04-30-2018, 10:31 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-30-2018, 10:55 PM by Eric the Green.)
(04-27-2018, 10:50 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I have claimed that if one is afraid of a terrorist or nut shooter, one should seek training, the right equipment, and be mentally prepared. That seems a common red perspective.
The blue perspective, is that we need and deserve to live in a society where one would rarely encounter a terrorist or a nut shooter, such as blue states and liberal/socialist nations pretty much offer. Thus, training to behave like the criminals do (shoot weapons) in response to their behavior, would not be necessary. The red perspective is to be self-reliant and defend yourself. However, defending yourself is not needed in a civilized society, so why not help create a civilized society, instead of living in fear like people did in the Dark Ages?
Quote:There are many among the blue who seem obsessed with the worst case, that the training, equipment and readiness will be perpetually inadequate. In some ways one is right. You have to be a veteran, to have regularly encountered lethal incidents, to be truly ready. You can only do so much in the classroom.Obviously it is the red perspective that is obsessed with the worst case, claiming that we have to assume that the world is full of criminals and terrorists and one should be armed to protect yourself against them anywhere you go.
Gun control and bans on weapons of war in civilian use would mean there are fewer guns around for unqualified people to grab and use, less likelihood that a fearful or aggressive "law-abiding" person supposedly carrying a weapon for defense doesn't turn into a criminal, and most of all, fewer guns to steal. This means that gun owners should be required to store them where criminals can't steal them, and should not give them or sell them to others. Which means guns would not be available for self-defense anyway.
Quote:Me, I have studied western armed conflict and eastern unarmed. I do not see the preparation as useless. It seems obvious I can't convince those that avoid the training. By inclination and inexperience, they remain perpetual victims and ready to perpetuate this helplessness. They will say absurd things like it is not risky or less risky to let a lethal shooter continue to shoot and kill. They seem ready so say anything to retain helplessness, the lack of responsibility for self defense and that of the community.Good guys with guns do not prevent bad guys with guns. The best you can hope for in that case is a shootout after the shooter has already fired his weapons; a shootout in which many including bystanders will die. Eastern unarmed self-defense does not risk deaths of many people, although it might not work against a shooter. The way to stop shooters is to take away their guns. Dogs are indeed another alternative for self-defense, along with alarms, mace, pepper spray, locks, neighborhood watch, and moving to a middle class blue neighborhood.
Quote:And the result is the sort of stalemate that comes from world view clash, with greatly varied understanding of how the world works. To me, it is the blue who seem irrational.
Calling it a world view clash is elevating a safety issue into metaphysics and ontology. Not so. Everyone wants to be safe; the question is how. The rational thing is to notice the fact that heavily armed and gun-permissive nations and states have the most gun violence, and more murders overall, and thus be willing to take action. If gun control is irrational, why do the police favor it? Or is it more rational to fire all the police and just depend on every man and woman to defend themselves in the war of all against all?