Guns, Guns Everywhere

[Formless]

It may be just me, but I can't help but notice that the various Japanese Mafia (or Yakuza) are the only organized crime syndicates in the world that feel free to operate openly in public with headquarters and everything, like some kind of corporation that everyone knows is in the business of extortion and other crimes. Other crimes including gun smuggling.

Of course, they aren't paramilitary, but they are organized crime and as violent as any of the world's mobs.

[Simon_Jester]

Okay, I see that people have called out Purple on his gibbering lunacy. Clearly, he speaks only for himself and his own idiosyncracies. Any belief on his part that he speaks for "Europe" as a whole is... absurd, it seems.

Good. That's out of the way.

Now, let me just point out that the fact Purple's lunacy is the exact counterpart to the kind of pro-gun lunacy you get when people start shouting "you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers!" And indeed, they start shouting that kind of thing because they perceive their opposition as being full of lunatics like Purple. People who will say something like:

"Sure, in principle the state protects you from violence, even though in reality they cannot really be sure you won't become a victim of violence. Therefore, even though they can't actually make you safe, you are required to act as though you are safe, and accept the risk of becoming a victim without being able to put up a fight!"

When that's the standard of argument your opponents throw your way, you become pretty radicalized in a hurry because there's no way to compromise, or even have a meaningful conversation, with such insane nonsense.

So how do places like Japan and Britain prevent armed criminals from terrorizing everybody if they have very tight gun laws?

Better social programs, like we talked about earlier, if Britain or Japan had the U.S.'s shit puddle of a social safety net, their crime problems would be much worse, even if their gun laws remained unchanged. As it stands, robberies, murders, and home invasions still happen, even in countries like Britain or Japan. The point is, you can't count on the authorities to always be there, 100% of the time, so its not entirely unreasonable to want the ability to defend yourself, even if there's a one in a million chance you'll need it, better to have and not need, than need and not have.

Now, the really ironic thing here is that in America, the political faction which does the most to undermine our social safety net, and therefore creates a lot of our violent crime, has also latched onto the votes of the people who want guns to defend themselves against that crime.

In my opinion this is unfortunate. It makes it harder for us to respond rationally to our crime problem. And it artificially strengthens the anti-reform party in America. Many changes that would lower our violent crime rate are being advocated by our left-wing party. And yet that same party has alienated those who fear crime the most, by pressing for gun control that makes that voter bloc even more fearful.

[Purple]

I don't see how I am the lunatic here. The lunatic is the one who thinks that he lives in a country where he can't be reasonably sure he won't become a victim of violence and yet supports the country and social system. Note reasonably. As in to a reasonable degree which is sufficient to quell any reasonable fear.

If you live in a country where violent crime is rampant enough to push the probability of you becoming a victim of violent crime into the reasonably high range than your reply should NOT be to say "I need a gun" but to ask "what the fuck is wrong with this state?".

The point is that instead of acting like you are safe even though you are not you should be working to make things safe by influencing society instead of just looking out for your self by getting a gun.

[Simon_Jester]

And yet you impose this idea that protecting you from violence cannot be the individual's job, even though realistically the state can never do the whole job itself.

We simply cannot defang every human being to the extent that no human being threatens any other, not without locking everyone up in straitjackets.

It's the degree to which your proposed ideal state is out of touch with reality that makes you a lunatic in my eyes.

[Purple]

And yet you impose this idea that protecting you from violence cannot be the individual's job, even though realistically the state can never do the whole job itself.

I do not think you actually managed to comprehend my last post. I would advise you to read it again. Since no amount of extra words are going to convey what I did not already say there.

We simply cannot defang every human being to the extent that no human being threatens any other, not without locking everyone up in straitjackets.

You have a serious issue you know that? Of course we can't create a society that is perfectly safe. Nothing is perfect. But we can create a functioning society like the ones in a large part of the world that aren't Somalia or America where crime is relatively rare. You know, places like most of Europe, a decent part of Asia and maybe Canada?

Social engineering to keep crime down is the best way of keeping people safe from crime. And it works because it keeps crime levels down.

It's the degree to which your proposed ideal state is out of touch with reality that makes you a lunatic in my eyes.

You have a serious issue in that you deal in absolutes.

Your insistence that the only kind of safety is 100% safety is akin to a lunatic who is afraid of flying for fear that his airplane might crash. Yes there is a chance that will happen. But since we know that the industry keeps aircraft safe enough that that person is a loon. And that's exactly how you sound. You insist that since no government can make sure you are 100% safe, only 99% or 95% or what ever that is not good enough and you need to fend for your self.

And society does in most part work like that, even in america. Out of every 100 people on the street how many do you feel are likely to pull a gun out and shoot you for no reason? 1? 2? 10? Or do you have to go for 1 in every 1000 or 10000? At what point would you feel comfortable to say that you are safe enough? Because the way you sound to me it just seems that you won't stop fearing for your life for as long as one evil man draws breath.

[TimothyC]

Purple, I have a fundamental question for you. Conceptually, should rules be "You can do what you want except X, Y, & Z" or should they be "You are allowed to do A, B, & C at our digression" ?

[Simon_Jester]

Timothy, did you mean to say "at our discretion" at the end of your last post?

[TimothyC]

Yes. Ooops. It should read:

Purple, I have a fundamental question for you. Conceptually, should rules be "You can do what you want except X, Y, & Z" or should they be "You are allowed to do A, B, & C at our discretion" ?

[Simon_Jester]

You have a serious issue you know that? Of course we can't create a society that is perfectly safe. Nothing is perfect. But we can create a functioning society like the ones in a large part of the world that aren't Somalia or America where crime is relatively rare. You know, places like most of Europe, a decent part of Asia and maybe Canada?

Crime is relatively rare in the US; didn't you know that? Are you concluding that just because many Americans want the right to choose to go armed for self-defense, that Americans are routinely getting gunned down in the streets all over the place? It doesn't work like that.

It's relatively easy to go your whole life without ever being a victim of violent crime, if you're lucky enough to be born with a bit of wealth and avoid rough neighborhoods.

The point here is, simply, that the right to choose to have the option of defending yourself seems... pretty fundamental. At least, it is if your concept of 'citizenship' and 'rights' lines up with mine. Not to be abandoned lightly. Especially not if by your own argument it's not access to guns that really affects violent crime rates.

Now, if you think that 'rights' are just these things the state decides to give you, at its discretion, for its idea of the common good... you may not agree.

But in that case you are at odds with a lot of Enlightenment thinking. I'm not surprised to hear this kind of state-supremacist attitude coming from you because you're kind of fascist sometimes. But you have to recognize that not everyone shares your values on such matters.

Your insistence that the only kind of safety is 100% safety is akin to a lunatic who is afraid of flying for fear that his airplane might crash. Yes there is a chance that will happen. But since we know that the industry keeps aircraft safe enough that that person is a loon. And that's exactly how you sound. You insist that since no government can make sure you are 100% safe, only 99% or 95% or what ever that is not good enough and you need to fend for your self.

Thing is, we give people the right to choose whether or not to get on an airplane. We don't force people to accept the risk whether they like it or not.

At what point would you feel comfortable to say that you are safe enough? Because the way you sound to me it just seems that you won't stop fearing for your life for as long as one evil man draws breath.

The point is that while I personally feel adequately safe... I support other people's right to choose whether or not they want the certainty of knowing they personally could handle random violence if it came calling.

That knowledge may be irrelevant to them in practice- but I'm not going to deny them the right to have it. Maybe they have to deal with more dangerous and violent people than I do. It's not my place to say "oh, well violence never happens to anyone, why are you worried about that" and legally bar them from taking steps.

[Jub]

It may be just me, but I can't help but notice that the various Japanese Mafia (or Yakuza) are the only organized crime syndicates in the world that feel free to operate openly in public with headquarters and everything, like some kind of corporation that everyone knows is in the business of extortion and other crimes. Other crimes including gun smuggling.

Of course, they aren't paramilitary, but they are organized crime and as violent as any of the world's mobs.

I would imagine that's more due to lack of effective policing and a healthy does of corruption than the average person being unarmed. Plus, the Japanese government has the art of pretending problems don't exist down to a science.

[quote="Beowulf]A. Someone can be armed without being armed with a gun.[/quote]

Indeed, but there are reasons other weapons aren't in favor with the military.

2. What makes you think they are actually successful? England and Wales have a higher rate of robbery and assault than the US. See pages 74 and 81.

I think I'd rather be robbed or assaulted than killed, and knives and bats over guns mean that the average crime should be less deadly.

[Kon_El]

I think I'd rather be robbed or assaulted than killed, and knives and bats over guns mean that the average crime should be less deadly.

I would rather be armed and have a chance to defend myself from attack than have to rely on the mercy of my attacker to survive an assault.

