Include me in those agreeing with Drolefille.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DGTess
In my opinion, it is the duty of the American citizen to, within the confines of the law, be responsible for his own safety. Therefore, one who, within the confines of the law, carries a firearm and uses it in self-defense or in defense of the life of another (phrases which, though while not all-encompassing, generally cover the laws of most states that do not deny the right to self-defense) is taking responsibility.
|
I failed to respond to this earlier, but I feel like I need to. While i respect, and to some degree, agree with the sentiment behind this, I think this statement is somewhat naive. The desire that everyone take responsibility for his or her own safety or the safety of another is predicated on the assumption that the average person will act responsibly when in a sudden, stressful situation. While I certainly assume that everyone would
intend to act responsibly, my life experience leads me to believe that intention (or training for a CHL) isn't enough. The person who can act calmly and responsibly in a situation like this is, I think, the exception rather than the rule, as much as we'd all like to think we'd perform well under pressure. And I think that's especially the case in this context -- college students. That's one reason I find the "if there had only been someone with a gun at Virginia Tech" argument unpersuasive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPhil
And I'm not surprised that the opinions of those who do not agree with what TX is doing have been reduced to "the opinion of people who have never been violently victimized." That's an assumption. But, I could easily say the same for the people who are excited for this proposed law. The average person who is a fan of this law has never been violently victimized. They think they are protecting themselves and preparing for the low likelihood that they may ever be victimized. At which time they are statistically more likely to either not be able to access/use their gun at all (a gun on the hip isn't the same as a gun in your hands) OR have their own gun used against them.
|
Exactly. Playing the "never been violently victimized" is just another way of dismissing an argument rather than engaging it.
And I might as well add that I'm not a fan of public policy debates on the basis of bumper sticker arguments like "if having a gun is a crime, only criminals will have guns," or "guns don't kill people, people kill people." I hear things like that and, fairly or not, tune the speaker because I assume he has nothing substantive to say.
And yes, that holds true for liberal bumper stickers, too.
Threaded Mode
