Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control

I would like to respond to RAZD's comment in the Peanut Gallery. The question isn't why they should have guns, but why the guns should be taken away.Should they be taken away for safety reasons? Because more people die from them than are protected by them?Try this:I have yet to see a rational reason to have alcoholic drinks presented. Alcoholic drinks kill a lot more people than guns, and they have absolutely no real value. If you want guns outlawed for this reason, will you also agree that alcohol should be outlawed?If you do not think alcohol should be outlawed... why? Because people are generally responsible with it, and that it isn't so bad when people are responsible with it?Well, people are generally responsible with guns, too, but you have already argued that that's not good enough to let them keep guns, so there's a contradiction there.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, RAZD. This is like a creationist demanding that an evolutionist support evolution: the right to bear arms is currently the standard position, therefore the onus is on you, the one who wants to change the status quo.But, no matter.Guns can be used for hunting, and for protecting oneself from wild animals (I've spent my time in the wild, and there have been situations in which I dearly wished that I owned/carried a gun).----- It is also why we have laws about who can carry a gun and where: to control irresponsible behavior. (As a side note: I am not a big fan of concealed weapons permits, so I'm not going to push that aspect on you very hard).When it comes to alcohol, you say the proper course of action is to control irresponsible behavior.
But, when it comes to guns, this isn't good enough for you: you have to take a complete prohibition stance.Why the difference?Cognitive dissonance, indeed.----- Curiously, I find it responsible to not drink alcohol, as there is no reason that I can see for drinking it.Are we just going to spout cross-testimonies all day?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Theodoric. Since everybody around here feels the urge to spout their qualifications...I am a city body.
I have never owned a gun.
Aside from a few merit badges in Boy Scouts, and a couple skeet-shoots with my uncle and father, I have never had any interest in having, carrying or using a gun.
I am not pro-gun control.Who cares?----- Did you read RAZD's comment at the Peanut Gallery?That comment was specifically about whether or not people should have guns.Coyote's comment was a response to that, not to gun-registration laws. If your issue is really about people arguing reality, why weren't your comments directed at the first person who started talking about non-reality, rather than to the first person you disagree with?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Onifre. A universal approach to law-making is a logical, efficient way to govern. However, the problem with that is that that the danger of an object or situation is highly dependent on context.Drinking alcohol is not necessarily a dangerous thing. But, drinking alcohol and driving is a dangerous thing.Likewise, owning a gun in one place may not be as dangerous as owning a gun in another place. If Wikipedia and its sources are to be believed, Coyote is correct that guns are not as dangerous in rural areas as in urban areas:

quote:

---

In the United States, cities tend to have higher gun crime rates but lower rates of gun ownership, compared with rural areas which tend to have lower gun crime rates but higher rates of gun ownership.[26] Some areas have widespread gun ownership with low rates of homicide. In 2005, Wyoming had the highest number of homes with loaded and unlocked guns in the United States, at 33% of all homes in the state,[27] and had a homicide rate of 1.7 of every 100,000.[28]

---

If this is true, don't context-specific laws like Coyote wants make sense?Edited by Bluejay, : Added reference.Edited by Bluejay, : You only us "an" when the next word starts with a vowel.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Onifre. Okay, I misunderstood you too.----- If the people are the deciding factor, then shouldn't the people be the targets of the laws, rather than the guns? I think our society would benefit more from teaching people to be responsible about things than from trying to control or keep tabs on what they're doing.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Ned. The military isn't all F-16's and M1 battle tanks: citizen weaponry can be useful in a guerilla warfare against the infantry. Furthermore, battle tanks and fighter jets are of limited use against small, mobile bands in the forests of West Virginia.At any rate, a shotgun is infinitely more effective than a kitchen knife.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Onifre. Being 21 is apparently enough assurance that someone is responsible with alcohol. Yet, thousands of deaths are caused by alcohol each year.Isn't this a good reason to apply to alcohol the exact same certifications that you want for guns?Why should the two be treated differently?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, RAZD. It's the principle of "innocent until proven guilty": it's not fair of you to demand that the pro-gun crowd prove that their law is "innocent," as it were... this is common practice in debates.----- In my 27 years, neither have I.But, it's not outside the realm of possibility that a situation may arise in the near future in which the ability to hunt would be a major asset. Emergency preparedness is a responsible and rational thing in my mind.----- Okay, so what is your point in asking why we should have guns, if not to argue that we shouldn't have them?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Onifre. Oh, I didn't provide my reference. Sorry.I was using these estimated statistics (Table 2, Page 3), which I found through this Wikipedia article. Basically, in 2000, 85,000 deaths were caused by alcohol, and 43,000 were caused by motor vehicle collisions.According to the article, about 17,000 deaths were alcohol-related crashes, leaving about 68,000 alcohol-related deaths that did not involve car wrecks, at least half of which are health issues.Firearms, in contrast, caused 29,000 deaths. According to the Wikipedia article, 16,000 of these were suicides; 10,000 were homicides, and about 800 were accidents.----- Let me provide an arguably much more realistic hypothetical scenario:Let's say your wife and children get killed in a car accident caused by a man who ran a red light. Which do you think would have helped you more: a background check before you get a driver's license, or a car control law that says, "no cars on this road"?Banning is always going to be more effective at avoiding the unwanted results than is licensing. So, shouldn't we advocate bans in all hypothetical scenarios like this?Is there any safety issue for which we couldn't produce an identical hypothetical scenario?----- Maybe I'd better back up a little bit. I'm not against gun licenses or registrations: I joined this debate because RAZD's comments strongly indicate that he thinks we shouldn't have guns.It appears that I may have judged him incorrectly, though, so I'll wait for him to respond to my last post before I keep pushing this.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Theodoric. No he didn't: he said city folks and busybodies should worry their pretty little heads about their own gun control, and not try to apply their laws in "the hills": Message 137----- Yes, you've said this before.Now back it up with something. I have already produced an argument against this claim of yours (Message 7), which has not been picked up seriously by anybody yet. You're welcome to be the first.Edited by Bluejay, : I didn't qs-box Coyote's quote

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.