OT: Americans love their guns

[Bengt Richter]

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 07:43:06 -0000, Steve Lamb <grey at despair.dmiyu.org> wrote:

>On 2003-08-28, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters <mertz at gnosis.cx> wrote:
>> As for homicide, well, you're far more likely to be either a victim or a
>> killer.  If you are armed, it is quite possible that an angry loved one
>> would have access to that gun.... and no doubt regret shooting you after
>> his/her anger cooled.  And should you be mugged on the street by a
>> stranger, your chance of walking away dead (rather than just with less
>> money), are MANY times higher if you pull a gun on your assailant.
>
>    If guns were such a overriding factor why is it the UK has as high
>if not higher rate of gun related violence than the US?  For that matter
I am highly skeptical of this, and wonder where you got your "info." ;-)

>why is it in several other European nations (Netherlands and Switzerland
>IIRC) where there is a legal requirement for all males over a certain
>age to be armed (standing militia) that there is so little gun related
>violence?
>
>    When are people going to learn, it ain't the guns, its the education
>and attitude surrounding them.  It isn't guns that are the problem, it's
>ignorance of guns thats the problem.
Well, when someone "loses it" and ignorantly mistakes you for the devil, what
would you rather see in their hand, a cocked "45" or a banana?

If your best friend "loses it" in a spiral of despondency over a mistaken (or not) diagnosis
of some kind, what would you rather know is in the drawer of their nightstand,
a loaded "45" or a book?

You seem to be hoping that education and attitude (which you don't mention a way of
improving, enforcing, or QA-ing) will prevent all the temporary quasi-insanities that
normally reasonable humans are capable of.

(Sheesh, look at the violence-trolling in the middle east.  Not everyone is equally
capable of self-restraint, nor does culture/education/experience equally promote it.
(They seem to be having a "losing it" chain reaction meltdown over there, exacerbated
by antagonist leaders who have apparently "lost it" w.r.t. each other).)

IMO the problem should be approached in terms of risk management, and risks are not either/or.

There are risks in owning and operating cars. The risks vary according to operator and location etc.
We require licensing and insurance -- which does not control all outcomes, but does modify
probabilities of owner ship and behavior, and does mitigate some effects on surviving kin
(and financial institutions holding car loans).

There are risks in owning and operating firearms. The risks vary according to operator and location etc.
We don't require licensing and insurance -- which would not control all outcomes, but which would modify
probabilities of owner ship and behavior, and would mitigate some effects on surviving kin
(and financial institutions holding car loans etc for the deceased).

Wonder why the difference.

It says, "must wear corrective lenses" on many drivers' licenses. Should not something similar
apply to shooting within range of at least any other human (and is knowing that range less important
than knowing how far high beams carry? Why not test knowledge of both for respective licensings?)

OTOH, my grandfather was a deadeye shot, and there's a bunch of silver stuff somewhere
to prove it ;-)

Regards,
Bengt Richter