elohiym said:
Not necessarily. Guns are owned for self-defense but also for national defense (think "Red Dawn").
We have the biggest and most powerful army on Earth for national-defense. Making the need for a citizen militia virtually zip.
Our military is spread throughout the world and couldn't stop lightly armed thugs (without guns!) in hijacked planes from destroying the World Trade Center complex and damaging the headquarters of the defense system. Thousands died. It remains true that there are powerful nations with formidable armies opposing the U.S.; they have nuclear missiles pointed at U.S. cities; they conduct espionage against U.S. targets; they have the means, if not the plans, to invade the U.S. A well armed citizenry as a deterrent to invasion stands as a valid point, in my opinion.
elohiym said:
Also, as part of its practical and necessary use in agriculture, a gun can be used for self-defense against dangerous animals.
That is true, but almost none of us work in agriculture. So there again, the need for people to have guns is still miniscule.
What are the acceptable needs to have a gun in that miniscule context, in your opinion?
Interestingly, in Douglas county Oregon where the recent school shootings occurred, many of the people work in agriculture. All around Roseburg and throughout the county you can see sheep and cattle grazing, massive vineyards and timber being grown and harvested. The area's economy depends significantly on agriculture.
And anyway, no one is proposing eliminating all public ownership of guns. Only effectively regulating it.
Regardless, the focus on guns seems irrational. I'm skeptical.
elohiym said:
I don't claim the murders are acceptably low, just that there is a misplaced focus that the low numbers don't justify.
I very much doubt that the families of those killed by those unregulated citizens with their guns would agree with you.
Perhaps. The families of those killed by those unregulated citizens with their knives would likely agree with my point.
elohiym said:
An argument can be made that eliminating gun ownership would sacrifice human lives.
Even if it could, no one is suggesting the elimination of gun ownership.
Yet. It's a gradual process. Some of us realize that.
Inventing silly labels like "death culture"
It's an appropriate label for a culture so driven by a fear of death.
... and trying to blame everything on the poor and on ethnic minorities will not only do nothing to minimize gun deaths, but would very likely intensify the problem of gun deaths in the U.S. by it's refusal to even address the problem reasonably and realistically. Not to mention that it's a proposition based on bigotry and a contempt of people rather then on reason and a desire to actually save lives.
I'm not doing that.
Was poster Quetzal just doing that?