I admit I deleted the old messages and so was responding on memory, which seems to have served me poorly in this instance. So I apologize for that.
But I still don't understand the point of asking me to buy a gun to see if my attitude changes. Even as you describe the exchange in your last message, I don't see why my opinions need to be discounted because of a lack of experience, at least on this issue.
So, I claimed:
> People are more tightly packed and come in contact with each
> other constantly. There are plenty of frustrations to deal
> with on a daily basis (traffic jams, lines at the supermarket,
> job related stuff, whatever). Plus any crazies can kill that
> many more people if they snap.
And you countered with:
>>It seemed to me that you were claiming that if there were so
>>many more guns we'd see lots more carnage for silly things like traffic
>>altercations.
>>
>>I suggested you buy a gun to see if you underwent the transformation
>>that you seem to think 60M US-ers have gone through, into hot-tempered
>>irrational shoot-first-ask-questions-later lunatics.
But this is not my argument at all. I'm not saying guns transform people. What I was trying to say is that guns make it easy to cause enormous damage when people are at their worst. You ridicule me with visions of shooting sprees after traffic altercations, but there have been shootings triggered by exactly these small things. In situations where tempers rise, a gun can turn an unpleasant experience into a deadly one. The gun is merely a device which makes killing quick and easy and impersonal in a way that a billy club just can't match.
I understand your point about the great majority of people who use guns responsibly. But:
1) I don't find the "brake on gov't authority" argument compelling
2) I don't find the "personal defense" argument compelling
3) I'm not even suggesting people shouldn't be allowed to have guns, but I AM suggesting they should be more heavily regulated. Perhaps people should not be allowed to carry guns within the city limits. Maybe guns must be kept at shooting ranges and the like, for example.
I look at it this way - there is a spectrum of weaponry from practically harmless to super destructive. The range might look like this:
pea shooter...knife...gun...tank...nuke...death star
The question is, what should people be allowed to have? Ultimately I agree with Barkley re: a weapon free society, but if we restrict the discussion to the present situation, then we are forced to decide where to draw the line.
To me guns fall into the category of too destructive for non-regulated use by the public. All the arguments you could use for guns apply to more powerful weaponry (like grenades or machine guns or tanks). They could act as a counterweight to gov't repression, they could enhance personal safety, etc.
The argument against is that if someone goes crazy with a tank, or a few grenades, or an Uzi, they can do some serious damage before being taken out. Most people think at some point weaponry gets too destructive for general public availability. I draw the line at guns.
>Anyway:
>
> I decided there was no way I'd ever buy a gun for myself, at
> least not for defense. Perhaps after a good training course
> I'd feel differently, but I was a _LOUSY_ shot.
>
>Shooting sports are just like any other sports: patience and attention
>will give a passable capability to just about anyone who doesn't have a
>predisposition to failure. You probably needed training wheels as a
>kid, too. On the other hand, I know plenty of Swiss who, despite their
>years of quazi-militia military training still couldn't hit the water
>falling out of a boat.
>
>If you ever change your mind, maybe as an added incentive you could
>ask Kelley for a lesson! :)
I'm sure you're correct - still, I was surprised to discover just how much more at risk I'd be in a dangerous situation if you put a gun into my hand.
And this is what gun control means, regulation of guns and their use (as opposed to banning them outright) instead of unrestricted access.
Brett