Re: A tad long-winded, but with much substancequierodiosAugust 9 2007, 14:24:41 UTC
Thank you for a well-thought-out post. One of the gaps in my education is in the field of rhetoric and debate. It helped me for you to point out the idea of the fallacy, "validation by proxy."
It is a good point that fighting fire with fire presents some frightening possibilities for social scenarios. Along with the wild west example, I think it's worth mentioning that the period in history has been sensationalized in film to look more violent than it often was. One obvious evidence behind that statement is the fact that we would have seen negative population growth in the West if everyone had behaved in the way that cinema portrays. Perhaps it would have turned into a widespread Roanoke phenomenon, if the scale of violence were truly so.
I support the second amendment also, but one thing that gives me cause for concern is the declining value placed upon human life in the USA. That kind of situation may predispose us to the kind of wild west scenario you mentioned. However, with proper training and an organized societal infrastructure in place to make the training widely available (or perhaps strongly recommended to the general population), it could reduce the risk of accidents and promote responsible handling of weapons. Also, I would think that the balance of power (ie. you're armed, i'm armed, and they're all armed) would deter criminal acts even more so. Look up some of the studies about state crime rates after concealed carry laws were passed in various states, for instance.
The desensitization angle is one I have not explored before. I'm having trouble trying to imagine what it would be like to see the majority of citizens walking down the streets with guns strapped to them. I'll have to consider the possible implications.
If you want to see how I got started on this train of thought, check out this preacher's blog for a series he's started writing that relates to this topic: http://www.patrickmead.net/tentpegs/
Much better thought outtelsh7August 9 2007, 19:30:15 UTC
I like his articles. I haven't read them all yet, but he does get me thinkin'.
I was talking to my co worker about gun control yesterday. He proclaimed (and has never steered me wrong before) that Texas repealed the Carry Concealed Weapon permit requirement, provided that the gun is licensed, registered, and holstered in plain sight. He said that this brought about a drastic reduction in crime overnight. Now, this is a secondhand source that I have not yet confirmed. But if it's true, it stands as an example in direct opposition to my earlier claim. It would mean that, 1) If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will carry guns. 2) If everyone has a gun, outlaws will- and do- think twice before committing a crime. 3) It may just be a good idea. I'm okay with that. I'm opinionated, but not immovable. But what I really want to know is why American criminals are so much more likely to use guns than criminals from other countries. They just don't think in the same terms as our criminals. Why? Why don't the cops in Canada even feel the need to carry guns? Our cops wouldn't even dream of such a scenario, and for good reason.
I could go to great lengths about how our society feels a great disconnect; how moving, cell phones, and e-mail have rendered us ignorant of our neighbors; how we watch more violent movies than any other culture on the planet; how there are no consequences for our transgessions, like cutting someone off on the freeway. I could, in some clever way, link these points to our lack of any sense of sanctity for human life. However, I am inclined to have more faith in humanity than that. I think it would be harder to pull the trigger than I first assumed- especially if you were not the only one with a gun and knew full well that if you pulled that trigger, half a dozen more would be pointed at you.
Re: Much better thought outquierodiosAugust 10 2007, 15:22:39 UTC
I definitely agree with point 1 (and the others also). Who really suffers when you take away the right of honest citizens to defend themselves? It won't be the criminals, I can tell you. Think of the predator-prey relationship, as an example from the natural world. Do predators attack the strong, the alert, or the well-defended? In most cases, no, they go after the easiest quarry: the defenseless, the young, the old, and the weak. As I write this, I think of a recent news article about a teenager who used a samurai sword to scare off 1 or 2 adult robbers who'd broken into his house, protecting his younger sister and himself.
I think I agree with your assessment of humanity as a whole. Though our mobile/technological age has eroded some of our human connections, I would say most people want to live in peace with their neighbors, and may be willing to lend a hand if a neighbor is in trouble. Most citizens are responsible enough to exercise sound judgment with lethal weapons.
Re: Much better thought outtelsh7August 10 2007, 19:28:04 UTC
Ah, but keep in mind that the first thing they teach women in self-defense class is DON'T YELL RAPE, ALWAYS YELL FIRE. No one wants to get involved where violent crimes are concerned. There is also the principle that the more people are in an area, the less your chances that anyone will help, because no one feels any accountability. We figure, "if no one else is helping, why shoud I?" Your chances are better if there's only one person in the area- then, it's squarely on their shoulders and they may very well pitch in.
It is a good point that fighting fire with fire presents some frightening possibilities for social scenarios. Along with the wild west example, I think it's worth mentioning that the period in history has been sensationalized in film to look more violent than it often was. One obvious evidence behind that statement is the fact that we would have seen negative population growth in the West if everyone had behaved in the way that cinema portrays. Perhaps it would have turned into a widespread Roanoke phenomenon, if the scale of violence were truly so.
I support the second amendment also, but one thing that gives me cause for concern is the declining value placed upon human life in the USA. That kind of situation may predispose us to the kind of wild west scenario you mentioned. However, with proper training and an organized societal infrastructure in place to make the training widely available (or perhaps strongly recommended to the general population), it could reduce the risk of accidents and promote responsible handling of weapons. Also, I would think that the balance of power (ie. you're armed, i'm armed, and they're all armed) would deter criminal acts even more so. Look up some of the studies about state crime rates after concealed carry laws were passed in various states, for instance.
The desensitization angle is one I have not explored before. I'm having trouble trying to imagine what it would be like to see the majority of citizens walking down the streets with guns strapped to them. I'll have to consider the possible implications.
If you want to see how I got started on this train of thought, check out this preacher's blog for a series he's started writing that relates to this topic: http://www.patrickmead.net/tentpegs/
Reply
I was talking to my co worker about gun control yesterday. He proclaimed (and has never steered me wrong before) that Texas repealed the Carry Concealed Weapon permit requirement, provided that the gun is licensed, registered, and holstered in plain sight. He said that this brought about a drastic reduction in crime overnight. Now, this is a secondhand source that I have not yet confirmed. But if it's true, it stands as an example in direct opposition to my earlier claim. It would mean that, 1) If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will carry guns. 2) If everyone has a gun, outlaws will- and do- think twice before committing a crime. 3) It may just be a good idea. I'm okay with that. I'm opinionated, but not immovable. But what I really want to know is why American criminals are so much more likely to use guns than criminals from other countries. They just don't think in the same terms as our criminals. Why? Why don't the cops in Canada even feel the need to carry guns? Our cops wouldn't even dream of such a scenario, and for good reason.
I could go to great lengths about how our society feels a great disconnect; how moving, cell phones, and e-mail have rendered us ignorant of our neighbors; how we watch more violent movies than any other culture on the planet; how there are no consequences for our transgessions, like cutting someone off on the freeway. I could, in some clever way, link these points to our lack of any sense of sanctity for human life. However, I am inclined to have more faith in humanity than that. I think it would be harder to pull the trigger than I first assumed- especially if you were not the only one with a gun and knew full well that if you pulled that trigger, half a dozen more would be pointed at you.
Reply
I think I agree with your assessment of humanity as a whole. Though our mobile/technological age has eroded some of our human connections, I would say most people want to live in peace with their neighbors, and may be willing to lend a hand if a neighbor is in trouble. Most citizens are responsible enough to exercise sound judgment with lethal weapons.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment