XPost: talk.politics.guns, uk.politics.guns, aus.politics.guns   
   From: murff@warlock.org   
      
   On Tue, 06 May 2014 10:28:28 +1000, Dechucka wrote:   
      
   > "Guy Fawkes"  wrote in message   
   > news:XnsA324CC6427D82Wereofftoseethewizrd@78.46.70.116...   
      
   >> Because you are trying to lump law abiding gun owners in with   
   >> murderers.   
   >   
   > No I wasn't   
      
   You are, however, arguing along a different axes: you, that of population-   
   wide statistical effects. Your opponents, that of individual experience.   
   That difference in itself is a recipe for fruitless talking past one   
   another.   
      
   On *this* subject the problem is made worse because on the one hand it is   
   so highly politicised. Even if underlying data is reliable (which is   
   probably open to question both ways), drawing comparisons between any two   
   countries is prone to much distortion due to the difficulty of   
   controlling for social, geographical and economic factors. Politically-   
   motivated conclusions tend to get drawn very early on.   
      
   It is also the case that the experience of the responsible gun owner is   
   not actually a blood-soaked massacre of children, innocent bystanders and   
   suicides. Or even of unfortunates who happen accidentally to find   
   themselves having wandered into one's home in the wee hours, equipped   
   with a jemmy and a "how did that get there" expression.   
      
   My personal view is that private firearms ownership is perfectly fine,   
   either for recreational use or where social norms warrant it, for   
   personal defence. However such ownership and use carries with it a   
   responsibility much like that attendant on driving motor vehicles or   
   flying aircraft. And therefore that private firearms ownership warrants   
   some form of test to demonstrate competence and suitability.   
      
   If there is a problem in the USA it isn't with guns per se, but rather   
   with the *general* weakness of social pressure toward that sort of   
   demonstration. I say "general" because clearly in very many cases   
   youngsters are brought up with safe and responsible habits. And I say   
   "weakness" because there is a clear struggle between on the one hand the   
   gun control movement (NFA in 1934, GCA in 1968 and so on) and on the   
   other, their opponents. What is lacking is a clear and rationally-   
   expressed view of what the aim of gun ownership and control ought to be.   
      
   Emerging from this lack, is a lot of nonsensical noise about on the one   
   hand what are ultimately crime rates, and on the other atavistic claims   
   to "freedom from government tyranny". ISTM that much crime in the USA   
   comes down to economic and social deprivation and flawed drugs laws -   
   much the same sort of thing happens in inner cities here, just on a   
   smaller scale - and that where guns aren't used, knives are. IalsoSTM   
   that whilst protection from tyranny may have been a reasonable point just   
   in case the Founding Fathers got too "British" in their views, if the   
   modern day US government, with 35% of global defence expenditure, wanted   
   to be tyrannical, then concealed-carry handguns and AR-15s in pickups   
   wouldn't do much to stop it.   
      
   --   
   Murff...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)