Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: The Dependency Issue

  1. #1
    Regular Member Eeyore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    on the move
    Posts
    558

    Post imported post

    Sorry for the long post, but I had an epiphany the other day.

    There are a lot of theories about why some people are afraid of guns in general: ignorance, transference, Rosie O’Donnell, etc. I have a new theory about why some people react so badly when they see someone open carrying. (Well, maybe it's not really new, but it's new to me.)

    I came to this realization while driving down a Mississippi highway, still shaking from the adrenaline rush of a near-miss when some idiot pulled out in front of me and then decided to make an abrupt left turn from the right lane. (It goes without saying that he didn’t check his side mirror or use his turn signal, either.) I said to myself, “That #@*% almost killed me!” Hmmmm. Although I often carry a gun for self defense, the gun couldn’t have saved my life in this case. I was dependent on other drivers not to be incompetent halfwits.

    Although we don’t think about it often, to some degree or other, our lives are constantly in the hands of others. Sometimes that dependence is complete and direct (we must trust an airline captain to not crash and kill us), and sometimes it is incomplete and less direct (we have a large degree of control when we’re driving, but we still must trust the driver of an oncoming car to stay in his lane…or use a turn signal….or, I dunno, USE THE LEFT TURN LANE WHEN MAKING A LEFT TURN!! ). Let’s face it: considering that our lives and safety are constantly dependent on someone else’s behavior—that we are at their mercy--is a rather uncomfortable thought. After all, these are complete strangers we’re talking about. And a lot of these complete strangers are morons. Especially in Mississippi. :P


    For most of us on this board, the realization that we are dependent on someone else to not kill us can have a constructive effect: we will take steps to change things as much as we can so we are not at someone else's mercy (or at least, not completely). After all, every one of us has already decided to take control of our own defense rather than be dependent of the goodwill of our fellow man and the diligence (or deterrence) of law enforcement. It’s reasonable to assume that that attitude would be reflected in other areas of our lives. I know I've altered my driving habits since I moved here, to accomodate the particular flavors of incompetence commonly demonstrated by drivers down here.


    For others, usually sheeple who have led a sheltered existence, the forced realization that they are constantly depending on others to not kill them is a shock, an uncomfortable feeling, and they do not like feeling uncomfortable. “Nobody has the right to make me uncomfortable!”:shock: So they lash out or become hysterical until the threat (or perception of it) is removed. Once they no longer perceive a threat, they aren’t forced to think about it any more.

    This is why people are more comfortable with concealed carry than open carry: as long as they don’t see a gun, they aren’t forced to acknowledge that they are literally at the mercy of the armed person. Of course, the reality hasn’t changed—the guns are still there—but the perception is what really impacts them. They don’t like being reminded that their continued existence depends on the behavior of someone else. As long as they can avoid considering the issue, they can be comfortably oblivious. But seeing someone OCing forces the issue upon them.


    This may also be the reason why anti’s can’t acknowledge the argument that guns kill a relatively small number of people every year compared to the tens of thousands killed in motor vehicle accidents. After all, vehicles are a mode of transportation—they provide a useful service for which the death of thousands is just an unfortunate side effect—so they can easily suppress the fact that they are at the mercy of other drivers every day (“Accidents only happened to other people.”) On the other hand, “guns have no purpose other than killing,” so guns emphasize to them that, since they are unequipped to defend themselves, their continued ability to draw breath depends very directly on the people who carry one.

    Maybe in time we can make sheeple almost as accepting of the "hazard" posed by guns as they are about the hazards of driving. But I don't think it'll happen anytime soon.



    Guns don't kill people. Drivers on cell phones do.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    I think that you are on to something. That what you are on to has been said by others has nothing to do with your epiphany.

    The fact is that we who attempt to take personal responsibility for as much of our lives and circumstances as possible are not the norm. We are not the majority. We are - in a word - different.

    Compounding this is the fact that we do not wish, desire, want or expect to be controlled by others - at least not in those areas where we have attempted to exert self-control and self-responsibility. It is, to my mind, here - in the area of control - that we are always going to face our biggest obstacles. If we are in control of ourselves and our lives, then obviously someone else is not in control of us.

    There are too many who do not want us to be in control of ourselves. And a significant number of those folks also want to be in control of us. Instant conflict!

    How do we solve/resolve the conflict without escalating it? I'm not sure I have an answer any more. There are times - perhaps more often than not - when I see those others who want to control me acting as if they are unwilling to "allow" me any area of self-control. Now I have a second area of conflict - that there are "someones" who believe it is a question of whether or not they will allow me any self-control.

