Gallstones wrote:I think it is logically fallacious to extrapolate from one's own imaginings regarding one's own temperament and insert assumptions based on those extrapolations into imagined scenarios and assert that those assumptions are generally a fact of all individuals.
I shall proffer an assumption of my own.
I think that people who have no weapons training--either for lack of interest or lack of opportunity--probably are more dangerous when they have weapons than is an individual who is trained. Reason being, the trained individual has not only been impressed by and indoctrinated into all the safety aspects, they are emotionally and intellectually more secure for being familiar with the weapons, how to handle them and have practice in their use. The training and hands on familiarity give them motor habit (muscle memory) and habit of mental focus that can effectively override emotion.
So, if you fear guns, fear yourself with guns--then don't touch them!
Let those who are trained and not afraid have them.
I agree with this post.
I'm a person who has no training or interest in firearms, and also sees no need for a firearm in my life here and now, but if for some reason I landed in a place where it would make sense to have one, I'd be a hazard for myself and everyone else (unless I had previously got proper training, of course).
I discussed this point elsewhere in talking about a citizen being able to take control either for themselves (mugging/attack type situation) or others (shooting rampage situation), and even WITH training, I can still see it going very wrong.
On the personal level, the only time I've been in the situation it was so sudden and unexpected (middle of the day, politely giving someone directions), that having a gun in my purse or pocket would have made not a bit of difference. I was down before even being aware I was in any danger, much less being able to take a gun out to protect myself. It's only speculation, of course, but it's possible that during the ensuing physical fight if I was concentrating on getting to a weapon, my assailant might have been able to take if from me, and thus been an ARMED assailant for the next person he attacked.
On an even more speculative level, I keep thinking about the reactions to the Norwegian mass shooting. Some people say if people on the island had been armed (leaving aside that most were underage in regard to firearms carrying?), fewer would have died. But, what I think about is not so much training in shooting, but legitimate confusion about who is the
bad shooter, if suddenly a dozen or score of people had guns in their hands. After all, the shooter in Norway was disguised as a police officer, and one of his early victims was a
real police officer who approached him, likely assuming they could unite in stopping the killings. Who do you shoot, in a crowd where many are holding/firing guns? A "police officer" holding a gun? Unless you were witness to the very first shooting(s), I don't see how you could determine if another person was the criminal or simply another citizen trying to stop the shooting.
This is not a rant against guns. I just don't see the logic in an armed population being much good in either of those situations.
OF 
