|
|
| Re: As Goon Attacks Elderly Woman On Train, Bystanders Shoot Video (1508593) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: As Goon Attacks Elderly Woman On Train, Bystanders Shoot Video |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Mar 28 11:03:55 2019, in response to Re: As Goon Attacks Elderly Woman On Train, Bystanders Shoot Video, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Mar 24 19:47:55 2019. You're presenting a rather good argument for universal concealed carry. If I can't run or call the cops, it would be nice to have a "fight" option I actually have a chance at winning.On the contrary, it's a good argument for universal gun control. If you have a gun, your assailant probably does too. That's inevitable. The law can make guns unavailable entirely, since they are manufactured objects that have to be produced by major industries whose supply and sales chains can be regulated, but it can't make guns readily available to law-abiding people but not to criminals (since if guns are available to anyone, criminals will simply acquire them illegally). So any policy that lets you have a gun will also ensure that your assailant does too, and that would make everything worse, because: 1) Instead of physical strength, the fight will be decided by draw speed and aim. Both are likely to favour the attacker who has (a) the element of surprise and (b) probably more practice using a gun. 2) When fights do happen, they are more violent. As I pointed out earlier, even the "winner" rarely walks away unscathed; arming both participants makes it far more likely that you'll be badly hurt even if you win. 3) When the other party has a gun, running away becomes a lot more difficult since, you know, ranged weapon. 4) If you can't call the cops, there's no way having a gun will help. If anything, it'll just make everything worse. 5) Policies that ensure criminals have guns stack the odds even further against people who don't carry guns. A "right" to a gun very quickly morphs into an obligation; if you don't have a gun of your own, you're helpless. 6) Widespread gun ownership has loads of ancillary bad effects, such as: a. It becomes possible to kill someone in the heat of the moment, vastly increasing the murder rate. Remember, most shootings are not premeditated. b. It vastly increases the number of deaths caused by "accidents." c. It vastly increases the suicide rate. Remember, most suicides are spur-of-the-moment decisions; not having a readily-available means to commit suicide means a lot of people won't. d. Living in a world where anyone could kill you in seconds and you'd have less than that to respond is stressful. No one wants that. e. It would dangerously shift the burden of noncoercion. By that, I mean— if you have a gun and you ask me for $20, that's a robbery. It doesn't matter how you ask; the fact that you have a gun means I'll feel coerced into giving you the money, and taking my money under the (implied) threat of violence is robbery. If your having a gun is unusual, society will have no trouble accepting that you commit robbery— obviously, if you choose to have a gun, the burden is on you to make sure you're not threatening anyone with it. Trouble is, if carrying a gun in public is common, people might start presuming it's "normal" and nonthreatening, forcing me to choose between handing over money to anyone who asks or risk being shot and then told that technically I had the right to shoot back. So basically, in short, making it easier to own guns would add one terrible option at the cost of removing or ruining all the others. |
|
|
|