> You can't lump it together!
>
You can't separate it at all. Let's not separate people into 'good' or
'bad'. Let's just call them 'people'. As soon as a gun comes into play,
the likelihood of the death or severe injury of 'people' in or around
the situation skyrockets. You can't argue with that.
> If death or severe injury happens to the "bad guy", that's a very, very
> good thing. If death or severe injury happens to the "good guy" (me or my
> niece) that's a very, very bad thing.
>
Well, that's a chasm I just can't cross. Sorry JP, death or severe injury,
no matter *who* the victim, is a bad thing. More guns=more people getting
shot (or at least more potential for people getting shot). Getting shot
sucks (see my post about the too-real dream I had ;)
You cannot argue with that logic. It doesn't bring metaphysics in at
all.
More guns = more potential for people getting shot.
It's pretty bloody simple.
> The reality is...
>
> (a) you are in a house
> (b) you hear someone on the roof
> (c) there is a good chance (20% ?) it is an armed criminal ..
>
Not in Canada (welcome to Fantasy Island... well... it's not exactly an
*island* per se... we've got some islands... but mostly it's trees and
rocks and water and stuff... Dream-Land (tm) :P )
> The question is *NOW*, based on these circumstances, "is it better that I
> do or dont now have a gun".
>
It's better that you don't have a gun, because if you don't have a gun
the likelihood of people getting hurt goes way down. Even if the "bad
guy" has a gun. (someone already showed the logic of this, so I won't
get into it...)
> Onbviously, it's not a winnable debate - just a difference in, um, ethical
> stance. Either you're a pacifist (sp.?) or not.
>
Either you don't wanna get hurt, or not.
>
> >As someone else (I think Deb) said, if everyone ran out of the
> >house with guns, there's a "real chance" (to use JP's phrase)
> >that someone could get shot. If nobody had a gun, there's "no
> >chance" that someone could get shot.
>
> Same point again .. IMHO the flaw is in:
>
> " >If nobody had a gun "
>
> quite pointless because _criminals_ _have_ _guns_. (Or weapons, or intent
> to harm.)
A larger percentage of American criminals have guns than Canadian criminals,
I can assure you that.
> Anyways, I find this to be one of those unbelievably vague and
> purely-intellectual-level arguments !
>
No. It's basic common bloody sense. No gun = no one gets shot.
Simple? Too intellectual for you?
> Darren notes:
> >{wrong:} I therefore need a gun to protect myself,
> >because a gun is the best/most efficient/whatever way to protect myself.
>
> I think 'gun' is just shorthand for, um, 'right to fight back violently' -
> any method will do <;
>
You're not gonna die if someone punches you. You're likely to die if
someone shoots you. Is that too intellectual, too?
> [Tragically] Michael, the "70s movie version" of criminals which you
> present does not exist. They just look at you, aim, shoot you dead and go
> about their business. They do not say "get the fuck back" and then,
> perhaps, clock you on the head with the stub of the pistol to reneder you
> unconscious ( - only for enough time for them to get clean away - ), or gag
> and bind you. They just shoot, youre dead.
>
So it becomes a Western? Fastest draw wins? :P Most people don't want
to kill anyone, criminals included. Most people don't want to get killed,
criminals included. Most criminals are in crime because the socio-
economic structure of their country has forced them to commit crimes to
put food on the table. Wanna feel safer in your home? Do something about
the homeless problem. Do something about the oppression of the working
classes by the power-hungry rich. Do something to allieviate the vicious
cycles of poverty. Don't buy a fucking gun. Do something useful.
Bang bang. You're dead. Gotta bullet in your head.
>
> (Answer 1) (Intellectual answer) On the contrary. Take a sort of
> biological view. If someone is so SCREWED UP as to be a, um, pointless
> killer, it's better if they don't reproduce. Both physically reproduce and
> reproduce their culture, memes if you will. Kill em! Put them, their
> parents, & children out of misery. "An eye for an eye" is as obvious and
> probably necessary a biological drive as, um, men differentially wanting to
> impregnate women with broad hips.
>
Holy shit, JP. Are you *really* trying to tell me that crime is a genetically
determined trait? And you think *I'm* nuts?
> (Answer 2) (Actual living human being answer) You're nuts Deb. If
> someone kills you, they're going down ..
>
If someone kills me, they'll rot in a Canadian jail for the rest of their
life. I would far rather they live in that hell, than escape justice
by being killed. "Ah, I see you have chosen to live. I am satisfied."
(Frankenstein's creature, to Victor Frankenstein.)
>
> I see. So an immediate, hot-blooded, quite "natural" repsonse which would
> be your brother or someone wasting the guy ... that's no good.
>
My brother isn't that violent. My brother doesn't have a gun. Therefore,
the chances of my brother killing the guy who killed me is bloody unlikely.
> On the other hand, putting the guy in p r i s o n for god's sake, a fate
> worse than any death, quite 'inhuman', hideaous and cruel beyond any
> torture .. that's dandy. Great!
>
I'd prefer it. You're not paying attention.
- Deb (obviously annoyed again.)
--
==============================================================================
Debra L. Richardson - 002134r@dragon.acadiau.ca - HBA Soci & English
http://dragon.acadiau.ca/~002134r/
==============================================================================