| Author | Message | ||
     Johnnylunchbox |
Long read but worth it. http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/papers-shade/Rag ing%20Against%20Self%20Defense-Thompson.html | ||
| Blake |
Sheep versus sheepdog pretty much sums it up from what I see. That and some folks are averse to even recognizing that evil exists in our world. Self delusion is their only refuge from evil. | ||
| Bob_thompson |
Agreed Blake; since the beginning of time a basic human need for survival has been "fight of die", but we're gradually losing that........sad. | ||
| Jayvee |
Think I'd rather stick to "fight or FLEE" as my choices... | ||
| Azxb9r |
The response is actually "Fight or Flight". It is a survival instinct that is not distinct to humans. Gun control is an issue that tends to provoke an emotional response, which tends to cancel out rational thought/discussion. I am a firm believer in gun control...so long as it is defined as hitting what you aim at. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.killology.com/sheep_dog.htm | ||
| Ratbuell |
I think gun control is deeper than that. I learned as a child - "don't point your weapon unless you're prepared to use it". Followed closely by "don't use it unless you're prepared to take a life". Gun control is more than "hitting what you aim at". It's knowing the difference between when to use the weapon...and when to pursue other options. (and I sleep with a .38 within reach every night, so don't hit me with "gun control nazi" crap...) | ||
| M1combat |
"Gun control is more than "hitting what you aim at". It's knowing the difference between when to use the weapon...and when to pursue other options. " Kinda... I've always thought that "Gun Control" is hitting what you aim at, while "Self Control" is knowing the difference between when to use it and when not to. It's a fine point I admit but the subconscious leanings of the gun grabber is something to be conscious of. I say that because of this... If gun control is knowing when to use a gun and when not to then it is implied that "the gun" wants to come out and play at all times, but by not letting it, you're controlling the gun which indeed is not involved at all until YOU choose for it to be. Therefore until that point it is self control. I only make this distinction because when speaking of this subject I feel that one should be conscious of exactly how it sounds subconsciously. How it makes the gun grabber feel about or react to the statement. | ||
| Azxb9r |
"Gun Control" is such a vague, broad sweeping term that in order to have a decent discussion regarding gun control, you first have to define it for purposes of that discussion. My earlier quip is the tongue in cheek definition I offer to people that think guns should be illegal period... I also find it rather amusing  | ||
| Ratbuell |
"Hitting what you aim at" is funny. And tongue in cheek. And actually causes more harm than good when it comes to actually trying to secure gun rights, because it makes gun advocates sound like the hillbilly rednecks that the gun control folks have us all stereotyped to be...and claim to be so afraid of. Using it to "make a point"...makes their point for them, and doesn't help the right to bear arms one bit. | ||
| M1combat |
Right... And if we can move the thoughts behind the issue of "gun control" towards thoughts of "people control" then maybe (maybe...) more people would be reticent to impose people control. I mean seriously... Everyone wants gun control. Even me. I like to hit what I'm aiming at. But, put into the other context where "gun control" is keeping people from getting and/or using them the people who see it that way want gun control as well. So... Make efforts to redirect people into realizing that the other form of "gun control" is really "people control". One must deal with others on the others terms. (Message edited by M1Combat on December 08, 2012) | ||
| F22raptor |
 | ||
| Aesquire |
There's an old saying. "God didn't make men equal, Sam Colt did." A lot of truth there. Back in the days when people killed each other with clubs, swords, hammers, axes, arrows, rocks, sticks, knives, slings, crossbows, atlatls, spears....... You get the idea. Heavy blunt stuff, pointy stuff, and anything you could make go fast... Anyhoo... back in the day there were 2 things that made you dangerous. Skill, and strength. If you were strong, you could dominate anyone weaker, unless their skill level was considerably higher. Since skill is rarer than size, until someone more badass than you came along, you could take what you wanted and make people do what you wanted. Sucked to be a small guy or woman. The early projectile weapons, until the repeater hand gun, only gave a weak person limited protection, since a semi smart gang leader would just have the most expendable guy go start the robbery, and once the victim used his one shot, he was toast. It's well over a century later, and there's a lot of that Special kind of stupid around. So, let's just imagine if magical wizards cast a grand spell and all the guns went away... Well, first, the police would be killed off pretty quick, since they'd have no way to control stronger guys, or gangs of bad men. The ability to resist rape would be pretty much gone, ( witness Egypt, where a disarmed populace is at the mercy of Muslim Brotherhood rape gangs out to suppress protest against their rule ) and unless you have the skills of a Jet Li or are trained in some "primitive" weapon, you too are at the mercy of the evil and the strong. Honestly, I'm no Jet Li. I'm not even Wagon Li. I do have some skill in primitive weapons. So I'd be ok if the gangs were only 2 or 3 guys, and I was actually going to carry around an axe and a sling. Seriously, I'm old, and would get kinda tired leaving a trail of dismembered bad guys and rivers of blood. You can't count on me to save civilization. It's gone. How much crime could YOU stop alone, with a baseball bat? Of course that's a fantasy scenario. ( explored nicely in S.M. Stirling's "Dies The Fire" series ) Despite it's truth, it's not a good argument. But it is obvious to those not blinded by evil propaganda or idiocy, that where weapons are limited to the Guards of the Elite, and the Police, that people get murdered with astonishing regularity, and while a semi-benign government may persist for a while, it either falls or becomes a tyranny. In conclusion, an oft quoted, but iffy sourced comment.... We did indeed know much about your preparedness. We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand." -- A Japanese Admiral 15 years after VJ day on why Japan didn't invade the US mainland after Pearl Harbor. |
