A thought of anti-gun advocates

**praetor91313** · February 10th, 2010 11:35 AM

Here's a nice article I found. Any thoughts?
http://www.defensivehandgun.com/question_answer.shtml

[SIZE=2][SIZE=3]Q[/SIZE]:[/SIZE][SIZE=2]Why do we allow guns in our society when they are so obviously dangerous?
[SIZE=3]A: [/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=2]Because lawful Citizens have the right to protect themselves from aggressive criminals. If we take away that right, we give the criminals the advantage and that is far more dangerous than having armed citizens protect themselves with guns. When properly trained, a gun-carrying Citizen is no more dangerous than someone driving a car - and we have no problem at all letting all sorts of people drive cars.

[SIZE=3]Q: [/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=2]Why should people be able to have concealed weapons?
[SIZE=3]A: [/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=2]Because a police officer is almost never present when a criminal attacks. Most criminals are smart enough to make sure of that. The only person who can be expected to stop a criminal attack is the intended victim or someone close by

[SIZE=3]Q: [/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=2]Isn't calling 911 a better solution than trying to fight?
[SIZE=3]A: [/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=2]Picture this: You are walking from your car to your front door. Two hooded figures carrying large knives jump out from the darkness and rush toward you...
It takes a trained person about 1.5 seconds to draw and fire a concealed pistol. It takes how long to dial 911; then how much longer for the police to arrive? When looking down the barrel of a gun, a criminal will most often flee or submit to arrest (in over 90% of incidents!). No other tool has this life-saving effect.[/SIZE]

Another thought: our police forces are currently trying to outlaw civilians from carrying fireamrs. In an interview, our police chief essentially said that we should just let our police force be the ones protecting us. What a scary thought! First of all, from what I've witnessed, they just don't have the training. Remember the hostage crisis in an MRT station, where the police opened fire only when the hostage-taker started stabbing the child? And isn't it true that there was a rumor that the child's real cause of death was due to a policeman's bullet?

Second of all, and let's face it: our law enforcers are being called "goons with guns". Now don't get me wrong, there are a few out there who really love their job and try very hard to uphold what they stand for. But most of them now are very corrupt. I've interviewed one retired policeman and he said they're being trained from when they were still studying to be policeman for corruption. They had to pay some of their trainers just to pass! So he said it's no wonder that when they become full-pledged policemen, the first thing they do is try to get back their investment.

**praetor91313** · February 10th, 2010 11:38 AM

Here's another fine article entitled "The Anti-Gun Male"

