The second amendment of the constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. As the specter of gun violence continues in our workplaces, roads and schools, the question keeps arising: do guns keep you safe, or just increase the level of violence?Opposing Views Editor Edgar Acosta sent this to me and figured WarOnGuns readers would be interested. I agree.
Thing is, I have more on my plate at the moment than I know what to do with, so I haven't had time to do much more than a surface scan. If any of you want to go over there and check it out, feel free to give us your impressions in "Comments," below.
7 comments:
personally, i grow tired of describing the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions all the time. the problem is that by saying, "no, of course not, it's not enough" to a grass eater, you have guaranteed they will take away only the least meaningful part of your sentence: "no."
(this is precisely what the "no" supporters intend by framing the discussion in such a fashion. i'll get to that in a second.)
thus, the implication is that you are making the lone assertion that it is not sufficient, when in reality you are actually asserting that it is necessary and not sufficient, as you have advanced far enough in The Way to [understandably] overlook what it is that you have done to attain your own personal security: you studied.
you did not become safe when you purchased your first sidearm. you became safe when you understood security, are you are fortunate enough to be able to afford the epitome of equalizers.
further study and preparation are likely required before this hypothetical student is Learned And Wise enough to state, for example, that all they will ever need is a knife. or a cellphone. or, perhaps, a large plexi-glass bubble. it is not for us to dictate to each his material solutions to the human condition, though this is precisely the goal intended by lobby-based charlatans of armchair community policing.
i will reiterate: the greatest step towards attaining operational security -- as opposed to security theatre -- is to read about and understand security. this ranges from principles of unarmed self-defense, to storage of property, to use (continuum) of lethal force in the eyes of the law.
it is better to point out that they are asking the question backwards and incorrectly framing a debate in which non-gunnies have absolutely no experience and not one iota of useful information to interject. antis at best can offer you their emotions, often masquerading them as challenges of rationality.
none of this will not keep them alive in the moment of truth.
they are using your words, but they are not speaking your language.
perhaps the appropriate method of investigation is to begin with the question, "is my life safe and secure?" i am open to debate on what the precise question would be. that is where the discussion truly begins.
Jonathan, You just shocked me with the Wiki linked security article. The Security spike photograph on the building roof in England.
Ye they wont let the gardner use barbed wire to protect his property. He must not have the proper warning sign.
This is simply the old question: have you stopped beating your wife?
It's the wrong question, obviously.
It's hyped in emotion, fear and ignorance.
The very fact that they feel the question must be asked indicates they don't understand anything about the idea of self ownership and self responsibility.
When all is said and done, self defense - or which tools one finds necessary to carry that out - is no more an appropriate subject for a "vote" or majority rule than is the next breath you take.
Does NOT owning a gun make you safer?
MamaLiberty,
As a truckdriver,I must yield to "random" drug tests.
Recently moved further off grid,I was "picked" for such a test.
I was a little suprised by the questions on the medical offices form:
Do I own guns
If yes how many
are there children in the house
Do I feel safe around my "partner"
Have I ever "fought" with anyone
And on and on....
I left them all blank. And no one said a word.
Like you said:It's hyped in emotion, fear and ignorance.
CIII
Chris - I've gotten the "do you own guns?" question from the med office too and I just leave it blank.
It's none of their business, and my Dr. has no reason to be asking the question as it's not medically relevant.
"Does NOT owning a gun make you safer?"
assume you reject the hypothesis "owning a gun makes you safer." this is not the same as accepting the opposite hypothesis, which is "owning a gun does not make you safer."
this, again, is what the "no" supporters would love for you to conclude on your own, devoid of further information, not yet having been experienced in statistics 101:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
it is absolutely not the case that, when a hypothesis is rejected, its opposite is necessarily true. the fact is that owning a gun does not, by itself, mean anything at all other than that you are in possession of the mightiest ward against unjustified aggression, should it befall you.
so do you know how to use it?
do not assume all gun owners study relentlessly in the art of the warrior. do not even assume they read the manual that came with their firearm.
Post a Comment