Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
Most people who own guns for self-defense are not persuaded by the idea that that such ownership makes it more, rather than less likely, that they or their family will be shot or harmed.
Because its a bullshit argument from the word go.
Statistical averages that don't account for specific circumstances might be an appealing basis for life-decisions to those with (severe) Aspergers, but everyone else makes rational personal decisions based on rational personal circumstances. Some people make decisions to not own firearms because they recognize that someone in their home, or themselves, are incompatible with responsible firearms ownership. This is actually quite common and comendable.
Some people make a half-assed decision to own firearms and ultimately come to personally represent whatever failure-rate is associated with 'statistical gun ownership'- they accidentally shoot themselves, or they commit a rash act of domestic violence, or whatever. Uncommon, but not statistically insignificant. They're real.
Tens of millions of people own firearms responsibly, handle firearms responsibly and have done so for generations and are a threat to no one. The presence of a firearm to such people represents absolute no downside with only potential upside.
This is a distinct argument from the 'civilization level' argument re: allowing widespread gun ownership, but the genie is totally out of the bottle there, 300,000,000+ unregistered firearms in the United States, so you'll find that the people who posit 'change' on the issue never have a workable or even realistic plan and always have to appeal to idealogical abstractions, since the scale of the problem cannot be resolved without first banning guns en masse, and then undertaking the sorts of decisive enforcement actions we would not have the stomach for (and probably wouldn't even be legal).
Guns in the United States have become tantamount to bitching about the weather.
You can't do anything about it.