The small difference was that the guy with the rifle did not initiate the violence.
I suspect that self-defense is often sighted as a response to "need." The world would be a very different place if we were limited to needs and most people wouldn't like that world. I don't respond with that to the "What does anyone need with..." argument …
The small difference was that the guy with the rifle did not initiate the violence.
I suspect that self-defense is often sighted as a response to "need." The world would be a very different place if we were limited to needs and most people wouldn't like that world. I don't respond with that to the "What does anyone need with..." argument because I don't really care about what people think others need a need for. Next thing you know they'll say I don't need my banjo. ;0)
The odds of me needing to defend myself with a gun are almost as low as the odds of me being a victim of a mass shooting and both are probably overemphasized in the discussion.
In a recent conversation with my wife, she revealed for the first time just how afraid she was that I would be killed on my last return to Vietnam. For some reason it inspired me to reread James Webb's classic "Fields of Fire" for a trip back in time. Things shoved down the memory hole returned which are making me think about how much those formative years shaped my views for a lifetime. Things no longer relevant. A productive thing for the discussion is to honestly address why we hold the views that we hold which are not as often about pure logic as we like to believe. People are very good at bullshitting themselves. Not as some accusatory bullshit to insult or win an argument in your own mind, making the divide worse, but genuine self-assessment.
If you like to read, I recommend it. It is a book that could not be written today. Brutal honesty with all the magic racist words of that time, place and people meant to dehumanize. That is why I so often address the issue of demonization and dehumanization, something I never chose to forget its purpose.
If you want to talk in generic terms about presumptions of what other people need you're wasting your time. Do I *need* a room full of boxes of physics books I don't have shelves for? No. Do I *need* saxophones and flutes I don't play? No.
Does anyone *need* a firearm? That gets hazy. In a high crime neighborhood where burglary and robbery are common it would be hard to justify denial.
But: does anyone need a military weapon of massacre for self-defense? Absolutely not. Homes are not invaded by armies, they're invaded by addicts looking for a stereo or an iPad to steal and sell to buy dope. You don't need to be able to kill dozens of people in a minute to defend against that, and the availability of such firepower to demonstrably unstable people is doing the nation a lot of harm.
The small difference was that the guy with the rifle did not initiate the violence.
I suspect that self-defense is often sighted as a response to "need." The world would be a very different place if we were limited to needs and most people wouldn't like that world. I don't respond with that to the "What does anyone need with..." argument because I don't really care about what people think others need a need for. Next thing you know they'll say I don't need my banjo. ;0)
The odds of me needing to defend myself with a gun are almost as low as the odds of me being a victim of a mass shooting and both are probably overemphasized in the discussion.
In a recent conversation with my wife, she revealed for the first time just how afraid she was that I would be killed on my last return to Vietnam. For some reason it inspired me to reread James Webb's classic "Fields of Fire" for a trip back in time. Things shoved down the memory hole returned which are making me think about how much those formative years shaped my views for a lifetime. Things no longer relevant. A productive thing for the discussion is to honestly address why we hold the views that we hold which are not as often about pure logic as we like to believe. People are very good at bullshitting themselves. Not as some accusatory bullshit to insult or win an argument in your own mind, making the divide worse, but genuine self-assessment.
If you like to read, I recommend it. It is a book that could not be written today. Brutal honesty with all the magic racist words of that time, place and people meant to dehumanize. That is why I so often address the issue of demonization and dehumanization, something I never chose to forget its purpose.
Headed for bed but let me tell you one quote I live by: people are far better at rationalizing than at rationality.
But yeah so much discourse online is childish competitiveness. I will admit when I am wrong, that's very important to my sense of who I am.
Words and a philosophy to live by.
If you want to talk in generic terms about presumptions of what other people need you're wasting your time. Do I *need* a room full of boxes of physics books I don't have shelves for? No. Do I *need* saxophones and flutes I don't play? No.
Does anyone *need* a firearm? That gets hazy. In a high crime neighborhood where burglary and robbery are common it would be hard to justify denial.
But: does anyone need a military weapon of massacre for self-defense? Absolutely not. Homes are not invaded by armies, they're invaded by addicts looking for a stereo or an iPad to steal and sell to buy dope. You don't need to be able to kill dozens of people in a minute to defend against that, and the availability of such firepower to demonstrably unstable people is doing the nation a lot of harm.