From: Steve Tucker (stevet@megsinet.net)
Date: Thu May 27 1999 - 19:12:02 MDT
> Steve Tucker [stevet@megsinet.net] wrote:
> >I think we can safely assume that we all share a desire to see the
> >overall level of violence decrease, whether in the schools or in society at
> >large.
>
> I strongly disagree; if Joe was interested in reducing the level of violence,
> then he would listen to what we have to say, rather than insulting us and
> calling for banning gun ownership when it's been well-proven not to reduce
> violence. If it did, assaults wouldn't be twice as common in Britain as in
> America, for example.
Hmm, perhaps I'm too charitable by nature; I'm still willing to posit that Joe
would like to see the level of violence decrease. In all fairness, Joe seems to
favor gun ownership in general, except for his personal list of classes of people
he wouldn't trust with them (there's a whole other topic here....). Why he feels
the need to hurl insults and profanity is beyond me, however. (Note to the
unsure: doing so does *not* increase the credibility of your statements!)
The interesting thing for me is how, for some people, issues like this become
religious, by which I mean a person will take a conclusion (however arrived at)
and keep it safe from any evidence or reasoning that would tend to discredit it.
This is the solution of the Catholic church officials to Galileo's evidence of
non-Earth-centric planetary motion--refuse to see the evidence and cling to the
conclusion.
Several times evidence and reasoning have been presented here that strongly
suggest that legal concealed carry leads to a safer society. I have yet to see
anyone offer evidence that counters this claim; I can only conclude this is
because they can't. Yet they cling to a view that, according to the only
available evidence, would actually increase the level of violence in society--the
direct opposite of their stated preference. Whenever someone points out that
their recommendations, however well-meaning, will surely result in increased
death and destruction, the reaction typically is to try to silence the evidence
(toasted Galileo?). A modern example is the threats of death and violence
received by Dr. Lott after publishing his findings (made by people supposedly
opposed to violence???). Perhaps someone with a grounding in psychology can
explain the phenomenon; it leaves me puzzled.
> >(1) If there existed a
> >preponderance of evidence showing that violence does in fact _decrease_ when
> >guns are readily available, would the anti-gun forces actually change their
> >stripes?
>
> No. There is, and they don't care. I saw a wonderful TV show a few months
> ago supposedly debating whether handguns should be banned in Britain. On
> the one side were the reasonable, rational gun owners calmly pointing out
> the irrationality of the disarmers' position, then the presenter himself
> stated quite categorically that they didn't care, they wanted to ban guns,
> and ban them they were going to do. Wish I'd taped it, as it was the best
> example of disarmers' utter hysterical irrationality I've ever seen, at
> least before Joe began posting here.
>
> Mark
I'd be interested in seeing that also. My main point here, of course, is that
only a fool would make a serious attempt to persuade someone who has rendered
himself immune to education.
- Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:50 MST