"Does 'Armed' Equal Dangerous?"

Of course it does, in answer to Hot Air's question. The whole point of carrying arms is to be more dangerous.
’Dangerous?,’ cried Gandalf. ‘And so am I, very dangerous: more dangerous than anything you will ever meet. . .And Aragon is dangerous, and Legolas is dangerous. You are beset with dangers. . .for you are dangerous yourself, in your own fashion.’
Anyone carrying a weapon is dangerous. Some of us are dangerous even if you should happen to catch us without a weapon. The police cannot be chided for handling them as such. There is a reasonable question about how, in a free society that respects the right to bear arms, police should handle a dangerous but not aggressive or anti-social interaction. But of course "armed" means "dangerous." Specifically, it is a subset of the category "dangerous."


Russ said...

If you could only beat this information into peoples head. "The whole point of carrying arms is to be more dangerous."

Ymar Sakar said...

Dangerous people are locked up by a society that requires safety and promises of security from their kings.

In the Japanese line, the nail that stands out gets hammered first.

MikeD said...

I'm not so sure I'd agree with the assessment that "armed" must mean "dangerous". Simply because one has the capacity to cause harm does not mean one is likely to cause harm. As an example, Grim... I believe you to be capable of causing great physical harm to another person (even unarmed). And yet, I do not think you would be a danger to a small child I place into your safekeeping. Yes, you are capable of harm, but you are not dangerous to that child. An armed person who acts responsibly and in accordance with society is no danger to that society. They may well be a danger to those who would threaten society, but not to the law abiding members of that society.

Dangerous, perhaps, but to whom is the more important consideration.