what we have as Americans is a culture of violence...but that doesn't put the blame on an inanimate object like politicians want so we gloss over that part and go right on blaming items for our nasty ways.
Interesting point and one I tend to agree with. Politicians always push the quick fix because it's popular, people don't want to take a long hard look at themselves, it's unpleasant, so a career minded politician is never going to push the hard route.
I am definitely divided over the issue (of guns in the States, very very glad we don't have them freely available over here). I am finding it easier to see some things from your point, but I don't think I can ever be in agreement enough to believe free access to guns is a positive thing.
I find it amazing that the pro-gun people refuse to believe, or even consider, the argument that more guns = more death. I know someone's going to come along and quote some statistic to say that they don't but I'm afraid that won't wash with me, since I have yet to see a single study that takes into account all the other mitigating factors that can skew the results. I'm really not sure it would be possible to ever manage such a study because there are so many factors to consider, changes in economics, movements of people, random nutters, politicians even what's on tv...
So, how about I explain, as clearly as I can think, my anti-gun position and why I am firm in the belief that more guns=more death.
Guns were invented, to be the most efficient way of killing things, this is a fact correct?
Now picture a scenario, someone's angry enough to kill, they've got a gun, it's a very quick process, from the moment you pick it up, you only have to point and squeeze the trigger.
Now picture a second scenario, someone's angry enough to kill, they've got a knife, granted you can kill someone very quickly with a knife but it's not as easy as with a gun. The other person could fight back, you actually have to be up close to them to do it, someone is more likely to intervene. all these things can take longer and give you longer to calm down and actually think about what you're doing.
Now picture a third scenario, you just have your fists, don't think I have to go right through this one but obviously it is much harder to kill with your fists than with a gun.
Now I'm sure someone's going to bring up the argument that the idea that other people have guns stops people from using theirs/committing violent crimes. I'm afraid I'm not convinced by this one. It is not an easy thing to shoot someone, but all accounts and interviews with serial killers say that it gets easier. Now the bad guys will know this, since they've been through it so although it might be a bit of a consideration, I don't think it's the magic wand to defuse the bad guys that the pro-gun lobby claim it is. If you've got a gang member with a gun, who has used it in the past, trying to commit a home invasion. He will most likely be far more comfortable and ready to use his gun than the home owner is to use his, so the advantage is already with the bad guy.
Now having said all that, sadly I have to agree with the most persuasive argument against a gun ban, that all the bad guys are already armed. There are simply too many guns already in circulation for an effective ban to be enforced. Without some serious draconian moves by the authorities, the guns would remain in the hands of the bad guys and no longer in the hands of people defending their homes.
What it would do, however, is make another school massacre far less likely to happen. From all that I've read about them, none of the massacres have been committed by gang members or even people with an kind of serious criminal record. If there was a gun ban in place, it would be much harder for these people to get hold of the guns, in order to commit these massacres. Yes they could use a knife, and in other countries there are occasionally times when some psychotic goes on a stabbing rampage but the casualties are generally much lower because, as I stated earlier, it's a far less efficient way of killing people.
Now my final point, is one I know is going to be very unpopular so I'll probably get flamed for it but I'm afraid I simply don't think one of your core beliefs works in reality. The idea that all men are created equal and so are entitled to equal rights and have the freedom to exercise those rights absolutely. Whilst I fully support the ideology behind it, I'm not a Nazi, elitist or any other kind of biggot/zenophobe etc but the fact is that all men are not equal. Some are considerably smarter, some are more careless and some more prone to violence. This is from birth, factor in life experiences and you end up with killers and non-killers and those who kill by accident. By firmly clinging to the idea that all men are equal and so have an equal right to bear arms, you preclude the possibility of making it harder for the bad guys and the nutters in society to get the guns. The idea of a psychological profile, training/proficiency exam (like for a driving licence) etc before being allowed to own a gun would seem to me like very sensible things to implement but they are opposed because it is seen as infringing on a freedom. The fact is though, if you look at it completely objectively, it is a freedom that some people shouldn't have and that's indisputable. Ignore for a moment, how it is decided who is deemed safe to own a fire arm and surely anyone can see that allowing someone who is prone to violence, undergoing/undergone a psychological trauma or simply a bit thick/careless to own a firearm is a bad idea.
