skeptipedia.net

RECENT POST

Gun advocacy is a farce

june 18, 2016
Politics

There is something virtuous about a society where high cohesion is at the core. That would mean responsibilities of a given group of people are strongly related. In such society, where any disdain of authorities is absent, man could take on a more civilized life. For instance, if the society was depicted as a coherent system, the delegation of responsibility could ideally be simplified as follows:

  • Military force
    A force that has been authorized to use weapons in order to defend the society and its citizens from foreign attacks

  • Police force
    A force that has been authorized to use weapons in order to maintain civil order in society by protecting the citizens

  • Citizens
    People within the society who engage in civilized affairs.

My contention is that I certainly would find it decivilizing and unpleasant to live in such society where bearing arms as a citizen is the norm.

Reception
The fear mongering over gun control has been going on for a while in America, and quite unjustifiably. The second amendment is indeed a relic from the past. Historically speaking, it was added to the US constitution in 1791 as a result of the revolutionary war where the patriots fought the British and the loyalists who sought to regain control over the colonies.

Today, the prominent concern regarding gun control is not so much about the risk of fighting the British yet again, but rather the illusion of safety and the everlasting assertion that the right to keep and bear arms is necessarily synonymous with freedom. Some gun advocates have literally stated that revoking the second amendment will ultimately lead to despotism. Now, that is a slippery slope fallacy.

Certainly, the term 'freedom' has to be evaluated in this sense. As opposed to somebody's freedom to keep and bear arms, I think a more valid proposition would be the applicable freedom for somebody else's right to live. If you take a look at both the firearm-related death rate over several countries and the international homicide rate, you'll find a quite noteworthy pattern that shows that those countries with a high firearm-related homicide rate more or less correspond to their generel homicide rate, and vice versa. In other words, the degree of availability of guns determines the firearm-related homicide rate and contributes to the general homicide rate.

Sources:
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Gun advocacy with a lack of intellectual honesty
One remarkable and promising video you might come across on YouTube if you just happen to search for "best argument against gun control" is a video entitled "Best 7 minutes on gun control I have ever seen".

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5ELyG9V1SY

In this video, Bill Whittle, an American conservative blogger, talks on behalf of the right to keep and bear arms. He is one of those who suggests this narrow approach to self-defense, which is that self-defense is only guaranteed if you have a gun. Yet, the right to keep and bear arms was never about the right to self-defense. Also, I think a martial artist would disagree with the notion that self-defense is only reserved for those who keep and bear arms.

Whittle attempts to point out a flaw in gun control with an intellectually dishonest analogy. Quote:

"[ .. ] people seem to think that the way you stop the leopard is to cut the horns of the gazelle. [ .. ] When you make it easier for the predators, you get more predators."

The thing is that the gazelle never made its horns, whereas guns is a man made invention. It is simply preposterous to suggest that a gun is an anatomical part of the human body.

If you happen to know the statistics right concerning gun control, you can safely conclude that a gun shot wound is far more likely to kill than any other weapon. Advocating for available guns in society is obviously not a way to enforce a lower homicide rate. Yet, the advocacy groups for guns is filled with lobbyists who serve the gun industry. One of the US' greatest exports is, by and large, guns.

  • http://money.cnn.com/news/cnnmoney-investigates/nra-funding-donors/
  • http://time.com/4161613/us-arms-sales-exports-weapons/

In addition, an American firearms company named PARA USA has stated that they will no longer provide guns for films starring Liam Neeson due to a remark that he made, which was simply a calm assessment concerning the ridiculously high number of firearms per capita in the US today, which, by the way, is the highest in the world. This is pure tokenism!

  • https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/jan/20/firearms-company-para-usa-liam-neeson-gun-control

At the end of the day, it is up for the people to decide whether there should be stricter gun laws. According to Gallup, the number of people who want stricter gun laws is on increase:

  • http://www.gallup.com/poll/186236/americans-desire-stricter-gun-laws-sharply.aspx