Eff's Rambles (Archive)



First, I will lay out my basic philosophy on the topic, then, in general terms, address some counter arguments which might be made in response.

My philosophy is simple: Individual right of self defense against intended harm precludes the hypothetical consequence to the general welfare of the public if a firearm is the instrument of individual self defense.

Now to address some counter arguments as they come to me and as best as I can recall them.

Total or major banishment of guns has succeeded in multiple countries, lowering crime rates.

Re: As I said, I am being general in my contentions; and as this is a moral issue for me, even if such statistics are true, they really would not persuade me away from my beliefs on the matter. But it is fair to ask whether or not those supposed successes are applicable in the United States. The strongest point to be made for firearm control is the presumptive benefit to society by virtue of the inherent nature of most people to be law abiding, thereby making the gun problem lessened, one hopes. But it is also inherent in people that they remain true to their nature, good or bad. I will grant that firearm control can succeed. I wish tranquil times to all societies who have chosen strict limitations on the ownership of firearms, but not every society is guaranteed such success, which may not be possible with the nature of some of them. Since this is imperfect, it leaves what I hyperbolically call "sacrifices for statistics." Such sacrifices are those individuals who were violated in some way which perhaps could have been resolved by a firearm in their favor. I place high value on them, as they, like many others, are limited on what they can rely on for their well being.

But you acknowledged the intent is to lessen the overall crime rate, and you did not contend that it would not do so. And that's a good thing.

Re: That is true, but I am not trying to play psychic. My objection is with the notion that a person must be reliant on the ableness of the community, from neighbors to police officers when it cannot always viable. And intent matters greatly to me. I know this may sound cruel; like reversed priorities to some people, but if it comes down to a man's right to use deadly force, or the threat thereof, in protection of his person and family, et al, I will always put that above the children slain as a result of the alleged firearm culture (negatiive context).

But the firearm culture is the problem. It's an endless cycle of violence.

Re: Which also causes one to ask whose benefit it would be if strict firearm control were enacted. Would violent people cease their nature because of it? Not likely. From a strategic standpoint, and safety in some cases, arms are preferrable because of they're superiority against most other weapons, designed and adopted, so a weak person may be wise in having a gun ready against a person not armed. It is not the obligation of intended victims to be weaker than those assaulting them.

Guns don't often work in common situations.

Re: That's probably more often the result of human error, which is an inescapable part of life. And we can apply human factor of human error not only to a defendant's use of a firearm, but to his attacker's use. It is error and circumstance which affords a person the opportunity to use his gun defensively. In other words, situations are not the same and not universal in result. And the firearm's capacity for defense and attack remain a physical fact upon which a person in the former position may need to survive.

PS. At some later date I might address this issue further.


Post a Comment

<< Home


Online dictionary at www.Answers.com

Concise information in one click