Nushif
Member
Replying to a topic earlier today I had a mild epiphany.
When discussing "Gun Control" and specifically when talking about the merits and counter merits of it, I think the discussion can be made more meaningful when framed as a discussion not of controlling M-16s, AKs and Berettas, but rather when the discussion turns towards ... "Weapons Control" or even broader "Violence Control."
This allows two things:
Firstly, the true distinction between what one "ought to have" and what one "ought to not have" becomes exceedingly hard to define, allowing for less very direct things such as "this weapon kills so much easier than XYZ."
Secondly, the topic of "Violence control" draws the true nature of the argument out. Gun Control, Weapons Control and ultimately Violence Control is an impossibility.
Violence, and with more refined violence, the usage of a given weapon is a behavior, not a thing, not some sort of item or anything that can physically be banned.
Much like it is incredibly hard to maintain the argument that a raped woman is morally superior than a woman who shot someone the notion that a human behavior can be controlled is equally hard to maintain.
Let's face it, nobody likes violence, but when the framework is that all (non consensual) violence done is equally immoral or unethical depending on your basis of argument there is a lot more middle ground to talk about.
Furthermore, it has been proven by history over and over again that violent patterns happen in all environs and as such the notion that there are "violence free zones" becomes equally hard to maintain. Even staunch pacifists will agree that ultimately someone who is chronically violent and has no regard for the sanctity of other human's lives or well being as proposed by Albert Schweitzer(sp?) needs to be met with one's own controlled measure of violence to end the violent behavior.
It is both a logical, ethical and morally sound argument, as is shown by the fact that most studied people of these fields no matter where they come from can not argue, again, that a person who has had violence done to them without retaliation is any more moral, ethical or whatnot than someone who fought back.
Just some rhetorical ammo for the fight against the kneejerk reactions of a very, very scared public, on both sides of the spectrum. More guns isn't always the solution, but neither is less guns.
The solution is in solving the problems that make normally "decent people" act in ways they shouldn't have to, be that a woman who is defending herself, a guy robbing a bank for kicks or a bum knocking you out for your change.
When discussing "Gun Control" and specifically when talking about the merits and counter merits of it, I think the discussion can be made more meaningful when framed as a discussion not of controlling M-16s, AKs and Berettas, but rather when the discussion turns towards ... "Weapons Control" or even broader "Violence Control."
This allows two things:
Firstly, the true distinction between what one "ought to have" and what one "ought to not have" becomes exceedingly hard to define, allowing for less very direct things such as "this weapon kills so much easier than XYZ."
Secondly, the topic of "Violence control" draws the true nature of the argument out. Gun Control, Weapons Control and ultimately Violence Control is an impossibility.
Violence, and with more refined violence, the usage of a given weapon is a behavior, not a thing, not some sort of item or anything that can physically be banned.
Much like it is incredibly hard to maintain the argument that a raped woman is morally superior than a woman who shot someone the notion that a human behavior can be controlled is equally hard to maintain.
Let's face it, nobody likes violence, but when the framework is that all (non consensual) violence done is equally immoral or unethical depending on your basis of argument there is a lot more middle ground to talk about.
Furthermore, it has been proven by history over and over again that violent patterns happen in all environs and as such the notion that there are "violence free zones" becomes equally hard to maintain. Even staunch pacifists will agree that ultimately someone who is chronically violent and has no regard for the sanctity of other human's lives or well being as proposed by Albert Schweitzer(sp?) needs to be met with one's own controlled measure of violence to end the violent behavior.
It is both a logical, ethical and morally sound argument, as is shown by the fact that most studied people of these fields no matter where they come from can not argue, again, that a person who has had violence done to them without retaliation is any more moral, ethical or whatnot than someone who fought back.
Just some rhetorical ammo for the fight against the kneejerk reactions of a very, very scared public, on both sides of the spectrum. More guns isn't always the solution, but neither is less guns.
The solution is in solving the problems that make normally "decent people" act in ways they shouldn't have to, be that a woman who is defending herself, a guy robbing a bank for kicks or a bum knocking you out for your change.
