You also need a high capacity magazine if you are a terrible shot under stress, which I assume many people are.
However I find all pro-gun arguments very unconvincing because of a major asymmetry in how guns are used successfully on people (i.e. self defense) vs. how they are used unsuccessfully (suicide, homicide, collateral damage).
I respect that you enjoy guns and think there should be unfettered access to guns. I don't like that people get shot (by themselves, by others, by accident, on purpose) by the busload, and I hope you share that feeling.
There are a few reasons why I don't believe guns are a solution to guns.
1) The advantage you are pointing out -- that a handgun is an odds shifter -- cuts both ways. People who want to do harm shift the odds in their favor with access to handguns, because they will conceal harmful intent until they are positioned to do the most harm.
2) The "good guys" will always be hampered by the need to not shoot other good guys, whereas the suicidal mass-killing bad guys are going to fire indiscriminately
3) Guns are a solution to guns, but this claim seems to be followed by a caveat that everyone requires adequate training. Why should one need to learn how to act in a firefight when we live in an ostensibly civilized society? If, in fact, we live in a society where laws have broken down and self-defense is routinely required, then yes, I would buy this argument. But we don't, and I don't.
I would just like to mention that I am in favor of abolishing possession of firearms, but not because handguns are intrinsically bad or that I believe it is possible to eliminate all guns from our society. It's because I believe that enacting major restrictions on guns is the only way to begin to effect change in our cultural attitude towards gun violence (i.e. apathy and desensitization). Legislation sometimes precedes a major shift in cultural attitudes. Sometimes it works (Brown vs. Board of Education), sometimes it doesn't (Prohibition). I think it is worth a try.
Comments 4
However I find all pro-gun arguments very unconvincing because of a major asymmetry in how guns are used successfully on people (i.e. self defense) vs. how they are used unsuccessfully (suicide, homicide, collateral damage).
I respect that you enjoy guns and think there should be unfettered access to guns. I don't like that people get shot (by themselves, by others, by accident, on purpose) by the busload, and I hope you share that feeling.
Reply
Reply
1) The advantage you are pointing out -- that a handgun is an odds shifter -- cuts both ways. People who want to do harm shift the odds in their favor with access to handguns, because they will conceal harmful intent until they are positioned to do the most harm.
2) The "good guys" will always be hampered by the need to not shoot other good guys, whereas the suicidal mass-killing bad guys are going to fire indiscriminately
3) Guns are a solution to guns, but this claim seems to be followed by a caveat that everyone requires adequate training. Why should one need to learn how to act in a firefight when we live in an ostensibly civilized society? If, in fact, we live in a society where laws have broken down and self-defense is routinely required, then yes, I would buy this argument. But we don't, and I don't.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment