"He had a gun, he could have shot somebody!"

[pax]

I think it's evidence of the cognitive bias called "Functional Fixedness," which limits your ability to see different ways to use a single object.

Awhile back, Rory Miller wrote a great little piece about training your own mind to be more flexible.

pax

[Son of Liberty]

Cooper called them "hoplophobes" and I fear an ever-increasing portion of our population is becoming afflicted with that illness - by design.

[rickyrick]

Well, I'm not gonna serve myself gravy with a pistol.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Functional Fixedness is part of the concept formation literature.

As far as you not buying into the argument, that is exactly my point about the choir not seeing how guns are perceived by some and the relative uselessness of the 'tool' argument.

Your view of pizza as food is subjective. It could be used as a hat.

The core utility of a hammer is different from the core utility of a gun.

The emotional response of the choir not giving in is all nice and dandy. It is no utility in crafting arguments. I prefer to use arguments that are not discarded on the surface. That's called the inoculation effect. Make a stupid argument and later sensible ones are rejected.

So I should have an AR-15 because it is tool that throws little 55 gr to 62 gr pieces of metal around.

Receiver of that argument - NO, it is weapon - that's stupid. It is too dangerous to have because of its weapon usage.

You - NO, it's a tool that throws little pieces of metal.

Receiver - yeah, right.

You need to make an argument why folks should have access to weapons. By calling it a tool, you in fact buy into an anti 2nd Amendment position.

The 2nd protects weapons and not tools as they can be used as instruments of force to protect self and others, defend the nation and prevent tyranny. They are not protected as 'tools'.

Why should a 'tool' be protected? You are saying that you have toy for sport or a tool and please, please Antigunner let me have my toys and tools. Please.

[SEKLEM]

This thread took an interesting turn.

Glenn, you are absolutely right about argument based on the "He had a gun, he could have shot somebody" not comparing to the one with the car. This find of fear is pontificated with WMDs and how the USSR and USA got into the Cold War. It's a fear I can understand a bit better know. I know I don't go to bed every knight wondering of North Korea will attack the US but I'd imagine some do and I would understand that.

I don't want anyone to feel there is cause to fear me personally because I carry a firearm, that's irrational.

[TimSr]

Let's not go down the rape argument road. It has been a disaster for some. In one gun control debate a progun academic told an antigun female that having female organs doesn't mean she is necessarily a prostitute. He thought he was being clever with that cliche and was thought by all to be a rude idiot.

I am not an academic, nor am I a political speaker in a debate, but it seems to me he could have been both effective and clever had he turned the focus on himself and been self deprecating rather than a non-PC implication at her. He could have said "Having male organs does not make ME a rapist any more than having a gun makes me a killer".

Sometimes absurdity is best demonstrated with absurdity, and sometimes the best way to debate it well enough to sway people is to make it interesting enough that non-academic people will actually listen to it. The theory that you can sway someone's irrational opinion that is formed by emotion, with rational dry facts, without invoking any emotion is, in my opinion, a bit flawed as well.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

It is best to stay away from gender/sexuality/male organ comments in general. It doesn't gain you points anyway you slice it.

It is true that folks are more responsive to vivid and emotional arguments that dry rational ones.

I personally speak to the need of self-defense with vivid instances like the Petit family or the L'ecole Polytechnique. In each case, defenders with firearms might have stopped horror. The potential defenders in those cases were useless or fled.

On the governmental level, I speak to the new wave of scholarship on how African-Americans with firearms were instrumental to the Civil Rights movement.

So, would you anti-gun person prefer want not to be able to defend yourself or others from horror or protect those who stand up for their civil rights?

[44 AMP]

It is best to stay away from gender/sexuality/male organ comments in general. It doesn't gain you points anyway you slice it.

I do agree with this, all one need do is go to any of the (non gun related) social sites, and look what happens if anyone says anything even remotely positive about gun ownership. The next couple dozen comments are all about guns as sex fantasies, compensation, and worse. The level of anger, hate, and resentment is astounding!


When I hear something like "he had a gun! he could have shot somebody!", it always reminds me of an old joke (which does touch on gender).

Cowboy, been working on fences, goes to the Saloon for a drink, gloves and wire cutter in his back pocket. Sheriff comes in, and says he's going to arrest him, for cutting fences, because he has the tools in his pocket.

