Jeff Thomas
New member
One of the things that impresses me the most about current firearms 'discussions' and politics is the huge philosophical differences regarding self-defense.
The anti-self defense / anti-gun crowd seem to believe some or all of the following:
1. It is not practical to defend yourself;
2. The correct action is to wait for an LEO;
3. I couldn't hurt another human being;
4. If you can't get it done with 10 bullets, you're going to die anyway;
5. It will never happen to me or my family;
6. A firearm is more likely to kill me or my family, so I don't even want to be around them;
7. Guns just scare me.
And so on.
Others, including LEO's, take some or all of the following positions:
1. Guns are a tool, and I can and will train to use that tool;
2. I can't know what situation I will encounter, so I want as many rounds of ammunition as the firearm is designed to efficiently use;
3. I have primary responsibility for my life and the life of my partner / family. Backup and / or LEO's will come as soon as possible, but they probably won't be there in time to avoid the initial violence;
4. Violence is a fact of life, and always has been. I need to accept that, plan how I would deal with it, and take responsibility for myself and my family / partner.
Again, I'm sure you could come up with additional perspectives.
IMHO, the current political debate is almost more interesting because of the vast difference in these two philosophies.
I'm curious how other TFL members view this gulf. When did civilians / humans / Americans begin to believe that their defense was someone else's problem? How do otherwise logical human beings fool themselves with many of the arguments in the first section above? Is this mainly a matter of 'group think', and the almost faddish acceptance of what for many of us is illogic?
I wanted to discuss this a bit in order to better understand and better debate some of these, IMHO, idiotic beliefs.
Regards from AZ
The anti-self defense / anti-gun crowd seem to believe some or all of the following:
1. It is not practical to defend yourself;
2. The correct action is to wait for an LEO;
3. I couldn't hurt another human being;
4. If you can't get it done with 10 bullets, you're going to die anyway;
5. It will never happen to me or my family;
6. A firearm is more likely to kill me or my family, so I don't even want to be around them;
7. Guns just scare me.
And so on.
Others, including LEO's, take some or all of the following positions:
1. Guns are a tool, and I can and will train to use that tool;
2. I can't know what situation I will encounter, so I want as many rounds of ammunition as the firearm is designed to efficiently use;
3. I have primary responsibility for my life and the life of my partner / family. Backup and / or LEO's will come as soon as possible, but they probably won't be there in time to avoid the initial violence;
4. Violence is a fact of life, and always has been. I need to accept that, plan how I would deal with it, and take responsibility for myself and my family / partner.
Again, I'm sure you could come up with additional perspectives.
IMHO, the current political debate is almost more interesting because of the vast difference in these two philosophies.
I'm curious how other TFL members view this gulf. When did civilians / humans / Americans begin to believe that their defense was someone else's problem? How do otherwise logical human beings fool themselves with many of the arguments in the first section above? Is this mainly a matter of 'group think', and the almost faddish acceptance of what for many of us is illogic?
I wanted to discuss this a bit in order to better understand and better debate some of these, IMHO, idiotic beliefs.
Regards from AZ