3 ms·
What is the "actual argument" then? Gun deaths are... pretty bad. Lumping them in with burglaries on a 1:1 basis seems like poor moral calculus, no? The poin
by newacct583 6y ago
What is the "actual argument" then? Gun deaths are... pretty bad. Lumping them in with burglaries on a 1:1 basis seems like poor moral calculus, no?
The point is that perspective matters. You want to treat "crime" as a single thing because it seems like "the actual argument" to you, and when I see that same argument it looks like senseless spin because it's trying to dilute the US's outrageous homicide rate in an analysis by comparing it to burglaries in Amsterdam or whatever.
- hntrader 6y ago> Lumping them in with burglaries on a 1:1 basis seems like poor moral calculus, no Yes, and I'm not advocating for that. My only point is that "less gun deaths in countries without legal guns" isn't addressing the original claim that other crimes have decreased as a consequence of legal guns. I'm not taking a position on whether that claim is true, or what exactly they mean by that, which are both questions I also would like to be answered.
- flyingfences 6y agoI think one part of the moral calculus that's missing here is who the "victim" is in each case. A substitution of somebody being shot for somebody being burled is obviously not a good outcome; on the other hand, a substitution of a burgler being shot for an innocent average joe being burgled is... still not great, but you must admit it shifts the scales.
- newacct583 6y agoEffectively zero gun violence is deployed in defense, either of person or property. No "burglers" are being shot, statistically. Guns are deployed in anger, or in escalation of existing violence.