xoB, wolf, MaggieL, all:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MaggieL
"Nor do I wish to return to the medieval days when power resided in the hands of the physically strong. Firearms make self-defense accessible to all."
I'll make a minor consession to admit that the blind, minor children and quadraplegics don't have direct access to the self-defense benefits of firearms; they must rely on others for protection, as they do for other necessities like food. To that extent those benefiting from the ability to arm themselves fall short of "all". But not by much.
|
You're right. Children should not be armed. However,
72 millon plus children is hardly a minor concession, especially in light of the fact that the very story that started this thread is about a school shooting.
You also said:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MaggieL
convicted felons and ex-mental patients with teaching licences need not apply
|
Why would you exclude those groups from the benefits of self-defense? Who else need not apply? Ibram's another example, apparently (notwithstanding his minor status).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MaggieL
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ibram
The reason I won't ever own a gun is that I know I wouldnt use it. I could never bring myself to use it, and having one would just escalate the situation. But I figure people dont know if I have one or not cause of all you people who do have them, so yeah.
|
If you don't think you could use a firearm, then you're absolutely right not to carry. And your observation that the 3% of us who do carry extend protection to the 97% who don't just by creating that uncertainty is very much on-point. |
This is known as
"security through obscurity", a misnomer if there ever was one, since it is hardly secure. You yourself point out that it is the uncertainty that is the deterring factor. Not the gun.
As to your second point, that
a person who wouldn't use a gun gains no self-defense benefit from one, concisely explains why your statement is false. Would a gun, unused, in this example provide any self-defense benefit at all? Of course not. It is the *person*, by virtue of their training, confidence, initiative, willingness to act, and above all, their situational awareness, that generates the benefits of self-defense. Not the firearm.
A firearm is a tool. It has a primary purpose, and some secondary purposes. Like all tools, it can be used well or poorly. There are situations where it is the right tool for the job, and other situations where it is not, and some in between. But it is folly to say that the tool does the job, when it is the person who does the job. "A poor workman blames his tools." What do you call one that credits his tools? A fool, I say.
So your statement fails on two counts; it certainly doesn't apply to anything close to "all" people, and it any self-defense benefits a person enjoys are the result of that person's actions, not the tools used in those actions.
A firearm is a tool, only, not a talisman.