3 ms·

I see what your saying with the whole phone waving and public atm's. And I'm not trying to sound macho when I say this but I much prefer to carry a more physica

I see what your saying with the whole phone waving and public atm's. And I'm not trying to sound macho when I say this but I much prefer to carry a more physical type of deterrent that when employed will have a much more reliable effect than a monetary incentive. I would think it's more of a "don't feed the bears" thing.

alextgordon 12y ago
Doesn't this prove the point? A weapon only escalates a situation. If Americans were being robbed all the time, they would quickly realise that carrying one is a very very bad idea. However, because the US is generally a safe place, Americans can carry a weapon without much risk, because they will almost never have to use it.
- tristor 12y ago
  There's some truth to your second statement, but your first statement doesn't follow from it. If it was commonplace for people to get involved in altercations where they had to defend themselves with a weapon, it'd be both a better idea to start carrying a weapon if you weren't already, and it'd also discourage people from committing petty crimes like muggings. It might be worth it to a criminal to potentially lose their life over $1000, but not for $20. You could make the argument that my statements logically extend to saying an armed populace increases larger more violent crimes while reducing the prevalence of petty crimes, and I agree that might make sense in a short-term, but criminals don't grow exponentially just because, crime is a symptom of separate social factors. Fundamentally, there's no downside to carrying a weapon. If you don't need it, then you don't need it. If you do truly need to defend yourself with violence, then there isn't really much substitute and worse case you die wishing you'd had a weapon.
  - alextgordon 12y ago
    The primary danger is that you might end up in jail. You are in a dark alley, someone tries to mug you, you shoot them dead. No witnesses. Police find a lot of money and some drugs on your assailant. They suggest that foul play was involved. A drug deal gone wrong. Under pressure you misremember certain facts of that night. The police notice a discrepancy in your story and build a case out of it. A second danger is that you might aim a gun but not be able to pull the trigger. A large percentage of soldiers in WWII found themselves unable to kill someone, even when their life was in immediate danger. Subsequently, armed forces spend a lot of time on psychological training to turn recruits into killers. You presumably haven't had this training, so I would bet money that you wouldn't be able to kill someone. A third danger is that your assailant might have a gun too. In this case, the fact that you are carrying a gun cannot help you if they point theirs at you first. It can definitely get you killed if they notice you are armed. (for the record, I didn't downvote you)

alextgordon 12y ago

Doesn't this prove the point? A weapon only escalates a situation. If Americans were being robbed all the time, they would quickly realise that carrying one is a very very bad idea. However, because the US is generally a safe place, Americans can carry a weapon without much risk, because they will almost never have to use it.

tristor 12y ago
There's some truth to your second statement, but your first statement doesn't follow from it. If it was commonplace for people to get involved in altercations where they had to defend themselves with a weapon, it'd be both a better idea to start carrying a weapon if you weren't already, and it'd also discourage people from committing petty crimes like muggings. It might be worth it to a criminal to potentially lose their life over $1000, but not for $20. You could make the argument that my statements logically extend to saying an armed populace increases larger more violent crimes while reducing the prevalence of petty crimes, and I agree that might make sense in a short-term, but criminals don't grow exponentially just because, crime is a symptom of separate social factors. Fundamentally, there's no downside to carrying a weapon. If you don't need it, then you don't need it. If you do truly need to defend yourself with violence, then there isn't really much substitute and worse case you die wishing you'd had a weapon.
- alextgordon 12y ago
  The primary danger is that you might end up in jail. You are in a dark alley, someone tries to mug you, you shoot them dead. No witnesses. Police find a lot of money and some drugs on your assailant. They suggest that foul play was involved. A drug deal gone wrong. Under pressure you misremember certain facts of that night. The police notice a discrepancy in your story and build a case out of it. A second danger is that you might aim a gun but not be able to pull the trigger. A large percentage of soldiers in WWII found themselves unable to kill someone, even when their life was in immediate danger. Subsequently, armed forces spend a lot of time on psychological training to turn recruits into killers. You presumably haven't had this training, so I would bet money that you wouldn't be able to kill someone. A third danger is that your assailant might have a gun too. In this case, the fact that you are carrying a gun cannot help you if they point theirs at you first. It can definitely get you killed if they notice you are armed. (for the record, I didn't downvote you)