Well, SPOOFE, I was amused to see your characteristic response to my post, in which you rely on the cheap, emotionally gratifying techniques I have seen you employ in the past. And then you appear surprised when others dedicate pit threads to you. You’ve questioned my intelligence and education before, unsuccessfully. Now, I am still not about to take offense from someone who uses such intellectually abysmal techniques, but please stop being so tiresome. Let me guess, you have a comeback for this request as well?
The points you address to me are all worthless–an established pattern–however I note that Mr.Zambezi was able to respond in an intelligent manner to my comment on civilization.
Mr. Zambezi, I misinterpreted your earlier comment and I apologize for my harsh retort. I lost an American friend to a civilian gun, and your comment irritated me no small amount. I still do not think it is excusable to take the cost-benefit view you seem to espouse, but I should not have advised you to get some civilization because I see now you did not mean to dismiss the deaths of innocents in the way I interpreted.
Very valid view. Knee-jerk reactions are seldom supportable. But it is worthwhile to avoid confusion between knee-jerking, ignoring the cost to concentrate on the outcome, and working towards a goal.
In another thread on a similar topic, I submitted that gun ownership was not the sole problem. To me it definitely looks like a problem with the attitudes involved here. For example, look at European countries that have low gun circulation, and you notice significantly less gun violence and virtually no obsession with guns. Violence is also lower in general. In fact, I came across this reference:
At http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/publications/critical_issues/1998/crime/table1.html we can see murder rates for 50 selected countries as of 1992–not the most recent data, but still useful. The US is ranked 8th out of the selected countries, with the first 7 being Swaziland, Botswana, Jamaica, Lesotho, Rwanda, Venezuela, and Russia. The next developed country came in at number 20, and was the Netherlands (quite surprisingly, I thought).
Since 1993, the number of crimes committed with firearms in the US appear to be declining. So the chaos of gun control laws may be working to some extent, but there is still plenty of room for improvement. It is in part because of that that I don’t see how there can be any argument against gun control.
Cutting down on guns is almost certain to diminish their use and subsequent abuse, which is a great start. Not the end solution to the problem, I agree, but a significant step forward. The solution to the problem will be decreasing violence in general, not arming people against it.
There are many ways to address this argument, but it brings me back again to the issue of paranoia. This may seem like a generalization, but bear with me: why is it that in the US you feel you have to be ready to defend yourself against everything? From lawsuits fired off at the drop of a hat to relations between the sexes to guns, it all seems like one potential confrontation after another. Look at other comparable countries, like some in Europe, or Canada or Australia, and this feeling is less prevalent. Is there really a US mentality of “it could boil down to me against everyone so I must be prepared for it”?
It has been demonstrated that guns and knives are different cases. A gun’s sole function is to kill. A knife has many purposes, and most kitchen knives do not make very good weapons at all. Additionally, in many countries, and I think in the US as well, you are not permitted to saunter around with a knife if it serves no purpose beyond that of a weapon (“Officer, I use it merely to peel apples” is not likely to fly).
The cost-benefit question therefore takes on different attributes. You could argue that baseball ought to be banned because rather more baseball bats are bought than are used to play baseball, but that is silly. There’s a difference between incorrect application of an item that is not primarily a weapon but is used as one, and an item that is a weapon.
Again, the cost-benefit question does not stand up to scrutiny on the same grounds because alcohol is something you do to yourself. Certainly it is prohibited to serve or market alcohol to minors (in the US to anyone under the age of 21, and some part of Canada 19!), and ID checks are required when buying booze or getting into a drinking establishment. Personally I don’t see much benefit in drinking heavily even if you are 21 or older, but that’s a personal choice.
On the other hand, with high firearm circulation a vast number of people have the ability to impinge on my freedom any time they choose by simply drawing a gun and pointing it at me. I have a problem with such an environment. I submit that by the time a situation is so severe that a gun has come out, you are already screwed whether you are armed yourself or not. It seems much better to work towards a society where such confrontations are prevented altogether rather than welcomed.
well, he who saves a life saves the world entire. What is the counter-balance, or cost, to one life saved, assuming that the benefit would be that low? No guns in circulation at all? I don’t think that is such a high cost in the long run (I’m assuming you are talking about banning guns completely here).