View Single Post
Old May 12, 2009, 07:15 PM   #21
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
I was commenting on the psychological impact of some weapons type. Could there be objective standards to danger? We do that all the time with our endless debates about stopping power, now don't we?

I'll throw out that the danger bright line is the design of a weapon to impact more than one person easily and/or simultaneously.

As far as the weapon is just tool argument. That is common among the choir. However, IMHO - based on the large literature on priming aggression ideation - it has no persuasive power in this debate. The guns we want to protect are designed for and perceived as weapons by the general public. In fact, making the tool argument will be so blatanly ridiculous to folks that it is counterproductive.

We are not trying to protect single shot 22S bullseye rifles or pistols. It is also the case that folks see the weapon as bringing out the aggressive impulse. While a hammer or a gas can might do that - they do not naturally call forth their lethal usages. Guns do.

The argument for having them is based on their lethal usage for self-defense, defense of country, etc. Not sports or neutral tools.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04332 seconds with 8 queries