    I do think I have an answer for this second area of conflict. But my answer, which I have chosen for me, may not be the answer you, or you, or any of the rest of you, would want to choose. And I'm not sure I want to be in the position of telling any of you what answer to choose. (At times I do believe I would make an excellent benevolent dictator, but after I take my meds those thoughts often go away.:P)

    This, to my mind, is why we still have the first conflict. THEY want to be in charge of all of us, while WE want to be in charge of just ourself. THEY think we feel just like them because THEY cannot imagine anything else. This forces US (the possessive form of WE) to either act like THEM and become in charge of everyone, or continue to want to be just in charge of ourselves. Either become THEM or continue the conflict.

    I know not how others will respond, but as for myself ....

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Hence, "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Hence, "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
    Here's another Robert Heinlein quote I came across recently:

    “A dying culture invariably exhibits personal rudeness. Bad manners. Lack of consideration for others in minor matters. A loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant than is a riot.” — Robert A. Heinlein

    Save that for the next flame post you see.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Regular Member FiremanJoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    77

    Post imported post

    +1

    Nice read, yea ephinanys are great!. Having had a few near misses on 2 wheels does that to me too....
    Favorite recent Quote:
    "As long as I'm prosecutor, if someone comes into a store with a gun and I've said it before and I'll say it again they have forfeited their right not to be shot,"
    Hamilton County, Ohio - prosecutor; Joe Deters

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Hence, "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
    Here's another Robert Heinlein quote I came across recently:

    “A dying culture invariably exhibits personal rudeness. Bad manners. Lack of consideration for others in minor matters. A loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant than is a riot.” — Robert A. Heinlein

    Save that for the next flame post you see.
    Which book please?

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Hence, "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
    Here's another Robert Heinlein quote I came across recently:

    “A dying culture invariably exhibits personal rudeness. Bad manners. Lack of consideration for others in minor matters. A loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant than is a riot.” — Robert A. Heinlein

    Save that for the next flame post you see.
    Sounds like New York City.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Hampton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    155

    Post imported post

    I try not to think about it since my life is in the hands of the current administration and Congress which causes me great heartache at times. Good luck with those elections Afghans!

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Hence, "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
    Here's another Robert Heinlein quote I came across recently:

    “A dying culture invariably exhibits personal rudeness. Bad manners. Lack of consideration for others in minor matters. A loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant than is a riot.” — Robert A. Heinlein

    Save that for the next flame post you see.
    Which book please?
    The source didn't say. Or even if it was from a book, or just a statement. I'll see if I can't figure out again at whichblog I saw it.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    The sentiment is likely RAH's, the agrammatic expression is not.

  11. #11
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    I think the Afgan's have Open Carry.

  12. #12
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    Guns are just machines. If your shot down, or run down by a car, your still dead. How the machine is used determines it's purpose. The thought or idea behind using, carrying, starting, or implementing the machine. Philosophers may go wild here on my comments now.

  13. #13
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    I feel another rant coming on!: I think alot of the public attitude is attributed to the 80's. The time of a softer, gentler America. Pastels abounded, and words like politically correct grew. During that time the public was fed guns=criminals=bad. Never mind the problem was the criminals, they just focused on the machine. Criminals also stab, strangle, and bludgeon, so they have many weapons for their choosing. Now the pendelum is swinging back, we soft, correct Americans are tired of being victims, standing helplessly by, waiting for the Police to arrive, and save us. I'm literally just lying in wait for someday to encounter an Open Carrier, and have some "concerned citizen" mention to me about the "man over there with a gun". I'll dump on them, as I'm dumping here: You should be damn glad that the Open Carrier is around here, that your basking in his protective shadow, that for the moment, crime has gone elsewhere in search of a victim. That he is concerned enough for his welfare to Openly protect himself. A man as true as our Founding Fathers! In the 80's everything was regulated by "don't offend". I've personally witnessed some people I grew up with even, flourish in that environment, and practice all kinds of dastardly deeds, and words of mouth, that "back in the day" would get them a well deserved ass whipping. But they are protected, and can just slink away. Snakes that they are. Evil and harm that they have caused, and NOT received any punishment for! The citizen's desire for personal protection is a personal issue, slowly becoming a political issue. The two should not be mixed, nor used as a platform to enhance someone's career in politics. Open Carry is an acknowledgement that things aren't getting better, they're getting worse, and someone has the nuts to step up to the task, citizen by citizen, and protect themselves! The civil authorities don't like it because the OC-er is empowered, and not part of the herd. Everyone hates empowerment, though everyone wishes for it. Today were seeing more and more frustration, about taxes, jobs, and so on. OC is just an answer to the frustration of crime, and being victims. No more sheep, and for damn sure no more wolves!

  14. #14
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    One last bit, then I promice I'll shut up: With all the recent home invasions, and people being shot in their own yards, in our region, it sounds like a time for Open Carry (even at home) has arrived! Proof positive, at least to me, that things are indeed getting worse!

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Norfolk, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,000

    Post imported post

    I was told during bootcamp that it's a 70/30 split.

    70% Appearance & 30% Fact / Effort

    Couple that with the simple concept that people will only see what they want to see and you have an instant recipe for disaster.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •