Aswad
Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
|
Let's have a go, then.
Since you seem to mind drawings, I will give text a go.
As a preamble about that, I find it clears things up when I diagram them, but you appear to think that's condescending to you, even if it's more a tool for me to collect and express my thoughts than a tool for you to understand them. Seeing as I have some problems with what passes for norms and normal communication, it is actually vital for me to be able to follow the nonverbal communication of the people I'm explaining my views to in order to understand and be understood, which a textual medium deprives me of, and so I prefer to be able to use structured tools, such as bracketing and indentation (writing out a tree structure), or drawing (making a diagram).
Again, if I've given the impression that I don't think you can follow the thoughts I have, I apologize for that; it's my ability to explain I have doubts about.
Essentially, there are three entities of interest. The first is the axis between primacy of liberty and primacy of safety, those being proxies for freedom and life/health. The second is the axis between the statistically more feminine vs masculine modalities of risk management, where the former centers on perceived threat and is very sensitive to it (factor of 3 to 1) and the latter centers on observed outcome and tends to be subsensitive (factor slightly less than 1 to 1; about 1 to 1 excluding the 18 to 24 age interval). Note that both modalities are seen in both men and women, but there is a statistical disparity here. The third is the axis between pragmatic compromise and consistent correctness. I'm leaving out the questions of dogmatism, fundamentalism and the like, which are arguably relevant for the social debate, but not for explaining my point of view.
Simplifying to a binary distinction before and after some arbitrary point on these ill defined axes, we are left with a few simple positions in dealing with a couple of popular social causes.
In the liberty centric position, the feminine modality lands on the fear element of guns, and the consistent correctness approach then pursues a course of incentivizing (e.g. buybacks) and education (e.g. subsidized courses), while the pragmatic compromise approach pursues a course of regulating based on, well, essentially the same things you've been arguing for (iirc; licencing, storage and limited mag size).
In the liberty centric position, the masculine modality lands on the observed scope of abortions, and the consistent correctness approach then pursues a course of incentivizing (e.g. free contraception, subsidies and welfare, free education for children, status and rights of women, etc.; perhaps even paying people to carry to term and the like) and education (e.g. sex education, leaflets, family planning, etc.), while the pragmatic compromise approach pursues a course of regulating based on things like viability and need.
In the safety centric position, the feminine modality again lands on guns, and the consistent correctness approach then pursues a course of banning, while the pragmatic compromise approach pursues a course of gun control. An important difference being that the control is based on what one can actually effectively control, from a position that there is no freedom being impinged on and no issues to respect, but rather an "obvious" right of the state and its citizens being secured (the justification is the deaths and injuries).
In the safety centric position, the masculine modality again lands on abortions, and the consistent correctness approach then pursues a course of banning, while the pragmatic compromise approach pursues, well, the seemingly absurd policies we see the GOP forwarding, where- as with the above- whatever can be done to limit the harm under interest is done. Again, the important difference is in the nature of this approach, as there is no respect for the women's issues, but rather an "obvious" right and mandate of the state (again, the justification is the dead foetuses).
As should be visible, the pragmatic compromise approach can find common ground, because the measures and effects are similar, etc. Note that I'm not saying the issues are correctly identified or anything, and I feel I should reiterate that the modalities I'm pointing out aren't strictly gender based, disclaimers and caveats, etc.
What I'm getting at, is that there are some distinct parallels here.
The figure I'm citing, from the CDC, for 2008, are 800.000 abortions per year or so, amounting to about 3300 abortions per day. When one respects all life as valuable, the distinction between a zygote and a viable foetus can easily get lost in moral reasoning (that's part of what seperates morals from ethics; they don't even use the same parts of the brain, and they aren't active at the same time, according to fMRI studies), and so we're left with this being a serious social concern, with the main question being one of strategies.
From my personal stance, except as a legitimate punishment by loss of freedom (which is what a prison is, in Norway, incidentally; that's why they're so comfortable), a free female citizen is free to govern her own body, and under no obligation to carry to term, but doctors should be free to choose whether or not to participate in the process of terminating the pregnancy (we're talking about a technology, not something the body can do under voluntary control as an inalienable function). I consider this freedom inalienable, a part of her bodily integrity and her sovereignty, not something a state can grant (although a state can attempt to restrict it, a limitation of freedom that I do not support).
The figure for gun deaths, from you, for 2010, are 31.513 deaths per year or so, amounting to about 85 deaths per day. As you say, the inuries account for 200.000 per year or so, amounting to nearly 550 injuries per day. Clearly a high figure, and when one respects all life as valuable, the distinction between suicides, accidental suicides, accidental homicides, homicides between criminals, plain homicides and so forth can get lost (again, a distinction between morals and ethics), and so this remains a serious social concern, again with the main question being strategies.
From my personal stance, except as a legitimate punishment by loss of freedom, a free citizen is free to possess a firearm (or a car, or a TV, or...), but civic duties may include responsible use and storage, and some compromises are acceptable when the standard of proof of a responsible conduct is unrealistic or impossible to meet, though I think one should be able to bring a civil case before the courts to try to prove this for an exemption (if you can convince a jury of your peers that you can responsibly handle a nuclear weapon, that's fine by me, but I don't see anyone ever doing so). Again, I consider this freedom inalienable, not something a state can grant (although a state can attempt to restrict it, again a limitation of freedom that I do not support).
Owning and possessing a firearm isn't the same as using one, responsibly or irresponsibly, hence the distinction.
Not sure I got my point across, but it's an attempt, at least.
As for men vs women regarding support, in Norway, most men are firmly pro-choice, and firmly in favor of responsible use and storage of firearms, and the same holds true for women, but the size of the majority differs between men and women on those issues, of course. Similarly, the size of the minorities that are anti-choice or anti-gun differs between men and women on those issues, with more men than women being anti-choice, and more women than men being anti-gun, but also more women being anti-gun than men being anti-choice.
Looking at further statistics, more women are anti-choice on issues that don't affect themselves, and more men are pro-choice on issues that don't affect themselves, here. Abortion becomes an anomaly, because it affects "all" women and (ahem, but that's another thread) no men. Firearms is just one of many areas where there is a gender difference in how many are into it, and in most areas where women are less into something than men, there is less support from women and more willingness to restrict it. That tendency is much weaker for men, overall, though abortion is again an anomaly, because of the ahem, i.e. that there's many biological fathers of aborted foetuses that feel they should have a say in the life or death of their progeny (using the line of reasoning I'm arguing against, since the freedom based one doesn't support their position). These statistics agree well with the observation about gender distribution of reactance, and what I've said about extrapolating that onto the greater question of freedom, and things I'm not supposed to go into on P&R.
Hope we're closer to clarity on my position now.
IWYW,
— Aswad.
P.S.: For crazyml, in #118, you are making a non-homomorphic comparison, so yes, they're different propositions by definition.
_____________________________
"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.
|
RE: Republicans will support gun control this time - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread