Security Analyst anti-gun?

[Tgace]

You never "need" a gun until you NEED a gun.

 

[Andrew Green]

You never "need" a gun until you NEED a gun.

Yup, and if you are in a high crime area with lots of guns being carried, it might be a good idea to have one yourself.

But there is that downward spiral... The only reason you need one is cause there are so many other people with one, and the more people that carry them the more people feel this way...

Guns aren't a big problem up here. Civillians don't carry, and we manage just fine. So I am quite happy with the rules that say we can't carry, cause that makes them much fewer and far between. LEaving us with little or no need to carry one.

 

[Tgace]

Regardless of the impression, not many of us "carry" them on a regular basis here either. However we are free (currently) citizens with the right to own one unless there is a good reason otherwise. Most of the street crime done with firearms are with illegally owned ones, not between legal owners.

 

[Andrew Green]

Don't worry, we don't think all Americans carry guns all the time

Except in Texas and LA

 

[47MartialMan]

Guns made America Great!

 

[Knarfan]

Part II

So we left off where she said guns are violent.

Me: That doesn't even make sense. A gun is an innatimate object, and can't have a trait like "violent."

Her: But only violent people carry guns...

Me: How can you say that? Do you think that every guard we employ or every cop on the street is a violent person?

Her: No...but they have a capacity for violence.

Me: They have a capacity to use force...there is a different between being able to use force to stop violence, and being a violent person.

Her: Well....I just don't think that you should have a gun in the office.

Me: Yea...and when one of our many death threatners decides to come in here and collect on the threat, then who do you think is going to stop them? (side note: we average around 2 death threats a month - from disgruntled ex-employees to people who we have "busted" for one thing or another)

Her: That is what the police are for...

Me: The police can't be everywhere, and are usually called to a scene after things have already gone from bad to worse. The police will not be able to stop someone from barging in here and shooting up the place. That is why I am armed and why I am at the front desk here instead of in an office with my door shut.

Her: Well, you know 85% of people shot were carrying guns themselves?

Me: Good...then you should take comfort in knowing that if someone decides to come in here with a gun, then they'll shoot at me first. Besides that, I would have to actually see where that statistic came from:

Her: (rattles of some source)

Me: That's great, but I actually have to SEE it. As you should know from your extensive education background, where from and how stats are taken are about as important as the statistic itself. But that's mote...what I don't understand is how you can consider yourself a security analyst when your anti-gun. That makes absolutely no sense to me. But...if you want to debate this some other time when I am not trying to get work done, I'd be happy to oblidge."

Her: O.K....we'll debate. And remember, you always bring your sources to a debate.

Me: Actually, I would like you to bring every statistic you have. I, on the other hand, will bring nothing, and I will still beat you in the arguement. This is because the arguement boils down to very basic logic that no statistic can provide.

Well...I guess part II was sort of anti-climactic. However, it still amazes me that she can be anti gun and consider herself a security analyst. How can you assess a site and make a recommendation if you are morally opposed to an intricate part of what is needed to secure many sites? The whole thing just blows my mind...

Paul

Paul,
I don't think that she will ever see your point . Your argument is based on a reality that she will never understand . Her's is based on a victims mantality . What you are showing her is ugly & to real for her to handle . You see things clearly that other people can't understand because of the way that they have been conditioned . Thats why your the boss . She probably likes the job because she feels like she is helping people stay safe . Unfortunatly she has a naive understanding of the world . I don't think she can rationalize the differance between you & the bad guy . No matter what , if you are involved with serious security issues , you have to be ready at all times for the worst case sinario . I don't care what your view is on firearms is . People like to complicate the issue with their point of view . Witch is fine , but don't give all of these BS stats. You hit the nail on the head . You don't need stats to win this argument . That goes for people responding on this thread . If you walk around without any type of weapon for worst case sinario situation & say well I'm just fine . where I come from the stats say blah blah blah ! Well thats fine , but thats really a fantasy . How can you put limits on reality ? there are no limits . Thats what reality is , a possible limitless chain of events that you really only have minimum control over . So why not be prepared ? especially if you are in a position of high security ! If you have a strong argument it will stand on it's merits of logic & reality . IMO Paul is dealing with reality , in the most logical way . BTW , I don't own a firearm & to be honest , I don't know if I will ever carry a firearm . I will get one soon for more home protection . I do not work in the security field , but if I did I would prefer to carry a firearm . I do however have alot of weapons training & I never leave home without them . Thats my reality . I hate statistics . That is why I don't want to become one !

 

[47MartialMan]

Yeah boils down to mind-set and beliefs

 

[Knarfan]

Yeah boils down to mind-set and beliefs

I personally am not a hard core gun guy , but I can't overlook reality . To be a leader you have to make your decitions based on your knowledge & expertise . So if I have security questions I would ask a security expert . That to me just seems logical . I guess it's like you said & mix of mind-set & beliefs . They may not be exactly the same , but you really are trying to find the best answer to complicated questions . In this case it would be , what do I have to do to keep people as safe as possible ? The best answer may not always match your fundimental beliefs . IE firearms carry , but thats not the question .

 

[Knarfan]

Yup, and if you are in a high crime area with lots of guns being carried, it might be a good idea to have one yourself.

But there is that downward spiral... The only reason you need one is cause there are so many other people with one, and the more people that carry them the more people feel this way...

Guns aren't a big problem up here. Civillians don't carry, and we manage just fine. So I am quite happy with the rules that say we can't carry, cause that makes them much fewer and far between. LEaving us with little or no need to carry one.

