arma virumque cano (et alia)
It is true. And therefore it follows that people should be allowed to use the most effective means of self-defense available to them. We're tool-users, after all.Moonshine
Moon, long time no hear. I thought you must have had a negligent discharge and gone away embarrassed.
You just can't stop yourself, can you, Mikeb? Is it Tourette Syndrome?
Hey, insulting returning readers. Great strategy numbnuts.
Yes, of course it's true that people protect other people (and themselves) with guns. That's how the standard answer goes out of your playbook, right?
Yes, Poochie, of course the second is true. Both statements are true because, and indeed weapons in general, are not good or evil. They're TOOLS that can be used for good ends, or evil ones.So why disarm the people who want to use them for good ends when the people who want to use them for evil ends will ignore the laws and arm themselves anyway?
It's correct that common sense gun laws make sense. Good citizens should be able to own and carry firearms with exceedingly limited restrictions. Self-defense laws should recognize that when people are where they have a right to be, they have no duty to leave. The list goes on.I'm glad to see that you finally have arrived at the position I held a while ago.
Flawed bumper sticker logic. “The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.” Jeff Cooper
Talk about flawed logic, that quote is a beauty. Of course it appeals to the insecure male ego that longs for a fantasy in which he is a hero.
More pop psychology without a license, Mikeb. Since this is your most recent negligent discharge of thousands, you are hereby banned from psychoanalyzing people.
Mike,Please tell us where the flaw lies in that statement. Unless you say that it is in the statement that there are more good men than evil, I don't see how you can attack it without simultaneously eviscerating Poochie's post.
The rules of gun safety follow from this mindset. There are many variations, and one of them is the Four Rules introduced by Colonel Jeff Cooper, which are:1.All guns are always loaded.2.Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.3.Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.4.Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_safetyYou have no problem using his rules of firearms safety.
T., the whole "good guys with guns" theme is what I object to. La Pierre went wild with it after Newtown. You guys love it because it perfectly fits with the fantasy many of you have about saving the day with your little gun. Most of you would of course never have the chance to find out, and of those of you who will, most will shit your pants and fail miserably at being the big men you fantacize about being.
So, when you call the cops and they somehow managed to show up in time, or at all, they show up empty handed?Cops are civilians Mike, just like you and me. They are not the military. The police are paid to protect, but just not to protect the individual but as society as a whole. The primary purpose of the police firearm is to protect themselves first, you second IF they showed up in time to do so. You, yourself is the only person charged with your own safety. You can protect yourself or others with the same tool the police have, a firearm. We abdicate part of that responsibility to the police thru tax dollars, but not all of it. Those who choose to do so still retain most of that responsibility for themselves. If you want to abdicate all of that responsibility to the police, go for it. Altho the outcome can be far worse, and is most of the time. They show up in time to draw a chalk line, MAYBE take a statement before you die and document evidence to have a hope at catching your killer. And some police officers are lazy, this was on the Dallas news just last night about officers who back burner cases, stuff them in a drawer and forgot about them and flat out lied on other cases just so they didn't actually have to work at their job. Two of the officers have case that go back as far as 2009 with no work on them at all. Of course it was already too late for the victim.
We get that you dislike the idea of people being armed, but how does that affect the logic of what Cooper says. Your idea merely has bearing on whether your reaction to guns only being tools is to grasp at the wind and try to ban them, or to accept that such is impossible and allow those with interest in guns to be legally armed.