I believe, if guns were only used for target shooting or for events like Boomershoot, guns would be as controversial as bowling balls.
...
It looks like a fairly rural county. I don't know why anyone wouldn't be armed? To me, this is exactly the kind of county where everyone should have guns. It just makes sense. If the cops are more than a couple of minutes away, you probably would be wise to have a gun.
ubu52
April 11, 2010
Comments here and here.
[The significance of this relatively mundane comments can only be realized if you take into account that she has also said such things as:
[To be fair, I have pulled the above quotes out of context from 83 comments she has left on my blog in the last year. It does represent a biased sample.]
And of note is that numerous gun bloggers have banned her from commenting on their blogs. I think it is safe to say that ubu52 falls on the anti-gun side of the fence. Yet, she admits (as she has in the past) that guns are useful tools and may in fact agree a gun is the self-defense tool of choice in some circumstances. I was surprised to read the comments she left today. Yes, there were some qualification that she made which I didn't include in my QOTD. But it seems to me that she is breaking into somewhat new ground and may have made a small step closer to coming around to our side of the fence. I welcome that.
Some of the other commenter's reminded me of a Libertarian essay or pamphlet I read 10 or 15 years ago. The author pointed out that hard-core Libertarians sometimes have the nasty habit of pushing until they find a point they on which they disagree with someone they are proselyting to. For example, they might find someone agrees that the war on some drugs cannot be won and is more harmful to society than the drugs themselves would be if legalized and taxed like other recreational drugs such as cigarettes and alcohol. The hard-core Libertarian would not try and "cement" that agreement but would go on to some other issue such as elimination of government schools or something. And then "hammer" on the potential new recruit if they disagreed.
This is not the way you recruit people to your cause. When someone sees a glimmer of the light you have been trying to demonstrate you should encourage them. You don't tell them they are a blind idiot because they can't see the entire spectrum of ultra-violet, infra-red, and X-ray, beauty to find in so many ways that you know and love. If you are right your viewpoint will grow better through careful nurturing than through pushing more and more new material down their throat until they start gagging.
I think the proper response in this case is to ask her where and how the dividing line between rural and metropolitan areas should be drawn. If guns are acceptable and appropriate in a "rural area" but not in "metropolitan areas" then legal definitions will have to be created. What might those definitions be? How will someone traveling from one area to another (perhaps several times in one day or hour) be able to change their status from gun possessor to gun free and vice versa?
When they get stumped or realize their belief system has an internal conflict let it drop rather than push on or gloat. Let them think on it and realize they have an irreconcilable problem on their own.
Welcome new people to your community even if you don't really trust them to watch your back. You have considerable power to determine the nature of the future relationship of them with you and other people like you. Someone who is not really your friend is much better than someone who thinks you are jerk and maybe a little bit rabid.--Joe]