THE WISDOM OF ARMING IN SELF DEFENSE

On 9/11, according to the NY Times the Moslems
had learned the martial arts for unarmed combat
by studying them in America, the same as thay learned
to fly jet planes. The Times said that thay were armed
with little white plastic knives issued for informal dining,
e.g., at outdoor picnics. Thay were said to have been used
to sever the unsuspecting pilot 's carotid arteries.

David

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

And may we remind you once again, David, that the number four
or number five source of guns used in crimes is burglaries from
homes of "ligal" gun owners. Your guns are far more likely to be
used by someone else in commission of a crime than they are to
be used by you in prevention of one.

1. The statistics of the repressionist community have been found fraudulently misleading
so many times, that thay lack credibility.

2. If thay actually WERE accurate (as, in theory)
some of them might possibly, conceivably be, that means nothing
because it falls to me to arrange for my own personal survival,
rather than to subordinate my well being, or the survival of my family,
to the theoretical well being of some larger community, as u suggest.

3. If commercially manufactured guns were not available,
criminals woud not simply go out of business
and get jobs flipping hamburgers. Guns have been homemade
for the fun of it, even when commericially made guns are freely available.
That also applies to personal manufacture of ammunition.

Guns were among Man 's first machines with moving parts.
Thay were a lot more difficult to make centuries ago,
in the absence of technological advancement
and in the absence of electric tools. Now, the blueprints exist as well as the tools
to make them much faster and more conveniently than when our ancestors made guns.

Guns are instruments of survival, much desired.
The REAL supreme law of the land is the law of supply n demand.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Rationalize, rationalize, rationalize.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Rationalize, rationalize, rationalize.

Its not. When there is an important problem, an EMERGENCY,
then an important solution is urgently required.

If a predator (human or not) threatens survival,
or grievous harm, it is urgently necessary to control that situation.
The RESULT of that emergency depends upon
whether the predator or the victim has sufficient power to control the circumstances.

Man is a tool using species. That is how we rose to the top of the food chain.
Almost all that we do requires tools.

The applicable tools are weapons; good ones.

That is not rationalizing; it is simply facing confrontational facts.

It is simply a matter of possessing the necessary tools
to succeed in resolving an important problem.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

That is not rationalizing; it is simply facing confrontational facts.

No, you are rationalizing in the face of the facts.

Having a gun in the home decreases safety, and increases risk. Period. The fact that you feel safer is what is causing the rationalizations. You're making decisions based on your feelings, and then you're brain is trying to make sense of the decision.

It's called "cognitive dissonance." You make the decision, then you invent the reasons for your decision.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
That is not rationalizing; it is simply facing confrontational facts.

No, you are rationalizing in the face of the facts.

Having a gun in the home decreases safety, and increases risk.
Period. The fact that you feel safer is what is causing the rationalizations.
You're making decisions based on your feelings,
and then you're brain is trying to make sense of the decision.

It's called "cognitive dissonance."
You make the decision, then you invent the reasons for your decision.

What u r saying makes no sense.
It defies common sense.
U r telling me that if u have a problem,
then u r better off if u DON 'T have the necessary tools to fix it.

Its very simple:
if your life is endangered by a burglar who has broken in on u,
then u need to kill him as fast as u possibly can,
otherwise, your life and your other property
will fall into his discretion to dispose of as he wishes.

( See Susan Gonzalez incident, hereinabove set forth. )

U need to have immediate access to the emergency equipment
that is necessary to control that situation.

By killing him, u also help all of the rest of us,
upon whom he can no longe inflict his evil.

Thus saith David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

What u r saying makes no sense.

No, it makes sense. You just disagree.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

It defies common sense.

No, it does not.

People who burn candles have more house fires than people who do not. People who have a swimming pool have more drownings than people who do not. People who own guns have more shootings than those who do not.

The question is, are you willing to undertake the additional risk in order to pursue your hobby?

Those that say it is not a hobby, that it is purely a matter of personal safety, are fooling themselves. If they truly wish to maximize their personal safety, they will forgo owning a firearm.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

U r telling me that if u have a problem,
then u r better off if u DON 'T have the necessary tools to fix it.

Its very simple:
if your life is endangered by a burglar who has broken in on u,
then u need to kill him as fast as u possibly can,
otherwise, your life and your other property
will fall into his discretion to dispose of as he wishes.

There are a number of fallacies, here.

