Pro Gun arguments go something like this :

What-are you afraid of the murderously suicidal, druggies, psychotics and all that crap? I bet your awareness of so many horrible threats hasn't inspired you to drive something with a little road-presence instead of a fuel-efficient Japanese car. Maybe you keep something nasty that doubles as sporting equipment in your closet, and maybe you stay in the light after dark - but what do all these gun craving-monsters you describe really mean to you?

I'm not worried about things that go bump in the night and I'm not a criminal so why should I be handed the choice of embracing your hysteria or being punished for something I've never done if you won't even take the first step toward protecting yourself from that which you fear before whining to Big Brother about it?

hanno

your coherency is making you incoherent...

-Do you find my original post to be inaccurate? If so, are you able to explain how?

-Could you explain how you believe it shows or induces hysteria?

On the issue of handing you something to choose - I haven't given you anything, nor asked you to choose anything.

Alright, I got a little sloppy there, made an ad-hominem, thanks for being cool about it. But you were putting words in the communal mouth of pro-gun citizens.

First off-the circular logic you imply isn't there-there will always be weak and strong so the 'the more guns you have...' thing isn't needed. There will always be someone tougher and more desperate-as the proverb goes, God made men, Sam Colt made them equal. You're arguing I guess for a change for the good of humanity, but if such a thing as exists give every little one the power to act and take the consequences and the good guys will win, and if there is no good-of-humanity, then we might as well be armed. You could say for there to be good we need to act responsibly and have laws to blah blah blah - but who the hell are the lawmakers?

Second-you left a lot of important crap out. Human dignity in the sense of not being rendered harmless by the johnny bananas one pays taxes to and left to seek protection from the blue meanies. All that good paranoid stuff like civil rights, a check against majority rule, autocratic government etc. I know it don't mean much to people who drive silver Hondas but there are some things neither your parents, your youth minister, nor your side-curtain-airbags can save you from, and even if it just means you both have got a gun then at least both sides can bleed and it won't be a drawn out affair. Finally - not really a major issue so much as an allegory - they're looking into outlawing big kitchen knives in Britain, because they've outlawed everything more threatening than that and it's still not a perfect world-so next time you cut into a steak thank the NRA.

I know you're not giving me anything, you expect the populace and their government to do that; The decision of whether to dig being told how capable I can be or become a criminal for the potentiality of crime is what I would be left with if you had your way.

For all that you left out in your rundown of the issue, and for all the extra scary words you put in, I think either you're hysterical or trying to stoke up hysteria.

Yeah!,yeah,yeah... whatever you say???

what's that supposed to mean? Your government already told your ass what you can and can't possess.

Pardon?

Please elaborate.

Australians can't have automatic weapons. So as far as gun control, what the hell has Anton got to whine about except for other people in other countries enjoying freedoms he doesn't get to have?

Well, I can't read anton's mind. He can speak for himself.

I suspect very few Australians would be interested in having access to automatic weapons. Why on earth would we want them?

We feel safer this way.

The fact is there are fewer guns in Oz & far fewer gun-related fatalities.

I live in Canada and do not own a gun. Two years ago our house was broken into in the middle of the night. I was home asleep, my wife was home asleep our dog was home asleep. The crooks made off with $5,000 worth of gear.

I believe I may have scared them off from taking much much more as I got up in the middle of the night to pee.

In any case when we got up the next mooring there were bags of expensive gear positioned near a number of the outside doors and the front door was wide open!

I had thoughts of aluminum baseball bats and guns…………

You Austrailians wouldn't be telling us about your state of grace if we hadn't stepped up to the plate and nuked Japan.

Don't blame you. Someone who will enter your home at night, while knowing or strongly suspecting the home is occupied is often quite dangerous.

What does that (which I'm not getting into on this thread, which has a specific agenda) have to do with issues about private gun ownership?

We can because we do and we do because we can. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize.

Oh right!
I see!
All clear now!

The argument is self-reinforcing, not circular, which means something slightly different.



