A tad long-winded, but with much substancetelsh7August 9 2007, 03:32:19 UTC
I think he's a knee-jerk absolutist (kinda like Michael Moore). Half of what he says (although blatantly opinionated) is true, which makes it dangerous, too, because it only gives his side of the story, without acknowledging a contending argument, thereby lulling us into having faith in the other half of his argument. That other half lacked any cited references, and therefore lacked apparent validation. He may be feeding us a line, and we would believe it without question because it's coupled with information that we already agree with- thereby creating a fallacy of "validation by proxy".
Ha-rumph. What I didn't hear him say is why these self-appointed know-it-alls think that fighting fire with fire is a bad idea. That's a very important point, because I don't think he's stopped to consider any new information that may threaten his already-formed world scope. That, by definition, is narrow-minded.
So here's my argument. Believe it, don't believe it, I don't care- just know WHY you feel the way you do. Have ALL the information before you jump to a conclusion. Sleep on it- you may change your mind overnight.
And as for gun control... First, I'd like to say that I am a supporter of the second amendment. It was written to serve as a check-and-balance against a government that would tyrannize its own people with military force. The founding fathers wanted to send a clear message that this democracy would only work if the people BELIEVED that the government and the people were working together, and that could not happen if the government sent the message that it feared the wrath of its people. If there is cooperation, there should be no wrath, you see?
However, the more you are exposed to a stimuli (like a gun), the more desensitized you become. If we all carry guns around every day, we will think less of the implications of drawing them, resulting in more instances of handgun violence and unjust deaths. If you disagree, I refer you to nudity in the media. A scant fifty years ago, nudity was considered indecent in public. Now, however, we are so desensitized to it- based on the overexposure of the topic- that we don't even pay attention to the covers of half the magazines in the bloody grocery store. I have no reason to believe guns would be any different.
Yes, own a gun if you feel threatened by the government, but let the police handle the rest. That's their job, that's why you pay them.
Consider: How many people have died in these school shootings? Has it totaled one hundred in the past ten years? Now, how many would die if we all lived by the gun? How many, if our society was so desensitized that we all carried guns and could simply reach to our hip when we were angry at another driver, or the bank teller, or another parent who ridiculed our child? We are currently mortified by these thoughts BECAUSE of their absurdity- but what if they were not so absurd. Consider the current rarity of these instances, as opposed to living in the Old, Wild, Wild West. I promise you that these instances would be even more common nowadays, because we are stacked on top of each other; as the population explosion has driven us into higher concentrations.
Finally-and pardon my vernacular- it is my opinion that this man thinks that Jesus, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, Jr. were whiny little bitches because they allowed themselves to be bullied without fighting back. All three of these men changed the course of history WITHOUT raising a gun. Gandhi, perhaps, said it best when he declared, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Using violence to fight violence only perpetuates more violence, because it desensitizes us and does not offer an alternative. It teaches us that violence is appropriate, even while being used to try to argue the inappropriateness of it. But, if it's so inappropriate, why are you becoming what you hate most?! I hate- HATE- hypocrisy... It's like saying, "Violence is bad, and I'll punch anyone who disagrees." An old Turkish proverb teaches us that, "The liar is always his first victim."
Re: A tad long-winded, but with much substancequierodiosAugust 9 2007, 14:24:41 UTC
Thank you for a well-thought-out post. One of the gaps in my education is in the field of rhetoric and debate. It helped me for you to point out the idea of the fallacy, "validation by proxy."
It is a good point that fighting fire with fire presents some frightening possibilities for social scenarios. Along with the wild west example, I think it's worth mentioning that the period in history has been sensationalized in film to look more violent than it often was. One obvious evidence behind that statement is the fact that we would have seen negative population growth in the West if everyone had behaved in the way that cinema portrays. Perhaps it would have turned into a widespread Roanoke phenomenon, if the scale of violence were truly so.
I support the second amendment also, but one thing that gives me cause for concern is the declining value placed upon human life in the USA. That kind of situation may predispose us to the kind of wild west scenario you mentioned. However, with proper training and an organized societal infrastructure in place to make the training widely available (or perhaps strongly recommended to the general population), it could reduce the risk of accidents and promote responsible handling of weapons. Also, I would think that the balance of power (ie. you're armed, i'm armed, and they're all armed) would deter criminal acts even more so. Look up some of the studies about state crime rates after concealed carry laws were passed in various states, for instance.
The desensitization angle is one I have not explored before. I'm having trouble trying to imagine what it would be like to see the majority of citizens walking down the streets with guns strapped to them. I'll have to consider the possible implications.
If you want to see how I got started on this train of thought, check out this preacher's blog for a series he's started writing that relates to this topic: http://www.patrickmead.net/tentpegs/
Much better thought outtelsh7August 9 2007, 19:30:15 UTC
I like his articles. I haven't read them all yet, but he does get me thinkin'.
I was talking to my co worker about gun control yesterday. He proclaimed (and has never steered me wrong before) that Texas repealed the Carry Concealed Weapon permit requirement, provided that the gun is licensed, registered, and holstered in plain sight. He said that this brought about a drastic reduction in crime overnight. Now, this is a secondhand source that I have not yet confirmed. But if it's true, it stands as an example in direct opposition to my earlier claim. It would mean that, 1) If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will carry guns. 2) If everyone has a gun, outlaws will- and do- think twice before committing a crime. 3) It may just be a good idea. I'm okay with that. I'm opinionated, but not immovable. But what I really want to know is why American criminals are so much more likely to use guns than criminals from other countries. They just don't think in the same terms as our criminals. Why? Why don't the cops in Canada even feel the need to carry guns? Our cops wouldn't even dream of such a scenario, and for good reason.
I could go to great lengths about how our society feels a great disconnect; how moving, cell phones, and e-mail have rendered us ignorant of our neighbors; how we watch more violent movies than any other culture on the planet; how there are no consequences for our transgessions, like cutting someone off on the freeway. I could, in some clever way, link these points to our lack of any sense of sanctity for human life. However, I am inclined to have more faith in humanity than that. I think it would be harder to pull the trigger than I first assumed- especially if you were not the only one with a gun and knew full well that if you pulled that trigger, half a dozen more would be pointed at you.
Re: Much better thought outquierodiosAugust 10 2007, 15:22:39 UTC
I definitely agree with point 1 (and the others also). Who really suffers when you take away the right of honest citizens to defend themselves? It won't be the criminals, I can tell you. Think of the predator-prey relationship, as an example from the natural world. Do predators attack the strong, the alert, or the well-defended? In most cases, no, they go after the easiest quarry: the defenseless, the young, the old, and the weak. As I write this, I think of a recent news article about a teenager who used a samurai sword to scare off 1 or 2 adult robbers who'd broken into his house, protecting his younger sister and himself.
I think I agree with your assessment of humanity as a whole. Though our mobile/technological age has eroded some of our human connections, I would say most people want to live in peace with their neighbors, and may be willing to lend a hand if a neighbor is in trouble. Most citizens are responsible enough to exercise sound judgment with lethal weapons.
Re: Much better thought outtelsh7August 10 2007, 19:28:04 UTC
Ah, but keep in mind that the first thing they teach women in self-defense class is DON'T YELL RAPE, ALWAYS YELL FIRE. No one wants to get involved where violent crimes are concerned. There is also the principle that the more people are in an area, the less your chances that anyone will help, because no one feels any accountability. We figure, "if no one else is helping, why shoud I?" Your chances are better if there's only one person in the area- then, it's squarely on their shoulders and they may very well pitch in.
Ha-rumph. What I didn't hear him say is why these self-appointed know-it-alls think that fighting fire with fire is a bad idea. That's a very important point, because I don't think he's stopped to consider any new information that may threaten his already-formed world scope. That, by definition, is narrow-minded.
So here's my argument. Believe it, don't believe it, I don't care- just know WHY you feel the way you do. Have ALL the information before you jump to a conclusion. Sleep on it- you may change your mind overnight.
And as for gun control... First, I'd like to say that I am a supporter of the second amendment. It was written to serve as a check-and-balance against a government that would tyrannize its own people with military force. The founding fathers wanted to send a clear message that this democracy would only work if the people BELIEVED that the government and the people were working together, and that could not happen if the government sent the message that it feared the wrath of its people. If there is cooperation, there should be no wrath, you see?
However, the more you are exposed to a stimuli (like a gun), the more desensitized you become. If we all carry guns around every day, we will think less of the implications of drawing them, resulting in more instances of handgun violence and unjust deaths. If you disagree, I refer you to nudity in the media. A scant fifty years ago, nudity was considered indecent in public. Now, however, we are so desensitized to it- based on the overexposure of the topic- that we don't even pay attention to the covers of half the magazines in the bloody grocery store. I have no reason to believe guns would be any different.
