padren Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Fewer, but not removed - as I stated. Because fewer is not useful. Fewer doesn't indicate if ALL criminals have guns while ALL law abiding citizens do not, or otherwise. Only law abiding citizens will follow laws, by definition. Enter the most overused anti-gun control phrase..."outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns". Funny thing is, it's quite defensible. Fewer doesn't provide less death when one "side" simply melts down their weapons - the essential result of gun control laws that remove guns from circulation. I think it's worth making a distinction between types of crimes that involve guns. There are crimes that are spontaneous or improvised in a manner where if a gun is available, it will be involved, and it won't be if one is not. This extends to accidental gun related injuries. I think it's only fair to concede that fewer guns can reduce this sort of gun related violence. However, it does not provide direct justification for reducing citizens' access to guns which gun control ultimately boils down to - to impose any sort of gun control is to limit access, and the implication in an imperfect system is that many people who are entirely responsible gun owners are caught up. I do think some gun control laws are understandable (such as they apply to felons, etc) but there is also a understandable concern that those who do push them tend to have a stance that they cannot go too far and that makes it very hard to trust/debate/negotiate with that side of the debate. Drunk driving laws are fair when it comes to ensuring people are not driving while intoxicated, but you statistically could also argue banning anyone who purchases any alcohol from driving at all would save more lives. Most would see that as too extreme - unless you already believed that all alcohol is bad and people should never buy/consume alcohol in the first place. This is another reason why smoking laws are so hard to swallow - they are usually pushed not by people who want to safeguard the health of those who choose not to smoke, they are pushed to stop people from choosing to smoke. They see the impositions put on smokers callously in a "so what, they should quit anyway" sort of fashion and genuinely have contempt for their freedom of choice to choose to. People like that cannot be trusted to work towards fair (freedom and responsibility centric) smoking laws, just as people who think alcohol is only a disease cannot be trusted to be fair to drinkers, and when so many anti-gun people argue as if every gun owner is a "brainwashed gun nut who doesn't know better" it's absolutely understandable why people resist gun control regulation pushed by such people. I think most people here are fairly reasonable on the topic, and have an intellectual honesty towards the genuine problem of making progress on the issue of reducing gun violence, but it's obvious that many pro-gun control voices (the loudest, politically) really do have contempt for the majority of gun owning citizens. They see gun owners as brainwashed, ignorant, stuck in 1700s or otherwise incapable of realizing they'd be safer without guns, and preferably want people to choose not to own guns. It's probably impossible to both work towards the elimination of a facet of our culture, and at the same time work towards an equitable and fair regulation of that facet of our culture. I think we use laws to fix things so that we don't have to personally engage a societal problem. We want to be able to ignore the poor guy in the cold asking everyone for money for a bus ticket; we want to be able to feel good enough to sleep at night in the face of young runaways selling themselves for drugs; we want to be able to turn our nose up at "crazy" people yelling at telephone poles - because we paid our taxes and passed laws for that problem. We can ignore everything we personally encounter because we have impersonally paid into a pool of "caring" - laws and tax funded programs. I think that's actually quite an astute observation. I think honestly in this case, the biggest contributing factor is this individual's isolation within society. It's hard for someone so... well... crazy and on the fringe to be expected to maintain a healthy social life, but it does seem to me that most of the time people who do these sorts of crazy things have become largely isolated and detached, with no one really paying attention to their escalating behaviors. Of course it's not the sort of issue that can be addressed by government and is more a social issue than a political one, but I do feel at times that we are becoming a society too easily isolated. I have no idea how to solve or even address it, or even if it can be addressed intellectually, but as a factor I think it would be wrong to ignore. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now