[SIZE=4]LET'S be honest. [/SIZE][SIZE=5]He's scared of the thing.[/SIZE][SIZE=4] That's understandable--so am I. But as a girl I have the luxury of being able to admit it. I don't have to masquerade squeamishness as grand principle-in the interest of mankind, no less. [/SIZE] [SIZE=4]A man does. He has to say things like "One Taniqua Hall is one too many," as a New York radio talk show host did in referring to the 9-year old New York girl who was accidentally shot last year by her 12-year old cousin playing with his uncle's gun. But the truth is he desperately needs Taniqua Hall, just like he needs as many Columbines and Santees as can be mustered, until they spell an end to the Second Amendment. [/SIZE][SIZE=5]And not for the benefit of the masses, but for the benefit of his self-esteem. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=4]He often accuses men with guns of "compensating for something." The truth is quite the reverse. After all, how is he supposed to feel knowing there are men out there who aren't intimidated by the big bad inanimate villain? How is he to feel in the face of adolescent boys who have used the family gun effectively in defending the family from an armed intruder? [/SIZE][SIZE=5]So if he can't touch a gun, he doesn't want other men to be able to either. And to achieve his ends, he'll use the only weapon he knows how to manipulate: the law. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=4]Of course, ***ual and psychological insecurities don't account for ALL men against guns. Certainly there must be some whose motives are pure, who perhaps do care so much as to tirelessly look for policy solutions to teenage void and aggressiveness, and to parent and teacher negligence. But for a potentially large underlying contributor, psycho-***ual inadequacy has gone unexplored and unacknowledged. [/SIZE][SIZE=5]It's one thing to not be comfortable with a firearm and therefore opt to not keep or bear one. But it's another to impose the same handicap onto others. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=4]People are suspicious of what they do not know-and not only does this man not know how to use a gun, he doesn't know the men who do, or the number of people who have successfully used one to defend themselves from injury or death. But he is better left in the dark; his life is hard enough knowing there are men out there who don't sit cross-legged. That they're able to handle a firearm instead of being handled by it would be too much to bear. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=4]Such a man is also best kept huddled in urban centers, where he feels safer than he might if thrown out on his own into a rural setting, in an isolated house on a quiet street where he would feel naked and helpless. Lacking the confidence that would permit him to be sequestered in sparseness, and lacking a gun, he finds comfort in the cloister of crowds. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=5]The very ownership of a gun for defense of home and family implies some assertiveness and a certain self-reliance. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=5]But if our man kept a gun in the house, and an intruder broke in and started attacking his wife in front of him, he wouldn't be able to later say, "He had a knife--there was nothing I could do!" Passively watching in horror while already trying to make peace with the violent act, scheduling a therapy session and forgiving the perpetrator before the attack is even finished wouldn't be the option it otherwise is. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=5]No. Better to emasculate all men. Because let's face it: He's a lover, not a fighter. And he doesn't want to get shot in case he has an affair with your wife. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=4]Of course, it wouldn't be completely honest not to admit that owning a firearm carries with it some risk to unintended targets. That's the tradeoff with a gun: The right to defend one's life and way of life isn't without peril to oneself. And the last thing this man wants to do is risk his life-if even to save it. For he is guided by a dread fear for his life, and has more confidence in almost anyone else's ability to protect him than his own, [/SIZE][SIZE=5]preferring to place himself at the mercy of the villain or in the sporadically competent hands of authorities[/SIZE][SIZE=4] (his line of defense consisting of locks, alarm systems, reasoning with the attacker, calling the police or, should fighting back occur to him, thrashing a heavy vase). [/SIZE]
[SIZE=4]In short, he is a man begging for subjugation. [/SIZE][SIZE=5]He longs for its promise of equality in helplessness.[/SIZE][SIZE=4] Because only when that strange, independent alpha breed of male is helpless along with him will he feel adequate. [/SIZE][SIZE=6]Indeed, his freedom lies in this other man's containment.[/SIZE]

**praetor91313** · February 10th, 2010 11:51 AM

I especially like this statement:

[SIZE=3]It's one thing to not be comfortable with a firearm and therefore opt to not keep or bear one. But it's another to impose the same handicap onto others[/SIZE].

**badsekktor** · February 10th, 2010 12:27 PM

Owning a gun is like having a fire extinguisher. Better to have one when you need it....

**praetor91313** · February 10th, 2010 01:06 PM

It's also the same principle as having a condom: it's better to have one and not need it than to need it and not have one.

I don't child-proof my guns. I gun-proof my children. I've taught them how to use it and prepare for emergencies as well as the importance of following the basic rules of gun ownership and safety.

**praetor91313** · February 10th, 2010 01:12 PM

Sorry, I was supposed to type A though FOR anti-gun advocates as the thread title. I don't know what happened.

**niky** · February 10th, 2010 05:20 PM

Personally... it depends.

Some societies function perfectly normally without guns. Look at Japan. You only need a gun if criminals are armed with knives and pipes. If the criminals also have guns, it's not much protection. If somebody wants you dead, they're liable to shoot first and shoot last. If they just want to rob you, if you're cooperative, they'rel not likely to kill you. (note case of gun-owner preventing a car-napping... he was only able to shoot at them as they were getting away. When face to face with armed assailants who outnumber you, chances are you can get one... but not all.)

I'm all for guns as personal home protection, but not in public. Unfortunately... since our government can't control the proliferation of M16s and AK47s amongst the lawless element in our country, people often need all the help they can get.