The first part is true, the second part would ignore a number of fundamental probabilities :
-it's unlikely both parties carry their guns on them if in public (home is different of course)
-the first to draw is the ?'more equal'
-either party may not be able to shoot accurately
-either party could suffer an adrenalin dump, rendering their fine motor skills ineffective



In a way. International Stats show a correlation between the percentage of guns and the percentage of gun related violence/murders.

I have no issue with the concept of self defense for the individual. I do have an issue with a concept that leads to more deaths for the community. When reducing guns reduces overall deaths, then not only is the community served, but the individuals who wouldn't have died are also served.

That does ignore isolated instances where the individual would have been better off with a weapon (in their hands, not somewhere else)…and it is my opinion that the balance of ?'rights' falls in favour of the communities rights to less deaths (which means less individual deaths).

A note on this view : I live in Australia. I'm not making a statement of how the US should be. Due to the sheer number of guns already in circulation you face different circumstances. That said, I was making an observation on how a ?'gun culture' starts, and on how the need for it is self reinforcing/perpetuating.



That's true.



You rather misunderstood my post


If you look at each individually they should all be accurate.

For the extra ?'scary words', like the phrase ?'murderously suicidal', that was needed for accuracies sake - had I simply said ?'suicidal' some would needlessly argue that suicidal people are no threat.

The first part is true, the second part would ignore a number of fundamental probabilities :
-it's unlikely both parties carry their guns on them if in public (home is different of course)
-the first to draw is the ?'more equal'
-either party may not be able to shoot accurately
-either party could suffer an adrenalin dump, rendering their fine motor skills ineffective

Unlikely to have guns in public? First rule of a gunfight is to bring a gun. First to draw-chance or skill decides, either way, no regrets, nothing to whine about. Can't shoot? Hide under your bed. Adrenaline dump? Grow a set.

I take it you had no issue with the rest of the post? If so, that's good to know.

For specifics of what you mentioned :



I agree. Of course you need to know in advance that the other party will be starting a gun fight.



I good way to view it.



Pistols are the most difficult to shoot accurately. Rifles & shotguns are a different matter of course.



No one knows exactly how ttheir body will react physiologically in a volatile situation until they are put in it, nor when it happens, can they prevent it, so such comments seem rather misinformed to me. Of course it could be ignorantly condescening, or if you have indeed had your life threatened, and managed to steadily point your gun back at the person, then plain condescending. I'm not overly worried which - you can pick.

The hell I don't have a problem with the rest of the post - but I'm not going to waste time on contentious mush-mouth crap you spend 30 seconds making up to suit yourself.

The part I picked I picked cuz it sounds like it was came from a video game instruction manual and speaks to the illogical, uninformed fears and prejudices of the coddled millennial generation. Here you are telling me in one breath what is accurate and that you (and by association everyone else) doesn't know what it's like to act under stress.

Self reinforcing? The fact that there is such a thing as a paraplegic and such things might not want to be less capable of self defense than the able bodied enforces the need for guns. I know guns create paraplegics too, but so do car accidents and birth defects, so who are you, or who is anyone to say where we draw the line that everybody has got all the capability they need? I know you've got what you need, if I drove a Japanese car I might lighten up myself, but I like to think I'd still be considering the interests of my countrymen rather than trying to call in rules on them.

You make claims that I am illogical without the slightest use of logic to back such claim.

You allege I proclaim uninformed fears and prejudices, yet you don't mention what fears or prejudices…which is something I doubt you can justify even should you make the attempt.

What you don't like appears to be mush mouth crap, but you apparently won't say specifically what, and won't say or are unable to say how.

You make an apparent attempt to debunk the self reinforcing argument but actually speak on a different issue.

Basically, your replies here, as a number of your replies so far, have strictly avoided finding fault with any specific thing I said in my original posts (or subsequent posts where relevant). Rather, you have in said instances made general negative claims without specifically stating which part of my post such negative claim refers to.

Some specifics would be nice. Usually when I come across people who resort to name calling/labelling and non-referenced/generalised negative comments there is very little substance to back them up. You may be different, but it's hard to tell if you don't be specific.



So do I

By the way, do you know the name for the other end / opposite of fine motor skills is? A simple yes/no will suffice.