A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says:
=================
Absolute numbers are less important than the rate of change for
gun-owning
versus gun-banning societies, something that you deliberately choose to
ignore.
===================
I'm happy to revisit those statistics to examine rates of change. Like
you, I agree that those are valuable and important statistics.
Nonetheless, I think absolute figures do matter. Every one of those
"absolute" numbers represents some mother's child. Let's not speak of
these numbers too lightly.
I donąt disagree in principle. Any death, whether homicide or by accident is
unfortunate and something to be avoided where possible. The important part
is the "where possible." When banning guns actually serves to increase
victimization and injury, it seems imprudent to pursue that course as a
solution to the problem.
The basis of my argument is that whatever the absolute numbers, it is the
RATE of CHANGE in those numbers that determines the effectiveness of gun
banning schemes. The evidence is very clear that where guns are banned, the
RATE of CHANGE of violent crime victimization rises, usually dramatically,
resulting in increases of victimization of "some mother's child." On the
other hand, in the US, the RATE of CHANGE in violent crime victimization
DECREASES substantially in those places where law-abiding citizens are
permitted to keep and bear arms for their personal defense.
More guns = Less crime.
That is a fact. It's an uncontroverted fact. You have never, even once,
attempted to controvert that fact, I suspect because you know full well that
you cannot do so.
That being the case, you are deliberately and dishonestly avoiding admitting
that your gun-banning arguments inevitably result in MORE "mother's
children" being victimized. That puts paid to your entire argument, which
you base on your revulsion of victimization in general, and your dislike for
the costs of liberty posed by ubiquitous firearms ownership.
In short, you would prefer that MORE "mother's children" be harmed by
violent criminals than are harmed by firearms because, illogically, you deem
an injury caused by a firearm to be somehow more socially unacceptable than
an injury inflicted in some other manner by a violent criminal. (Ignoring
for the moment the important fact that the vast majority of firearms
injuries are caused by violent armed criminals...and the fact that where
citizens are permitted to carry concealed firearms, violent armed criminals
are much less likely to victimize anyone.) That seems extremely
narrow-minded to me.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM
© 2005 Scott Weiser
|