reply to post by SWCCFAN
Why exactly is it difficult to argue with FBI statistics? Because they see and solve all crimes in full detail, are completely disconnected from
politics, and compulsively tell the truth in full even when it's not in their interest?
Everyone thinks they know exactly how the world works and could easily cut through other people's BS and get good results if only they had the power,
but as many conservatives will tell you we haven't made much progress since we tried and failed to end violence with the ten commandments.
Violence, predation, and death are immutable consequences of life and any conflict between two sides claiming the power to solve the problem is merely
a self-interested exercise in fuzzy accounting.
You can clearly see this in the fact that the homicide rate in Iraq had been depicted on a map in this thread as comparable to that in Canada. Clearly
what counts as a homicide depends on who does the killing and who does the counting.
Have the guns, don't have the guns, have any laws or system of government you want, and the total amount of will being imposed by force will not
change, only the manifestation will.
At the end of the day, neither side has an answer, rather each has chosen a different imperfect strategy for how to make it someone other than them
who is imposed upon.
Why not stop trying to outsmart eachother with different data sets and interpretations thereof as if it was going to bring change on the superficial
legal issue, and just play the hand you've been dealt according to your own strategy without bickering?
Do you not see how absurd it is on both sides that people who swear that legal guns in the hands of lawful citizens are harmless are afraid that legal
guns in the hands of law enforcement will be used against them by order of people who are against all guns?
Here is my admittedly unrealistic comprise proposal, which I maintain makes at least as much sense as the two mainstream views.
Automatic death penalty for owning or using a gun under even the most justified circumstances, but the government can never investigate anyone for it
in any way no matter how justified (but can investigate homicides). Keeping your gun for contingencies is then a wash- roughly equal in its chance to
save or kill you. Using it becomes a big risk, but one preferable to certain death. In a sense both sides get what they want when they want it most-
the ugliness of reality swept under the rug for the left, and a security blanket for the right. When it actually comes to violence things will be
basically the same but everyone will be happier with the normal veneer of order.