Guns2.
(Reply to the comment under the previous post because of the character limit in the comments section).
Actually I am vegetarian (close to vegan in terms of diet) and do support veganism since long ago.
I wouldn't be against using firearms in the wilderness as self-defense against non-human animals (which is different than hunting), as long as their habitat isn't massively invaded and there isn't any alternative, but this has little to do with such context. We already live in a civilized one among other individuals of our species who are able to internalize (at least) basic moral principles... Unlike non-human animals, which are amoral (not moral/immoral), despite relative similarities in some brain parts, mostly associated with basic functions and the emotional reactions.
In our context a collective trust and cooperation already exist to a considerable degree after thousands of years of social transformation (which obviously still goes on).
Actually I am vegetarian (close to vegan in terms of diet) and do support veganism since long ago.
I wouldn't be against using firearms in the wilderness as self-defense against non-human animals (which is different than hunting), as long as their habitat isn't massively invaded and there isn't any alternative, but this has little to do with such context. We already live in a civilized one among other individuals of our species who are able to internalize (at least) basic moral principles... Unlike non-human animals, which are amoral (not moral/immoral), despite relative similarities in some brain parts, mostly associated with basic functions and the emotional reactions.
In our context a collective trust and cooperation already exist to a considerable degree after thousands of years of social transformation (which obviously still goes on).
When you walk on the street, do you have a gun constantly aiming at each driver, just in case he decides to smash you? No, you know it's very unlikely because 99 % of the drivers have passed the corresponding training and exams, and know the benefits of living in a peaceful and efficient society. Actually, the same could be said about any other person walking on the street, since they are animals as well, ergo potential danger by your reasoning. But we trust each other (to different degrees, but we do).
Of course I don't consider cars ideal, especially regarding the speeds some of them can reach, being completely disproportional with the safety from devices like air-bags, seat-belts, etc.; contamination overall, and obviously contribution to climate change; noise; overuse, etc.
I don't use a car myself, even though I perfectly could afford and drive one (I have licence). But for many people it's currently impossible to use the S-Bahn like me in Germany, and the distances are obviously way too much to walk/run every day, or even to ride a bike. In this sense, to keep the same levels of efficiency: yes, I do consider cars necessary. Not for absolutely everyone, that's for sure; but as an option for people who can't use other types of transport.
This doesn't imply conformism or indulgence. I do want alternatives and what not, but evolution (technological and societal) takes time. And there are already many measures to reduce the risk of car accidents.
On the other hand, guns have the main function to harm, mostly in a drastic way. It's not a mere side-effect. And on top of this we talk about much more unpredictable situations.
In the perfect scenario, yes. A gun would save you without harming anybody: the intruder comes, you point at him a gun, and he either leaves, or you both wait until the police comes and he is sent to prison. Nice.
Yet it's only one of the possible outcomes. There are other scenarios where it goes wrong. Let's forget the systematical danger from the inability to have always under control a gun in non dangerous situations, the increase of accessibility also for people we already consider potentially dangerous (poor education, bad circumstances, mental health, etc.), the fact that the psychological situation of someone can change, yet there aren't periodic psychological controls, etc., etc.
Of course I don't consider cars ideal, especially regarding the speeds some of them can reach, being completely disproportional with the safety from devices like air-bags, seat-belts, etc.; contamination overall, and obviously contribution to climate change; noise; overuse, etc.
I don't use a car myself, even though I perfectly could afford and drive one (I have licence). But for many people it's currently impossible to use the S-Bahn like me in Germany, and the distances are obviously way too much to walk/run every day, or even to ride a bike. In this sense, to keep the same levels of efficiency: yes, I do consider cars necessary. Not for absolutely everyone, that's for sure; but as an option for people who can't use other types of transport.
This doesn't imply conformism or indulgence. I do want alternatives and what not, but evolution (technological and societal) takes time. And there are already many measures to reduce the risk of car accidents.
On the other hand, guns have the main function to harm, mostly in a drastic way. It's not a mere side-effect. And on top of this we talk about much more unpredictable situations.
In the perfect scenario, yes. A gun would save you without harming anybody: the intruder comes, you point at him a gun, and he either leaves, or you both wait until the police comes and he is sent to prison. Nice.
Yet it's only one of the possible outcomes. There are other scenarios where it goes wrong. Let's forget the systematical danger from the inability to have always under control a gun in non dangerous situations, the increase of accessibility also for people we already consider potentially dangerous (poor education, bad circumstances, mental health, etc.), the fact that the psychological situation of someone can change, yet there aren't periodic psychological controls, etc., etc.
Simply consider already immediately dangerous scenarios...
- Intruder comes... He has a gun as well. He didn't want to use it to kill, but only to threaten you to steal a dumb laptop or TV, but he sees you with a gun and shoots. The results in this one is that at least one of you will be injured, and in the worst case the both of you would be killed.
- Intruder comes... He doesn't have a gun, but you do... He didn't want to harm you, but just wanted to steal your laptop and leave. Yet you are too scared because it's the very first time something like this happens to you and can't handle the pressure... Unlike authorities (assuming an efficient learning process), who have passed a more thoughtful training and have the support of more experienced workmates, etc. You would end up shooting someone because of a laptop.
- Intruder comes... He has a gun as well. He didn't want to use it to kill, but only to threaten you to steal a dumb laptop or TV, but he sees you with a gun and shoots. The results in this one is that at least one of you will be injured, and in the worst case the both of you would be killed.
