4 ms·

This is indeed oversimplifying. A statement like "the government shouldn't" is a value-laden one that the recipient needs to be talked into through a good case

This is indeed oversimplifying. A statement like "the government shouldn't" is a value-laden one that the recipient needs to be talked into through a good case being made for it; it's not a universally obvious truth. The person you're replying to obviously doesn't think so, at least. Regarding your second point: yes, some criminals will still get some guns no matter how many laws are passed banning them or how much money is spent on enforcing those laws. But that doesn't mean they're wholly ineffectual. Criminality is not some binary state where either you're an innocent meek upright citizen or you're a hardened criminal with trivial access to any amounts of every sort of weaponry that has ever been devised regardless of legal status. [Edit: I want to note that I personally feel ignorant enough on the topic to not take a strong stance for or against gun control — what has seemed to work for many countries to curtail violence would not necessarily work for the United States for a number of reasons including culture, guns already in the country, etc. But that's no reason to make bad arguments either way.]

protomyth 14y ago
The biggest problem is the absence of actual risk reporting in our society. For instance, if you are only concerned about your child's safety and your child has two friends: A has a swimming pool, B's parents' own a gun; which house is safer for your child to play at? The answer is B by a wide margin(1). Looking at the link I posted before, does the news you see on TV match the risks? Does the funding? We get influenced by the emotional and don't do risks very well. 1) "Pools more dangerous than guns." Chicago Sun-Times on July 28, 2001
harshreality 14y ago
A statement like "the government shouldn't" is a value-laden one that the recipient needs to be talked into through a good case being made for it That's not how the government in the U.S. is supposed to operate. You're supposed to have to make a strong case for "the government should..." The benefit is that gun possession by criminals might be reduced eventually? That's speculative, depends on enforcement tactics, and ignores that violent crime rates are not a simple function of criminal gun possession; it is a complicated function including culture, criminal gun possession, deterrent effect of non-criminal gun possession, police presence, specific factors inducing gun crime (including gangs and drug turf wars, or drug addiction), and the environment of the local neighborhood. The cost of a gun ban in the U.S. is that it would require tens of millions of citizens to forfeit property, and it removes one option they have for defending themselves. Even if you successfully make a case that guns should be banned, there's a nearly insurmountable obstacle: that a gun ban would be unconstitutional.

protomyth 14y ago

The biggest problem is the absence of actual risk reporting in our society. For instance, if you are only concerned about your child's safety and your child has two friends: A has a swimming pool, B's parents' own a gun; which house is safer for your child to play at? The answer is B by a wide margin(1). Looking at the link I posted before, does the news you see on TV match the risks? Does the funding? We get influenced by the emotional and don't do risks very well. 1) "Pools more dangerous than guns." Chicago Sun-Times on July 28, 2001

harshreality 14y ago

A statement like "the government shouldn't" is a value-laden one that the recipient needs to be talked into through a good case being made for it That's not how the government in the U.S. is supposed to operate. You're supposed to have to make a strong case for "the government should..." The benefit is that gun possession by criminals might be reduced eventually? That's speculative, depends on enforcement tactics, and ignores that violent crime rates are not a simple function of criminal gun possession; it is a complicated function including culture, criminal gun possession, deterrent effect of non-criminal gun possession, police presence, specific factors inducing gun crime (including gangs and drug turf wars, or drug addiction), and the environment of the local neighborhood. The cost of a gun ban in the U.S. is that it would require tens of millions of citizens to forfeit property, and it removes one option they have for defending themselves. Even if you successfully make a case that guns should be banned, there's a nearly insurmountable obstacle: that a gun ban would be unconstitutional.