RE: Just saying... again!
Some of the problem is the consideration that it is somehow more 'free' to live in so much fear of your neighbour that you have to have a weapon for defence.
What I am reading often is that people are genuinely too scared to let go of their guns. And whilst we can attribute that to a degree to societal changes that need addressing, it comes back to my example of matches and firework factories.
You don't make a problem better by failing to reduce a factor that makes it worse.
Smoking is a good analogy. In the past, I have heard arguments surrounding civil liberties and smoking bans. My argument (even as a smoker) is that we don't live in a vacuum. Being able to smoke in, for example, pubs, impinged on the liberties of people like my sister, with severe asthma. She couldn't enjoy a drink in a pub when it was filled with smoke. I, on the other hand, can still enjoy a pint without having a smoke, so my civil liberties are far less reduced by smoking bans than hers were by not having them.
You can, to a degree, apply the same logic to guns. An individual right to have a gun when you, personally, are sensible and responsible with it is seen as a freedom. But unfortunately that right is not limited to those with the same approach. Even if there's no criminal conviction or medical reason on record, doesn't mean the person claiming the same rights as you isn't going to use the gun for those purposes. So you have the equivalent of the asthmatic in a smoke-filled room. For you to have that 'freedom', you are increasing the risk to others and, ultimately, denying them freedom.
Yes, criminals will still have guns. They do here, and I am sure they do in Australia, NZ and other places with stricter gun laws. But it's harder for them to get them as there aren't as many in circulation, so the problem is greatly reduced.
And that isn't just 'about' mass shootings. It's much rarer for burglaries in the UK to end in death than it is in the US, because the burglars are less likely to have guns for two reasons. 1) burgers aren't anticipating the likelihood of their victims being armed so they don't go prepared to defend against it and 2) your average burglar has to put more effort, personal risk and money into obtaining a gun.
If there was a clear correlation in the States between the prevalence of guns and the reduction in rapes, burglaries, assaults and muggings then I might understand a bit more. I know it has been posited that people are less likely to rape, burgle or mug someone if they know the intended victim is likely to have a gun, but statistics don't really show that to be the case. The factors that mean crime is worse in some areas than others are the same as anywhere else. Viewing the possession of guns as a deterrent is a bit of a red herring, when all it means is the criminals simply prepare themselves to deal with armed victims by increasing their own weaponry. I have said it before, the criminal will always have the element of surprise in their favour. Knowing you are armed makes the criminal much more likely to be prepared to kill you, rather than thinking twice about going there in the first place.
In a documentary I watched about knife crime in teen gangs, a police officer actively advised young people NOT to get a knife for defence and show that you have it. Doing so is far more likely to get you perceived as a threat/challenge/rival gang member.
All that being said, I absolutely appreciate the tenet of Lance's oft-repeated argument. I don't live in the states. The country I live in has never had the same relationship with guns. To do what we did in re: legislation wasn't fighting against a gun culture like America has, not against the sheer volume of guns in circulation. America has its own challenges in overcoming this problem which my nation simply didn't have. I cannot categorically say what works here will work there, because it wasn't the same culture.
Bill, on the other hand, DOES live there. He will know what has a greater chance of working, and more of a handle on how attitudes are shifting and how to capitalise on that. The crucial thing is that those who think like Bill don't throw their hands in the air and give up, as so many seem to, in the teeth of America's historic relationship with guns, but rather find their own ways to combat it.
It's like an addiction. The first step is to recognise there is a problem and admit it. Alcoholics who remain so blame everything but the booze. Pro-gun lobbies blame everything but the guns.
2021 Script Writer of the Year
lancellot
Poet Rating
Rank: 93
Short Works Rating
Rank: 21
Novel Rating
Script Rating
Rank: 4
Review Stars
Rank: 62
RE: Just saying... again!
Here is a counter viewpoint.
RE: Just saying... again!
Yep.
And so the insanity escalates.
2021 Script Writer of the Year
lancellot
Poet Rating
Rank: 93
Short Works Rating
Rank: 21
Novel Rating
Script Rating
Rank: 4
Review Stars
Rank: 62
RE: Just saying... again!
Monday, you could buy a gun to protect yourself and your family. But you don't, because you think it's insane.
Thursday night, your door gets kicked in. Three truly insane evil men barge in to kill you and do even worse to your wife and child. You all scramble inside your bedroom. The intruders bang and kick at the door. You call the police. They are fifteen minutes away.
Your terrorized wife turns to you and says, "Where's the gun you went to buy?"
You look at her and answer, "Gun? Why do I need a gun? That's insane."
Two minutes later, you discover what true insanity is.
2021 Script Writer of the Year
lancellot
Poet Rating
Rank: 93
Short Works Rating
Rank: 21
Novel Rating
Script Rating
Rank: 4
Review Stars
Rank: 62
RE: Just saying... again!
Message edited:
They found out the insanity of stiff gun restrictions. Now look.
RE: Just saying... again!
Message edited:
Of course, in your Rambo version, good guy with gun magically wakes up from a deep sleep in time to don his white cowboy hat and shoot the three intruders armed with handguns they bought for $20 on the street corner stone cold dead. Adoring wife and children flock to his side in awe and admiration of his courage and machismo.
Nice story. Sell it to Hollywood, you'll make a mint.
Meanwhile, in the real world, three intruders break into your home. In another country, they'd come armed with their fists, ready to rough you up if you give them a hard time. But because this is America, and every man and his dog has a gun, and because they can get one anywhere, they come prepared. While you're fast asleep with your gun under your pillow, they shoot you and your wife dead. Then, just for fun, they take your gun and go visit the kids, who by now are well and truly awake.
Which story is more believable? Which one has played out more often? Thought so.
P.S. Did you miss the part where I mentioned 70% of people living with gun owners DON'T feel safer with a gun in the house? Your story lacks credibility in every regard.
RE: Just saying... again!
Israel? Seriously?
Well, let's run with it, shall we? As you have clearly seen, they have been able to relax the laws for the purposes of the extremity of the situation, which any one of our nations with standard gun laws in peace time could also do, and indeed, in my own Nation's case, has done in the past. All sorts of special measures come into play during extreme situations like what's happening in Israel now.
You really cannot use a nation in a vastly different situation that has chosen to relax a legislation in a specific and extreme situation as a legitimate argument for relaxed gun laws all the time elsewhere.
RE: Just saying... again!
Craig, I could be wrong about this, but I think Lance is talking about a very likely scenario in Israel. A country in the middle of a war, with open gunfire in the streets, bombs going off, probably hand grenades, etc. He is using an extreme situation which his own country is not actually in, and the measures that have been taken in a country where the scenario painted is extremely likely.
Somehow, he is drawing a comparison with domestic criminals who want your money and terrorist insurgents whose sole aim is to kill. For some reason he can't see the difference, or understand that the relaxation in gun laws is directly related to an extreme circumstance.
Personally, I don't think a nation at the business end of a bloody war's legislation decisions have anything to do with a discussion about general domestic gun ownership. I think that's what you might call scraping the barrell and, I might add, in somewhat poor taste.
RE: Just saying... again!
Message edited:
I think the two are totally disconnected attempts to justify gun ownership, Emma. I don't think Lancellot made any such connection. He's raised the John McLean scenario before... long prior to the situation in Israel/Palestine. It's a favourite of his. The fact that statistics show it almost never plays out the way it does in his fantasy doesn't seem to have any bearing on the matter. I totally agree with your assessment of the lack of relevance of the current middle east situation to everyday America... or everyday anywhere else.
It is, however, heartwarming to see that in these dark times there is a ray of sunshine. The gun store owner in South Florida is making a killing (hopefully only in the metaphorical sense). Even as a conflict 6,000 miles away inspires American citizens to prepare to kill each other, capitalism wins!
The capacity for stupidity in the human species is mind-blowing.
RE: Just saying... again!
Oh, OK. I assumed, since his previous post was about Israel. Who's John McLean?
1 2 -3- 4 5 6 7
The FanStory Store For Writers
Get a mug, sweatshirt or tee customized with your poem! Yes, your poem on a Mug | Sweatshirt | Tee
Your Poem On A Mug
$24.95Any poem on a mug! Choose your mug here.