(no subject)
And, of course, another $100 to anti-NRA efforts. This is getting expensive. As it should be.
After San Bernardino I stumbled across a thread where one gun-control advocate was arguing with about 10 other people who all said that if everyone at that party had been armed, there would have been far fewer fatalities.
Let's look at the outcome of arming everyone. Everyone knows everyone else is armed. Therefore those who intend to commit mayhem wear body armor. Some shootings will be stopped, but in general the attackers will have better equipment, and on the whole will continue to kill large numbers of other people before being dropped. Pro-gun activists, recognizing this, buy or make ever more lethal weaponry and ammunition to counter the bad guys. Soon the bad guys escalate to even heavier weaponry (because, as pro-gun activists say, it is impossible to prevent criminals from possessing illegal weaponry). And so on. The gun industry increase the lethality of weaponry dramatically in response to market demand. Pro-gun activists, in order to perform their duty as civilian militia, are forced to wear body armor at all times, which marks them as the first target to be taken out when someone attacks.
To me the logical outcome is a very, very heavily armed and intimidating society. This is not an outcome that will bother pro-gun activists, obviously. But it's not an outcome that I would enjoy experiencing. It's effectively forcing me into a siege mentality for the rest of my life.
There are all sorts of suppositions about arming citizens to prevent killings, on both sides. I feel that my scenario above is reasonably likely. There are other suppositions that I make, which might be less likely but are still convincing to me:
Most anti-gun activists believe ill-trained but armed civilians will not be helpful. I myself have a hard time imagining that armed civilians will make the correct decisions when it comes to use of force, given how hard it sometimes is for a trained quasi-military (the cops). Most pro-gun activists believe that arming everyone will lower the incidence of gun violence. I think that will be true only if:
1) Everyone is trained to behave correctly in a combat situation
2) Guns are, without exception, stored safely and carefully away so that children cannot access them
3) Everyone exercises perfect self-control and never uses a gun when their judgement is impaired
Just like pro-gun activists have a hard time believing gun control can ever work because we can't possibly get rid of the hundreds of millions of guns already out there, I have a hard time believing arming everyone can work, because these three conditions can never be met, realistically speaking.
Personally I wonder whether the police would want a situation where literally everyone is carrying a weapon. It seems like they would suffer the most from poor civilian impulse control.
The real reason to reduce the number of guns, for me, is not to reduce the incidence of random shootings. I agree with pro-gun activists that those will happen no matter what. I think reducing the number of deaths due to accidents and suicides is the true benefit of reducing the number of guns.. Guns make the barrier to death very low. Pick it up, aim, pull a trigger. By comparison jumping off a bridge requires going to a bridge; hanging yourself requires tying a noose; overdosing requires time for the toxicity to take effect; and so on. The impulse to kill yourself is most deadly when it is easiest to kill yourself. When you have to spend time and effort, it is less likely. Yes, you still have to acquire a weapon, but once you do, it is trivial to give in to the suicidal thoughts in comparison.
At any rate I'm not advocating gun control at all. I am advocating neutralizing the NRA in terms of money and power so that politicians, anti-gun activists, and pro-gun activists can have an open dialogue about what to do. If the NRA is neutralized and the American people still want no gun control laws, then that's how it is.
After San Bernardino I stumbled across a thread where one gun-control advocate was arguing with about 10 other people who all said that if everyone at that party had been armed, there would have been far fewer fatalities.
Let's look at the outcome of arming everyone. Everyone knows everyone else is armed. Therefore those who intend to commit mayhem wear body armor. Some shootings will be stopped, but in general the attackers will have better equipment, and on the whole will continue to kill large numbers of other people before being dropped. Pro-gun activists, recognizing this, buy or make ever more lethal weaponry and ammunition to counter the bad guys. Soon the bad guys escalate to even heavier weaponry (because, as pro-gun activists say, it is impossible to prevent criminals from possessing illegal weaponry). And so on. The gun industry increase the lethality of weaponry dramatically in response to market demand. Pro-gun activists, in order to perform their duty as civilian militia, are forced to wear body armor at all times, which marks them as the first target to be taken out when someone attacks.
To me the logical outcome is a very, very heavily armed and intimidating society. This is not an outcome that will bother pro-gun activists, obviously. But it's not an outcome that I would enjoy experiencing. It's effectively forcing me into a siege mentality for the rest of my life.
There are all sorts of suppositions about arming citizens to prevent killings, on both sides. I feel that my scenario above is reasonably likely. There are other suppositions that I make, which might be less likely but are still convincing to me:
Most anti-gun activists believe ill-trained but armed civilians will not be helpful. I myself have a hard time imagining that armed civilians will make the correct decisions when it comes to use of force, given how hard it sometimes is for a trained quasi-military (the cops). Most pro-gun activists believe that arming everyone will lower the incidence of gun violence. I think that will be true only if:
1) Everyone is trained to behave correctly in a combat situation
2) Guns are, without exception, stored safely and carefully away so that children cannot access them
3) Everyone exercises perfect self-control and never uses a gun when their judgement is impaired
Just like pro-gun activists have a hard time believing gun control can ever work because we can't possibly get rid of the hundreds of millions of guns already out there, I have a hard time believing arming everyone can work, because these three conditions can never be met, realistically speaking.
Personally I wonder whether the police would want a situation where literally everyone is carrying a weapon. It seems like they would suffer the most from poor civilian impulse control.
The real reason to reduce the number of guns, for me, is not to reduce the incidence of random shootings. I agree with pro-gun activists that those will happen no matter what. I think reducing the number of deaths due to accidents and suicides is the true benefit of reducing the number of guns.. Guns make the barrier to death very low. Pick it up, aim, pull a trigger. By comparison jumping off a bridge requires going to a bridge; hanging yourself requires tying a noose; overdosing requires time for the toxicity to take effect; and so on. The impulse to kill yourself is most deadly when it is easiest to kill yourself. When you have to spend time and effort, it is less likely. Yes, you still have to acquire a weapon, but once you do, it is trivial to give in to the suicidal thoughts in comparison.
At any rate I'm not advocating gun control at all. I am advocating neutralizing the NRA in terms of money and power so that politicians, anti-gun activists, and pro-gun activists can have an open dialogue about what to do. If the NRA is neutralized and the American people still want no gun control laws, then that's how it is.