Basic misunderstanding.
Added 2025-09-13 16:33:27 +0000 UTCAfter an atrocious murder (often mass-murder), I sometimes hear gun-control advocates lament "What will it take to get Americans to disarm?!" I believe this reflects a misunderstanding of basic human nature.
When you harangue a person with the notion that crazed killers are about, and that they and/or their children could be murdered at any time? Their first thought is NOT gonna be "Oh, I better get rid of my guns, so I can't defend myself with armed force". No: When you present a person with a threat, real or imagined, that person is not going to want to make themselves more vulnerable. On the contrary, their first thought is more often than not going to be "I better arm up, so I can meet this threat on equal terms".
This seems very obvious to me. Can the gun-control people really not see that (amusingly, most of the leaders of the gun-control movement are heavily armed themselves, or at least their bodyguards are)? Or are they cynically peddling lies at the behest of their billionaire backers who detest the idea of armed peasants? Not that deluded suckers led by cynical con men *coughMAGAcough* is anything new in human affairs.
Comments
I think your gun related rants paint the picture fairly well. If everyone capable of handling a gun is properly trained on gun safety and usage, and then allowed to carry, then the odds of being hurt by guns "tend" to decline. Namely because the young are taught from the start that they are not "toys" and should be handled with care and respect to avoid accidents . . . and because if every civil-minded citizen is packing, then the idiot that tries to do harm with a gun is likely to find several times more aimed at their own head. That was one of the premises behind the 2nd Amendment . . . the government is meant to serve the people, not to rule them, and by ensuring that the citizens can arm themselves for self-defense and providing their needs (a.i. hunting, etc) then should trouble turn up from without or within, then every citizen is prepared to stand to deal with it. "You can't fight city hall," they say, but "City Hall can't fight public opinion," and it's the public that has control of the machinery that built and can break city hall. And that goes for poorly managed governments where a bunch of dirty rats will even go so far as propping up an empty-headed corpse to act as their face on the stage while they screw everybody over for their own gains. And another thing "Gun Control" fools need to remember is that . . . if somebody wants to do evil, wants to do harm . . . then they don't need a gun to do it. If they really want to hurt you, they'll use whatever their twisted imaginations can cook up . . . from simply stoning, to more elaborate machinations of homemade life-enders. Guns just make it easy to do it at a distance, but is somebody still wants you broken, taking away those guns won't change a dang thing . . . it just means they have to get more nasty in their thinking. But I'm venting too much steam . . . sorry for sounding the fool, but coming across the same foolish arguments over and over again . . . sigh . . . We need more fun like the Ass Kicking Competition XD X3, now that's a fun way to "pound" a point home!
Sonicrailin
2025-09-14 14:49:04 +0000 UTC"It can't happen here!" Yeah, I thought so too, and look at the good ol' USA now. I hope you're right about Canada.
Kjartan Arnorsson
2025-09-13 21:59:58 +0000 UTCSeeing this, I'm glad I live in Canada where we have some sane gun policy [the pollution of smuggled American guns notwithstanding] to keep from falling to this kind of slippery slope fallacy that excuses the torrent of shooting blood and the mentality that dares make it seem "normal". In other words, there is more than one reason we refuse to be a "51st state. "
Kenneth Chisholm
2025-09-13 20:42:36 +0000 UTC