[Jub]

I think I'd rather be robbed or assaulted than killed, and knives and bats over guns mean that the average crime should be less deadly.

I would rather be armed and have a chance to defend myself from attack than have to rely on the mercy of my attacker to survive an assault.

If the attacker is armed with a melee weapon you have that chance by default. You also have a better chance of evading him because he has to get to within arms reach of you to hurt you. If you have a gun and he has one, the chances are he'll have his drawn before you and has a good chance of shooting you before your gun can do much good.

[Formless]

I would imagine that's more due to lack of effective policing and a healthy does of corruption than the average person being unarmed. Plus, the Japanese government has the art of pretending problems don't exist down to a science.

I was more thinking about the fact that even in Japan, there is organized criminal violence despite a lack of legal guns... which you were implying isn't a problem in Japan. That and the whole gun smuggling thing. Where there is a market, there are merchants.

[Jub]

I would imagine that's more due to lack of effective policing and a healthy does of corruption than the average person being unarmed. Plus, the Japanese government has the art of pretending problems don't exist down to a science.

I was more thinking about the fact that even in Japan, there is organized criminal violence despite a lack of legal guns... which you were implying isn't a problem in Japan. That and the whole gun smuggling thing. Where there is a market, there are merchants.

Yeah, but as a whole people are much safer there and your average joe isn't likely to be harassed by Yakuza goons. It isn't as if the lack of guns is giving them free reign to plunder as they wish and it certainly isn't true that more guns would give them any less control.

[Formless]

I think I'd rather be robbed or assaulted than killed, and knives and bats over guns mean that the average crime should be less deadly.

I would rather be armed and have a chance to defend myself from attack than have to rely on the mercy of my attacker to survive an assault.

If the attacker is armed with a melee weapon you have that chance by default. You also have a better chance of evading him because he has to get to within arms reach of you to hurt you. If you have a gun and he has one, the chances are he'll have his drawn before you and has a good chance of shooting you before your gun can do much good.

Ignorant BS. Any attacker with a knife who wants you dead knows better than to brandish the blade brazenly, and even if they aren't sneaky about it they'll simply attack so quick and furiously even a skilled martial artist will have trouble avoiding stitches afterwards. Most criminals will either stab you in the back prison style, or feign at being unarmed until they can stick you in the kidneys. Any self defense instructor worth their salt knows this about knives. That's why awareness is the single most important thing to all self defense. Seriously, educate yourself. Read some crime reports detailing knife attacks. Or other supposedly "less lethal" melee weapons, and notice which ones are generally used in crime. Criminals do not fight fair. Period. That's why those interested in learning self defense, whether with or without guns, don't train to fight fair either.

Yeah, but as a whole people are much safer there and your average joe isn't likely to be harassed by Yakuza goons. It isn't as if the lack of guns is giving them free reign to plunder as they wish and it certainly isn't true that more guns would give them any less control.

I think you are latching onto arguments I haven't made (more guns=necessarily better/safer). Moreover, you should probably go back and look at the points Beowulf made, because you are either conceding them by allowing that Japan and Britain are not paradisaical violence free zones despite their reputations for being safeer; or your question is a useless rhetorical trick to begin with by focusing on the "terrorizing" part, even though gangs aren't, on a whole, terrorizing the United States either. I could go either way on that last part, really.

But please, I would like to see you acknowledge Beowulf, because I was merely musing out loud, after all, not trying to argue. He is.

[Purple]

Crime is relatively rare in the US; didn't you know that?

Actually yes. I am aware that in most of the cities and generally sane parts of your country people are generally safe. Thus...

Are you concluding that just because many Americans want the right to choose to go armed for self-defense, that Americans are routinely getting gunned down in the streets all over the place? It doesn't work like that.

No, I am deducing nothing from people having that right. Now what I am deducing is that people are willing to argue for and maybe even fight to keep said right. And this in turn leads me to deduce that people really feel the need to keep it. This in turn leads me to deduce that said people feel really unsafe either due to the system being crime ridden or them being paranoid. Pick one or both.

It's relatively easy to go your whole life without ever being a victim of violent crime, if you're lucky enough to be born with a bit of wealth and avoid rough neighborhoods.

Where I am from that's very little wealth and avoid... well not sure I can point to any rough neighborhoods really.

The point here is, simply, that the right to choose to have the option of defending yourself seems... pretty fundamental. At least, it is if your concept of 'citizenship' and 'rights' lines up with mine. Not to be abandoned lightly. Especially not if by your own argument it's not access to guns that really affects violent crime rates.

From my point of view a "right" on its own is worth less than nothing. It's just a slip that says you are allowed to do something if you ever need it. The value of said right for any individual is directly linked to how often he wants or needs to exercise it. Thus in a safe and orderly society the value of the right to self defense will be comparatively low simply because no one wants and few people will need to defend them self.

Thing is, we give people the right to choose whether or not to get on an airplane. We don't force people to accept the risk whether they like it or not.

We still point and laugh at them at the airport when they start recoiling in fear.

The point is that while I personally feel adequately safe... I support other people's right to choose whether or not they want the certainty of knowing they personally could handle random violence if it came calling.

That knowledge may be irrelevant to them in practice- but I'm not going to deny them the right to have it. Maybe they have to deal with more dangerous and violent people than I do. It's not my place to say "oh, well violence never happens to anyone, why are you worried about that" and legally bar them from taking steps.

No, but it is your place to say "oh my. These people feel threatened. Where has our society failed? I must express my anger at the issue via voting for someone who will improve the situation." And when everyone does that you get an European socialist state.

Purple, I have a fundamental question for you. Conceptually, should rules be "You can do what you want except X, Y, & Z" or should they be "You are allowed to do A, B, & C at our digression" ?

I can say that conceptually I don't really see a difference in these two other than wording. It's kind of like those half full - half empty questions. You still have half a glass of ale.

[Kon_El]

I think I'd rather be robbed or assaulted than killed, and knives and bats over guns mean that the average crime should be less deadly.

I would rather be armed and have a chance to defend myself from attack than have to rely on the mercy of my attacker to survive an assault.

If the attacker is armed with a melee weapon you have that chance by default. You also have a better chance of evading him because he has to get to within arms reach of you to hurt you. If you have a gun and he has one, the chances are he'll have his drawn before you and has a good chance of shooting you before your gun can do much good.

Unless you had the misfortune of being born a cripple, or are too old. Some people are incapable of running and worthless in melee. I would take my chances in a gunfight over a knife fight any day. Melee weapons favor the strong and healthy. In a gunfight those things don't matter. That is what weapons do. They level the playing field.

[Kon_El]

No, I am deducing nothing from people having that right. Now what I am deducing is that people are willing to argue for and maybe even fight to keep said right. And this in turn leads me to deduce that people really feel the need to keep it. This in turn leads me to deduce that said people feel really unsafe either due to the system being crime ridden or them being paranoid. Pick one or both.

The results of your imagination are just that. Even if a gun owner never needs to use their gun for defense they can still enjoy target shooting enough to make ownership worthwhile.

[Purple]

No, I am deducing nothing from people having that right. Now what I am deducing is that people are willing to argue for and maybe even fight to keep said right. And this in turn leads me to deduce that people really feel the need to keep it. This in turn leads me to deduce that said people feel really unsafe either due to the system being crime ridden or them being paranoid. Pick one or both.

The results of your imagination are just that. Even if a gun owner never needs to use their gun for defense they can still enjoy target shooting enough to make ownership worthwhile.

Using firearms for enjoyment is a whole different avenue that I am not addressing. I don't have a thing against personal ownership and use of firearms on your own property for fun or for hunting or for defending your self against animals. I just have a thing against the notion that firearms are somehow a necessary tool for self defense.

[Metahive]

I was mugged once. The guy stepped out of a dark alley, grabbed me from behind and held a knife to my throat. What good would a gun have been in that situation? Worse, what if he had discovered it and stolen the gun along with my wallet? That's how muggers work. They use the element of shock and surprise to enforce compliance. They don't slowly walk towards you from the front and loudly announce their intention which is the only way I could envision a gun to be of any use. When it comes to gunfights, the guy with the hand on the trigger first wins and unless you're completely paranoid, it will be them. Of course, if you happen to be that paranoid, there's also the chance of drawing the gun or even firing on people with no ill intentions. Or just doing that on people who annoy you like that old geezer who was in the news recently who blew somone's head off for texting in a cinema.

I always wonder about the sort of conceptions that people have about muggers and burglars. Another example, several of my acquaintances had their houses broken in. That happened when they were away from home and from what I've learned this is the usual MO when it comes to home invasions. So even if they had guns it wouldn't have helped or even worse, would have led to criminals aquiring them and then using them in a violent crime later.

That's why I think guns for self-defense purposes are a crapshoot and might even lessen personal safety instead of increasing it.

