Reply
Thu 6 Dec, 2007 10:58 pm
It seems to me that the pro gun lobby arguments go something like this :
The more guns you have in circulation, the more legal guns will be in the hands of people who become murderously suicidal, therefore you need even more guns in circulation to protect yourself from said suicidal people.
The more guns you have in circulation, the more legal guns will be in the hands of people who suffer their first psychotic episode, therefore you need even more guns in circulation to protect yourself from said psychotic people.
The more guns you have in circulation, the more legal guns will be in the hands of drug users, some of whom will psychotic episodes/delusions/paranoia, therefore you need even more guns in circulation to protect yourself from said drug users suffering psychotic episodes/delusions/paranoia.
The more guns you have in circulation, the more legal guns will be in the hands of persons affected by road rage, therefore you need even more guns in circulation to protect yourself from road ragers.
The more guns you have in circulation, the more likely legal guns will be in the hands of domestic violence perpertrators, therefore the more guns families need to protect themselves from such.
The more guns you have in circulation, the more guns will fall into the hands of criminals through break & enters etc, therefore you need even more guns in circulation to protect yourself from said break & enter merchants
The more guns you have in circulation, the greater the need for crims to carry guns to protect themselves from residents who have guns, therefore you need even more guns in circulation to protect yourself from said crims who are trying to protect themselves from the residents home they are trying to break into.
The more guns you have in circulation, the more crims have guns, and therefore more they need guns to protect themselves from other crims who have guns, which means even more crims have guns, therefore you need even more guns in circulation to protect yourself from said higher number of crims who have guns
Can't wait till all the kids in school have guns.
Then of course, you would need even more guns in circulation...
... to protect yourself from kids who physiologically haven't developed the capacity to fully reason (nor fully comprehend the consequences of some actions), who are trying to find their place in this world, and who's emotions are overly affected during the teenage time of life.
The converse argument is that we should not allow civilians to have guns.
Then no one will have them, because they would be illegal.
Just like no one has marijuana, because it is illegal.
That isn't the converse argument.
The above arguments I presented are self fulfilling/self reinforcing...what you present as the 'converse' isn't.
That said, you do have a point that it is impossible to keep guns completely out of criminal hands...and in some places, downright impossible.
If it is impossible to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, then what is the benefit of keeping them out of the hands of law abiding citizens?
I was simply pointing out the self fullfilling / self reinforcing nature of the pro gun argument :wink:
Do you find it to be innacurate in any way?
I agree. Some of the pro-gun arguments make no sense.
Just like some of the global warming arguments make no sense, and some of the universal health care arguments make no sense.
But that does not mean that ALL of the arguments for these three issues make no sense.
Even still, the police should be the ones protecting civilians.
To me it seems that pro-gun activists one use the whole 'to protect my family'-argument as a cover because all they really want is have their precious guns so they can shoot at stuff on their ranch.
There are many laws that do not make sense. But, they are there to protect the populace.
Saying that everybody should have guns because the criminals have guns is like saying everybody should take drugs because the druggies take drugs.
Neither case puts everybody on a level playing field.
I think that we could make guns legal. Bullets, on the other hand, would be made illegal. :wink:
Fine. Then no one will have bullets, because they are illegal. Just like no one has marijuana, because it is illegal.
Jim wrote:If it is impossible to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, then what is the benefit of keeping them out of the hands of law abiding citizens?
Law abiding citizens often have rage episodes and use guns against innocent people.
Look the figures: how many people are killed by previously convicted criminals and how many people are killed by usually law abiding citizens that have a problem?
Coolwhip wrote:Even still, the police should be the ones protecting civilians.
To me it seems that pro-gun activists one use the whole 'to protect my family'-argument as a cover because all they really want is have their precious guns so they can shoot at stuff on their ranch.
I don't see any issue with protecting oneself (the most basic of human rights) or shooting stuff on private property.
The second amendment is my concealed weapons permit. I carry a gun because a cop is just too damn heavy.
cjhsa wrote:
I don't see any issue with protecting oneself (the most basic of human rights) or shooting stuff on private property.
The second amendment is my concealed weapons permit. I carry a gun because a cop is just too damn heavy.
If protecting one self is the most basic of human rights, where does one draw the line? RPG's? Tanks? WMD?
Sure, if the 'enemy' has tanks, don't you need armor piercing rounds?
vikorr wrote:It seems to me that the pro gun lobby arguments go something like this :
The more guns you have in circulation, the more legal guns will be in the hands of people who become murderously suicidal, therefore you need even more guns in circulation to protect yourself from said suicidal people.
The more guns you have in circulation, the more legal guns will be in the hands of people who suffer their first psychotic episode, therefore you need even more guns in circulation to protect yourself from said psychotic people.
The more guns you have in circulation, the more legal guns will be in the hands of drug users, some of whom will psychotic episodes/delusions/paranoia, therefore you need even more guns in circulation to protect yourself from said drug users suffering psychotic episodes/delusions/paranoia.
The more guns you have in circulation, the more legal guns will be in the hands of persons affected by road rage, therefore you need even more guns in circulation to protect yourself from road ragers.
The more guns you have in circulation, the more likely legal guns will be in the hands of domestic violence perpertrators, therefore the more guns families need to protect themselves from such.
The more guns you have in circulation, the more guns will fall into the hands of criminals through break & enters etc, therefore you need even more guns in circulation to protect yourself from said break & enter merchants
The more guns you have in circulation, the greater the need for crims to carry guns to protect themselves from residents who have guns, therefore you need even more guns in circulation to protect yourself from said crims who are trying to protect themselves from the residents home they are trying to break into.
The more guns you have in circulation, the more crims have guns, and therefore more they need guns to protect themselves from other crims who have guns, which means even more crims have guns, therefore you need even more guns in circulation to protect yourself from said higher number of crims who have guns
Don't get him started on bullets.
But the gun mania of the us is rather insane in my opinion.
Where I live, you are not allowed to carry a gun. You are allowed to own one, but you can only keep it at home if you are an active member of a club.
The idea is to keep guns away from people, and it works too. We have only a small percentage of gun related murders or robberies here of what there is in the us.
Thing is, you cannot arm yourself against bad judgement, and that is when a gun becomes dangerous.
There are, of course, illegal guns in circulation, but not near as many as in a country where you can practically find one under every pillow you turn.
Cyracuz wrote:Don't get him started on bullets.
But the gun mania of the us is rather insane in my opinion.
Where I live, you are not allowed to carry a gun. You are allowed to own one, but you can only keep it at home if you are an active member of a club.
The idea is to keep guns away from people, and it works too. We have only a small percentage of gun related murders or robberies here of what there is in the us.
Thing is, you cannot arm yourself against bad judgement, and that is when a gun becomes dangerous.
There are, of course, illegal guns in circulation, but not near as many as in a country where you can practically find one under every pillow you turn.
Where you live, are you often far away from any police officer or precinct? My cabin is at least 15 minutes away from the nearest cop, if he's home, otherwise it 1/2 hour or more. Way too long to defend yourself with a sharp spoon. Cheezits, just last summer I had someone drive in there at 4:30AM uninvited... my shotgun is my friend.
Hmm... I can understand that.
But that means you live in a place where the population isn't so densely distributed? It is my impression that those areas aren't the problem areas.
And a shotgun wouldn't fall under the laws of handguns here. You can own one and keep it at home. Many people who live far from other people have them, so that's just about the same.
But in the cities and towns there are very few guns, and that's how we like it.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace