Virginia vs. Iraq

innerSpaceman · 04-18-2007, 11:15 PM

Arming the citizenry to prevent violence will only lead to more deaths.

The lone mad gunman scenario is pretty rare. In most instances where someone is threatened with a gun ... someone else drawing will only result in gunfire where far more people get hurt or killed.

And in a society where we pay taxes for common protection, the solution to our protection should not be an armed populace. The onus should not be on us as individual citizens to protect life and limb with deadly force. Unless, of course, you're talking about taking 12 steps back from civilization.

Alex · 04-18-2007, 11:21 PM

The only way common protection could be guaranteed is if the government you hate put police in every location.

But like I said. For some the logic I laid out makes perfect sense, for others it is bat**** insane and never the twain shall meet.

It's kind of like the abortion issue. There'll never be agreement because there is fundamental disagreement on the underlying axioms.

SacTown Chronic · 04-19-2007, 07:16 AM

If all the students at Va Tech had been armed, the death toll from the murderer's gun might have been lower, but there probably would have been crossfire wounds and/or deaths. Panicked civilians armed with guns will only make the situation worse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

In most instances where someone is threatened with a gun ... someone else drawing will only result in gunfire where far more people get hurt or killed.

I've never told this story before because, frankly, I would prefer to forget it ever happened, but I'll share it now:

Last fall a punk kid (his girlfriend was driving) pulled a gun on me - with my family sitting in our car not 20 feet away - and accused me of cutting him off in traffic. Up until the moment he flashed the gun at me I had been trying to play the role of appeaser and peacekeeper. I didn't cut him off but I felt the best way to diffuse the situation was to tell him I didn't realize I had cut him off and I apologized for it. This obviously wasn't what the guy was after and he pulled the gun. Instead of the fear that he so much wanted to see, he got my anger. I told him he could either get the fvck away from me or get his face beaten beyond recognition. The (false) confidence he felt because he was holding the gun turned to panic and he told the girl to punch it. When he was safely out of my reach, he fired a single shot straight up towards the sky.

Pulling that gun in front of my family stirred up incredible anger in me and to this day I'm thankful that I have an aversion to guns because had I been armed, I think I might have shot the punk.

I thought I had been unaffected by the incident but two nights later I had a horrible dream that involved me staring down the barrel of a gun the size of a rocket launcher. I woke up sweating and shaking.

04-18-2007, 11:15 PM	#1
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Arming the citizenry to prevent violence will only lead to more deaths. The lone mad gunman scenario is pretty rare. In most instances where someone is threatened with a gun ... someone else drawing will only result in gunfire where far more people get hurt or killed. And in a society where we pay taxes for common protection, the solution to our protection should not be an armed populace. The onus should not be on us as individual citizens to protect life and limb with deadly force. Unless, of course, you're talking about taking 12 steps back from civilization.
	Submit to Quotes

04-18-2007, 11:21 PM	#2
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	The only way common protection could be guaranteed is if the government you hate put police in every location. But like I said. For some the logic I laid out makes perfect sense, for others it is bat**** insane and never the twain shall meet. It's kind of like the abortion issue. There'll never be agreement because there is fundamental disagreement on the underlying axioms.
	Submit to Quotes