WereKitten said:
That's exactly how it worked out with alcohol vs drugs such as marjuana in many western countries, isnt't it? It's not my position, but it's what happened historically. Please note that I'm not advocating anything: I'm stating that human law is born out of pragmatic choices a community makes about itself and its evolution, not just petitions of principles. Matter of fact. On several issues I find myself in the minority most of the times, but that's not the point. We can disagree on how much regulation is needed for guns in a modern western society, but at least we'd be arguing about risks and statistics and licenses and corner cases, not about an abstract, naked right. And I claimed that this is what law is about: the wooly layers of interpretation and muddling that come between aseptic abstract individual rights and their realization in a given situation with many people involved. |
Where I come from, pragmatism is supposed to be logical... additionally things are supposed to be put in the way to prevent tyranny of the majority.
The fact that we've had failings to prevent tyranny of the majority is just that. Failings of the current system.
As for argueing about regulation in the modern society based on statistics and risks.
Good luck with that.
There are really only two major studies on the matter that are relevent.
One that shows owning guns increases acts of violence. Only counting it as preventing an act of violence if you were shot or hit first. As in, punched or hit with a bullet.
And one that shows owning a gun decreases acts of violence. Counting everything including people feeling threatened.
Both are impercise. Me, I tend to go with the second study... because it seems a lot less impercise and silly. Which is more likely. Stopping someone approaching who's pulling a knife on you... or someone pulling a gun on an innocnet stranger?
Outside that, correlations between gun ownership and violent crime is inconclusive...
While the increase in gun deaths in countries with more guns seems to be almost exclusivly due to suicide. There doesn't appear to be any increase in "pro-active" violence. Probably because the people robbing you know if you have a gun or not... and if you do... they don't rob you! The vast majority of home invasions and robberies are conducting by people who know you... and most likely you won't even be home when it happens. Unless someone is trying to kill or rape you. In which case... you are screwed unless you have a gun anyway.
Which is like the one negative you can point to of gun ownership. If you get depressed and try and kill yourself and use your gun, you are slightly more likely to succeed.
Within the US, stricter gun control laws and less legal gun ownership tend to have higher crimerates and higher violent crime rates. Though those may just be the more irresponsible parts of the country.
It's actually kinda funny. A lot of states with less gun laws have, have higher gun deaths, but actually have lower deaths via actual shootings.
