- Bo BobtheDog
- Olympia, WA
- United States
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Standard gun owner belief: if all were armed with the potential of deadly force, the incident of gun violence would decrease.
If we all were armed, with the potential of deadly force; i.e. we all had guns and we knew how to safely employ and use them, there would be a downward pressure on those that would commit potentially deadly crimes with guns. Statistics would eventually prove this and society would be a safer place as a result.
Science should be able to be aplied to the issue to give some kind of factual spin.
Old West tales implicate that this is true. With the reality of lawlessnes the legend and history suggest existed as the US expanded west, there was always the element of fear as you encountered an unknown person(s).
Would we be better off with or without the potential of returning instaneous death upon those that intend to kill with impudency?
Would the incidence of occurance decrease or increase with the means available to all?
Are we talking about a static statistic? Has the rate of incidence been effectively the same throughout historical recordings, when has it risen, fell, why?
Given that TED challenges the best minds, mine being feeble by comparison, I am also a proud gun owner, plus a defender of my fellow man, where does the scientific community sit? Man seems to be man's greatest impedement to progress. The potential of one man, one small group, and one large group to inflict great harm upon others, even in massive numbers, seems to be the largest hurdle to progression of the human species. Other ideas seem to indicate that a form of population control is in order, disease, genocide, wars, etc. I disagree. But I am not a scientist, great thinker or even have appropriate facts. But as a person who believes in his right to defend himself against insanity, where does this fit into humanity's potential?
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
http://i.imgur.com/CmZKA.jpg
not an argument, just felt like sharing
Helen Hupe 30+
pat gilbert 50+
Linda Taylor 50+
Joanne Donovan 30+
Linda Taylor 50+
Real world experience
Cultivated street smarts
Apriori rational thought
Intuition
Investigative analysis
Those are just a sample.
pat gilbert 50+
pat gilbert 50+
I don't think we agree on anything and this is another example.
My perspective is that no matter what the subject it all boils down to application. Real knowledge comes from application. This applies to everything technology that came from the space program came from landing a man on the moon, knowledge from a college education comes from being able to Do something, this creates an instant test of your knowledge which is can you Do it or not?
My complaint about the "know best or now your suppose to's or academia is that they have removed themselves from the application and put themselves in a position of authority which is typically not merited. This is a pathology typical of socialism.
Like I said I doubt we will ever agree on anything.
Helen Hupe 30+
pat gilbert 50+
I disagree with your disposition on this subject. It demonstrates a perfunctory ideology that does not work. Additionally I bristle when people infer or suggest (rarely is it plainly spoken) that they know better than the other fellow as it manifests an attitude of disrespect and arrogance.
Understand that I differentiate between you and your views. As I expect you to do the same for me, I have been using guns since I was a child and am an intelligent responsible individual.
Helen Hupe 30+
pat gilbert 50+
You addressed me, apparently I misunderstood your comment?
Ok, have a nice day