Are Terrorists Really Optimists?

Post Reply New Topic

I admire your technical expertise but frankly, what has that to do with the average guy with a loaded pistol? I'm not trying to out-expertise you about guns but what are your qualifications about the psychology of frightened old ladies and macho kids and angry husbands in handling dangerous firearms?

I'm not just referring to technical expertise here, but an ongoing engagement with the gun owning and gun rights communities, as well as an awful lot of research into gun crime and the pattens it follows. I have to keep abreast of this stuff in order to continually counter statements like those you've made in this thread, that seem based on a flawed understanding of the motivations of people who choose to own guns. What I find particularly odious is this persistent misconception that gun ownership is an indication of a violent personality, the statistics regarding people who go through the proper channels to acquire their firearms, and especially those who go to the trouble of getting concealed weapon permits unequivocally refute this viewpoint, and if you persist in defending it I can easily provide the documentation regarding crime rates (or more properly the lack thereof) among legal gun owners. Criminals of course by their very status as lawbreakers don't care what the law says anyway, and attempting to control their behavior by punishing the law abiding is truly the naive opinion here.

Aside from the violent personalities do you really trust the judgment of multitudes of people with odd ideas and great fears who might own guns? You have stated many times how much you distrust the police who have had at least some knowledge and training with guns. Do you think the average gun owner superior to the police in this area?

Yes, and the average CCW holder is also much safer to be around while armed, the police constantly rank at or near the bottom in terms of safe gun handling. Probably has something to do with them having to carry a gun as part of their job regardless of their personal feelings about them, and their training qualifications are often lackluster at best. Further, the culture of the police often cause them to demand respect they have not earned, and make them more likely to use their guns (or tasers, pepper spray or batons) in situations where they are clearly not called for, as a spate of Youtube and subpoenaed dash-cam footage can attest to. The average CCW holder has a better record than the police in nearly every way, from safer handling to less misuse, and in fact police misbehavior is one of the reasons I support increased civilian gun ownership, as it makes the cops and other authority figures think twice before needlessly escalating a situation over such petty things as feeling disrespected, they need the possibility of consequences to help keep them in line. Power without accountability inevitably leads to corruption, and I'd be surprised if you trusted the police to police themselves in an impartial manner either.

The concept of a civilian carrying a gun and thereby gaining respect from the police strikes me as one of the blackest pieces of humor I have ever heard. Just in the last couple of days some guy with a gun confronted the Pentagon police and was executed as a result. And there was, of course, the Dialo case where the guy merely reached for his wallet and was blown down with a massive rain of shots. Are you really serious?

Do you see the pattern here? I answer one argument of yours, and rather than defend it you find what you consider to be a weak and often unrelated point in my answering post, and answer that as if it were my entire argument, often with a note of in incredulousness thrown in, as if no reasonable person could possibly hold beliefs different to your own. I explain myself and provide supporting data and argumentation for my positions, while you seem to think that a deprecating comment is enough to refute me. Obviously, I think otherwise.

What I speak of is not gaining the respect of the police, but rather putting a very real check on their power in the hands of the general populace. I'm not simply speaking of incidents like Diallo where a perfect storm type situation led to tragedy, but more the day to day interactions with the populace. If open carry for example was more widely practiced, it would force law enforcement to recognize that armed civilians are not criminals, and that they can't rely on force or the threat of it's use to do whatever they want without consequence. As things currently stand, unless a video of the police behaving badly exists, and sometimes even then, they enjoy broad protections from consequences when they abuse their authority given that the courts almost unanimously give them the benefit of the doubt when allegations arise, and they are further shielded by their union and the blue wall of silence. Just like any other bullies, they don't pick on targets that pose an actual threat to them, and visibly armed civilians in greater number would definitely fall into that category.

Anyone pulling a gun on a cop or even indicating that as a possibility is asking for immediate execution and you are a total idiot if you think otherwise.

*Sigh*

You aren't by chance related to a guy from Canada that used to go by the name "Slowmutant" are you? I ask because he had a similar problem with putting words into my mouth, and I haven't seen him in a while.

At what point did I suggest drawing down on the cops? I said "open carry" and "visibly armed", that means holstered pistols in plain view, not a drawn weapon in the hand, there is a world of difference between the two. Having walked the streets of Seattle with a holstered pistol on each hip, the most reaction I ever have gotten from the police is a polite nod and a smile, at least the officers that I've encountered seem to fully realize that by carrying so blatantly that I clearly have no ill intent, and am merely advertising my unsuitability as a victim of any sort of violent attack. If more people followed suit, it stands to reason that society would grow accustomed to such sights and recognize the legitimacy of said course of action, since after all fear of firearms is a learned reaction and there should be nothing frightening about a man who's prepared to defend himself.

If you'd like to discuss this further, I propose moving it to my other thread about the SCOTUS case of Wilson vs Chicago, as that would seem a more appropriate venue, I think we've scared off other people from weighing in about the mindset of terrorists...

Last edited by Dox47 on 07 Mar 2010, 1:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

I reply to your comments. The nature of the thread is of no consequence to me. A gun is by primary nature a threat. It's mere existence is a demonstration of it's possible use. That is undeniable. A police officer automatically demands a basic respect by the nature of his or her function. Any defiance of that authority is an implication of at attack on that authority and is automatically suppressed to maintain its force.The open display of or implication of a firearm is always an implied threat. There is no way to get around that. Anybody who does not fear getting shot by someone carrying a firearm totally negates the nature of a firearm and is something of a fool. To be completely at ease in a firearm carrying public one must have absolute trust there are no trigger happy idiots amongst the public. I doubt that kind of assurance is possible. I certainly don't have that confidence.

Well, you're actually the one who brought up the whole gun thing in the first place and sort of out of left field, you weren't responding to anything I'd said in this thread but rather making an assumption based on some unrelated information you know about me personally. I'm not normally one to so thou roughly hijack a thread, even one I started, but the gun owner = violent stereotype is one that I can't ignore.



To borrow a phrase from Inigo Montoya, I don't think that word means what you think it means, in this case that word being "undeniable" rather than "inconceivable". A gun is just a device for accelerating a chunk of lead and propelling it in as straight a line as is practical, to what end is strictly the choice of the user. Different guns may be optimized for different purposes, a target gun is generally not practical for self defense, while a gun designed for defense is generally not suitable for hunting. Sure you could lug around a heavy target pistol to defend yourself with, but to use your phrase that's not it's primary nature or suited purpose. If someone merely sees a gun and interprets it as a threat, it's because they've been taught to react that way, it's a learned response and an unhealthy one at that. The only person who should feel threatened by the mere sight of a holstered pistol is someone intent on harming the person on who's hip it's holstered, and in that respect it is no different than a muscular build, an aggressive demeanor, or a group of friends. Do you feel threatened by the sight of a car because it might be used to run you over, or do you get nervous at the steakhouse because of the sharp tableware? Nearly anything can be "possibly used" as a weapon, what you feel threatened by is what you've been conditioned to.



See my second response to you, it covers a lot of this as well. The police have authority because the citizenry allows them to have authority, and periodically they need to be reminded of that fact. They carry guns to protect themselves from violence exactly the same reason that armed civilians carry. Is the open display of firearms by law enforcement an implied threat in your view? Or how about this; would you fear being beat up in a room full of black-belts?

In a majority of states it is completely legal to carry a holstered pistol in public and is no cause for alarm for anyone but those looking to victimize others, in fact I am not aware of a single incident in which a pistol carried openly in a legal manner has been used in a crime, it simply doesn't make sense to do so. The only kind of law enforcement officer who should feel threatened by openly armed civilians is the kind who abuses their position, and even then the conclusion they must draw is that if they choose to resort to violence, they will be answered in kind, not that they are any more likely to simply be attacked. My local cops seem to understand this just fine, as I mentioned before I've passed them on the street while openly carrying a full sized handgun on each hip; they were so threatened that they felt the need to nod politely and pass me by.

Finally, over 40 states have laws allowing the carrying of firearms in public by civilians, and your "trigger happy idiots" have yet to materialize, unless you count certain members of the police, the DEA and the ATF. Putting a gun in someone's hand doesn't turn them into a violent person, whereas pinning a badge on their shirt seems to have more mixed results.

It seems we've expressed our points of view as best we can. I see a gun as a potential threat no matter what. You don't. I can accept we can disagree.

I often ponder these same thoughts and questions, and I suspect there is no single answer. I think the "terrorist" you mention is first an idealist ... but then I suspect many of them are actually only the followers *of* an idealist ... and I would also guess such folks are also likely the ones who end up toting most of the bombs and guns.

Overall, I suspect everyone who breathes ultimately knows mankind is never going to make things truly better here on Earth, and I suspect the frustration caused by that knowledge (and coupled with the ego) is what drives the "angry and lashing out" parts we see in many: We human beings might know how things could be and should be, and some of us simply insist on trying to make them happen.