Spuzzell wrote:There were over 400 gunshot homicides in Philly in 2007. This year its heading for 20% more than last. Hammer attack numbers aren't recorded, because people hit with hammers tend not to die.
There was a massacre in Lancaster County in October last year where a gunman carrying a mostly legal arsenal shot 10 Amish schoolgirls in their classroom, killing five of them.
I've got a firearms license because I use a rifle for pest control, and for that I was interviewed 4 times by the police, including a psychiatric evaluation, went on two courses, had my home and land inspected and had my family and employer interviewed about my suitability. It took 6 months.
Handguns are totally illegal in England, as the only use for a handgun is to kill people.
I've learned that it's pointless trying to talk many Americans into seeing how crazy it is to have firearms so easily available, so all I'll say is this:
There are NO good reasons to carry.
Should those people on the train have done something to help the victim? Of course. Should they have shot an obviously mentally unwell man in the head? Of course not.
Thank God none of them were stupid enough to carry a gun.
Really good post.
But yeah, I've slogged through this argument several times before (with many of the same participants) and it always comes down to the same arguments/opinions squaring off against one another... and in the past I believe that I've shown why the pro-gun arguments are all logically flawed or grossly overstated. I've also provided statistics to prove the same, and demonstrated the futility of appealing to emotional fantasies like "
But the evil baying pack black rapist men might have guns! Wouldn't you want to defend your seven-generation old family home, and your virgin wife, and your tiny baby who might one day grow up to win a Nobel prize? Wouldn't you?".
The problem of course is that this comes down to a clash of cultures. It's like trying to convince Muslim fundamentalists that the veil is a mysogonist thing (
"But women like it! They choose it!"), or convincing gangsta rappers that bling is vulgar ("
But it shows how successful I am! If it wasn't stylish then why would it be expensive?"), or explaining to your parents that your new goth girlfriend isn't a satanist ("
Yes, I know she's wearing a dog-collar, and I realise that her makeup is a little avant garde; but she's actually quite nice if you just try talking to her"). Many Americans have been brought up being told that guns are brilliant and the only means of protecting themselves; their culture is saturated with them and they just don't see them the same way that Europeans do. No matter how many facts, figures and logical arguments get bandied around, we're always going to get down to that emotional bottom line where Pro-gun Americans say "
But guns mean protection, without them there is no safety" and Europeans say "
Guns are threats, without them there is less danger". So at the end of the day, all of this is fairly futile... as we're just going to get stuck at the emotional dichotomy somewhere about page 10; and no amount of internet-based rational argument is going to shift the lifelong system of belief that our pro-gun American brethren have grown up with.
That's not an insult, a value-judgement, a criticism or a put-down... it's just the way things are. It's a fact; many Americans live in a gun-based culture and altering one of its fundamental ideological pillars just isn't going to happen on the CC forums.
And yes, I realise that the "
Well you live in a non-gun culture, so you must have the same emotionally based beliefs that we do! All your criticisms also apply to you!" line is coming. But it's not quite accurate. The fact is that Europeans live in cultures where guns are semi-prohibited and subject to varying portrayals in the media... frankly, we don't have the same cemented perception of firearms impressed upon us that Americans do, so the 'emotional baseline' criticism doesn't strike us so heavily. Again, not a value-judgement... just a fact.
Anyway, I've had a bit of a rant there which I didn't mean to do. Really I was just popping my head in to say that I agree with Spuzzel, and that in all my years of debate on this subject, I've yet to see a logical or statistically sound argument for allowing everybody to run around with the most effective murder weapon known to mankind.
Ask yourself this my pro-gun friends, why don't you feel that all your "guns should be carried" arguments don't apply to flick-knives, hand-grenades, baseball-bats, hydrogen bombs, and flamethrowers? Sure they
might be used to kill and maim... but surely citizens ought to be able to protect themselves with them, right?
