1911Forum banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Darwin’s theory proved itself in conversation at work today.

A motorist not less then 20 feet from my co-workers driveway assaulted him as he returned home early evening. The other motorist thought my co-worker was following him all day. After a few moments of road rage and verbal assault, he reaching into my co-workers Jeep in front of his house and started punching him until the man realized that my co-worker was the wrong person. He immediately returned to his vehicle with his child in the car and fled the scene.

So assault and CCW became the topic of conversation the office. Something to know first about my office. I work in the media. I own a gun, and I have a CCW.
Won of my co-workers happens to be a neighbor of our colleague that was assaulted. He said that if, that guy would have reached in his car he would have beaten him and kicks his ass and defended his life etc. Then he said that could not take that man life even if his life was threatened. I asked him why? He said that he would have felt guilty and that because that guy had his kid in the car. I told him that if I my life were in danger that I would not have a problem and about protecting my life and of someone with me.

He basically proceeded to try to bash my in front of my co-workers. He didn’t do a good job of it. He said he didn’t have a gun because what are the odds that something like that would happen to him. I said what do you think the odds were that our colleague thought it would happen to him. As I suspected…he said, "Guns kill people." I said, "Are you sure people don’t kill people?"

I proceeded to tell him and anyone else listing that, It is easier for me to kill a human than an animal. He was shocked. He just couldn’t believe I said that. But he doesn’t have the mentality nor will to survive like I do. I explained to him that if you’re attacked by an animal out in the wild, that the animal doesn’t have the criminal intent to do you harm. That bear or tiger sees you as food, or is protecting his or her family, not that he/she was going out tonight to beat some people up, rape and murder them. A human being with criminal intent does. I said that I would fell badly after killing the bear or tiger that charged at me. I would not feel bad about killing that human being that set out to rape my girlfriend and kill the both of us.

He and disagreed. I told him that our conversation was a great example of survival of the fittest. And that he was not mentally fit to survive if need be. He had nothing else to say after that.

Sucks to be shown the light that way.

.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,493 Posts
Carvel, I have encountered many of this ilk. I think you handled it well. Gave the fellow some food for thought. At least he will now have the opportunity to rethink these issues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,480 Posts
Carvel, sadly, the conversation did not prove Darwin's theory and equally so, I don't think you know what Darwin's theory is. If you think it is survival of the fittest as you described, then your biology education is lacking. Take the time and read up on 'Darwin's theory' and you will find that it isn't about the fittest individual surviving as you suggested. It is about populations, not individuals, and the members of the population need only survive long enough to pass on their genetic material to the succeeding generation.

So, if your coworker has already done this, then he falls into the current "fittest" category as he has fulfilled the number 1 criterion for population genetics by an individual, contributing genetric material to the population.

Additionally, your claim that your coworker is unfit to survive is self righteous garbage. Just because you are so willing to kill another human does not necessarily make you more fit for survival than your coworker. He had nothing to say to you because what you said was so insanely naive and ignorant of facts, not to mention rude, what would he say? Your self righteous claim that he is not fit because he doesn't want to kill another human is frightening illogic.

I see the light being shown to someone else...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,101 Posts
Im with DNS on this one. This was an opportunity to present a reasoned case for self defense, for carrying concealed weapons for that purpose, and to cast gun ownership and owners in a positive light. You could have pointed out that the mere presence of a firearm might have stopped the entire situation dead in its tracks with zero fatalities and zero injuries. You took none of those opportunities. You just angered that guy and might have alienated any ideological fence sitters that saw it go down.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 · (Edited)
What I have written was just a small amount of our conversation. I was just using Darwin’s Survival theory as a term. Because others in the office understood what I meant after the bulk of the conversation was over.

We did discuss the just presentation of your firearm as a means of stopping the attack. He didn’t accept that. He felt that if you had a gun, that it requires you to pull the trigger. This conversation wasn’t about the ability to kill. It was about, are you able to respond to a threat and protect yourself. If your thought process is that, nothing will ever happen to you, therefore I don’t need a gun or need some means of self defense, then will you be able to do certain things to survive an encounter. If you know that something can happen to you and you don’t at least try to minimize that, then where do you lie, that’s it. Can you survive? Where is your state of mind and drive to survive? Fit, as being or attempting to be prepared.

At no point did I say he should have a gun. I could care less if he did or didn’t. All I’m saying is don’t walk around in life thinking that something will never happen, because someone might pull your card tomorrow. And that if you though process was that something could happen, your steps ahead of the person who thinks it will never happen to them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,493 Posts
DNS, I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of Carvel's words. Where does Carvel make a value judgement that his coworker is actually unfit to survive? It appears that he simply meant that his coworker would not likely survive an encounter with someone who intended to do him serious harm. Also, I don't think that Carvel said that he was "so willing" to kill another person or that his coworker should be "so willing" to kill another person. I doubt that anyone actively participating in this Forum is eager to take another person's life, or at least I hope not. However, most folks here would use legally justifiable deadly force to defend themselves or loved ones. That's a very different thing. I think that you have read something into Carvel's words that simply isn't there. And Mus, I think that some situations will allow for a reasoned discusion of these issues and some may call for the "bucket of cold water" approach. I have been involved in many of each. Its hard to really know which was appropriate in this case without being there. I do agree, however, that rudeness solves nothing, but question whether Carvel was in fact rude. On a lighter note, it is interesting how different people can have widely different interpretations of the same written account. Best regards to all involved.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,101 Posts
hjk said:
And Mus, I think that some situations will allow for a reasoned discusion of these issues and some may call for the "bucket of cold water" approach. I have been involved in many of each.
While that may be true it doesnt sound like the argument he used was a bucket of cold water. It read as very unpersuasive, and quite frankly the part about it being "easier for me to kill a human than an animal" sounds borderline psychopathic to ME... how do you think that sounded to a bunch of liberal media workers?

The only time I would alienate someone like this is if I was positive I could make my opponent look like a fool, AND I thought I could gain many converts (for example people who already dont like the person) by doing so. Otherwise all you did was reinforce his ignorant prejudices about guns and gun owners, and maybe you came off looking like an ass to the audience as well.

Just right off the top of my head I see civil things he could have said that would have blown this guy out of the water, and might have provoked thought on his coworkers part rather than anger. Like when he said that if you had a gun you would have to use it you could have said, "The mere display of a firearm stops many times the number of crimes than those stopped by using them every year." Or when he asked the stupid rhetorical question of, "Whats the chances of 'something' happening", by which he meant the chances of some one being a victim of a serious violent crime in their lifetime? I would have fired, "1 in 4 average nationwide" right at him, and let him think about that for a minute.

Im sure everyone has heard the phrase "the customer is always right." While that may not be true you arent going to get a lot of sales telling the customer how full of crap he is and making him feel or look like a fool in front of other people.

In taking the time to debate gun rights with people in public we are selling ideas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,458 Posts
Well it wasn't Darwin but Dawkins that coined "survival of the fittest" :).... But Yes your co-worker is a moron. Anyone that would not stand up for the defense of their own life, or the lives of those around them based on ethical dilemas is quite foolish. When it comes to the survival of yourself or your family or your friends, or johnny Q the unknown citizen, I would have no qualms about defending them or myself. Now even if you do not agree with the use of firearms, letting a man beat you on your own property for no reason should definately fall under the meet force with force category. I mean is the guy saying he wouldn't even hit another man if that man was kicking his skull in???? If so I agree this man will definately be selected on a number of contextual references at some point in his life.

I do agree with MUS here :
"Im with DNS on this one. This was an opportunity to present a reasoned case for self defense, for carrying concealed weapons for that purpose, and to cast gun ownership and owners in a positive light. You could have pointed out that the mere presence of a firearm might have stopped the entire situation dead in its tracks with zero fatalities and zero injuries. You took none of those opportunities. You just angered that guy and might have alienated any ideological fence sitters that saw it go down."

The situation could definately have been handled better, but hey things get heated sometimes, especially when you are in a room and out numbered. So don't feel to bad ;) :) You will have other chances to make your point.

But to finish in the words of Mill, even though he wrote utilitarian tripe, will fit nicely here.


"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
John Mill.


Rayjay do not confuse "evolution" with "the theory of evolution". ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,493 Posts
Mus, I fully agree that C's statement about it being easier to kill people than animals was questionable, but probably isn't reflective of a serious disorder. I interpreted it to mean that he beleives that animals act from instinct, and therefore don't have the same capacity to act with evil intention or exercise restraint as do humans. That said, I can see how this could upset his audience and undermine the effectveness of his arguments. Hopefully, his colleagues who have known him for awhile will recognize that he isn't psychopathic. Also,I think that you are correct in your position that, for the most part, it generally serves no purpose to be overly confrontational with anti-gun people. That can require some real patience and restraint.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Some of my statement come form, because I'm on both sides of the fense. I see diffirent preceptions. Cop, bystanders, citizens, gun owners, CCW holders and non-gun owners. As a matter of fact I found out that my co-workers has a gun, but for the use of hunting.

I'm a journalist working for a anti-gun media outlet. I am a CCW holder. My brothers a sheriff deputy. I'm in a local citizen's police academy. 95% of the time all I do is observe and record. Then there are times when I'm asked to give my view.

My co-workers know me well. They just haven't been exposed to a varity of situations like I have. I was just trying to give insight to something that unfortunatly happen in our society, and my hopes that they look at issues form both sides of the fence.

This is good conversation
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top