Those who get shot are usually called "criminals" where people do carry.We'd just end up with a lot more people shot if everyone carried guns for defence.

Moderator: dromia
Those who get shot are usually called "criminals" where people do carry.We'd just end up with a lot more people shot if everyone carried guns for defence.
I'm not sure what cotton-covered gated community you live in but we've already failed. People (real people, not the middle-class upwards) generally don't feel safe out and about. Crime is up, regardless of the mechanisms used to fiddle the figures and street crime is only getting worse.safetyfirst wrote:I hope to hell we never allow society to descend to the level where we require firearms for personal protection.
It's an admission of failure. If you don't feel safe unless you've got a gun, your society has failed you. It's failed to provide you with an environment where you're safe.
If it has provided you with an environment where you're safe and you still want a gun for personal protection then you've failed to embrace the values of your society.
Either way something has failed.
Love guns, build them, shoot them, admire them, glad the pub's not full of them.
Like most gun owners, I understand the ethical importance of guns and cannot honestly wish for a world without them. I suspect that sentiment will shock many readers. Wouldn’t any decent person wish for a world without guns? In my view, only someone who doesn’t understand violence could wish for such a world. A world without guns is one in which the most aggressive men can do more or less anything they want. It is a world in which a man with a knife can rape and murder a woman in the presence of a dozen witnesses, and none will find the courage to intervene. There have been cases of prison guards (who generally do not carry guns) helplessly standing by as one of their own was stabbed to death by a lone prisoner armed with an improvised blade. The hesitation of bystanders in these situations makes perfect sense—and “diffusion of responsibility” has little to do with it. The fantasies of many martial artists aside, to go unarmed against a person with a knife is to put oneself in very real peril, regardless of one’s training. The same can be said of attacks involving multiple assailants. A world without guns is a world in which no man, not even a member of Seal Team Six, can reasonably expect to prevail over more than one determined attacker at a time. A world without guns, therefore, is one in which the advantages of youth, size, strength, aggression, and sheer numbers are almost always decisive. Who could be nostalgic for such a world?
Really interesting, thanks for linking it Chuck. Like you, I don't agree with everything he says, but it's a very interesting read and I do agree with many of his points.Chuck wrote:Have a read - I don't agree with some of what he says but hey,this is a discussion forum. Quite a long blog but worth a read.
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the- ... of-the-gun
Like most gun owners, I understand the ethical importance of guns and cannot honestly wish for a world without them. I suspect that sentiment will shock many readers. Wouldn’t any decent person wish for a world without guns? In my view, only someone who doesn’t understand violence could wish for such a world. A world without guns is one in which the most aggressive men can do more or less anything they want. It is a world in which a man with a knife can rape and murder a woman in the presence of a dozen witnesses, and none will find the courage to intervene. There have been cases of prison guards (who generally do not carry guns) helplessly standing by as one of their own was stabbed to death by a lone prisoner armed with an improvised blade. The hesitation of bystanders in these situations makes perfect sense—and “diffusion of responsibility” has little to do with it. The fantasies of many martial artists aside, to go unarmed against a person with a knife is to put oneself in very real peril, regardless of one’s training. The same can be said of attacks involving multiple assailants. A world without guns is a world in which no man, not even a member of Seal Team Six, can reasonably expect to prevail over more than one determined attacker at a time. A world without guns, therefore, is one in which the advantages of youth, size, strength, aggression, and sheer numbers are almost always decisive. Who could be nostalgic for such a world?
safetyfirst wrote:I hope to hell we never allow society to descend to the level where we require firearms for personal protection.
It's an admission of failure. If you don't feel safe unless you've got a gun, your society has failed you. It's failed to provide you with an environment where you're safe.
If it has provided you with an environment where you're safe and you still want a gun for personal protection then you've failed to embrace the values of your society.
Either way something has failed.
Love guns, build them, shoot them, admire them, glad the pub's not full of them.
In the majority of US States if not all, it is illegal to take a concealed firearm into any bar, or restaurant that serves alcohol.techguy wrote:There are laws in the US with CCW and establishments that serve alcohol..(more than 50% of sales are of alcohol, some establishments display 51% signs) and it's also against the law to conceal carry while intoxicated. The laws do vary state by state, but that is certainly the case in pro-gun Texas!
So *if* we were ever to see CCW here, you would think it would have similar sensible laws. So you wouldn't bump into someone down the pub with a gun.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests