GlockFan1954
Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2009
- Messages
- 55
I think we need to focus a lot on how we frame the discussion on gun control.
Before you even worry about whether gun control would actually result in a net benefit to society, whether it's actually possible, whether it would only mean criminals have guns....put all that aside.
When somebody expresses a desire or at least is open to banning all or certain classes of guns, you should immediately ask:
"What about alcohol?"
"What about cigarettes?"
"What about automobiles?"
Alcohol kills about 75k people per year, many in auto accidents but surprisingly many also in falls, etc. And the cost of alcohol doesn't end with accidents - people get violent, beat their wives, lose jobs, commit crimes, etc. all because of alcohol.
Yet nobody is calling for prohibition again.
Ask people why this is. Why do they reflexively freak out about guns, which kill many less people.
Or how about cigarettes? Literally millions of people died from cigarettes in the last decade.
What about automobile accidents? Why aren't there calls to reduce the national speed limit to 45 mph? When we reduced it to 55mph many less people died - it actually worked!
The point of this framing is that it puts guns into perspective. Alcohol and cigarettes serve NO valuable social function, other than base pleasure. Guns at least have a function (hunting, defense), as well as pleasure from sport.
You can grant them, for the sake of argument, that gun control would be both desirable and possible. Putting all that aside, there are much more serious issues we could devote our energy on. Yet very few anti-guns talk about alcohol. We need to start demonstrating the huge and irrational cognitive bias people have against guns....because they are "scary" and "foreign" to their mentality.
The car analogy isn't as good to use because cars are part of everyday life and most people see the function they serve. But alcohol is a great contrast, because it conforms to the bias people have against guns: it serves absolutely no valid function, other than pleasure. And it causes many more deaths.
Before you even worry about whether gun control would actually result in a net benefit to society, whether it's actually possible, whether it would only mean criminals have guns....put all that aside.
When somebody expresses a desire or at least is open to banning all or certain classes of guns, you should immediately ask:
"What about alcohol?"
"What about cigarettes?"
"What about automobiles?"
Alcohol kills about 75k people per year, many in auto accidents but surprisingly many also in falls, etc. And the cost of alcohol doesn't end with accidents - people get violent, beat their wives, lose jobs, commit crimes, etc. all because of alcohol.
Yet nobody is calling for prohibition again.
Ask people why this is. Why do they reflexively freak out about guns, which kill many less people.
Or how about cigarettes? Literally millions of people died from cigarettes in the last decade.
What about automobile accidents? Why aren't there calls to reduce the national speed limit to 45 mph? When we reduced it to 55mph many less people died - it actually worked!
The point of this framing is that it puts guns into perspective. Alcohol and cigarettes serve NO valuable social function, other than base pleasure. Guns at least have a function (hunting, defense), as well as pleasure from sport.
You can grant them, for the sake of argument, that gun control would be both desirable and possible. Putting all that aside, there are much more serious issues we could devote our energy on. Yet very few anti-guns talk about alcohol. We need to start demonstrating the huge and irrational cognitive bias people have against guns....because they are "scary" and "foreign" to their mentality.
The car analogy isn't as good to use because cars are part of everyday life and most people see the function they serve. But alcohol is a great contrast, because it conforms to the bias people have against guns: it serves absolutely no valid function, other than pleasure. And it causes many more deaths.