Yes, own a gun if you feel threatened by the government, but let the police handle the rest. That's their job, that's why you pay them.
Consider: How many people have died in these school shootings? Has it totaled one hundred in the past ten years? Now, how many would die if we all lived by the gun? How many, if our society was so desensitized that we all carried guns and could simply reach to our hip when we were angry at another driver, or the bank teller, or another parent who ridiculed our child? We are currently mortified by these thoughts BECAUSE of their absurdity- but what if they were not so absurd. Consider the current rarity of these instances, as opposed to living in the Old, Wild, Wild West. I promise you that these instances would be even more common nowadays, because we are stacked on top of each other; as the population explosion has driven us into higher concentrations.
Finally-and pardon my vernacular- it is my opinion that this man thinks that Jesus, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, Jr. were whiny little bitches because they allowed themselves to be bullied without fighting back. All three of these men changed the course of history WITHOUT raising a gun. Gandhi, perhaps, said it best when he declared, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Using violence to fight violence only perpetuates more violence, because it desensitizes us and does not offer an alternative. It teaches us that violence is appropriate, even while being used to try to argue the inappropriateness of it. But, if it's so inappropriate, why are you becoming what you hate most?! I hate- HATE- hypocrisy... It's like saying, "Violence is bad, and I'll punch anyone who disagrees." An old Turkish proverb teaches us that, "The liar is always his first victim."
(edited 11:30P.M. 8-8-07)
Reply
It is a good point that fighting fire with fire presents some frightening possibilities for social scenarios. Along with the wild west example, I think it's worth mentioning that the period in history has been sensationalized in film to look more violent than it often was. One obvious evidence behind that statement is the fact that we would have seen negative population growth in the West if everyone had behaved in the way that cinema portrays. Perhaps it would have turned into a widespread Roanoke phenomenon, if the scale of violence were truly so.
I support the second amendment also, but one thing that gives me cause for concern is the declining value placed upon human life in the USA. That kind of situation may predispose us to the kind of wild west scenario you mentioned. However, with proper training and an organized societal infrastructure in place to make the training widely available (or perhaps strongly recommended to the general population), it could reduce the risk of accidents and promote responsible handling of weapons. Also, I would think that the balance of power (ie. you're armed, i'm armed, and they're all armed) would deter criminal acts even more so. Look up some of the studies about state crime rates after concealed carry laws were passed in various states, for instance.
The desensitization angle is one I have not explored before. I'm having trouble trying to imagine what it would be like to see the majority of citizens walking down the streets with guns strapped to them. I'll have to consider the possible implications.
If you want to see how I got started on this train of thought, check out this preacher's blog for a series he's started writing that relates to this topic: http://www.patrickmead.net/tentpegs/
Reply
I was talking to my co worker about gun control yesterday. He proclaimed (and has never steered me wrong before) that Texas repealed the Carry Concealed Weapon permit requirement, provided that the gun is licensed, registered, and holstered in plain sight. He said that this brought about a drastic reduction in crime overnight. Now, this is a secondhand source that I have not yet confirmed. But if it's true, it stands as an example in direct opposition to my earlier claim. It would mean that, 1) If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will carry guns. 2) If everyone has a gun, outlaws will- and do- think twice before committing a crime. 3) It may just be a good idea. I'm okay with that. I'm opinionated, but not immovable. But what I really want to know is why American criminals are so much more likely to use guns than criminals from other countries. They just don't think in the same terms as our criminals. Why? Why don't the cops in Canada even feel the need to carry guns? Our cops wouldn't even dream of such a scenario, and for good reason.
I could go to great lengths about how our society feels a great disconnect; how moving, cell phones, and e-mail have rendered us ignorant of our neighbors; how we watch more violent movies than any other culture on the planet; how there are no consequences for our transgessions, like cutting someone off on the freeway. I could, in some clever way, link these points to our lack of any sense of sanctity for human life. However, I am inclined to have more faith in humanity than that. I think it would be harder to pull the trigger than I first assumed- especially if you were not the only one with a gun and knew full well that if you pulled that trigger, half a dozen more would be pointed at you.
Reply
I think I agree with your assessment of humanity as a whole. Though our mobile/technological age has eroded some of our human connections, I would say most people want to live in peace with their neighbors, and may be willing to lend a hand if a neighbor is in trouble. Most citizens are responsible enough to exercise sound judgment with lethal weapons.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment