----- Original Message -----
From: "Samantha Atkins" <samantha@objectent.com>
> Statistically many crimes are stopped by an armed
> would be victim or witness with no shot fired.
Well, since you brought it up, what are the statistics?
> I have not found it to be so in people I know who are armed. At the
> point of the threat it is certainly true that you can't take the time
> for a philosophical debate or a psychological rap session. Although I
> have seen explosively violent situations be defused by this with and
> without someone having the force to back up their defense. There is
> little that is more personal and immediate than staring in the face of
> death or injury at the hands of another human being. At the point
> someone treats you as an object of their pleasure or as an it or the
> target of their rage at the world it is they who are practicing
> impersonalization. Not you in taking the precaution of being able to
> defend yourself and others.
You -don't- think that de-personalization of your foe is common or desirable
amongst those who are prepared to use deadly force? Have you questioned the
people you "know who are armed?" What advantage does the personalization of
your foe confer, and why would anyone want to retain this sort of emotional
connectivity in these sorts of situations?
>
> > In the long run, isn't it possible that this psychological adjustment
will
> > be damaging to your relationships with other people? Aren't killers
(and
> > potential killers) going to be a little more cold-blooded, a little more
> > impersonal and hard-hearted? Might they not face a burden in setting up
> > alliances and working together with other people, compared to those who
> > are more trusting, open and accepting of human limitations and
weaknesses?
> >
>
> Again. I have not seen any such thing in people who are armed. It is
> precisely because they care profoundly that many of them are armed.
Interesting however the correlation between "list members who profess to be
armed" and "list members who appear a little bit more impersonal."
I am absolutely not judging anyone on the basis of this, but neither am I
blind to the data.
>
> > Taking the responsibility of carrying a gun is going to change you.
> > It forces you to think of yourself as a killer, as one who is willing
> > to kill. Admittedly, if you actually save your life by carrying the
> > gun then any costs it imposes are worthwhile. But the chance that you
> > will actually be killed by violence are highly remote.
> >
>
> This is assumption piled on assumption. This categorical statement you
> make is utterly unjustified.
Which categorical statement?
"Taking the responsibility of carrying a gun is going to change you"?
Or
"The chance you will actually be killed by violence are [sic] highly
remote"?
>
> > Given the very small probability of this outcome, the costs in terms
> > of your alienation from society must be considered significant. In the
> > long run your survival prospects will be hurt by having a lesser degree
> > of social connectivity.
> >
>
> You have built a magnificent strawman.
Truly magnificent-- it seems remarkably valid to me.
--::jason.joel.thompson:: ::founder::
www.wildghost.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:38:45 MDT