Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof
Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2015 5:57 pm
Ok.
Apparently I though I had posted a reply and for some reason, it didn't show up.
So, before commenting on what people have said here, let's look at two funny "infographics" and see the stories they tell.
First one.
Looks typically over dramatic with a complete anti-gun bent. Not in the content, for the vast majority of it is neutral and doesn't say anything useful for either sides, but in the context and how it's delivered. As once can observe, the colour theme largely belongs to the realms of threat and danger. They're not happy colours at all. Plus one big wtf statistic about abused women is dumped into it, given a large piece of screen estate. We're not given any more information about that, like how this exactly relates to gun control laws for example, state by state. The gun-related numbers simply state the obvious, that where there are more guns, homicides tend to be more likely caused by guns. Duh.
The document also throws in numbers about suicides by gun shots, which is just plain irrelevant. Just as much as non-lethal wounds.
More than anything, it completely evades the question of who gets shot really, and by whom. In other terms, the question of self defense and crime-deterring acts is completely left aside.
The damned thing isn't even sourced save for one general link.
And now, the second one.
This one paints an entirely different picture, doesn't it?
For one, it's 100% relevant to the topic and doesn't try to use blatant red herrings painted in a negative way to dishonestly tilt the overall question towards an anti-gun position. It doesn't even use a rather emotionally-driven colour set, contrary to the first one.
It is simply far more honest. And actually well source too.
Overall, what remains to be understood is that no matter how much you want to control guns, antisocial outlaws won't care that much. Meaning that anyone decent, honest and aiming at a fair and respectful life yet accepting checks for gun controls will be at a disadvantage. Against criminals just as much as against the police or the army as a matter of fact. It's even worse the stricter the control gets because it doesn't impact the outlwas much but impedes civilian protection, meaning that conscious citizens leaving in a hostile environment would be entitled to ignore the law in order to favour their own protection, thus becoming "positive" outlaws from a moral standpoint, but a plain outlaw from the state's or federation's point of view.
I quite pity the people who react to mass shootings by selling their weapons, sometimes as a sign of protest against the wanton violence. It's absolutely silly and irresponsible. These people were certainly not the ones who'd be shooting innocents. Morons.
You know, there was an episode which plot went along those very same lines in Arrow's 2nd season. In reaction to some acts of violence within the streets, a local charity event was organized in Starling City and all weapons were bought by the Arrow dude under his civilian ID.
You even get some local crime lord black dude who gets driven through that event whilst standing on the back of a pickup alongside henchmen, they all own automatic rifles and start shooting but nevermind! Keep selling those precious guns because it's a well known fact that criminals only care about fair play.
That's the same season wherein the "green" hero lost his balls, stopped killing bad guys and got the Batman treatment.
Apparently I though I had posted a reply and for some reason, it didn't show up.
So, before commenting on what people have said here, let's look at two funny "infographics" and see the stories they tell.
First one.
Looks typically over dramatic with a complete anti-gun bent. Not in the content, for the vast majority of it is neutral and doesn't say anything useful for either sides, but in the context and how it's delivered. As once can observe, the colour theme largely belongs to the realms of threat and danger. They're not happy colours at all. Plus one big wtf statistic about abused women is dumped into it, given a large piece of screen estate. We're not given any more information about that, like how this exactly relates to gun control laws for example, state by state. The gun-related numbers simply state the obvious, that where there are more guns, homicides tend to be more likely caused by guns. Duh.
The document also throws in numbers about suicides by gun shots, which is just plain irrelevant. Just as much as non-lethal wounds.
More than anything, it completely evades the question of who gets shot really, and by whom. In other terms, the question of self defense and crime-deterring acts is completely left aside.
The damned thing isn't even sourced save for one general link.
And now, the second one.
This one paints an entirely different picture, doesn't it?
For one, it's 100% relevant to the topic and doesn't try to use blatant red herrings painted in a negative way to dishonestly tilt the overall question towards an anti-gun position. It doesn't even use a rather emotionally-driven colour set, contrary to the first one.
It is simply far more honest. And actually well source too.
Overall, what remains to be understood is that no matter how much you want to control guns, antisocial outlaws won't care that much. Meaning that anyone decent, honest and aiming at a fair and respectful life yet accepting checks for gun controls will be at a disadvantage. Against criminals just as much as against the police or the army as a matter of fact. It's even worse the stricter the control gets because it doesn't impact the outlwas much but impedes civilian protection, meaning that conscious citizens leaving in a hostile environment would be entitled to ignore the law in order to favour their own protection, thus becoming "positive" outlaws from a moral standpoint, but a plain outlaw from the state's or federation's point of view.
I quite pity the people who react to mass shootings by selling their weapons, sometimes as a sign of protest against the wanton violence. It's absolutely silly and irresponsible. These people were certainly not the ones who'd be shooting innocents. Morons.
You know, there was an episode which plot went along those very same lines in Arrow's 2nd season. In reaction to some acts of violence within the streets, a local charity event was organized in Starling City and all weapons were bought by the Arrow dude under his civilian ID.
You even get some local crime lord black dude who gets driven through that event whilst standing on the back of a pickup alongside henchmen, they all own automatic rifles and start shooting but nevermind! Keep selling those precious guns because it's a well known fact that criminals only care about fair play.
That's the same season wherein the "green" hero lost his balls, stopped killing bad guys and got the Batman treatment.