"Regressives"? Regressing to what? A world of peace and humanity that existed sometime in the history of civilization? I took a world history course, and I trust that you did too; that's never happened. Guns kill--that's their intent; you would have to be deliberate to not kill someone with a gun.
And no, gun control is neither racist nor sexist. That's a generalization in and of itself. I can't say that I know with certainty, nor do I choose to do any research on such a fatuous claim, but even if that (i.e. Klansmen argument) were the original intent of gun control, it doesn't actually matter. That's like me saying that all people who accept any Platonic philosophy--or even any derivative of Platonic philosophy--are racist because Plato owned slaves... and was likely a racist (though it's debatable, but the point still stands--another example can be given).
I will, however, use your "claim" in my own argument. Paint a picture with me for a moment: guns near impossible to come by in this country. Not only would the woman not have one, but the rapists wouldn't either. Can she not own some mace? Surely she can. What's to prevent her from using it? The same EXACT factors that would prevent her from using a gun? Indeed, they are the same factors. There are non-lethal alternatives. Does the scum-of-the-earth need to simply die, producing more scum? Where does that get us? Your children will be raised in this world of "a life for an eye", and that doesn't put us anywhere.
I am not radical in my belief. Surely, crime etc. must be cut down prior to any removal of dormant guns from households. But saying that "crime will always exist--likely to the degree that it does now--because the human condition tells me so, and therefore we must always fight fire with fire" is completely closed-minded and retrogressive.
"Paint a picture with me for a moment: guns near impossible to come by in this country. Not only would the woman not have one, but the rapists wouldn't either"
(humoring you for a moment, pretending the absurd: that outlawing guns doesn't result in a disarmed populace at the "mercy" of armed outlaws) The rapists would still be larger and stronger than she is because they wouldn't bother attacking someone who wasn't smaller and weaker than they. Your "solution" is to reduce the equation to one of pure physical strength, which the bad guys always win because they get to choose whom they attack.
"Does the scum-of-the-earth need to simply die, producing more scum?"
Was this a logic failure or a language failure? your consequence of dead scum of the earth does not follow.
"But saying that "crime will always exist--likely to the degree that it does now--because the human condition tells me so"
Protecting oneself from armed criminals isn't the only reason to posses guns. Some people enjoy target shooting and hunting. If you can accomplish the elimination of crime from the human condition as you suggest is possible, what reason could there be to deny people simple sporting pastimes such as these?
Figure this one out
4 comments:
Racist and also sexist. Regressives would rather see a woman, raped and murdered before they let her keep a gun in her purse.
"Regressives"? Regressing to what? A world of peace and humanity that existed sometime in the history of civilization? I took a world history course, and I trust that you did too; that's never happened. Guns kill--that's their intent; you would have to be deliberate to not kill someone with a gun.
And no, gun control is neither racist nor sexist. That's a generalization in and of itself. I can't say that I know with certainty, nor do I choose to do any research on such a fatuous claim, but even if that (i.e. Klansmen argument) were the original intent of gun control, it doesn't actually matter. That's like me saying that all people who accept any Platonic philosophy--or even any derivative of Platonic philosophy--are racist because Plato owned slaves... and was likely a racist (though it's debatable, but the point still stands--another example can be given).
I will, however, use your "claim" in my own argument. Paint a picture with me for a moment: guns near impossible to come by in this country. Not only would the woman not have one, but the rapists wouldn't either. Can she not own some mace? Surely she can. What's to prevent her from using it? The same EXACT factors that would prevent her from using a gun? Indeed, they are the same factors. There are non-lethal alternatives. Does the scum-of-the-earth need to simply die, producing more scum? Where does that get us? Your children will be raised in this world of "a life for an eye", and that doesn't put us anywhere.
I am not radical in my belief. Surely, crime etc. must be cut down prior to any removal of dormant guns from households. But saying that "crime will always exist--likely to the degree that it does now--because the human condition tells me so, and therefore we must always fight fire with fire" is completely closed-minded and retrogressive.
"Paint a picture with me for a moment: guns near impossible to come by in this country. Not only would the woman not have one, but the rapists wouldn't either"
(humoring you for a moment, pretending the absurd: that outlawing guns doesn't result in a disarmed populace at the "mercy" of armed outlaws) The rapists would still be larger and stronger than she is because they wouldn't bother attacking someone who wasn't smaller and weaker than they. Your "solution" is to reduce the equation to one of pure physical strength, which the bad guys always win because they get to choose whom they attack.
"Does the scum-of-the-earth need to simply die, producing more scum?"
Was this a logic failure or a language failure? your consequence of dead scum of the earth does not follow.
"But saying that "crime will always exist--likely to the degree that it does now--because the human condition tells me so"
Protecting oneself from armed criminals isn't the only reason to posses guns. Some people enjoy target shooting and hunting. If you can accomplish the elimination of crime from the human condition as you suggest is possible, what reason could there be to deny people simple sporting pastimes such as these?
Post a Comment