True and complete pacifism is an immoral position, you might want to reconsider it. I dislike fighting but have on a couple of instances been morally
obligated to try. There are conceivable (although fortunately highly improbable in the UK) circumstances where i might feel morally obligated to take
action that could credibly result in death. If you cant think of any you need to think harder. If you can conceive them but still maintain you
wouldn't at least try, on principle, then you probably aren't a very good person.
The base biological drive is survival and usually the desire to pass something on into the future, even if its subconscious (the most obvious
manifestation is biological reproduction but in some individuals that desire manifests in less direct ways). We all feel that drive to an extent. If
you didn't why would you bother to get out of bed and eat/drink. Why not just die out of pure apathy?
On top of the base motivation there are others, that differ by personality type and upbringing. This is fortunate because it takes all sorts for a
well functioning human society. A society consisting of entirely ambitious competitive ruthless individualists would be just as doomed as one built
entirely of laid back dreamers. Everybody would be too busy scheming and fighting for anything good to get done (See Washington DC for an example of
how bad that would be).
I'm not naturally competitive for the sake of it either. I don't feel a burning need to win in all cases. In school I would be best summed by the
words 'entirely unremarkable'. I’m competitive only when i think its important, not when I am told it is. Thats mostly only in defense/support of
individuals/groups I feel personally obligated to and/or things I believe in.
Winning is finding out what you like doing and being able to find sufficient time and money in your life to do it. If you can make money doing it your
pretty much as well off as a human can be.
Losing is spending your whole life until you’re old and broken doing something you detest.
In the Darwinian sense ‘fittest’ is simply best adapted to the environment and most able to procreate. Its got nothing to do with how fast you
run or how much you can bench press. It hasn't had much correlation to physical prowess since we stopped having to run down mammoths with spears. You
can make an argument that these days it doesn't correlate with intellect either and that deadbeats gaming the system and cranking out 10 kids to be
paid for by others are the fittest in our society. They are the best adapted to breed in the system.
Guns are simply tools that facilitate the complete decoupling of physical prowess from destructive potential. Where there are people there will always
be a certain proportion of the population that are criminal or deranged. With this in mind, what it boils down to IMHO is that you don't want to be
A) Physically weak and isolated in a non gun owning society;
B) Without a gun in a society where guns are widespread.
Both of those are bad for your safety. America either goes 2 ways from here
1) Transitions to a non gun owning society (practically impossible at this point IMHO)
2) Lower the probability that any one crazy gun owner will find himself alone with a large group of non gun owners. If you are going to have
widespread gun ownership you want gun ownership in the law abiding as close to 100% as possible and you want to as far as possible weed out the
A half hearted attempt at option 1 will make things worse.
I am quite happy living in the UK without a gun, but if I lived in the USA owning one and being proficient in its use would seem unavoidable to me. I
cant see the logic in not having one when others can.
Wrote more here than i originally intended hope it doesnt ramble too much :-)
edit on 18-1-2013 by justwokeup because: typo