GUN OWNERSHIP DEBATE ERROR

I just had a “go nowhere arguments” on the internet concerning the rights and wrongs of gun ownership. It all started over a conversation about the Waco Texas shootout between motorcycle gangs. Once, I winnow out the nonsense, and there was a lot of nonsense; there were some good points made in favor of owning guns. The most salient being that the police cannot be everywhere nor can they instantaneously respond when needed. The cruel reality is that we need guns in society. We can never do away with that fact but why and for what purpose do we need guns is a question that society needs to address. Eliminate from all of those instances where we need help or assistance and very, very few instances remain where we need armed assistance. The presence of a police officer is by far usually enough. Things ranging from barking dogs to car accidents, traffic control and domestic violence do not need guns for resolution. When we add the dimension of the size of the guns and amount of ammunition needed, it rapidly reduces to the ridiculous. As an exercise, construct a list of instances in your actual lifetime where you might have a need for a gun, and you soon find there are very, very few. Of coursed, the list expands logarithmically if you put in hypothetical things such as, “what if” three armed men enter your bedroom in the middle of the night, as one of my protagonist proposed in the recent debate said. Another, perhaps the most frequent comment concerns what would you do when the government comes to take your guns away, which is a direct reflection of the radical “hate the government” individualism of those engaged in the debate. Over the years, the successes of societies in which police are not armed are proof of that. We tend to think in terms of immediacy; that is, when there is a problem why do we have to solve that problem immediately. A police officer with a big gun by shooting by wounding or killing an offender can solve a problem much quicker than one without a gun. What is clear is that two or more people in a gun fight boils down to two things: human nature and guns. For the sake of argument, if we remove the guns, what do we have? We know we had eight dead, and 18 wounded in Waco Texas, with guns, perhaps we would have had fewer dead without guns but because of chains, and clubs, etc we certainly would have seen a number of wounded and perhaps even some deaths but no where as many casualties. I asked one protagonist, what is the difference in outcome between a fistfight and a gunfight? Instead of a serious answer, I got something about me being a stupid liberal because I didn’t know about the second amendment. Perhaps this is better than having several people label me mentally ill, as they did, which several people pointed out was the normal state for liberal like me. These remarks point out the principle problem with trying to have a public debate over gun ownership, gun registration, or control of gun and magazine size. Such arguments immediately degenerate to an emotional one-sided name-calling affair aimed at gun grabbers who want to violate citizen’s second amendment rights. Gun manufacturers through the NRA promote this attitude without considering the actual needs or desires of society. They have a ready-made, highly vocal audience they cultivate because it fits the right-wing libertarian criterion of personal freedom to do anything and everything a person wants to do. Being a champion of individual rights is the same as the “no more tax” argument. Everyone is innately for these things before considering the obvious restriction that we as a society have put on it. Of course, we need government. Of course, we have to pay for it. Of course, we have individual rights but, of course, we as individuals cannot do any and everything we like. We debate these things all the time, but when it comes to gun ownership, the debate is suddenly sniffled. That is wrong. It is harmful to society. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated