Originally
posted by
Fooglmog:
I'm not actually trolling archaic. I actually agree with what I'm saying and am not simply saying it to upset anyone. I definitely chose to post when I could have chosen not to -- but that's true of everyone in this thread, right?
I will confess to this though. The argument I just gave was new to me in this thread. It wasn't something I'd thought of before, or read elsewhere. I assume it's not actually original, because it seems obvious now, but I don't actually know.
For that reason, this forum is serving me how it always does. I post to refine ideas and arguments. Maybe there's a better way of making that case. Perhaps the better way to make the point is that you carry a gun but not a vest -- when both are a potential (but neither is a certain) defence against the same threat.
Or maybe I just need to go look up better death statistics, so I can give examples where the numbers are more comparable. I haven't done that for this argument yet -- though I would argue that your stat for scuba deaths is irrelevant, since they already had scuba gear. It's drowning deaths (of which I believe the number is in the 3000s annually) which is the rightful comparison, since those are the people who might have been saved by scuba gear... or a life jacket.
Gary, I didn't have time to read the entire article yet (I will in the next couple days), but the range of numbers given in the second paragraph offer a variance of over 3500% without giving any citation. That looks like a clear indicator of a guess to me.
If the numbers are factual, they certainly have a place in this discussion. But it's hard for me to take numbers like that seriously.
Finally, I'd like to acknowledge that I'm very much a product of my environment on this issue. I live in Canada, where practically no one carries a gun. I know that impacts my outlook on this. But I still think that, for a majority of gun owners (if not all), the "neat" factor is the reason they carry a gun and the "self-defence" factor is the justification or excuse given to others.
-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.
The firearm owners I know by and large own their firearms for self-protection or hunting. When you go to their homes you don't see them displaying every gun to you. It's not like they're hanging on the wall. If anything, you would probably guess half of them don't own guns.
The neat argument may be more adequate for something such as the type and model of a car you buy. Do you really need lights underneath the undercarriage or 0-60 in 4 seconds? You can take this point to many things in life. Sure some firearm owners have the neat factor (more collectors than others), but I think most genuinely have them for other purposes.