First, that the only risk to your person is from an invader.
Second, that they only way to protect yourself is with a firearm.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Those that say it is not a hobby, that it is purely a matter of personal safety, are fooling themselves. If they truly wish to maximize their personal safety, they will forgo owning a firearm.

I will continue to do my own assessment of the relative risks. In other words, we continue to disagree.

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

I will continue to do my own assessment of the relative risks. In other words, we continue to disagree.

Empirical evidence shows that the chances of successfully using a firearm for self-defense in a home invasion is significantly smaller than the chances of a resident being injured by said firearm. (i.e., having a loaded weapon lying around = increased risk for you and your loved ones)

If you have some evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it.

3 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

It's called "cognitive dissonance." You make the decision, then you invent the reasons for your decision.

I don't think that you are using the term appropriately, by the way. You aren't alone, nearly every time I see it it is incorrectly applied.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

If he is not suicidal and lives alone I don't think it's unreasonable for him to conclude that the studies indicating a greater risk from successful suicide and accidental shootings of family members don't apply to him as well as to the general populace.

Don't get me wrong, I don't find guns too useful against home invasions, and I had acquaintances that had guns in hand and didn't use them during home invasions (in each case the home invasion involved hostages who would have been placed in danger). But to say that it increases the risk for his individual case just because it does so on average is to ignore that not all individuals are average.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

If he is not suicidal and lives alone I don't think it's unreasonable for him to conclude that the studies indicating a greater risk from successful suicide and accidental shootings of family members don't apply to him as well as to the general populace.

Except most of the population is not qualified to judge their mental health. The lifetime risk of experiencing a major depressive episode is something like 50%.

Certainly the risk assessment will vary from household to household, though.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

You are correct. I meant that he had a cognitive bias, not that he had cognitive dissonance.

0 Replies

I don't need a gun to defend myself. I think guns provide people with a false sense of security where they may otherwise put themselves in a position of needing/depending on it when there may be other less deadly means of defense.

For example, keys placed between your fingers and your hand in a fist can do a heck of a lot of damage to someone's eyes, throat or other sensitive area. But frankly better self defense includes not allowing yourself to be put in a position where you might need to protect yourself in the first place.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Except most of the population is not qualified to judge their mental health. The lifetime risk of experiencing a major depressive episode is something like 50%.

That has the appearance, perhaps unintentional, of an exaggerated risk to me. Both of the sides of the gun debate have pretty weak odds supporting their arguments. Yes, the odds of guns protecting people are slim, but so are the odds of it hurting people (and in his case slimmer still I bet if you run the same studies over single-person households).

I bet that just about everything roger does (riding a bike on streets, driving, eating tasty food, smoking) is more dangerous than him having a gun statistically.

I also think that the studies ignore human nature and parts of psychology. The likelihood of being spooked and feeling reassured by the gun is far greater than either the gun protecting you or hurting you, and like lottery tickets the mental effect of it may be a big motivating factor.

So just as some folk buy lottery tickets just for the daydreams some folk might want guns just to make them jump less at night. Even understanding the underlying odds may not change that. A case can be made that the psychological comfort of owning the gun is the best argument for it, and there are plenty of things we do for lesser reasons than that that are more statistically dangerous.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

I think this is correct; David has made it clear long ago, that guns serve as a psychological panacea for his fears.

The only real difference is that my lottery ticket is not likely to go off and kill someone by mistake; nor is it likely to be stolen and used to kill someone else.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I read that as a psychological penis for his fears.

my bad...

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

roger wrote:
I will continue to do my own assessment of the relative risks.
In other words, we continue to disagree.

Empirical evidence shows that the chances of successfully using a
firearm for self-defense in a home invasion is significantly smaller
than the chances of a resident being injured by said firearm.
(i.e., having a loaded weapon lying around = increased risk for you and your loved ones)

If you have some evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it.

That is unbelievable.
I am not that stupid to injure myself with my own gun.

Again, refer to Susan Gonzalez case hereinbefore set forth, as an example.

I refuse to surrender myself into the discretion
of any potential burglar or robber.

I wish to control such a situation,
and I have the tools to DO that.

The mere DISPLAY of my revolver has already rescued me
from criminal depredation.

Believe it or not, DrewDad:
I did not find your statistics useful in that defense.
I doubt that thay will help much in the future.

Gun control is O.S.H.A. for violent criminals,
offering them protection from the defenses of their victims.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

I am not that stupid to injure myself with my own gun.

Famous last words for MANY people

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpgL5kuBpMA

0 Replies

THE WISDOM OF ARMING IN SELF DEFENSE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know