So a gun is in any way similar to a tank or a nuke? Awesome.
I take it you are not familiar with
ad absurdum? What am I saying, of course you are, since you later go on to compare guns to cars: I would advise against being quite so hypocritical in your arguments if you want to maintain a veneer of sense to the position you're trying to defend.
As for gun ownership, it is an inherent right in my country. Guns are used for sport, are used effectively for home defense, and aren't the horrible danger you try to make them out to be.
Guns are extremely dangerous, otherwise they would be quite ineffectual for home defence.
I've shown multiple examples of them used in self defense. You've only stated that they can harm people which is a known fact and completely irrelevant.
So what, I should quote an equal or greater number of stories about how people were killed illegally with guns to prove my point? Obviously that's not going to be a problem. The fact that guns and other projectile weapons such as crossbows are much more dangerous than the next 'tier' of weaponry, namely bladed items, is very relevant to this discussion - as mentioned above, it is the danger they pose that makes them attractive to both law-abiding citizens and criminals alike.
Cars are the number one cause of accidental death in the US, yet they won't be made illegal and you won't ask for them to be made illegal. Every american house hold has a killer parked in their garage many times more lethal than a gun.
If the internal-combustion-engine-driven car were invented today, I doubt it would be legal, but that's a moot point. I was actually going to raise the issue of cars myself, since it's another example of the disparity between perceived and actual risk. People own a gun to protect themselves against the (to be honest) small risk of a home invasion while they are present, and yet are quite happy to drive around in a metal box with a tank of explosive liquid attached. As you say, road deaths are a big, big killer and are in principle easier to prevent, and yet there is no public desire in the US for the state to insist on tougher safety standards for cars, lowering speed limits or pedestrianizing city centres... Why? Because "people love their cars", just as "people love their guns".
Cars are an excellent example of the psychology of risk. So no, I won't call for cars to be made illegal since there is no viable alternative for the vast majority of drivers - public transport is certainly not up to the task of replacing the car entirely, and there are numerous instances where owning a car provides a huge boost in convenience, safety and freedom. Guns (in the US, at least), on the other hand, are 'convenient' only a tiny fraction of the time and, unlike cars, can be easily replaced by a publicly funded alternative, i.e. the police. You can't conceal a car about your person and hold up a bank with it, or take it into school, or into work, or into a shopping centre...
Cars have been used in suicides quite frequently whether it is by carbon monoxide inhalation or simply driving them into traffic/walls. You dislike guns for what they represent then use crappy arguments to justify this stereotype in your head.
Firstly, I don't dislike guns - I go shooting whenever I get the chance (.44 Magnum is a personal favourite): this is always abroad, since handguns are banned in the UK. What I object to is the policy of allowing them to be carried by the general public when it is much safer and more effective to control crime with an efficient police force, backed up by a fair and efficient justice system. Guns are popular in the US partially because it has at best (and varying on location) one of those three things (an efficient police force) - the justice system in the US is appalling, being neither efficient nor fair, and feeds into the need for suspects to avoid being arrested at all costs: even if they have not committed a crime, they feel they will be unfairly treated.
Returning to your point, if you are set on killing yourself then owning a gun only makes it easier - I suspect there is little impact on suicide rates overall. I was mainly referring to guns being used accidentally rather than with the intent of suicide.
Also, the arguments against mass gun ownership that I put forward are not crappy, and if they really were you would have no problem in countering them more effectively than you have done.
Here's something I find funny. In england people wealthy enough to have large properties are free to own guns given the right permits. The rich retain their rights while the poor are protected from themselves. I'd rather live in a country that doesn't try to protect me from myself. I've done quite fine so far.
As I said, people with livestock to protect should be allowed to own appropriate
shotguns (i.e. not military-grade automatic shotguns) to protect them. The wealthy going hunting on private land is not really covered by this mandate, so yes, the UK isn't perfect either (quel surprise). You can't legally hold a handgun in the UK, so while in principle a wealthy landowner could take his shotgun, saw the barrel off and go hold up a bank, he doesn't really need to since he already owns that bank (probably). Most people who own guns in the UK do not do so to protect themselves from other people, in any case, they own them either for sport or livestock protection - again there will be exceptions (I know at least one personally, who is what I believe you call a 'prepper').
I must also point out, again, the amazing and unapologetic hypocrisy of your post when you live in pretty much the most plutocratic society that has ever existed!
Show Posts