Cowboy answers, "well, you better arrest me for rape, too, Cause I sure got the tools for that too!"

"don't judge a book by it's cover" applies to more than just books.

[Son of Liberty]

You need to make an argument why folks should have access to weapons. By calling it a tool, you in fact buy into an anti 2nd Amendment position.

It is a tool and was a tool long before the 2nd Amendment existed. Indeed, the 2nd Amendment only guarantees our inherent human right to self preservation by whatever means necessary. No document can grant or rescind our inherent human rights...unless we allow it to.

If someone has a problem with the 2nd Amendment, I tell them fine...feel free to repeal it...but even if you do manage that little feat, you still ain't gettin my guns.

Sorry, I don't play PC games when discussing my tools...or my rights. ;-)

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Nice thoughts, pragmatically useless in debate. It leads to good ol' right to have a nuclear bomb and tubs of anthrax at home.

They are just tools to make a big noise and some germs.

As I said, emotional applies don't do us that much good and the 'tool' argument isn't a selling point.

[rickyrick]

The tool argument never works...

If you want to win an argument start with the truth. To try to minimize a weapon down to a tool... Right off the bat you lost your credibility

[Glenn E. Meyer]

That's my point. Thanks.

When you call an AR a tool or a modern sporting rifle - you state that is no different from a file from Home Depot or your tennis racket.

You whine to the antigunner that they are not dangerous and please let you keep your toys.

While you might think that some force of the universe will allow you to keep them because of your theory of inherent rights - that is not the case. The laws of the land and the Constitution protect your ability to have them. Unless, you want to actually fight (if that is implied - spare us on this forum). The constitutional protection is specific for these 'toys' and 'tools' for their use as weapons.

The tool/toy argument has been used by Zumbo and Metcalf to state explicitly that these guns should be controlled as they have no manly usage for real men in hunting, sport, etc. There is a significant part of the gun world that buys the sporting argument and would ban certain guns. They have no place in sport!!! Just heard that today on a local talk show discussing concealed and open carry. The caller was an NRA supporter but argued you should only have a gun out for sport! He was against all forms of carry.

If one thinks this is PC argument, that's good for you. That view is wrong and useless.

[pax]

When you call an AR a tool or a modern sporting rifle - you state that is no different from a file from Home Depot or your tennis racket.

You whine to the antigunner that they are not dangerous and please let you keep your toys.

In a world where they can happily ban dangerous toys like lawn darts, why not ban dangerous toys like your modern sporting rifle?

Nothing for us to stand on, there. Better be non-PC and honest right up front: it's not a toy or a tool. It's a weapon. That's why we have and defend the right to own it.

Busybodies can sometimes ban toys, and even 'dangerous' tools like incandescent light bulbs, but the human right to self-defense trumps all that.

After all, self defense is the most basic of all human rights.

pax

[P5 Guy]

In a world where they can happily ban dangerous toys like lawn darts, why not ban dangerous toys like your modern sporting rifle?

Nothing for us to stand on, there. Better be non-PC and honest right up front: it's not a toy or a tool. It's a weapon. That's why we have and defend the right to own it.

Busybodies can sometimes ban toys, and even 'dangerous' tools like incandescent light bulbs, but the human right to self-defense trumps all that.

After all, self defense is the most basic of all human rights.

pax

Thank you ma'am

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I will say again - drop the sexual content. We have discussed it.

Some repeats deleted.

[SEKLEM]

I've had some time to reflect on my initial idea and realize the recklessness of the notion I had put forward. It is true that anyone with a gun does have the potential to shoot someone. The good thing is that most people are sane most of the time and they're not likely to use their firearm for any ill will. For those of us who took the time and effort to get our CCW licenses that furthers the likelihood of responsible people with firearms and I believe that doing so increases the security of our country.

It is said that a Japanese commander had said this about invading the United States in the second world war.

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

There is some debate as to whether he said it for sure, of if it was just an cleverly engineered confidence booster for American citizens, but may be true just the same.

Originally Posted by JimBob

If what you are saying is that "he had a gun, so it would be possible for him to shoot someone", then you would be technically correct, but so would the "he had a car, he could have run someone down" or "he had male genitalia, he could have raped someone" ....... You can not persecute people for what they might do with an item, based on your own irrational fears..... at least I hope you will never be allowed to in THIS country, for there is no place to go to if that happens.

So basically the plot to Minority Report.

[BlueTrain]

Yet the Japanese attacked just the same. The army had their way.

While being able to see the other person's point of view is usually deadly to your own argument, it can still be good to know.

Did you ever know a murder victim killed with a gun?

Did you ever know anyone killed with a rock (or hatpin)? And I don't mean being stoned to death, either.

[SEKLEM]

Originally Posted by BlueTrain

Yet the Japanese attacked just the same. The army had their way.

That quote supposedly occurred after Pearl Harbor.

Did you ever know anyone killed with a rock (or hatpin)? And I don't mean being stoned to death, either.

Can you expand? I'm not sure if I understand what point you are making.

[44 AMP]

The "rifle behind every blade of grass" quote is attributed to Adm Yamamoto, but there is no proof he ever said that.

It is, however, something he would have known, in general, as he spent several years in the US as a Naval Attache. He knew, first hand, about the size of the US, and its potential, if we ever got organized in a single cause. Something which many European and Asian leaders technically knew, but did not really comprehend, or believe.

That misconception was resolved by August 1945......sooner for many..

The Japanese never tried to invade the mainland USA. There is no evidence that they ever even considered it.

Our island possessions, on the other hand were prime targets.

[kilimanjaro]

If Yamamoto didn't say it, he should have.

Japan was going to invade and occupy Hawaii after their glorious victory at Midway in 1942, but they had no plans to invade the West Coast of the US. Their fleet, once based out of Pearl Harbor, would have had no trouble dealing with our navy, the Canadian navy, or closing the Panama Canal. The US victory at Midway kept all that from occurring, of course, and also kept us in the war against Germany.

Things would be a lot different without what a few dozen American pilots were able to do at Midway, almost by pure luck.

[SEKLEM]

How many times in this thread does someone need to say it, no sexual stuff. It wasn't clever the first 10 times.

I shouldn't have kicked up the thread again. That was my mistake.

If the mods could please close this thread, it has run its course.

[Blackbook]

Originally Posted by The Verminator

I think we should quit naming our guns with snake names like cobra and python and viper and such......maybe that would help.

We could go with names like bunny, kitty, puppy, cuddles, nurse, buddy......

Would you buy a gun named Pinky Pie?

[44 AMP]

I wouldn't mind one named "Vera"....

[dakota.potts]

People often like to say of open carry that they shouldn't be forced to be OK with standing in a room with somebody who has a gun and can shoot everybody around them.

However, for a period of time I openly carried a knife. It was an 8" tanto with black sheath and black handle worn outside of my clothing. Even when I attempted to cover it, a sizable portion of several inches stuck below even most of my jackets.

Amazingly, people weren't bothered by me standing within inches of them while carrying an 8" combat knife (I say combat because it had little other utility use). This shows me that most people are afraid of the idea of a firearm and their opinions on their ownership and use, rather than on the danger of it. I carried the knife for months, even in urban downtown areas, and I received exactly one comment on it. It was from a gentleman standing next to me at Teavana in the mall, asking if it was a real knife (ie. not a training stick or something) and if they let me just carry it around like that. Not even law enforcement ever asked me about it. But had it been even a single shot musket or handgun, I can imagine how that would have gone.

[44 AMP]

People often like to say of open carry that they shouldn't be forced to be OK with standing in a room with somebody who has a gun and can shoot everybody around them.

This shows me that most people are afraid of the idea of a firearm and their opinions on their ownership and use, rather than on the danger of it.

I'd add that it really is all about other people's assumptions, and what you look like, especially how you are dressed makes a huge difference to them.

These people have (or seem to have) NO ISSUES with being in a room with somebody who has a gun and can shoot everybody around them, IF that person is wearing a UNIFORM (particularly a police uniform).

To them, the uniform (and the badge) are some kind of magic talisman that negates the "evil" influence of the gun on the wearer, rendering them immune to the urge to shoot everyone that these people believe a gun creates when worn by someone other than police or military.

Without the clear visual signal of the uniform, they assume the worst. Childish, and rather stupid, in my opinion, but that's the level lots of people seem to operate on.