evesgrden
Posts: 597
Joined: 6/9/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist
quote:
ORIGINAL: evesgrden
When you're holding a hammer everything looks like a nail.
So if you have a gun everything looks like a target?
If you have a pussy, does everything looks like a dick?
The study is true by my experience. When I buy a certain model car, I start to notice other people with that same model car. When I started carrying a gun, I spotted other people's holsters more often.
However, owning a car doesn't make want to run people over with it. Owning a gun doesn't make want to shoot people. Knowing martial arts doesn't make me want to karate chop people and carrying a knife doesn't make me want to stab people. In fact, if there is any modification to my thoughts, having the power of life and death over others makes me more responsible for my actions in the matter. The same way having power over and being responsible for my s-type makes me more careful about what I say and do.
If holding a hammer really makes everything look like a nail, instead of inspiring you to build something nice, I hope you never own a gun.
I am merely making the point that when people are in possession of certain tools, they are inclined to use them because they can.
Hammers: drive nails.
Guns: shoot targets.
Which targets and under what circumstances? Devils in the details. But if you're holding a gun you're going to be on the lookout for targets more than if you're not holding a gun. Just like if you were using your hammer for something, you look around the deck to see if there are any nails starting to pop up that need to be tapped back in before putting the hammer away. Or were there some pictures you wanted to hang. Experience will dictate whether you ding the wall up or pound a finger. Not sure why you were thinking the hammer was to be used destructively. That wasn't my intent.. the point was that when it's in your hand there is the urge to use it.
In an experiment, much like a video game, the consequence (if any) for being wrong is negligible other than knowing you were wrong. You're just waiting for a threat to shoot at and hence would likely have less concern about shooting something that at first appears to be a threat but ultimately might not be.
In real life, cost of error is overshadowed by fear in a lot of cases. Someone who's great at the range (if they even go) simply may not have what it takes to have the presence of mind to remain calm and ause restraint as necessary during a crisis.
One last thing.. another study:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182
Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home
"During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, "
Doesn't that speak volumes?
438 assault/homicides, 13 legally justifiable.
Just less than 3%.
So......97% of the time, someone deliberately squeezed the trigger and mistakenly shot someone they shouldn't have. And this data doesn't (and couldn't) reflect how often someone goes to shoot someone whom they mistakenly presume to be a threat, and simply misses.
_____________________________
What you permit, you promote.
|
RE: Fear Goggles - 
Profile
In a different context, this question could be worthy of its own thread.
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread