> Guns have no useful purpose. The fact that pools are more dangerous doesn't justify owning a gun, so there is no "cognitive dissonance" here.
What is the useful purpose of a swimming pool exactly? Are you proposing that they are a meaningful part of our society? Is this "use" so valuable that it clearly outweighs the deaths it causes? You seem to in your own comment think the bicycle provides the same benefit, so why keep pools if we have such a great alternative? No one swims a gun, but no one swims to work either. At least there are people actually dependent on bikes because they can't afford cars.
> We can't eliminate all the risk.
> We can eliminate unnecessary risk (like guns).
So you think pools qualify as a necessary risk then?
Is it at all possible that you may just personally see no use in guns while appreciating the recreational value of a pool despite its risks, while at the exact same time a gun owner may see no use in pools while appreciating the recreational value of guns? You can't swim (useless activity) in a gun. You also can't fire a pool.
I can actually perfectly understand the argument "well, both guns and pools should be outlawed then". I really have a hard time shrugging off pool deaths because they are such a clearly useful thing that is a necessary risk for society though (however that argument works much better for car deaths vs. gun deaths).
Edit: Below I was just commenting on understanding your audience and thus not making arguments that won't resonate with them. There is an entire culture around gun ownership. There are some people that go shooting every day, and it really hurts your position to tell them that that part of their life is not a valid "use". It is actually quite similar to football in some respects. At some point in this country we may have to discuss the very real health issues associated with it, and a part of the framing of that argument should probably not belittle the attachment people have to something that is in fact quite useless (as any and all recreations are to the people that don't practice them).
Now this is actually a cogent and reasonable argument. I do think there is a strong argument for the fact that guns are part of American culture, or at least a large enough proportion of the American population to count in that respect. Hunting, recreation, these are perfectly legitimate and reasonable arguments to allow gun ownership.
The problem is that the 'gun lobby' doesn't stop there. They insist that guns make you safer, when the actual evidence couldn't be clearer that they don't. They perpetuate myths such as that an armed society is a polite society, when in fact access to firearms dramatically increases the risk that a confrontation will escalate to lethal violence.
American society is saturated with guns. Those weapons aren't going to go away any time soon. So the IMHO the rational response is to look at what is achievable. Educating gun owners as to the real risks, promoting gun safety, encouraging and legislating for safe practices around gun ownership, storage and use. These are all achievable goals.
Do not quote "actual evidence" without citing sources. One need only look at the murder rate in Chicago to see that incredibly strict gun laws do not by definition make a population safer. I'm sure you could find a rural area with an above-average per capita murder rate than other rural areas too.
It's almost as if the mere act of owning a firearm has little bearing on one's overall safety.
Chicago's problem is that their guns laws only affect the city itself. If a criminal wants a gun he need only drive out of Chicago, buy the gun, and drive back home. In fact, a recent article (don't have the link on hand, sorry) pointed out that a large percentage of guns used in crimes in Chicago were bought from a single store just outside the city limits.
The point is that cities don't have monitored borders, and so they have a hard time regulating the influx of guns. A country-wide ban would actually stand a chance of working.
> In fact, a recent article (don't have the link on hand, sorry) pointed out that a large percentage of guns used in crimes in Chicago were bought from a single store just outside the city limits.
I haven't heard this but it certainly sounds plausible.
To me, it says one of a few things are happening: (A) The people buying the guns are not criminals at the time of purchase, and shouldn't be prohibited from buying them in the first. Whether they go on to commit a crime with the gun or the gun is stolen and then used in a crime is mostly irrelevant; (B) The people buying the guns are criminals at the time of purchase, and the NICS check didn't alert the owner properly. This would be more a failure of the FBI than anyone else; (C) Least likely, the people buying the guns are criminals at the time of purchase and the owner of the shop knew this and either did not perform the NICS check or performed it with fraudulent data.
I should also point out that since it's illegal to purchase a gun in Chicago it's not at all surprising that guns in Chicago happen to come from gun shops immediately outside the city borders.
Do you still stand by your claim about stricter gun laws not making people safer though? Clearly the gun laws in Chicago are irrelevant to the point. This is the problem with so many arguments we see from the gun lobby, they technically can claim to have some highly legalistic version of the truth, but with little bearing on actual reality. This does not need to be the case.
I do believe a large majority of Americans would be fine with high gun ownership levels, if only there was a safe, healthy, well informed and responsible gun ownership culture to go with it. Many gun owners do meet that description, but far too many don't and any attempts to rectify that or even provide evidence based advice are blocked at every turn.
Let's remember this is in context of owning guns and having children.
Children like to swim in pools. Children like to ride bicycles. I sure hope even the most enthusiastic gun owner doesn't give guns to children to play with.
I don't have to justify the usefulness of pools or bicycles. The kids like them, it's a fact.
As a society we tolerate the risk of those things. Is it rational? Should we? I don't care - we just do and that's a fact.
You can take away a risk associated with a pool or bicycle but only by taking away the fun that children have swimming in pools or riding a bicycle.
It's true that some parents enjoy the things you can do with a gun. It's also true that having a gun in the house is additional, sometimes tragic, risk with no benefit to children.
First, as a parent you're supposed to put the benefit of your child over the little joys in your life, like squeezing a trigger of a 44 Magnum or getting enough sleep.
Second, you can enjoy most of the benefits of having a gun without actually having one in the house.
