Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
I appreciate it. You are more than an excelnt adversary in dicsussion.
|
One difference is that, in discussions of this sort I don't see you (or the "other side") as an adversary. I believe I have a reasonable perspective and will discuss my views with anyone open to reason. If I didn't think you were at all reasonable I wouldn't be wasting my time on this forum ... I have much better things to do. It may be an academic exercise for many people but this issue is important to me and bears consequence on the way I conduct my life.
"Adversarial" interaction between "pro-gun" and "pro-gun control" people are counterproductive. It's important to aknowledge that both sides are essentially looking for the same thing - a safer way to live for ourselves and our families.
But if you want to pass legislation about firearms it's important to get the opinion of people who work in the fields of law enforcement, criminal psych, epidemiology, health care, etc. Unfortunately, the popular media doesn't enforce that perspective - it is in their interest in promoting a politically expedient view.
The popular vote, like popular opinion, is sorely misguided if the general populace is misinformed.
e.g. how many people who voted for the "Assault Weapons Ban" really understood what it was about? Most people believed what they saw on TV - that it was about machine-guns and automatic weapons - when that was not the case at all (obtaining automatic weapons is already restricted - and the "Assault Weapons Ban" has nothing to do with them - it's a misnomer). Unfortunately, everything "pro-gun" people said was depicted as attempts to obscure the issue ... when the opposite was true.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Are you required to have a permit to own a taser or the eye spray? If not, then the back of the patrol car is reasonable, but if you are, then why go through the trouble? If someone owned a gun legally and was thrown into the back of a police car inspite of their legal possession and not breaking any laws, wouldn't the pro-gun people get really pissed about it?
|
Believe it or not, the responsible gun-owners I know have no problem with that. If I am involved in an encounter and I am spotted with a gun or taser or whatever in my hand and have to be cuffed or "secured" for a few minutes ... what's the difference other than a loss of pride or the sense of personal control? Like most responsible gun-owners I empathize with the LEO's job and understand what has to be done under the circumstance.
My brother doesn't share my views or experiences. He lives in a $3 million house in Palo Alto. One day, he saw a bunch of federal agents moving on a neighbor's house - My brother being curious stepped out on his porch to get a better look - He was startled when one agent turned to him threateningly and ordered him to get back into his house. Now, the neighbor was taken away without incident but my upset brother called me - He understood why he was ordered to get back in but he was offended since his porch is his own property and he wasn't doing anything wrong. I told him:
1). If you see something going down to stay in the house. That was stupid to "get a better look." In fact, it'd probably be best to stay away from the windows until it was over. Curiosity be damned.
2). And if he hadn't complied he would have been cuffed and secured just to eliminate him as a "variable."
Most people don't understand that their personal pride is a secondary consideration. Don't get in the way of a cop's job.