I have a couple of friends who run a website called Armed with Reason and one of them just got published in the Atlantic.
Coolcoolcool about your friends getting published. Gun control. Phew. I actually saw an episode about this on 20/20 two weeks ago (I know, I know, not exactly the epitome of news reporting...it was a slow Friday night...well every Friday night is slow for me, but now I'm digressing). I'm not an expert on the subject by any means, but I don't really get the need, in the sense that the people who are really pushing to own guns definitely don't need them in the neighborhoods they live in. Like, I've lived in Ultra-White Suburbia, I've seen both sides of the coin. There's a very low chance some hoodlum is going to pick your giant house out of hundreds to try and break into or whatever. Then again, that's just my experience in Colorado, so I could be wrong about the rest of the US.
Studies seem to show that the act of owning a gun has a psychological effect; you think about it a lot, have "protection fantasies," are more likely to resort to it instead of intelligence in a crisis, etc. Guns are destructive, hunting for sport is evil, killing in general is almost always bad. Just so we're clear with where I stand.
I think claiming theses guns are for protection is being a bit disingenuous. Again, not very knowledgeable on the subject, but bht there's obviously something else at play here that isn't really being admitted as the primary reason people want guns so bad.
They might need them to defend against their crazy white neighbors with guns.
The only thing I got from the article, aside from the glaring sensationalism, is that they completely misinterpreted the sources they cited (or maybe didn't even read them at all) and that if you don't train and practice with your self-defense firearm you're an idiot. Actually, after perusing through some of the cited sources it would lead me to believe that there is significantly less gun-related violence toward women. I'm a cynic, though. Both sides of the gun argument have compelling and legitimate arguments so there must be some sort of ulterior motive for it to still be getting so much media coverage. Unfortunately most proposed solutions to this perceived problem that are widely public aren't very good. And, as far as I can tell, this article is just more bitching about the fact that guns exist.
Well, thank you for insulting my friend. Feel free to present some as an actual contribution. Is this a joke? Surely you're aware that the NRA is the second most powerful private organization in the country. This issue will never die until special interest lobbying is much more heavily regulated than it is now.Both sides of the gun argument have compelling and legitimate arguments
so there must be some sort of ulterior motive for it to still be getting so much media coverage.
Did the protesters win in Ukraine because they armed themselves, or did they win because they got shot on international television? If you truly don't understand and want to learn instead of just having an opinion, read the entries and studies at the website I mentioned above.
Neither. But let's not get into that. I guess I should rephrase what I said. I do understand why people would be agains't owning guns, as described in the article you posted. My point is unless guns are eradicated entirely world wide, from the public and the government, from special forces and neighbouring countries, there will always be a power differential between two groups that will lead to circumstances far more detrimental than the atrocities of domestic gun crime in the first place.Did the protesters win in Ukraine because they armed themselves, or did they win because they got shot on international television?
The classic argument to what you're saying is that guns do not help arm the populace. There isn't a gun in the world that could save me if I got on the radar of the US government for something serious. So arming up is 100 percent the wrong way to go about protesting a problem with your state.