Freedom begets freedom

[bankside]

I agree that the criminal surrenders the right to be treated as a human being.

My contention is that the solution of putting firearms in everyone's hands is no solution at all. The idea that everyone can "just shoot the criminals" never actually works out in practice.

It has as economists say "negative externalities," and it is the experience of many sensible rational people that it isn't worth the hassle. Indeed a generally-armed population usually leads to escalation of conflict and more opportunities for non-human interactions amongst the population, not less. We need to find a better way of dealing with these non-human criminals, because everyone running around with guns is such a poor way of dealing with it.

It is the medical equivalent of blood-letting at the medieval barber shop.

 

[Kulindahr]

I agree that the criminal surrenders the right to be treated as a human being.

My contention is that the solution of putting firearms in everyone's hands is no solution at all. The idea that everyone can "just shoot the criminals" never actually works out in practice.

It has as economists say "negative externalities," and it is the experience of many sensible rational people that it isn't worth the hassle. Indeed a generally-armed population usually leads to escalation of conflict and more opportunities for non-human interactions amongst the population, not less. We need to find a better way of dealing with these non-human criminals, because everyone running around with guns is such a poor way of dealing with it.

It is the medical equivalent of blood-letting at the medieval barber shop.

The number of guns, and of guns per capita, has been rising in the U.S. for many years. During the most recent part of that, crime of all sorts has been dropping. Also during the most recent part, more people are carrying firearms daily everywhere they go than ever before.

So the trends don't match the worry you state.

Indeed, a generally not-armed populace leads to the strong preying on the weak -- that's a serious negative observed all through history.

Yes, it has "negative externalities". But it's the only course that respects human dignity by letting citizens protect themselves instead of being fair game.

 

[bankside]

The number of guns, and of guns per capita, has been rising in the U.S. for many years. During the most recent part of that, crime of all sorts has been dropping. Also during the most recent part, more people are carrying firearms daily everywhere they go than ever before.

So the trends don't match the worry you state.

Indeed, a generally not-armed populace leads to the strong preying on the weak -- that's a serious negative observed all through history.

Yes, it has "negative externalities". But it's the only course that respects human dignity by letting citizens protect themselves instead of being fair game.

Compare your stats against those of other countries with static gun ownership, and against other variables. Crime is a demographic phenomenon, not a gun-owernship phenomenon.

 

[Kulindahr]

Compare your stats against those of other countries with static gun ownership, and against other variables. Crime is a demographic phenomenon, not a gun-owernship phenomenon.

But you linked it to gun ownership above -- that's what I was responding to.

 

[Kulindahr]

R.I.P. Trayvon Martin.

I don't understand how this could possibly be covered by either law. The killer tracked the kid, deliberately confronted him, probably aggressively.

"Stand Your Ground" doesn't mean "stalk and slay". The guy's a murderer.