Interesting debate about why you carry

[sol740]

Damn you Rob, I came here to post that.

 

I stole your kill

[87GT]

Well, as humans we tend to seek out certain outcomes (desired or undesired) through our actions that we often attribute to higher powers, or fate, when often the result is really simple probability. Karma exists because good people put themselves in situations that lend themselves to good reactions/responses, and vice versa, not because of some ancient-eastern, magical, philosophy.

 

Your subject with the car stereo could have avoided the theft of his headunit, by not installing it. The act of installing a desirable aftermarket stereo is in effect, knowingly subjecting one to the possibility that one who may also desire it(we can usually measure that desirability in dollar value)may decide to steal it if given the opportunity. That's just increased probability.

 

 

Before we get to carrying a firearm for personal protection, we should discuss fear. Fear is a motivator for sure, but fear as a motivator is not always negative. I want my family to eat, without stable employment, that may not happen. Fearful motivation plays a positive role in my family's livelihood and general well-being. Taken to extremes fear can be destructive too, but so can drinking 4 gallons of water. So now that we know fearful motivation can lead to desirable ends, we take into account the point of carrying a firearm.

 

Carrying a firearm for protection of oneself, or family, without intent of malice upon others, is a security measure to counteract the possibility of being in an otherwise unfairly stacked, forceful human interaction. I suppose I could see a circumstance where one develops a false sense of security in the act of possessing a firearm, and then having inflated that feeling, place themselves in higher probability situations, say like walking through a dark alley at 2am, but with a "fuck it, I got a gun" attitude, and I think we've all known someone like this. Logically, being aware of ones surroundings and environment is the best deterrent to becoming a potential target of opportunity. I suppose the firearm would be added insurance.

 

Damn you Rob, I came here to post that.

 

I knew a few people growing up that used to carry guns. At first they were always nervous. Scared they would get caught, scared the gun would go off by accident, etc. Them being uneasy made them look suspect. This would cause those around them to watch them closer. At times people would wonder if they were a snitch.. this in itself could have got them shot or picked on making them have to use that gun. Luckily that never happened.

 

After the nervous phase they became comfortable. At this point no one payed any attention to them at all. They walked around like nothing was going on. More confident than before they had the gun, but not superman..The last phase was being over confident. The situations they avoided when they were nervous and neutral they were closer to. The end result was jail time. Take the gun away and you take away the macho man psyche that resulted in incarceration.

 

Its not the gun its the person carrying it. Without the gun people run, with the gun people stand their ground.

 

Very nice there is intelligent life out there. I tried to tell some of my acquiescence that follow the attracting rule about fear not being a motivator for my choice of carrying. I explained it sort of as you did as it is an insurance policy but not an over powering tool. Then they explained a gun is a tool and it is only for killing someone. If I was concealing my firearm then that statement is true. No one but me knows I have it so the tool is for nothing but destroying someone. You could say it would help me protect someone or myself but that is only because it would destroy someone. I would not pull my gun out to just flash it around. If it comes out I am pulling the trigger. It would be different if it was visible for others to see but then it becomes an object that people fear. Fear in this case is negative so, negative vibes and so on. What would you say back to that?

[smokinHawk1647545499]

http://robotceleb.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/casey-anthony-guilty.jpg

[sol740]

Very nice there is intelligent life out there. http://www.columbusracing.com/forums/../ubb/smile.gif I tried to tell some of my acquiescence that follow the attracting rule about fear not being a motivator for my choice of carrying. I explained it sort of as you did as it is an insurance policy but not an over powering tool. Then they explained a gun is a tool and it is only for killing someone. If I was concealing my firearm then that statement is true. No one but me knows I have it so the tool is for nothing but destroying someone. You could say it would help me protect someone or myself but that is only because it would destroy someone. I would not pull my gun out to just flash it around. If it comes out I am pulling the trigger. It would be different if it was visible for others to see but then it becomes an object that people fear. Fear in this case is negative so, negative vibes and so on. What would you say back to that?

 

A gun is a tool with a single true purpose(to harm without bias, bias of course is introduced by the user of said tool), and I would not argue that. The positive or negative vibes attached to the use of a firearm are purely subjective, and will be highly varied if somewhat predictable. Since 'vibes' are not measurable data, we have to break this down as simply as possible. Luckily when it comes to the use of a firearm in self defense, others have already explained it far better than I ever could. Such as 'Reason Vs. Force' by Marko Kloos.

 

Reason vs. Force

 

 

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

 

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

 

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

 

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the muggers potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

 

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

 

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.

 

The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

 

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

[87GT]

Thank you for the Reason vs. Force quote. I was a good read.