You present a good argument . Has this always been the case up there ? I understand what you are saying about not having to worry about civillian carry . It does seem like a better way to carry on life , but do you think that a country like the USA could ever change that much ? Wouldn't it be kinda difficult & unrealistic for this country ? We are already so far the other way . A change like that would probably never take place for one reason because of political interest . I think the situation we have here could be tweeked , but not changed to the extent which exist there . So we have a totally differant set of circumstances to deal with . What are we to do about TEXAS & LA LOL ?

 

[47MartialMan]

It is about culture and social order.

 

[bignick]

I've often thought about getting a concealed carry permit here in Minnesota, but my current situation prevents it. As a student living on campus 9 months of the year, where weapons are banned. I have to arm myself with less conspicous means. I've got a couple of escrima sticks. One usually above my visor in my car and the other usually in my room, I also usually carry an expandable baton or at least a mini-mag flashlight as a kubotan.

But for what I have to deal with, walking around looking pissed off is usually enough to make trouble stear clear.

 

[KenpoTex]

Yup, and if you are in a high crime area with lots of guns being carried, it might be a good idea to have one yourself.

But there is that downward spiral... The only reason you need one is cause there are so many other people with one, and the more people that carry them the more people feel this way...
Guns aren't a big problem up here. Civillians don't carry, and we manage just fine. So I am quite happy with the rules that say we can't carry, cause that makes them much fewer and far between. Leaving us with little or no need to carry one.

What you seem to be saying is that "the more guns there are, the more violence there is going to be." I don't think this is necessarily the case. Someone brought up the Kennesaw, Georgia situation. This town is a great example of the fallacy of the "more guns=more crime/violence" theory. If requiring the head of [almost] every household to own a gun causes more crime, why did the violent crime rate drop 80% by the next year and remain there? --note, it's been 23 years since that law went into effect--
Once again, it's not the tool that causes the behavior, it's the person using it. A normal person, when picking up a gun, is not going to be suddenly infused with homicidal urges. If guns cause violence then why is England having so many problems with violent crime, to the point that there is talk of banning pointed kitchen knives? obviously there is a deeper issue than the specific tool used to do the deed.

Yeah, It'd be great if society was so civilized and peaceful that there was no need to own/carry weapons for self-defense or to prevent violation of one's rights. However, until that time comes (yeah right) I think it's naive to think that taking away the most effective means for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves will reduce crime. On the contrary, when criminals know that their victims are unarmed they can operate with impunity. On a side note...the thing that really ticks me off when people start talking about banning guns to reduce crime is that they fail to consider that such laws will only be obeyed by law-abiding citizens. The criminals already break laws, does anyone actually expect them to adhere to these?

 

[Andrew Green]

What you seem to be saying is that "the more guns there are, the more violence there is going to be."

Nope, I said more guns = even more guns.

 

[Tgace]

Well...then if that isnt implying more violence, then whats so wrong with that?

 

[Andrew Green]

Personal preference and trust, I'd rather live in a place where no one feels the need to carry a weapon.

 

[Cruentus]

Personal preference and trust, I'd rather live in a place where no one feels the need to carry a weapon.

Me too. And, I support someones right to choose not to carry a weapon as much as I support the right to carry. This means, Andrew, that I support your decision to choose to not carry a weapon, and I am not going to make a personal attack on someone just because of their personal choice.

There is nothing wrong with choosing not to carry. But, to want to force everyone to comply with your beliefs in not carrying and to support making protection illegal by outlawing the only thing that can equalize a gun wielding criminal is faciest. It is faciest in every sense.

Paul

 

[Andrew Green]

But, to want to force everyone to comply with your beliefs in not carrying and to support making protection illegal by outlawing the only thing that can equalize a gun wielding criminal is faciest. It is faciest in every sense.

So... Canada is Fascist?

If the majority of the people don't want guns to be allowed, and the elected officials vote not to allow them, isn't that how democracy works?

The right to carry a firearm or lack of that right is not restricted to any political ideology. It is simply a matter of what the people, and gov't decide is dangerous to the public and should be controlled.

I know it is a personal freedom, but personal freedoms can conflict with public interest and things have to go one way or another.

Guns are dangerous, so they are restricted.

One of many personal freedoms that have been removed to protect the public.

How about wandering around naked? Isn't that a personal freedom? And I can't see anyone getting hurt by it.

Or smoking pot, doesn't harm anyone but possibly yourself, it is illegal too.

Restrictions on travel?

Drinking in public?

Having relations with farm animals?

Prostitution?

Gay marriage?

All of which are individual freedoms that government has stripped people of, but none of them are really dangerous to anyone. Should all of these, and many others, be allowed as well?

 

[Tgace]

Your Constitution doesnt protect the ownership of them either. Ours does. Its the 2nd one too so our founders found the issue quite important....

 

[Andrew Green]

Your Constitution doesnt protect the ownership of them either. Ours does. Its the 2nd one too so our founders found the issue quite important....

Yup, that they did.

But the question is, is it still important?

Given the state of the country at that time, and the fear of British troops showing up to reclaim it that would have been important... for national security

But the individual freedom argument just doesn't work for me, too many other things are stripped away that the same people usually arguing for the guns argue against.

 

[Tgace]

But the question is, is it still important?

It wasnt about fighting off the English....its about maintaining a nation of free people.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=339544&postcount=27