At 10:30 AM 9/23/2000 -0700, Hal wrote:
>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.
>
>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.
Looking at this from the other side of the fence, I find remarkably little
to argue with. I'd probably speak of it as the "survivor" mentality,
rather than using the prejudicial term "killer" (which is usually reserved
for aggressors).
I'd also be more likely to tout the survival benefits of the other side.
The mindset that enables one to separate themselves from the herd offers
more than just the ability to defend against an inter-species attack: when
the lemmings march over the cliff, it's the socially disconnected who
survive. That both strategies persist in nature (and in man) suggests that
each have offered their share of success in the past, but the changes in
our environment that we foresee in the near future could easily tip the
balance heavily one way or the other. Whether the balance will tip, and
which way: I haven't a clue--but for many of us the wager has long since
been laid (in my case, I suspect it was at my conception...).
-- Bradley Felton PGP encrypted mail prefered
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:38:44 MDT