I figure I should post something, 'cause I still have fingers and can.
I'd like to thank Dia for her sense of remarkable level-headedness that she has the power to exhibit when it is most needed, Dave for being Dave, FD and Priam for very interesting points and counterpoints, and Idran for, as always, being a rock-solid researcher in constant pursuit of truth.
I would like to thank Besyanteo for eventually apologizing for being what I can only describe as being "titanically foolish," but I imagine he's figured all that out by now.
Do me a tremendous favor in the future--if you're going to swing me around like a club during one of your arguments in which you're going to shift what was some semblance of a rational debate to pointless name-calling, at least send me an email or an IM or something so you can ask if it's okay to put me between my friends so you can justify repeatedly calling someone stupid just because you don't like the way they make arguments.
People need to have the balls to state their opinions more often around here. I commend Magnus for that. One might argue that he's doing it because he doesn't know better, but I think that's to his advantage in this case. God forbid we have serious discussions about heavy issues here, because none of us are intelligent enough to approach them with maturity.
On that note, Magnus and I have had a lot of arguments/debates/discussions/whatever in real life. I've known the guy for about a year and spent a considerable amount of time hanging out with him. I can, as such, conclusively say a few things on the subject.
If there is one thing he isn't, it's stupid. He's quite intelligent, devastatingly so at times, and a brilliant novelist.
I hit the same impasse the rest of you are with him when debate comes up sometimes. I'm not sure I can fully explain why that is. I might be able to try, but I'm not going to do that right now. It should be noted that the actual discussion in this thread is very interesting and at times hilarious (bear eats you!), which gives it some definite merit. Hell, Magnus and I were laughing about the whole bear thing this weekend because we both think it's an incredibly hilarious side-effect of this conversation and resulted in what might be one of the greatest custom titles ever.
That said, I think that some of his convictions are almost too strong for him to hold a true debate on the subject, but that goes for some other people, too. Also in question is the original argument, which is, in my opinion, a somewhat self-completing and uninteresting "thesis." "Guns are tools for killing people." They certainly are, but the issue is far more complicated than that. If the "thesis" were "guns can be used to kill people," I think everyone would be forced to agree out of sheer obviousness. Instead, the thesis makes a claim that is stated without being explicitly said--"guns are
only tools for killing people and have no other potential value, which makes them bad." This is where the argument begins.
The problem is that no amount of statistics will win this argument, because the data is wildly in conflict. Americans own lots of guns and shoot each other with fair frequency. Washington D.C. has outlawed gun ownership completely for private citizens but has more gun crime than anywhere else in the US. Switzerland has more guns per capita than American by far, and everyone is issued an automatic weapon so as to be part of a standing militia. Very few incidences of gun-related violence occur in Switzerland.
Why does banning guns encourage more shootings in D.C. while it eliminates gun crime in Japan? The answer is complicated, and I don't have it. Cultural differences in attitude, perhaps? There are so many other factors involved in any argument regarding firearm controls that boiling down the argument to "guns are bad" or "guns are used to kill people" is a gross oversimplification of a complex issue.
Saying "people shouldn't kill each other" is pretty pointless, too. I don't disagree with the statement, but it's not really a conclusion to an argument. Guns may make the job easier, but if people are really determined to kill each other, taking away guns is not likely to solve the problem. See my earlier statement about cultural differences.
An interesting proposition at this point would be to change the tone of the discussion somewhat. Yes, you can kill another human being with a gun. An excellent conclusion--it was reached something like three hundred years ago. What might be more important at this point is
why. What factors contribute to the rise of gun crime? What's the real difference between America and other countries where guns are present? An argument about gun violence cannot simply be stopped at the level where it is decided that guns are weapons. In the interest of a productive discussion, why not shift into cultural analysis and try to come to some meaningful conclusion about human nature instead of a thesis and conclusion all in one that has all the panache of "fire is hot?"
"Fire is hot" would make an excellent grad thesis for a physics doctorate, especially if you were specializing in thermodynamics. It would make you look very smart.
Feel free to ignore me, in any case, if my suggestion sounds too much like a writing assignment for a class you got roped into taking by your school's core curriculum. Some people are allergic to thinking when it isn't for a grade, but I was under the impression that RPGWWers weren't those people. <p>
<div style="text-align:center">
</div>
</p>