[Jub]

Ignorant BS. Any attacker with a knife who wants you dead knows better than to brandish the blade brazenly, and even if they aren't sneaky about it they'll simply attack so quick and furiously even a skilled martial artist will have trouble avoiding stitches afterwards. Most criminals will either stab you in the back prison style, or feign at being unarmed until they can stick you in the kidneys. Any self defense instructor worth their salt knows this about knives. That's why awareness is the single most important thing to all self defense. Seriously, educate yourself. Read some crime reports detailing knife attacks. Or other supposedly "less lethal" melee weapons, and notice which ones are generally used in crime. Criminals do not fight fair. Period. That's why those interested in learning self defense, whether with or without guns, don't train to fight fair either.

That presumes that your mugger or the person assaulting you wants to harm or kill you, and that isn't always the case. A knife, just like a gun, can be shown to get you to give up your goods without a struggle. Even if a person with a knife does want to harm you, he's still within your reach and that gives you a better chance to respond than if the same attack was carried out with a shooter pumping rounds into you from a few feet away. If a person wants you dead from ambush that have options either way, but one gives you a slightly better chance to reply.

I think you are latching onto arguments I haven't made (more guns=necessarily better/safer). Moreover, you should probably go back and look at the points Beowulf made, because you are either conceding them by allowing that Japan and Britain are not paradisaical violence free zones despite their reputations for being safeer; or your question is a useless rhetorical trick to begin with by focusing on the "terrorizing" part, even though gangs aren't, on a whole, terrorizing the United States either. I could go either way on that last part, really.

But please, I would like to see you acknowledge Beowulf, because I was merely musing out loud, after all, not trying to argue. He is.

I already did, I just failed at quotes so I'll ghetto edit it in here.

-----

A. Someone can be armed without being armed with a gun.

Indeed, but there are reasons other weapons aren't in favor with the military.

2. What makes you think they are actually successful? England and Wales have a higher rate of robbery and assault than the US. See pages 74 and 81.

I think I'd rather be robbed or assaulted than killed, and knives and bats over guns mean that the average crime should be less deadly.

[TimothyC]

Purple, I have a fundamental question for you. Conceptually, should rules be "You can do what you want except X, Y, & Z" or should they be "You are allowed to do A, B, & C at our discretion" ?

I can say that conceptually I don't really see a difference in these two other than wording. It's kind of like those half full - half empty questions. You still have half a glass of ale.

Most of the people who are for gun owner's rights are in the former camp, while I'll take your statement as you being in the later camp.

Given the above, and the fact that concealed carry owners are one of if not the groups least likely to break the law, can you see why they claim they are being punished for the actions of others when people like you want to defacto ban guns?

Also, I presume you want to ban any bodyguards from carrying weapons? If you don't then you've just said that self defense is fine for people with money, but not for people without.

[TheFeniX]

I was mugged once. The guy stepped out of a dark alley, grabbed me from behind and held a knife to my throat. What good would a gun have been in that situation?

No good.

Worse, what if he had discovered it and stolen the gun along with my wallet? That's how muggers work. They use the element of shock and surprise to enforce compliance. They don't slowly walk towards you from the front and loudly announce their intention which is the only way I could envision a gun to be of any use.

Muggers have to close distance to mug you. Perhaps people who don't look at a gun as a catch-all self-defense solution avoid dark alleys, blind corners, or other areas where anyone can close distance without them knowing. It's actually quite easy if you're thinking about it.

I always wonder about the sort of conceptions that people have about muggers and burglars. Another example, several of my acquaintances had their houses broken in. That happened when they were away from home and from what I've learned this is the usual MO when it comes to home invasions. So even if they had guns it wouldn't have helped or even worse, would have led to criminals aquiring them and then using them in a violent crime later.

That's not a home invasion. And guns stolen in the manner you are describing are like 10% of guns taken off the streets. The thing is most people buy guns that are worth some semblance of money. A stolen Kimber is more likely to be pawned or kept as a vanity gun because the retail value is in the thousand dollar range. Meanwhile, something like a .38 special is good enough for crime and cheap enough to be tossed in the river if need be.

Not to say gun safes aren't a great idea, but it's more about protecting expensive and potentially dangerous property rather than keeping guns off the street.

That's why I think guns for self-defense purposes are a crapshoot and might even lessen personal safety instead of increasing it.

What you think is out of touch with the reality, at least in the US. Numerous reports from the FBI, local authorities, and the ATF state that at the least legal gun ownership has no impact on crime and in some cases even decreases it (likely merely pushing it into areas where gun ownership is lower).

