- Joined
- Mar 16, 2009
- Messages
- 47,477
- Reaction score
- 53,180
- Location
- Dixie
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
In all fairness Goshin, I suspect most people truly believe that their own personal concerns are indeed "reasonable and legitimate" and those of their enemies are not so.
So saying what you said really only justifies ones own view and brings comfort to their allies.
How much of anyone's views are subjective, Haymarket? Quite a lot.
Ask a man who just got a promotion and a raise how the economy is doing, you're a lot more likely to get a positive answer than from the guy who just lost his job and can't find anything decent to replace it with... no?
How high of a priority does Joe Average put on SSM? Not so much. How high a priority does George Takei put on it? He is an activist in the push for it and clearly considers it one of the top priorities in the nation.
Similarly, you're going to get different views on what is legitimate and reasonable from different people, regarding guns or gun control, depending on their background, life experiences and etc.... whether we're talking about "reasonable restrictions" or "reasonable and legitimate concerns", vice-versa.
Someone from a restrictive state who mainly thinks of guns as things the police and criminals carry will have a different perspective than someone who grew up where guns are common. Someone whose only experience with guns was being victimized by an armed crook will see things differently than someone who STOPPED a criminal by showing or using a gun.
Obviously.
Objectively? while some people like to argue about it, there is little question that a lot of defensive gun use goes on... probably in the 100,000s per year, just based on government studies and lower-end estimates, vastly outnumbering murders, suicides and accidents combined.
But subjective opinions still tend to rule... and why not? A person who is unfamiliar with guns and who has never been a crime victim and thinks he lives in a safe neighborhood may see no need for armed citizens... and if he wishes to go unarmed I wish him well and will not trouble him over it.
Similarly, someone very familiar with firearms, who HAS been a crime victim or had someone close to them victimized by a criminal, or has stopped a criminal by being armed, is going to see things in a different light. If you try to tell him he doesn't need to carry a gun, he is going to look at you like you just told him he doesn't need a SEAT BELT... because from his experience the former is as SELF-EVIDENT to him as the latter is to most people who have been in a traffic accident.
Which is correct? Well some philosophers and quantum physicists would argue both are correct. :mrgreen:
Perhaps both are making the best decision they can based on THEIR experiences and world view for their OWN lives. Perhaps we should just let them do so... something called Liberty, which is held in high regard in the US, is that until you harm someone else or infringe on their rights you do mostly what you please, no?
And given that available statistics do NOT indicate that CCWers are statistically any significant threat to Joe Citizen (indeed, one could argue that you're more likely to be wrongfully shot by the police!), there is no reason to force them to give up their self-determination for the sake of those made uncomfortable by their liberty.
When you belittle people who carry due to concerns about crime and safety that THEIR LIFE EXPERIENCE tells them is valid and legitimate, by saying they are fearful and making decisions based on irrational emotion, you're saying that YOUR worldview is superior and correct and theirs is invalid and wrong... something that is usually frowned on in our society when the topic is something other than guns.
At least allow the other side the benefit of assuming their sincerity about their motives... its only polite.