|
BamaD -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (10/10/2013 9:23:25 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata
Yeah, it seems to be working quite well. You're still pushing to change the subject. So I guess it's fair to say you're willing to admit that with the UK's gun laws it's almost like not having any gun rights at all.
You're still pushing to keep the subject in those comfy narrow confines, I see. So I guess it's fair to say that the right to walk around without concern that you might face a gun isn't really a right that you value at all?
quote:
So turning to the right not to get shot, I have a question. I understand that guns are a factor in the risk of getting shot, but is that all you care about? I ask because I'm curious how you feel about people having a right not to be assaulted, robbed, and raped. You don't mention those, but you claim it's the the "gun freaks" who are ignoring such things. It seems to me that you are the one doing that. Because a gun is a very effective factor to have on your side when it comes to not being assaulted, robbed, or raped.
Would you be happy if the homicide rate went down but assaults, robberies, and rapes went up? There would be fewer dead, but more risk of assault, robbery and rape, and more victims whose quality of life has been shattered by crime. You make it sound like a simple seesaw relation that an idiot should be able to see. When the number of guns goes down, safety goes up and happiness abounds.
I didn't claim that gun-freaks are ignoring things like assault, robbery or rape, of course, that's clear from your own citation from my post, so the rest of your argument is against a straw man, K. As always, that straw man is a simpleton, natch.
There's no simple relationship between the number of guns and the numbers or (or severity) of assaults, robberies and rapes. If there were, then there should be huge numbers of assaults, rapes and robberies in the UK but far fewer (per capita, of course) in the USA. In order to bounce back the simplistic question: why isn't the USA so much more peaceful and law-abiding than it is? Why is it that so many countries have both strict gun control and (often much) lower rates of assault, robbery and rape?
Somewhat away from this: I'm beginning to wonder if there's something at the bottom of this control/non-control debate to do with what I think is an individual versus a social view. That is: those who argue for strict gun control and have it in their own country do so from a social basis. They ask, 'What's best for society as a whole?' But when I read the views of gun-supporters in the USA, their arguments seem much more to be about 'What if I were faced by X or Y sort of aggressor, with X or Y level of power to harm me?'. Well, a thought I shall chew on, anyway.
Or maybe it is from a dependence none dependence perspective
|
|
|
|