Texas in particular just, once again, lowered the requirements for a CHL.... which I'm not too keen on. And they are once again processing thousands of them monthly. Yet violent crime is still dropping in this state. Even ridiculously violent Houston has crime drops in pretty much all areas. Except some of the wards. I'm sure some of that has to do with guns. But it's more the poverty, drugs, and lack of trust in law enforcement due to racism.

The thing is: guns cannot realistically fight crime, at least statistically. Sure, it might turn a mugging into an unsuccessful mugging, but it's still a mugging reported to police and I've never seen it differentiated. It also might turn a murder into an attempted murder, but that's about it.

You might be able to make crime less deadly by removing guns, I'll grant that. But at the end of the day, people commit crime for reasons such as basic needs like not starving to death. They don't suddenly stop needing to eat because you removed access to one tool of their trade. They might select different targets if they can only access a knife (or whatever), but they don't just crawl in a hole and die because they can't get a gun.

As lame as it sounds, you fight crime by giving people a reason to not need to commit it.

[Purple]

Most of the people who are for gun owner's rights are in the former camp, while I'll take your statement as you being in the later camp.

I don't see the two as being different from one another though,

Given the above, and the fact that concealed carry owners are one of if not the groups least likely to break the law, can you see why they claim they are being punished for the actions of others when people like you want to defacto ban guns?

Also, I presume you want to ban any bodyguards from carrying weapons? If you don't then you've just said that self defense is fine for people with money, but not for people without.

I newer said I would ban them outright. In fact as far as I am aware I newer actually expressed an opinion on how to regulate firearms rights beyond that. My arguments entirely based on criticizing the idea that firearms are an inherent right and/or necessary for personal protection. And they boil down to:
#1. Society needs to be safe and handing out guns won't make it any safer. Social engineering will.
#2. People who feel they need a firearm for self defense are either paranoid or living in a failed state.

[Simon_Jester]

Crime is relatively rare in the US; didn't you know that?

Actually yes. I am aware that in most of the cities and generally sane parts of your country people are generally safe. Thus...

Are you concluding that just because many Americans want the right to choose to go armed for self-defense, that Americans are routinely getting gunned down in the streets all over the place? It doesn't work like that.

No, I am deducing nothing from people having that right. Now what I am deducing is that people are willing to argue for and maybe even fight to keep said right. And this in turn leads me to deduce that people really feel the need to keep it. This in turn leads me to deduce that said people feel really unsafe either due to the system being crime ridden or them being paranoid. Pick one or both.

It's relatively easy to go your whole life without ever being a victim of violent crime, if you're lucky enough to be born with a bit of wealth and avoid rough neighborhoods.

Where I am from that's very little wealth and avoid... well not sure I can point to any rough neighborhoods really.

The point here is, simply, that the right to choose to have the option of defending yourself seems... pretty fundamental. At least, it is if your concept of 'citizenship' and 'rights' lines up with mine. Not to be abandoned lightly. Especially not if by your own argument it's not access to guns that really affects violent crime rates.

From my point of view a "right" on its own is worth less than nothing. It's just a slip that says you are allowed to do something if you ever need it. The value of said right for any individual is directly linked to how often he wants or needs to exercise it. Thus in a safe and orderly society the value of the right to self defense will be comparatively low simply because no one wants and few people will need to defend them self.

Thing is, we give people the right to choose whether or not to get on an airplane. We don't force people to accept the risk whether they like it or not.

We still point and laugh at them at the airport when they start recoiling in fear.

The point is that while I personally feel adequately safe... I support other people's right to choose whether or not they want the certainty of knowing they personally could handle random violence if it came calling.

That knowledge may be irrelevant to them in practice- but I'm not going to deny them the right to have it. Maybe they have to deal with more dangerous and violent people than I do. It's not my place to say "oh, well violence never happens to anyone, why are you worried about that" and legally bar them from taking steps.

No, but it is your place to say "oh my. These people feel threatened. Where has our society failed? I must express my anger at the issue via voting for someone who will improve the situation." And when everyone does that you get an European socialist state.

Purple, I have a fundamental question for you. Conceptually, should rules be "You can do what you want except X, Y, & Z" or should they be "You are allowed to do A, B, & C at our digression" ?

I can say that conceptually I don't really see a difference in these two other than wording. It's kind of like those half full - half empty questions. You still have half a glass of ale.