the appeal of aggression

[kvnchrist]

I just wanted to get everybodies opinion on something that's been on my mind for awhile now. It seems that on the issue of guns, many who don't get the feeling that others are not completely on-board with their method of dealing with it are totally evil and deserve the flame of retribution.

I see the issue of guns as more an image problem than an ownership problem, sense the desire to become that image is often much more enticing that the actual ownership.

I think the issue is more the image of Billy the Kid or the larger image of the exalted patriot defending his liberty against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Just look at what we honor in this country. Look at what draws the most interest and pays the most dividends. Is it the Scientist that finds the next cure or the teacher that produces the next prodigy? No it's the football star or the Basketball player.

It's aggression that pays and the desire is glamorized in every form of entertainment that we have. Games, music, TV, movies, the image of the lone bad boy hero permeates our society.

Are we setting ourselves up to fail at providing security against gun violence by the hype we place on the images we value? Are we proving to be our own worst enemy by promoting an image that is more destructive than productive to society?

Does a society that glorifies violence ans self determination by any mean necessary; does a society that drowns itself in the desire for material wealth really have the appetite to deprive themselves of a means to both gaining and defending these desires?

[HeyYou]

It isn't just the guns issue that is devisive. Look at ANY political issue, and most of the comments I see from BOTH sides pretty much boils down to "you have a differing view than mine, therefore, you must be a crazed, psychopathic, mentally challenged, sub-human that lives in his/her momma's basement......." (and you can see this in comments coming out of washington as well.)

 

We are a country divided, right down party lines. THAT is what is going to spell the downfall of this country, more than any one, single issue.

 

The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. Legislation, no matter how comprehensive, will do absolutely nothing.

[Tidus44]

Do not disagree with the opinion, but I do find one part somewhat confusing. "The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun."

 

So, who picks the good guy and how is he (or she) identified as "good" or "bad" and how long does the designation remain valid?

[Syco21]

Do not disagree with the opinion, but I do find one part somewhat confusing. "The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun."

 

So, who picks the good guy and how is he (or she) identified as "good" or "bad" and how long does the designation remain valid?

No one gets to pick who the good guy is and who the bad guy is, each individual makes that decision for themself when they decide whether to be either a productive or destructive member of society.

 

How do you pick out the good guys from the bad guys? Insanely easily. The good guy isn't point his gun at anyone.

[Tidus44]

 

Do not disagree with the opinion, but I do find one part somewhat confusing. "The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun."

 

So, who picks the good guy and how is he (or she) identified as "good" or "bad" and how long does the designation remain valid?

No one gets to pick who the good guy is and who the bad guy is, each individual makes that decision for themself when they decide whether to be either a productive or destructive member of society.

 

How do you pick out the good guys from the bad guys? Insanely easily. The good guy isn't point his gun at anyone.

 

 

"The good guy isn't point(ing) his gun at anyone" makes no sense as an answer because the statement was, "The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun." If the good guy isn't pointing his gun at anyone, then exactly how does he stop the bad guy with a gun and what is the purpose of the good guys gun?

I'd appreciate you clarifying exactly how you see the good guy stopping the bad guy and what the statement, "The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun." means to you or how you interpret it.

 

My initial thought though is that this didn't particularly work well in the recent Vegas shooting. The armed good guy died when he tried to shoot the bad guy.

 

My next thought is that suppose I am a good guy with a gun and I hear a gun shot. I turn around to see a guy shooting. Is he a good guy stopping a bad guy or a bad guy shooting at someone?

 

As I said, I don't disagree, I'd just like an explanation of how this works so the good guys with guns stop the bad guys with guns.

[kvnchrist]

 

 

Do not disagree with the opinion, but I do find one part somewhat confusing. "The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun."

 

So, who picks the good guy and how is he (or she) identified as "good" or "bad" and how long does the designation remain valid?

No one gets to pick who the good guy is and who the bad guy is, each individual makes that decision for themself when they decide whether to be either a productive or destructive member of society.

 

How do you pick out the good guys from the bad guys? Insanely easily. The good guy isn't point his gun at anyone.

 

 

"The good guy isn't point(ing) his gun at anyone" makes no sense as an answer because the statement was, "The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun." If the good guy isn't pointing his gun at anyone, then exactly how does he stop the bad guy with a gun and what is the purpose of the good guys gun?

I'd appreciate you clarifying exactly how you see the good guy stopping the bad guy and what the statement, "The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun." means to you or how you interpret it.

 

My initial thought though is that this didn't particularly work well in the recent Vegas shooting. The armed good guy died when he tried to shoot the bad guy.

 

My next thought is that suppose I am a good guy with a gun and I hear a gun shot. I turn around to see a guy shooting. Is he a good guy stopping a bad guy or a bad guy shooting at someone?

 

As I said, I don't disagree, I'd just like an explanation of how this works so the good guys with guns stop the bad guys with guns.

 

I think the intent was to show the need of a gun to defend against a threat who is weilding a gun.

 

It could be argued that no guns would be perferable, but that fact is why I posted this thread in the first place. People who wish to restrict guns are often seen a people wanting to restrict the rights of others. My veiw is that these people have a long hard road down a historical and ideological path that's steeped in rebel ideology. Our society has romantisized gun ownership and the honerable bad boy image of lone heroes like John Wayne and Clint Eastwood.

 

As long as we continue to praise the gun and the independant lone rebel/patriot we will have this love affair with the gun and juveniles from 8 to 80 will wnting one just to feel powerful.

 

Responcible gun ownership is another can of worms and one the government should embrace. Not only are these people taking care of their own firearms but they associate with others who do as well. What better people to have around you to get information on loons that have guns or illegal weapons. If they are respected I don't doubt that these people will want to inform the authorities on individuals that are a posible safety risk to the public. That and they know bad publicity is not in their best interest as gun owners.

[HeyYou]

Take a look at what has happened in history in just about EVERY society that the government decided to ban guns. Thousands, if not millions killed by their government. Armed citizenry is the ONLY defense against tyrannical government.

 

Also, take a look at all the anti-gun legislation that has actually passed in the last decade or so, then notice that it has had ZERO affect on the number of mass-shootings.

 

Please take note that almost EVERY SINGLE mass-shooting, has taken place in a "Gun Free Zone".

 

Notice that 'assualt rifles', or even rifles in general, are used in less than 1% of gun crimes.

 

A gun is only a tool. The recent california "mass shooter" killed his first three victims with a knife, injured 7 with his CAR. Only then did he pull his pistol, and kill three more. (in a gun free zone.)

 

When a gun is used to PROTECT someone, or prevent a crime, that is not news, and you don't hear about it.

 

So, why do the mass-shooters go to gun-free zones to commit their atrocities? Because they KNOW FOR A FACT that THEY will be the ONLY one there with a weapon. By the time the cops arrive, (the 'good guys with guns') the shooter has already left the scene, or, taken his own life.

 

So, what would happen if we simply dropped the Gun Free zones? Potential shooters would no longer be assured of being the only one there with a gun. There would be no need to post armed guards to prevent mass-shootings, as the shooters would be well aware that ANY adult on the scene could potentially be armed. (yet more 'good guys with guns') Instead of staff trying to hide, or block access, they could take an active role in STOPPING the shooter. In all reality, the staff wouldn't even necessarily NEED to actually be armed, the mere possibility of armed resistance would be enough to prevent most mass-shooters from even going there.

 

And that is what "responsible" gun ownership is all about. Knowing when to use it, and when not to. If you aren't sure of your target, you simply do not pull the trigger.

[Syco21]

 

"The good guy isn't point(ing) his gun at anyone" makes no sense as an answer because the statement was, "The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun." If the good guy isn't pointing his gun at anyone, then exactly how does he stop the bad guy with a gun and what is the purpose of the good guys gun?

I'd appreciate you clarifying exactly how you see the good guy stopping the bad guy and what the statement, "The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun." means to you or how you interpret it.

 

My initial thought though is that this didn't particularly work well in the recent Vegas shooting. The armed good guy died when he tried to shoot the bad guy.

 

My next thought is that suppose I am a good guy with a gun and I hear a gun shot. I turn around to see a guy shooting. Is he a good guy stopping a bad guy or a bad guy shooting at someone?

 

As I said, I don't disagree, I'd just like an explanation of how this works so the good guys with guns stop the bad guys with guns.

 

If you don't know who is the aggressor and who is the defender, you do not get involved. What it means is when you're sitting in Luby's and some dude smashes his car through the window and starts shooting people, you are able to stop him before he can kill your parents.

 

Not every single situation is going to be helped by a good guy with a gun. There might come a time when the good guy arrives too late to help and can only call 911. The statement is about situations that go down with an armed good guy present, who will know what's going on and how to respond.

 

She, the third victim was a she. It's extremely unfortunate what occured in Las Vegas. It doesn't disprove the notion that good guys with guns can and do stop bad guys with guns. Not every situation will have a happy ending, even if the good guy is armed. It's not some bullet proof measure. Like carrying a spare tire, in most cases it is extremely helpful. Sometimes though you will get multiple flats and your spare isn't going to be much use. Doesn't mean you shouldn't carry a spare.

 

There have been a number of times when an armed citizen stopped a bad guy. Best of all, there are even times when they didn't even have to pull their guns. Like what happened to me in Louisiana when a guy beating on his girlfriend decided to beat on me instead, or even better example, when a guy in Kennesaw Georgia stopped an armed robbery before it even begun and got the perps arrested by simply being there.

[Syco21]

 

 

 

So, what would happen if we simply dropped the Gun Free zones?

You might just get another Joel Myrick. But that would be just terrible. At least according to Bloomberg & Pals anyway.

[HeyYou]

 

 

 

 

So, what would happen if we simply dropped the Gun Free zones?

You might just get another Joel Myrick. But that would be just terrible. At least according to Bloomberg & Pals anyway.

 

Exactly. Thank You Very Much.