Deacon wrote:Though really, and this goes for The Cid, too: I'll take a little bit dangerous liberty over defenseless subjugation.
Actually, if you read my comment again, you'll see I'm completely fine with that, just not the idea that "good guys with guns" are automatically fated to save the day all the time if they're just around.
I wasn't being sarcastic. Life involves risk. I drive on Massachusetts highways regularly. All the guns in the world, and I guarantee you my odds are higher of dying in the shadow of what they once called the Big Dig. All the murderers and terrorists in the world, I'm sure I'm about as likely to get struck by lightning when I'm playing golf. Of course, we don't spend a lot of time trying to make me terrified of lightning.
I'm all for the second amendment, though I do not believe that the idea of compromise will be the end of America As We Know It. But I don't think guns are a cure-all to the problem of too many people getting shot. "Good guys with guns" aren't immune from victimhood. In fact, from the accounts I've read, there was at least one in Pulse. After all, it's the State of Florida, gun ownership is a big thing down that way. It's also not particularly restricted, so lots of people have them.
The gun debate is just proof our political divide has become so toxic as to be borderline irreconcilable. Nobody, and I mean nobody, seems to believe in the idea of reasonable compromise here. On one side, it's a "slippery slope" that will surely end in a dystopian government shooting unarmed men. (Oh wait, we recently had a huge nationwide thing about unarmed men getting shot to death by armed people, we're already there!) On the other, there's this belief that without guns the world is a smiling and happy place where everybody is safe.
Both sides are obsessed with a safety that you will never guarantee. Good guys with guns guarantee nothing at all. I'm not for taking them away, but in times of crisis I'm not sure every Tom, Dick, and Harry is capable of rising to the occasion. Admit it: It's a big ask. I mean, a good guy probably isn't inclined to point their gun at another human being, even a deserving one. I always hoped gun ownership was like they talk about karate, where it's good to have but you hope you'll never have to use it (in that situation anyway).
I just think there's room for compromise. And if nobody's going to admit that, I'll be sarcastic toward both sides. After all, good, bad, you're the guy with the OKAY OKAY IT'S FORCED, SORRY.
Because the rhetoric is ridiculous. There's a lot of paranoia, a ton of stereotyping, and not much in the way of reason. Which is about par for the course.
Related thought: I am far more likely to get killed behind the wheel of my car by some drunk driver than a terrorist or another Bad Guy With A Gun. In fact, I'm about as likely to get stuck and killed on a golf course by lightning.