5 ms·

Because it's its own category of violence. Like any other category, it's not a matter of 'deserving', but rather just a statistic category so we can discuss an

by capote 10y ago

Because it's its own category of violence. Like any other category, it's not a matter of 'deserving', but rather just a statistic category so we can discuss and analyze it. What a strange question. Why do we discuss it a lot? Because it's one of the most obvious issues in the US, compared to other advanced countries. We have shootings every day in many major urban centers, we have school shootings periodically, which people find especially awful... And because there's a lot of political debate around it, and it's at the forefront of many political elections and campaigns. It's a huge deal, and it's very dire; get caught up on this.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
kec 10y ago
The question is more why do we treat assault and homicide where a firearm is involved differently from other instances of assault and homicide? Dead is dead, no matter the manner in which it happened.
- oldmanjay 10y ago
  If that's a serious question you'll be pleased to know it has a very simple answer - to those with a political agenda, no technique is below exploitation to gain command of the emotions of the people.
  - wrongc0ntinent 10y ago
    Most people/groups have some kind of political agenda. It doesn't imply hypocrisy or deceit.
- wrongc0ntinent 10y ago
  Because they're very different things. But even if they weren't, it's not really a useful question - assuming the desired result is to reduce gun violence. See above comment again: "Because it's its own category of violence. Like any other category, it's not a matter of 'deserving', but rather just a statistic category so we can discuss and analyze it."
- mozumder 10y ago
  Why do pro-gun agenda people always say that violence would continue to exist without guns? Do they think people would replace guns with knives? What makes them think that people wouldn't just give up?
  - kec 10y ago
    As a counterpoint, why do pro gun-control people always assume that violence would cease without guns? Guns do not motivate people to commit crime, only give them the means to. People in general are pretty clever. If you take away someone's means to do something without addressing what motivated them to do that thing, they're likely going to figure out a way to do it anyway. (See: censorship, DRM, drug prohibition)
    - capote 10y ago
      We do not assume that violence would cease without guns. We just know that there would be less violence. And since we're not gun enthusiasts, it's a bit less violence at no cost to us. And at not too much costs to gun enthusiasts. At least this is how I feel.
    - mozumder 10y ago
      No. They won't. When you take away their gun, you also take away their will. Remember that taking away guns reduces crime.
    - krapp 10y ago
      Pro-gun control people don't assume that violence would cease without guns. Guns are designed and intended to be a force multiplier - one person with a gun can kill far more people far more easily than they could without a gun. Rather, pro gun-control people simply argue that a society without guns or with fewer guns is less violent than a society with more of them, and that the violence is more localized and easier to contain, for that reason. Anti-gun control people actually agree with pro-gun control people on this point when they describe gun control as a means of a tyrannical state to pacify the populace, because, they warn, the lack of an armed populace makes it more difficult to commit violence against the state. This is a rationale codified into modern interpretations of the Second Amendment. By extension, a populace less able to commit violence against the state is equally less able to commit violence against itself. Really, both pro and anti gun-control people want a safe and secure society (excepting of course the lunatic and criminal fringe) but they disagree as to the role of guns in providing that safety and security. Unfortunately, it's become kind of a matter of religion for each side, so discussions which aren't fraught with hyperbole, strawmen and willful ignorance are difficult to have.

by capote 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

kec 10y ago

The question is more why do we treat assault and homicide where a firearm is involved differently from other instances of assault and homicide? Dead is dead, no matter the manner in which it happened.

oldmanjay 10y ago
If that's a serious question you'll be pleased to know it has a very simple answer - to those with a political agenda, no technique is below exploitation to gain command of the emotions of the people.
- wrongc0ntinent 10y ago
  Most people/groups have some kind of political agenda. It doesn't imply hypocrisy or deceit.
wrongc0ntinent 10y ago
Because they're very different things. But even if they weren't, it's not really a useful question - assuming the desired result is to reduce gun violence. See above comment again: "Because it's its own category of violence. Like any other category, it's not a matter of 'deserving', but rather just a statistic category so we can discuss and analyze it."
mozumder 10y ago
Why do pro-gun agenda people always say that violence would continue to exist without guns? Do they think people would replace guns with knives? What makes them think that people wouldn't just give up?
- kec 10y ago
  As a counterpoint, why do pro gun-control people always assume that violence would cease without guns? Guns do not motivate people to commit crime, only give them the means to. People in general are pretty clever. If you take away someone's means to do something without addressing what motivated them to do that thing, they're likely going to figure out a way to do it anyway. (See: censorship, DRM, drug prohibition)
  - capote 10y ago
    We do not assume that violence would cease without guns. We just know that there would be less violence. And since we're not gun enthusiasts, it's a bit less violence at no cost to us. And at not too much costs to gun enthusiasts. At least this is how I feel.
  - mozumder 10y ago
    No. They won't. When you take away their gun, you also take away their will. Remember that taking away guns reduces crime.
  - krapp 10y ago
    Pro-gun control people don't assume that violence would cease without guns. Guns are designed and intended to be a force multiplier - one person with a gun can kill far more people far more easily than they could without a gun. Rather, pro gun-control people simply argue that a society without guns or with fewer guns is less violent than a society with more of them, and that the violence is more localized and easier to contain, for that reason. Anti-gun control people actually agree with pro-gun control people on this point when they describe gun control as a means of a tyrannical state to pacify the populace, because, they warn, the lack of an armed populace makes it more difficult to commit violence against the state. This is a rationale codified into modern interpretations of the Second Amendment. By extension, a populace less able to commit violence against the state is equally less able to commit violence against itself. Really, both pro and anti gun-control people want a safe and secure society (excepting of course the lunatic and criminal fringe) but they disagree as to the role of guns in providing that safety and security. Unfortunately, it's become kind of a matter of religion for each side, so discussions which aren't fraught with hyperbole, strawmen and willful ignorance are difficult to have.