RE: How to Debunk "Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People" [dTube]
We will always need good people with guns to protect us from bad people with guns just as we needed good people with bow and arrow to protect us from bad people with bow and arrow. Before that we needed good people with spear and sword to protect us from bad people with spear and sword. The frame of mind that thinks this will ever change is called idealism. If you are an idealist you will likely reject that history as a blueprint for the future. If you are a realist you will prepare for the threat by developing countermeasures and training people to repel attackers. Another way to determine whether you are an idealist or a realist is that an idealist will post a sign that says "No guns allowed". The realist sees the sign as an advertisement to a killer as to where he can achieve the highest possible body count. Where do you stand?
They live in a fantasy realm where the sign is all the protection children need.
There is nothing wrong with idealism. It has it's place along with realism, analysts, and pragmatists. Where we disagree is which thinking style should deal with which circumstance or condition.
Can we agree that the gun free zone signs have failed, at least in this case?
That's my point. Gun-free zones only keep law-abiding gun owners from carrying their legally licensed guns in gun-free zones. Law breakers carry their guns anywhere they want to. Logic is the realm of a realists mind. Emotion is where the mind of an idealist dwells. The realist says that there are good people with guns and bad people with guns. The idealist says that all people with guns are bad.
agreed, I think the idealist watches too much scripted TV and movies where guns are always a plot element. So anytime they see one it is only used for violence to advance the plot in some way. In real life most guns sit in a safe all the time and never advance any dramatic plots.
My guns are not in a safe. They are at the ready. Idealists are best to tell us how we SHOULD live, how we SHOULD act, how we SHOULD think. A realist doesn't care how others live, act or think as long as they don't tread in his space. A realist usually recognizes the limits of his control...because he is a realist. It is when an idealist is in a position to force others to obey their will. Then we have a problem. The dominate thinking style of a person, in my experience, transcends political affiliations, gender, race, anything.
yup, thank God Hillary lost.
Hillary Clinton is an excellent example of someone whose dominate thinking style is that of an idealist some analyst inclinations as well. Donald Trump is a good example of a person who is both a realist and a pragmatist.