Quote:
Originally Posted by alnorth
Whitlock was correct in many of the facts and assumptions he posits as fact. I still disagree with his political and policy conclusions and suggestions.
Just to be clear: I will grant that a handgun ban will probably result in decreased gun violence AND decreased overall violence and deaths. They wont all grab a knife instead, I do agree that having a handgun may make it more likely for some people to shoot in a flash of rage. Banning guns probably will result in fewer deaths overall.
Despite all that, I disagree with increased gun control or any form of handgun ban.
Handgun ownership and legalization comes with a price that must occasionally be paid in blood. No matter what, crazy people and hotheads will always have a gun if its widely available. And trying to dismiss that with "oh, they'd just stab instead" is not really intellectually honest in my mind.
We should stop fooling ourselves, accept the fact that the freedoms we have re: gun ownership means more violence, and state clearly that though we can try to minimize the violence without infringing on our freedoms, we are OK with paying that price because giving up handgun ownership is unacceptable.
|
I am a proud lib. This is pretty much my position. I think gun control has become a third rail issue. At this point, no one is going to change their mind.
Its pretty obvious to me more guns= more gun violence. Alnorth's point is pretty damn rational, and hard to disagree with imo.
Democrats have pretty much conceded this issue politically.
As someone earlier pointed out, a congresswoman was shot in the head, and no bills were introduced to limit gun control.
I think conservatives should at least be intellectually honest enough to recognize that it would be easier in a fit of rage to shoot someone then knife them if you have a pistol on your hip.