Quote:
Originally Posted by Despare
(...) it really just brings to light how terrible people can be. Throughout time and regardless of technology we can't stop killing each other.
|
Hi Despare
Been following the thread, good to see a conversation here. To comment on your quote^^^. I think the realisation that there will always be an individual somewhere who wants to do other harm is an insightful component for the argument, you're certainly right, we have a murderous history.
But then if we accept this (and I feel all the but most naive would) then the question becomes - how do we control ourselves?
In the UK farmers (and various other people) have the right to own a rifle, occasionally these weapons fall into the wrong hands and are used for killing people - but on the whole (because of the smaller circulation of the weapons) they remain in safe hands, with people who have a genuine reason for possessing a them.
I'm interested in understanding how a firearm is protective in domestic circumstances, for me a firearm is only protective insofar as it is threatening to do harm to the threat. It is not a protective tool, more a potently threatening tool - a potency thats prospect can be used as protection.
But unfortunately, people are very pre-emptive. And naturally, if you suspect a threat of aggression from someone you need to at least be able to level out the playing field with your own threat - most likely another gun. This is played out in burglaries gone wrong scenarios - the difference is the threat of choice, and the threat people can generally gain access to.
So in an environment where all have firearm access is very high - threat levelling strategies will lead to a situation whereby all have guns, simply because all have guns. Whereas in other environments threat could be levelled with less lethal weapons (kitchen knives, base ball bats, metal sticks, whatever).
In the latter environment there will always be a minority who do raise their threat above the norm and gain access (illegally) to a gun. Likewise in the former there will lots of responsible usage that helps society. But the general dynamic of threat matching (a la cold war) is there. The question of gun control is that of where do we want the generalised threat levelling to land, - at the level of a firearm, or less lethal weapons such as knives. Personally I feel the lower the better, as this will preserve life.
----
Media etc does play a role but I feel ultimately this is a grey an area to discuss as the weather, I think addressing what level of threat we want people to have access to is the real issue. Mental health issues also, there will, unfortunately, always be someone who slips through the system and becomes dangerous - how easy should it be for these people to access weapons?
Despare - (this isn't necessarily directly to you but in response to) when you say "regardless of technology" I cannot agree - I feel the issue of gun control pivots around technology.
If you are concerned about protection, and the threat you are protecting against by harbouring another threat (threat levelling)- then technology's capacity to harm becomes the question - in the this game theory/cold war concern over the next mans ability to harm you or your friends or family I ask for question -(if you could change the world tomorrow) do you want to play (generally speaking) for bruises and scars or gun shots and body bags?
Thanks for reading this far if you have, discussion is important.