ones desires because out in the real world temptation can present itself even if you attempt to prevent it. If someone (assuming they are not mentally unstable) finds they have urges to cause harm to others, I would actually think it better for them to have access to guns and to face and control these urges then to try to ignore them and risk their uncontrolled urges getting the better of them someday. Think of alcoholics. They *know* they cannot control themselves with alcohol. They also live in society and as such are exposed to the opportunity to buy and drink alcohol. But, instead of banning alcohol (well, that was tried, but let's not go there) the alcoholic must learn to control their urges. It may take work, but this is what we have a brain for. To say that the gun made the person shoot is as silly as saying that the bottle made him drink or that the drink made him hit his wife.

 

[cambeul41]

I think that the ownership of handguns is connected in some people with a worldview which divides our fellows into categories of people who can and cannot be shot with them.

Disagree. I do not look at people and think "can shoot that guy" or "can't shoot that guy". . . .

I simply let people choose for themselves which category they fall into

.

Help me understand. Doesn't he say that we categorize, but that we recognize two categories? I take his meaning to be that there are those who have only one category: those that cannot be shot.

You say you disagree, then you appear to recognize at least two categories.

I do agree with you that people choose their own category.

 

[Caliper_Mi]

.

Help me understand. Doesn't he say that we categorize, but that we recognize two categories? I take his meaning to be that there are those who have only one category: those that cannot be shot.

Hmmm, guess it depends on how exactly he meant that. I took it to say that gun owners walk down the street thinking "well, I'd shoot that guy, and that guy, but not the other guy" As if we were seeking a confrontation: searching out those who we would shoot in order to watch them and find the opportunity to do so. Kinda similar to the joke about males putting all females in to two categories on first sight: those they would or would not "sleep" with.

I suppose one could argue that for those without a gun, all people must fall into the category of people they cannot shoot because without a gun one is incapable of shooting anyone.

If he meant intellectually recognizing two categories then I would have to generally agree with him but he really skips over any thought of one person being in one category or the other from one moment to the next.

 

[TexasBill]

The idiocy of elites is apalling sometimes.

I have seen similar comments on a number of threads here on THR. What makes them "elite?" What, by tacit agreement with their self-assessment, does that make us? The Great Unwashed? The down side of the Bell Curve?

What is this distrust of intellectuals? Are we their inferiors? Some of the greatest minds of the Eighteenth Century put the Second Amendment into the Constitution. Are we not worthy heirs? Or are we willing to be the ignorant primitives our opponents make us out to be? If the only firepower we can muster is measured in grains or feet per second, we are well and truly screwed.

The guy who wrote the tripe that is the subject of this thread is confused. He's a tree-hugger who drives a fairly large SUV off-road, damaging the environment. he's a diver who knows diving endangers the underwater ecology but does it anyway. And apparently feels no particular guilt. So his assertions that those who own handguns want to kill people is only an outcome of his own lack of self-control.

 

[jakemccoy]

He's being overcomplicated. I read the intro and the conclusion, and figured out I wasn't interested in wasting my time.

 

[happygeek]

I have seen similar comments on a number of threads here on THR. What makes them "elite?" What, by tacit agreement with their self-assessment, does that make us? The Great Unwashed? The down side of the Bell Curve?

What is this distrust of intellectuals? Are we their inferiors? Some of the greatest minds of the Eighteenth Century put the Second Amendment into the Constitution. Are we not worthy heirs? Or are we willing to be the ignorant primitives our opponents make us out to be? If the only firepower we can muster is measured in grains or feet per second, we are well and truly screwed.

Pretty sure when people show disdain for elites on here, they mean elite as in the rich and politically well connected who want to throw so much red tape up that only they and/or their bodyguards can legally own and carry handguns.

By intellectuals, I'm sure they mean academia, namely the looney left academia types.

 

[Nathanael_Greene]

It just strikes me as odd. His insinuation that owning any "tool" changes you. I have bought a lot of tools. Besides allowing me to complete tasks quicker and cleaner, I would never even attempt to say they have changes my behavior or personality.

I agree. I own a hammer, but buying it didn't make me a carpenter.

 

[gordy]

this sounds like a few of our current leaders talking. the more they tell us the more we know. the more they tell use the more we don't understand, the more they tell use the more we say ***.
It is easy, If you have a hammer you will hit something. If you have a shovel you will dig, so if you have a gun. The thing they don't want us to have is a brain. to think is a bad thing. Cows don't think, they do as there told. these few people know what is good for us. come on just sit down put you hand out, have some more kids they will help you, give you every thing that they say you need.

 

[Guy B. Meredith]

Gotta love how these spielers have some way of reading everyone's minds. More like they are looking into a mental mirror and taking what they see as gospel.

 

[Gadzooks Mike]

He's also just plain wrong. I wear a seatbelt, but that sure doesn't mean I want to run into a brick wall. What a dufus.

 

[benEzra]

I think he is making the mistake of trying to imagine how he might feel if he owned a handgun for defensive purposes, and assuming that this is how real handgun owners feel.

The fallacy of that approach, of course, is that he is speaking of that which he totally does not understand.

But before anyone goes too ballistic over this, keep in mind that it dates from 1998 and was merely one side of a two-sided debate in an obscure journal. This guy is really going to think gun owners are weird if he suddenly starts getting a flurry of passionate emails about an article that is twelve years old.

 

[Caliper_Mi]

What is this distrust of intellectuals? Are we their inferiors? Some of the greatest minds of the Eighteenth Century put the Second Amendment into the Constitution. Are we not worthy heirs? Or are we willing to be the ignorant primitives our opponents make us out to be? If the only firepower we can muster is measured in grains or feet per second, we are well and truly screwed.

The guy who wrote the tripe that is the subject of this thread is confused. He's a tree-hugger who drives a fairly large SUV off-road, damaging the environment. he's a diver who knows diving endangers the underwater ecology but does it anyway. And apparently feels no particular guilt. So his assertions that those who own handguns want to kill people is only an outcome of his own lack of self-control.

Pardon me, but what if some of us would consider ourselves at least somewhat intellectual? There is no rule anywhere that says an intellectual person cannot prefer a self-sufficient life in the country and enjoy firearms.

I agree that the straight-up definition for this man is a hypocrite. He wants to do as he wants because he wants to, darn the consequences! But, oh, this is bad to do so you shouldn't do it. The guy should really read some of Immanuel Kant, but he probably has and totally discounts it.

 

[ol' scratch]

Moral arguement or political?

The handguns I keep in my home no more make me a murderer than the miter saw I keep in my garage makes me a carpenter.

If this individual had ever taken a hunter's safety or a firearms course, he would understand that the moral side of his argument is covered in those courses. I don't know one person who purchases a firearm for the expressed purpose of killing another person. On the contrary, they all hope they never have to use their firearms.

The author of this essay also claims that human beings love to use all of their tools and only purchase tools in the hope that they get to use them. I just bought a fire extinguisher. I no more want my home to catch on fire so I can use my new tool, than I want to have to threaten or use lethal force in the defense of my home or family.

 

[wishin]

Self-analysis should, however, lead to more responsible use of the tool than denial and willful ignorance will. A handgun owner who knows that on some level he desires to shoot someone may be less likely to.

It's really very simple. If I admit to myself that I want to shoot someone, I won't! Hmmm.

 

[TCB in TN]

Hey I completely agree with one point. I do categorize people who I can and cannot shoot. People who are threatening my life, or the lives of those I love, well yes I do think that those people fall into the category of those who I may need to shoot if they do not cease to be a threat! Everyone else, falls into the category of those I do not need to shoot! I don't see a problem with that analysis.

 

[cambeul41]

Am I the only one here that sees that the guy is working toward understanding? He has some facts wrong and is guilty of some apparent projecting, but if he were an acquaintance, I am sure he would come around given time, more accurate information, and a non-hostile presentation.

I am quite saddened to see the petty name calling here that I have learned to expect from the other side.

 

[xcgates]

I think I can answer the question about "What will this tool make me?" with the already mentioned "Hot, sweaty, and in need of some good food, and a nice shower." Seriously, the question I would as Jonathan Wallace is if he truly believes buying a tool alters our mental make-up. By definition it makes a certain job easier to accomplish, and therefore alters our actions, but it only alters how efficient we are, not our mental state.

So I will simply point out that I have quite a few tools that get used only when needed. I have a socket set, which allows me to take apart and fix my vehicles, it doesn't make me want to take apart my vehicles. (I always have liked taking things apart, tools just make it easier!) I have a fire extinguisher I bought when I started working around fuel lines, and realized that a couple bucks would buy me some insurance against burning down the garage/house.

I have winter clothes. Not because I enjoy them, but because I live where it get pretty cold, and I need them to be able to leave the apartment. I have a snowbrush, deicer, and scraper in my car. In fact I hate using either one, as it means standing around in bad weather being miserable. Yet I need them on occasion. And its besides the fact that I usually have the same things in my car in the dead of summer, I swear. I just forget about them, and normally take the bike.

 

[Officers'Wife]

What is this distrust of intellectuals? Are we their inferiors? Some of the greatest minds of the Eighteenth Century put the Second Amendment into the Constitution. Are we not worthy heirs? Or are we willing to be the ignorant primitives our opponents make us out to be? If the only firepower we can muster is measured in grains or feet per second, we are well and truly screwed.

Because there is such a oversupply of educated idiots that leap on a premise and sprawl to a conclusion. As for 'ignorant primitives' the author is describing a ex deus machina then demanding consideration on the description. There is very short road from this to praying to stone idols.

 

[Caliper_Mi]

Am I the only one here that sees that the guy is working toward understanding? He has some facts wrong and is guilty of some apparent projecting, but if he were an acquaintance, I am sure he would come around given time, more accurate information, and a non-hostile presentation.

This guy is not aiming his article at us. He likely knows we’ll respond exactly as we’re now responding. Our responses here are preaching to our choir. Yes, I know I’m doing that very same thing right now.

He is not aiming at the liberal gun-grabbers. He knows that is preaching to his choir.

His article is aimed at those who are indecisive about gun ownership and he’s trying to get them off the fence and firmly into his choir.

I don’t believe he needs instruction in logic. He has carefully biased his “logic” to get to those he believes he can influence.

Unfortunately this succeeds in many cases.

Not sure which take on this is right. He claims he is looking for understanding, but what is his definition of this? "Understanding" could be that we all understand his argument, suddenly repent and turn in all our guns?

I am quite saddened to see the petty name calling here that I have learned to expect from the other side.

That's what both sides say. I do agree however that name calling is not the way to go about things. It doesn't win any friends with anyone and especially does not endear us to those who are "on the fence". I understand frustration, even anger, with the words and actions of many anti-gun folks. Keeping ones temper and not giving the other side "ammunition" is better than convincing someone that the anti standpoint might be better.

 

[Dirkofthedesert]

I read all these posts, and really wanted to weigh in, but how can I once this has been said?

"Also, this means everyone who owns a plunger, wants to unclog toilets now and then."

There just isn't anything to add once that hit the screen. Short, accurate, and FUNNY! Thanks for brightening my morning General Geoff.



"