Rock and a Hard Place
[2012-12-17 19:45]
Guns. Ugh. I'm sickened by the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, but not totally surprised. The culture of violence, gun advocacy and cowboy-diplomacy (among other things) that we have makes this kind of thing inevitable. And, like many people, I'm not entirely sure what we should do about it.
I've mentioned that I'm "pro-gun (sort of)" and still am, but it's a big "sort of". Many of the arguments used by gun advocates against gun control demonstrate a distinct lack of reason or logic. I like to think that there's a reasonable solution to the problem that allows access to guns while protecting communities, but given the illogic and intransigence of many gun owners, maybe not.
Anyway, here are some observations about gun control, in no particular order.
I live in a densely populated city, surrounded by condominiums. It's not a particularly dangerous neighborhood. It is unlikely that someone will break into my condo to rob me or do me bodily harm, and if someone did, I feel confident that I could fight them off, or escape and run and hide or scream for help. There are enough cops around that I think their response would be pretty quick. As a result, I feel safe not owning a gun and would feel safer knowing that no one around me did too. Thus, laws that restrict or ban the access to guns seems reasonable.
However, if I lived in a rural area where the nearest neighbor was 15 minutes away, then I would want a gun for protection. I'm not particularly athletic and am not going to outrun a motivated assailant for long.
So, the very thing that makes me feel safe in the city (non-ownership of guns) would make me feel unsafe in the country, and vice-versa.
I have a friend who hunts (deer, I think). He does so for sport, I believe, but is also the type to use the kill (he's talked about his family making sausage out of the deer). My friend is one of the nicest guy I've ever met. He's nicer than me, and he's very respectful and responsible. So, it doesn't bother me knowing that my friend owns a gun (at least, I assume he does -- he's never felt the need to show it off or talk about it), or that he likes to hunt. He and people like him are why I'm pro-gun.
Guns are a part of American history and, thus, a part of some people's cultures and traditions. Thus, laws that regulate or ban guns, in effect, regulate or ban parts of these people's culture and traditions. Just because I don't share their culture or traditions, doesn't make them (the people or their traditions) inherently evil, stupid or whatever. But that also doesn't mean that we can't do anything. This is a little like the issue of the Makah's tradition of hunting whales. Whatever we do, we should do it carefully and respectfully.
In general, it doesn't bother me knowing that police officers have guns, or that the military has guns, or that the manufacturers of guns have them for testing, or that the Mythbusters use them in their experiments, or that biathletes use them in their sport, or that guns are used in shows like Top Shot and other shooting exhibitions. As a result, gun control, for me, is really about gun regulation, not an outright ban. Identifying what makes it okay for these groups to have/use guns should be part of whatever action we choose to take.
I would prefer a solution that does not ban all guns for regular citizens. But if no other, better solution is forthcoming, then that might be the direction we have to go. As a result, it is really in gun enthusiasts' best interest to help us find a good solution.
Gun advocates often say that the solution to gun violence is to have more people carry guns. This reasoning is logically flawed, for many reasons. This is like saying that the solution to Al Qaeda is to have more terrorists. Rational gun advocates really need to stop using this argument.
I think some gun advocates have mentioned that communities with high gun ownership tend to have lower rates of gun violence, or something like that (I don't remember the actual claims). If this is true, it is not simply because of the number of gun owners. If that were the only factor, then those gun owners would be killing people whenever they walk into a community with less guns. More likely, there is something in these communities that teach their citizens how to be responsible and respectful with guns.
Gun advocates sometimes cite the Reason or Force argument. There are many problems with this argument, but the main one is this: guns allow people to ignore reason. This is the problem. If only "reasonable" people had guns, there wouldn't be a problem.
The argument mentions "When I carry a gun, I don�t do it because I am looking for a fight, but because I�m looking to be left alone.". The problem is that this is not true for everyone who carries a gun. Some ARE looking for a fight or, at least, to intimidate other people.
This is not to say that everyone who owns a gun is a bad person. But it is equally wrong to say that no one who owns a gun is.
Gun advocates sometimes argue that there's nothing that can be done about violence, that someone who wants to kill others will find a way to do so. It is true that we can't stop all violence, but that's all the more reason to stop as much as we can.
A ban on guns, alone, will not solve the problem. Even if the government were to pass a law that bans all guns to all citizens, there are still millions of guns out there. And, honestly, if a ban were to be enacted, there would be enough people in America who would feel righteous about running guns illegally that it wouldn't solve the problem. Thus, whatever solution we choose needs to address this.
If I understand it correctly, the Supreme Court ruled that people have the right to own guns, but that the government can regulate them.
When protecting a computer network, there are two strategies one can follow:
- Deny access to everyone, in general, but define exceptions. Most private networks follow this strategy (e.g., no one has access to the network, except employees, etc.).
- Allow access to everyone, in general, but define exceptions. Most websites follow this strategy (everyone can read the website, but only a select few can edit it).
Marijuana falls in the "deny-all" category (Federal law says marijuana is illegal, but the states of Washington and Colorado have legalized it); gun ownership falls in the "allow all" category. It'll be interesting to see how these two issues play out.