regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (02/26/85)
>From: graham@shark.UUCP (Graham Bromley) >> What is more discouraging is that those who advocate gun >> control are arguing their emotions not reality and like all >> advocates of emotional responses will do more harm than good. > > No. > > 12000 murders by handgun every year is not a flight of >fancy. It is a very disturbing reality. Some people may >even get emotional about it. Especially a person who counts >a relative among the 12000. > > Far more Americans have been killed by other Americans with >handguns since the Vietnam War than the North Vietnamese >killed during the entire war. Something wrong there? > Graham, I identify with your emotionalism discussing this issue. Even when one is completely rational, am emotional listener will color one's argument. One of those things people do, I guess. I was thinking about this issue again recently, with the subway shootings and all, and realized that, each time I hear of a child being killed through an accident, or some crazed lover who blows away his girlfriend, I rethink my stand on gun control. My question to you, (and others) is, each time you hear of someone successfully defending him/erself against a crook/thug/ whathaveyou, do you rethink your position? I _don't_ mean: do you change your mind. I mean: do you consider, once again, which freedoms you value and what you consider the best of all possible worlds will be? I am confident that, as long as I keep looking at the question, my opinion will reflect considered values and evidence, rather than "emotional" or "knee- jerk" reactions. And I am confident that people who disagree with me, who are able to requestion their stance, have a valid and worthy opinion for consideration. However, it would be better if you didn't quote out of context, e.g.: >> Every upstanding citizen over 16 is licensed to carry, like >> driving a car. > > Not true. It is strictly illegal in almost every state >to carry a gun, unless you have a permit. Such permits are >quite difficult to obtain in most states. I believe Wyoming >is one state where you can carry a sidearm, so long as it >isn't concealed. The original appeared as part of a facetious recommendation directed to those who feel some sort of control should be instituted. I say facetious because I don't actually recommend this course of action. It was _not_ a statement of any reality in the U.S. today. As well, characterising the opponents to your point of view as crazies causes a little trouble: > Some of the most ardent gun advocates are the neo-Nazi >types, you know, the sadistic morons who run around in the >woods with their machine guns, preparing for the coming >'race war'. I don't regard these as right minded Americans, >and I doubt whether they will stave off tyrants in support >of democracy when the time comes. These kinds of scum are >out to destroy individual rights, not protect them. >(Strong words but well deserved; no apology). Yeh, no question. Some anti-control people are crazy. You'd be surprised how many pro-control people are crazy, too, but what does that have to do with the validity of the stand? If everyone in our country were crazy, we'd have a bunch of crazy laws, that all sane people would consider completely wild, but that is the way a democracy functions. The "most ardent" advocates are just that - ardent. The more important question is how many advocates (whether ardent, neo-Nazi or perfectly civil, quiet, even non-gun-owning) there are that will support this particular freedom. Currently the answer is: more than oppose it. For now. The profile of the advocate is no more important in the pro- agrument than the con- argument. Besides, it makes (emotional) people mad at you, and (rational) people discount what you are saying. I should know, I do it all the time! I'd mail this to you, but the path comes back "not found".