I do see your point. I don't think his claims are dubious, but I do think that he may be over-generalizing, as I have stated before. I think that his assessment may fit for some people, but certainly not all or most people.
This is where our opinions differ.
Objectively speaking, an attack may happen to anyone at any moment, even if it isn't likely. This is a fact, not really a subjective opinion. Some people deal with this fact by increasing their preparedness. This could mean arming oneself with something, taking self-defense courses, and so forth. That is one way of handling it. Some may choose to be armed all of the time because to them it represents freedom and personal responsibility for their own defense and for that of their environment. Others may choose to arm out of paranoia or antisocial behavior; but I don't think it is fair to assume that this is the majority of CCW/CPL holders.
And others may choose not to be armed out of denial, or a victim's mentality, or a lack of personal responsibility. Others may choose not to be armed due to a spiritual ideal and resolve, or simply because it is a hassle and not practical for them.
In all cases, as long as one is willing to be responsible for their choice and not impose it on others, then I cannot say, at least on the surface, that one is flawed for making that personal choice.
So, in the same sense that it wouldn't be fair to judge everyone who chooses to not carry a weapon as being irresponsible or in denial, it wouldn't be fair to judge those who are armed at all times as fearful or paranoid.
Case in point, we can look at Sikhism.
Sikhs, as part of their spiritual beliefs, are armed all the time. Usually it is with an ornate and traditional knife; some are armed with the traditional knife and firearms as well. They are armed at all times, according to their religion.
In Canada, there was some controversy because a high school student wanted to carry his traditional knife in school when he became of age in tradition to do so, but the rules wouldn't allow it. In an interview, his response was interesting. He said [paraphrase], "Our people aren't violent, and the tradition is not a violent one. We carry our traditional armament because in our culture it represents freedom."
You see, in Sikhism, the philosophical belief is that every male (and some females take this option as well) has the responsibility of defending themselves, their families, and their communities. It isn't about paranoia of fear for them; the traditional armament (of which they are bound to use if defense is needed) represents the freedom of defense and the responsibility to do so for them.
Interesting to note that regardless of this ideal, Sikhism is a very peaceful religion. This is especially in comparison to Muslim, Hindu, and Christian histories and beliefs.
I don't think that we can typecast all Sikhs as being fearful or paranoid for their beliefs. Nor, do I think we can typecast the armed citizen in that way either.
And for that, I respect your opinion, even where we differ.
Paul