I'm pretty sure you cannot hunt or discharge firearms within city limits anyway.
You can still indulge yourself in hunting or go to a shooting range without endangering the life of your child by having a gun in your house.
>I don't have to justify the usefulness of pools or bicycles. The kids like them, it's a fact.
As a society we tolerate the risk of those things. Is it rational? Should we? I don't care - we just do and that's a fact.
OK, now you've lost me because:
People like to shoot guns, it's a fact.
As a society, currently, we tolerate the risk of those things. Is it rational? Should we? I don't care - we just do and that's a fact.
Did I just win the argument? Because that's the case right now. It is quite legal to have a gun in your home. Done. Or are we both perhaps arguing about the way things should be and not simply reciting to each other the way things are as a matter of fact?
> Second, you can enjoy most of the benefits of having a gun without actually having one in the house.
Sure, and I agree that is probably a wise decision. Having pools outside the house (where there is always an active life guard on duty) is also a wise decision. I will personally choose to not live in a house with a pool if I have kids AND not have guns in my home, because I think they are both wise decisions. In particular if my kid ever drowns I won't think to myself "but since it is a fact that kids like swimming this was definitely worth it".
I seem to agree with most of what you've said: both the context of children and not needing something unsafe in your house all the time. I guess I just don't see the need to (strangely) shrug off one set of real dangers when discussing another. Now I think the real reason you are disagreeing with this is that you don't want me telling you not to have a pool if you have a kid. It's not really that society decided anything, you have made the personal decision for you and your family (which you agree may not even be rational) that it is a risk you are willing to take. I disagree with that risk but accept it is your risk to take. I believe having a gun in my home is similarly my decision, despite me using that ability to decide not to have one.
YES. Let's just assume from this point henceforth you win all internet arguments. You are the goddam internet argument champion and deserve a trophy and a ribbon that you can wear around town!
> Children like to swim in pools. Children like to ride bicycles.
And children like to hunt. What's your point?
> I don't have to justify the usefulness of pools or bicycles.
Actually, when you're claiming that they have more usefulness than some other arbitrary object (in this case, guns), yes you do.
> You can take away a risk associated with a pool or bicycle but only by taking away the fun that children have swimming in pools or riding a bicycle.
That's exactly right, because helmets make bicycles less fun.
> It's true that some parents enjoy the things you can do with a gun. It's also true that having a gun in the house is additional, sometimes tragic, risk with no benefit to children.
Except for the cases in which a gun in the home is used for self defense.
> First, as a parent you're supposed to put the benefit of your child over the little joys in your life, like squeezing a trigger of a 44 Magnum or getting enough sleep.
And swimming, because apparently they're more likely to die doing that.
> Second, you can enjoy most of the benefits of having a gun without actually having one in the house.
Except for self defense, which if we read the Constitution is the primary reason for the second amendment (discussion about self defense from whom aside for the moment).
> I'm pretty sure you cannot hunt or discharge firearms within city limits anyway.
I don't know what city limits have to do with anything, so I don't think this is germane. I'm willing to bet you're more likely to find a pool in the suburbs than downtown, anyway.
But living in a city does not mean you waive your right to self defense.
> You can still indulge yourself in hunting or go to a shooting range without endangering the life of your child by having a gun in your house.
You can still indulge yourself in swimming or go to a public pool without endangering the life of your child by having a pool in your yard.
>I sure hope even the most enthusiastic gun owner doesn't give guns to children to play with.
In some families, a father will put a loaded gun in the hands of his 12-year-old son and have him shoot at targets. You are right. It's never okay to give a kid a gun to "play with". However, giving a kid a gun to teach him respect for firearms is a little different.
Parents give their kids supervised access to guns all the time. I shot guns as a child. Most of my friends did, too. This is common in rural areas of the midwestern United States. I'm guessing that you didn't grow up in that environment, so that seems odd to you, but it's normal for millions of people.
What is the useful purpose of a swimming pool exactly? Are you proposing that they are a meaningful part of our society? Is this "use" so valuable that it clearly outweighs the deaths it causes? You seem to in your own comment think the bicycle provides the same benefit, so why keep pools if we have such a great alternative? No one swims a gun, but no one swims to work either. At least there are people actually dependent on bikes because they can't afford cars.
> We can't eliminate all the risk. > We can eliminate unnecessary risk (like guns).
So you think pools qualify as a necessary risk then?
Is it at all possible that you may just personally see no use in guns while appreciating the recreational value of a pool despite its risks, while at the exact same time a gun owner may see no use in pools while appreciating the recreational value of guns? You can't swim (useless activity) in a gun. You also can't fire a pool.
I can actually perfectly understand the argument "well, both guns and pools should be outlawed then". I really have a hard time shrugging off pool deaths because they are such a clearly useful thing that is a necessary risk for society though (however that argument works much better for car deaths vs. gun deaths).
Edit: Below I was just commenting on understanding your audience and thus not making arguments that won't resonate with them. There is an entire culture around gun ownership. There are some people that go shooting every day, and it really hurts your position to tell them that that part of their life is not a valid "use". It is actually quite similar to football in some respects. At some point in this country we may have to discuss the very real health issues associated with it, and a part of the framing of that argument should probably not belittle the attachment people have to something that is in fact quite useless (as any and all recreations are to the people that don't practice them).