- Intruder comes... He doesn't have a gun, but you do... He didn't want to harm you, but just wanted to steal your laptop and leave. Yet you are too scared because it's the very first time something like this happens to you and can't handle the pressure... Unlike authorities (assuming an efficient learning process), who have passed a more thoughtful training and have the support of more experienced workmates, etc. You would end up shooting someone because of a laptop.
I would be fucking frustrated and probably pissed if someone wanted to steal my PC, but I wouldn't want to shoot even his knee because of it, let alone taking his life because of a mistake. Yes, it's a big one. It's not like stepping on someone's foot unintentionally. But not everyone has had the same education like me and not everyone has enjoyed the same circumstances (mine were far from ideal, but I at least I had a home and plenty of stimuli to develop as a pacific person). Criminals aren't born criminals.
- Aggressor assaults you in the street, you shoot out of reflex, yet there are other people around and you shoot one of them as well... People who didn't have anything to do with the aggressor.
- Intruder suspected that you had a gun, so he proactively enters only when you are out, putting your family in even more danger. Or using a vest and even more dangerous weapons that would be more likely to kill you or your family (again, escalation).
As I said, the perfect case is only one of the many possible outcomes in such a highly unpredictable situation.
Germany and other European countries work relatively well and safer with more gun control (there isn't such demand anyway), and appealing to a potential dictatorship implies that every single person should be armed, just in case, making the actual army and authorities either pointless, or forcing them to be even more prepared/armed (once more, escalation from distrust). As I said, the real cause is related to education and the social-economic circumstances of criminals and potential criminals. Allowing everybody to have a gun only treats symptoms; and not in a good way.
In essence, the probability of someone strictly attacking you to kill in developed countries is low (you would be already smashed by plenty of cars if that was the nature of most individuals in society), while the presence and use of a gun increases the danger in a situational and systematical way.
And before you say it: no, it's not just that people couldn't run/drive away after killing you with a car or knife in the street because of witnesses and the fear to go to jail, making the situation very different compared to robbery (where there can be witnesses anyway). Especially at night in certain areas in Spain where I lived and grew up, I know for sure people could be killing others with cars without any type of punishment if they wanted (after leaving a club, party, whatever). If they do kill someone it's obviously related to alcohol and other factors, not the intention to kill (or kill themselves).
THIS is why I say it's an illusion.
I don't have a problem with people liking guns per se. I like them myself as design. I don't like shooters in general, but I enjoy/enjoyed DOOM Eternal a lot. I would love some day to have fun with paintball or other harmless alternatives. I wouldn't even have a problem if only a certain type of safer guns was used for protection. Meant to leave the target unconscious, and not to harm in a brutal way or even kill, but that's not the case.
And one last comment about authorities... They aren't individuals born in a monarchy or arbitrarily chosen by someone's finger. They are citizens who simply started the process of public examinations to become policemen (or whatever), which are the same for everybody (on paper, and nasty nepotism in some countries aside). Something that you could do as well. Also, I would prefer them to have non deadly weapons too, of course.
- Aggressor assaults you in the street, you shoot out of reflex, yet there are other people around and you shoot one of them as well... People who didn't have anything to do with the aggressor.
- Intruder suspected that you had a gun, so he proactively enters only when you are out, putting your family in even more danger. Or using a vest and even more dangerous weapons that would be more likely to kill you or your family (again, escalation).
As I said, the perfect case is only one of the many possible outcomes in such a highly unpredictable situation.
Germany and other European countries work relatively well and safer with more gun control (there isn't such demand anyway), and appealing to a potential dictatorship implies that every single person should be armed, just in case, making the actual army and authorities either pointless, or forcing them to be even more prepared/armed (once more, escalation from distrust). As I said, the real cause is related to education and the social-economic circumstances of criminals and potential criminals. Allowing everybody to have a gun only treats symptoms; and not in a good way.
In essence, the probability of someone strictly attacking you to kill in developed countries is low (you would be already smashed by plenty of cars if that was the nature of most individuals in society), while the presence and use of a gun increases the danger in a situational and systematical way.
And before you say it: no, it's not just that people couldn't run/drive away after killing you with a car or knife in the street because of witnesses and the fear to go to jail, making the situation very different compared to robbery (where there can be witnesses anyway). Especially at night in certain areas in Spain where I lived and grew up, I know for sure people could be killing others with cars without any type of punishment if they wanted (after leaving a club, party, whatever). If they do kill someone it's obviously related to alcohol and other factors, not the intention to kill (or kill themselves).
THIS is why I say it's an illusion.
I don't have a problem with people liking guns per se. I like them myself as design. I don't like shooters in general, but I enjoy/enjoyed DOOM Eternal a lot. I would love some day to have fun with paintball or other harmless alternatives. I wouldn't even have a problem if only a certain type of safer guns was used for protection. Meant to leave the target unconscious, and not to harm in a brutal way or even kill, but that's not the case.
And one last comment about authorities... They aren't individuals born in a monarchy or arbitrarily chosen by someone's finger. They are citizens who simply started the process of public examinations to become policemen (or whatever), which are the same for everybody (on paper, and nasty nepotism in some countries aside). Something that you could do as well. Also, I would prefer them to have non deadly weapons too, of course.
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario