crisisweasel
Newbie
On cowardice and guns...
I wanted to make a point about "only cowards carry guns," because this is the dumbest, most mockable argument, and there is a hidden sentiment behind it.
Those who say this don't intend to mean that they (presumably the brave ones by virtue of not carrying a gun) would fight off a gang with their bare fists.
See, without having a gun handy, the choice to submit to an armed attacker becomes obvious and justifiable. They know there are dangerous people out there, many armed. And they know if they are in a situation where they are being carjacked, not having a weapon as an equalizer gives them an excuse to surrender. To become victims. It's not cowardice but "good judgment," "not trying being a hero," and so on.
What they don't like about honest people carrying guns is it sets the bar higher: the very act of possessing a gun indicates that some people just aren't going to roll over when attacked violently, and they hate the idea that this pollutes their perfect little equation where there's no choice to submit. It places a psychological demand on them: maybe it *does* make them cowards to refuse to acquire and train with a firearm, for the purpose of refusing to submit.
They are *projecting*. It is that you possessing a gun, demonstrating your willingness to make a stand, makes *them* feel like cowards.
Had the knight-errant's sword not been lying on the ground, the page could explain the fact that he ran from the brigand as a matter of good judgment. But the unfortunate fact that the sword of the dead knight lay there at his feet, and he chose not to pick it up and fight, made him feel like a coward.
This is the problem. You mess with other people's neat little narrative about the world that if the bad guys are going to do bad things, there's basically nothing anyone can possibly do. Carrying a gun and demonstrating that there is an option to fight back tends to place pressure on them, a pressure they don't want. It disrupts their narrative, and especially when it comes to their loved ones - especially young ones - it makes them feel like they aren't doing all in their power to prepare for the unfortunate day when they are endangered by some scumbag.
Either that or they're still living in 1903 when everyone left their doors unlocked and there were rainbows and free ponies and ice cream every day and no one ever committed a violent act. Or something like that. Where a guy could say, "hey, you have a goofy hat" and you would settle it by duking it out in the abandoned lot near the feed store.
I wanted to make a point about "only cowards carry guns," because this is the dumbest, most mockable argument, and there is a hidden sentiment behind it.
Those who say this don't intend to mean that they (presumably the brave ones by virtue of not carrying a gun) would fight off a gang with their bare fists.
See, without having a gun handy, the choice to submit to an armed attacker becomes obvious and justifiable. They know there are dangerous people out there, many armed. And they know if they are in a situation where they are being carjacked, not having a weapon as an equalizer gives them an excuse to surrender. To become victims. It's not cowardice but "good judgment," "not trying being a hero," and so on.
What they don't like about honest people carrying guns is it sets the bar higher: the very act of possessing a gun indicates that some people just aren't going to roll over when attacked violently, and they hate the idea that this pollutes their perfect little equation where there's no choice to submit. It places a psychological demand on them: maybe it *does* make them cowards to refuse to acquire and train with a firearm, for the purpose of refusing to submit.
They are *projecting*. It is that you possessing a gun, demonstrating your willingness to make a stand, makes *them* feel like cowards.
Had the knight-errant's sword not been lying on the ground, the page could explain the fact that he ran from the brigand as a matter of good judgment. But the unfortunate fact that the sword of the dead knight lay there at his feet, and he chose not to pick it up and fight, made him feel like a coward.
This is the problem. You mess with other people's neat little narrative about the world that if the bad guys are going to do bad things, there's basically nothing anyone can possibly do. Carrying a gun and demonstrating that there is an option to fight back tends to place pressure on them, a pressure they don't want. It disrupts their narrative, and especially when it comes to their loved ones - especially young ones - it makes them feel like they aren't doing all in their power to prepare for the unfortunate day when they are endangered by some scumbag.
Either that or they're still living in 1903 when everyone left their doors unlocked and there were rainbows and free ponies and ice cream every day and no one ever committed a violent act. Or something like that. Where a guy could say, "hey, you have a goofy hat" and you would settle it by duking it out in the abandoned lot near the feed store.