jelco wrote:Just filtering out this sentence to highlight that you're kind of missing the point I was trying to make, which is that regardless of proper reasoning, a reaction may be such.
Of course there are those reactions, I've never said there weren't or that even a large number of people don't do such.
We (not just you and I, as a general forum) seem to be chasing each other's tails on this one: You say "this is how it is", and I say "yes, but this is how it should be." To which the reply is "but this is how it is, you aren't understanding that," to which I reply "of course I understand that, but just because that is how it is doesn't mean it's right."
I understand that some people are scared of guns. I get it, I wouldn't have kept posting if I didn't understand that fear was out there. My point has been that such fear isn't warranted, and it's based upon a false premise. I realize that even if someone understands that a fear is irrational, they might still be afraid. Innate fear is like that sometimes, and I have some of my own. I also realize that some disagree with my assertion that such is an irrational fear, and that's their right.
What frustrates me though is that many take their irrational fears of guns, which are not based upon facts and reality, and instead decide to legislate their fears and imaginations, or create social standards and policy based upon them.
Me, I have a weird fear of heights. I love to skydive, fly, etc, but if I get near a ledge or more than a rung or two up a ladder, and it gets to me. While there is some danger of falling, I realize that most people who climb ladders won't fall of them, and most people won't randomly fall over a protective wall on the upper deck of a stadium, yet the fear is there.
But, even though it bothers me, I realize that my personal fears far outweigh the statistics and larger public risk. So, I don't get preachy about how people shouldn't climb ladders or go near ledges. That doesn't happen with guns though. Granted, there is some difference, but my point has been that the difference is the human element (in that a person
with a gun acts upon you).
So people preach against guns, and try to legislate them away, when what they are really afraid of are people. Gun owners get blamed as being paranoid and fearful, and some are. But what people ignore is that at the root of the anti-gun argument is that it is based upon a fear of one's fellow man. People say, "gun owners are so afraid that they think they have to carry a gun," when the other side of that coin is "anti-gun people are so afraid of their fellow man that they think they have to preemptively prohibit their ability to hurt them."
I realize that if someone is naturally afraid of guns, I probably won't convince them otherwise. Exposure often does, but reading something on the internet? Probably not. Hy hope though is that they might at least realize that no matter how real that fear is to them, that if it isn't based upon reality then it isn't right to force others to act upon it.
trickser wrote:Guns are the biggest conceptual flaw in the history of penis enlargements. While penis enlargement are meant to impress the ladies, guns also serve the purpose of disabling the competitors. But without competitors you will fall behind in the penis-enlargement-race compared to regions without guns. So gun users must spread guns everywhere to make them worthy penis-enlargements.
Sounds like someone has penis envy.
The guns=penis argument is popular, but it's nothing more than simple ad hominem. There's no fact to it, no research or reason. But like most sexist stereotypes, it gets tossed out as a justification to write off the argument by attacking the person making it. It's just as baseless as if I were to say: the only people who compare guns to penises are those who are so ashamed of their own lack of manhood that they have to try and emasculate anyone they feel threatened by.