Attempting to play to the audience
Baron Max said:
It only takes one time! And ya' know what they say ..."There's always a first time."
But, see, when it happens to you, you won't be prepared. While TWScott and I will be prepared. How can you see it otherwise? You're just gambling with your life(and the life of your daughter, too?), ...and since nothing has happened so far, you're using that to convince yourself that it never will happen. Ahh, but there's always a first time, right?
A Note to Mr. Scott: See, this is another example of what I mean when I refer to representation. Baron Max would suggest I carry a gun for fear of what might happen. Given that the statistical odds suggest I am more likely to see that gun shoot friends or family in an accident, I don't see how
raising the odds of a bad outcome is a wise decision. After all, it only takes
one mistake.
Baron Max: See above.
Gun culture?? What the fuck is that? Please explain.
A Note to Mr. Scott: What? He really can't figure it out?
Baron Max: See above. Now then, consider the comparison. In a culture of the black market--e.g. drugs--oft-reviled for its mortal dangers, there is no time at which a gun would have served me well. In the culture of the T&A industry, which nobody seriously pretends is wholly separated from prostitution, and which is oft-reviled for its mortal dangers, there is no time at which a gun would have served me well. However, this is not to suggest I've never feared immediate danger. That fear responded to the actions and attitudes of "law-abiding citizens" who considered themselves "responsible gun owners". It is within that subculture a gun seems advisable. But given the rampant fear that seems to infect the gun culture, I would only be contributing to the paranoia.
I also think that it's interesting that you could defend the drug and sex industries even while any and all statistics about violence show that those areas of society are far and away more violent than the usual, regular areas of society.
A Note to Mr. Scott: Now
this is straight after the point.
Baron Max: It's not a matter of defending the sex and drug industries. In fact, you're reinforcing my point when you remind that, "
any and all statistics about violence show that those areas of society are far and away more violent than the usual, regular areas of society."
That's actually my point. I forget sometimes that it is not advisable to address these issues without any but the most grimly serious outlook. Because I've been involved with the drug subculture for longer than Mr. Scott claims to have carried a firearm. What the hell is he up to that makes his life so much more dangerous than mine? If I should not presume him some sort of closet scoundrel, some sleaze of the earth putting himself into dangerous situations, what does his testament mean? His open streets are more dangerous than my "dangerous" subcultures. If we presume Mr. Scott a reasonably law-abiding and responsible gun owner, what could possibly be going on? Is it the heightened fear?
Zero.
You know, part of it is that I consider the notion of taking life an extreme measure demanded only under extreme circumstances. It seems to me that when one carries a gun, the definition of "extreme circumstances" warranting "extreme measures" broadens exponentially. That it seems to be that way is largely the result of what gun owners and advocates tell me, and repeatedly. I would ask you to consider Phlogistician's response to Mr. Scott's claim about showing the weapon.
Seriously: I get criticism for the notion that I seem to think gun owners flash their weapons if someone looks at them wrongly. Well, we can at least agree, then--or, rather, Mr. Scott and I can agree--that apparently someone speaking is cause to show a weapon. That's considerably less extreme than my perception of circumstances warranting such action. Of course, there are details Mr. Scott has left out, and I'm sure he'll fill them in as he sees necessary.
Really, though.
I still can't grasp it, however ....if you don't want to carry a gun, that's fine. But why are you so against others carrying a legal weapon for their own protection (even if it's only in their own minds)?
I'm not against others carrying weapons. I still can't figure where you get that from. I enumerated my points of gun control many posts ago. It's not about prohibiting the legal possession of a firearm. It's asking for some measure of sanity about it.
Isn't it the same as carrying insurance on your car? No one drives off in their car with the intention of having a wreck, do they? No, of course not ....yet we carry insurance against that possibility, right? Well, carrying a gun is the same ...yet you don't want me to have that insurance ...why???
A Note to Mr. Scott: Really, what? I mean, really. What?! As such ....
Baron Max: While I acknowledge Mr. Myers' "simple reply", it is worth pointing out that
my insurance policy is not designed to kill another human being. If I make a claim on my insurance company, the result is not that someone is injured, maimed, or killed.
Consider, please:
Use a gun successfully: Someone is injured, maimed, or killed.
Use an insurance policy successfully: My car gets fixed.
Is that a miniscule difference to you? Insignificant? My insurance company isn't going to kill the guy who runs into my car. If I shot him, on the other hand ...?
Okay, okay, okay. What, though, would brandishing a weapon do? After all, if he smacks into my car with an SUV, I could well consider that a threat. Right?
A Note to Mr. Scott and all Gun Advocates: Instead of either banding together or simply ignoring one another, it would be nice to see some form of discussion between the "responsible gun owners" regarding the propriety of their individual standards. As I've noted, I know gun owners who would take people to task for showing their weapon without using it. And they, too, would dismiss other notions of what constitutes "responsible" in order to pretend that "responsible" or "law-abiding" gun owners are a fairly uniform body to be represented singly. I do know gun owners who would ask what the hell the problem is that one is flashing their gun nine times in two hours. Does this sound unreasonable? Consider how many gun advocates disdain the examples I give. In the end, the collective message represented by gun advocates is that any measurable sanity is an infringement of Constitutional rights. It doesn't seem right to me. I don't want to increase the amount of fear in my life. Frankly, I shudder at the notion of seeing the world through such morbid lenses as gun advocates paint. If it speaks something of me that I don't carry my knife anymore because it was too quickly to mind when conflict arose, and if it speaks something of me that there is considerably less appearance of conflict in my life now that I don't carry the weapon, I would ask people in general to consider the same point.
Look at the rhetoric. I should be investigated by DSS or its equivalent for failing to strap on a gun? I'm gambling with my life by not strapping on a gun? I'm gambling with my daughter's wellbeing by not increasing the immediate danger of her environment? The "far and away more violent" subcultures I've associated with in my lifetime are somehow safer than the open streets of law-abiding society? A gun and an insurance policy do the same thing? Does any of this seem just a bit crazy?
Guns have their place in society. So does sanity. What is this world from which the gun advocates' rhetoric springs? Where is it, please, so I can avoid going there. Sure, it may be my right to travel to the mean streets of Gary, Indiana, but I still can't think of a reason I would
want to.
Sanity doesn't seem like a whole lot to ask when lethal force is an issue. Does it?