Date: Dec 19, 2012 8:01 AM
Author: GS Chandy
Subject: Re: Would effective gun control laws be 'unacceptable social<br> engineering'?

Robert Hansen (RH) posted  Dec 19, 2012 3:08 PM:
> On Dec 18, 2012, at 6:25 PM, Greg Goodknight
> <> wrote:

> > Golly, GS, from a chart I found at the Guardian,
> the murder rates in the US and India, 5.9 vs 5.5 per
> 100,000 population, doesn't seem to give India a wide
> latitude to gloat. What about your culture of
> violence?
> GS isn't talking about murder Greg, he is talking
> about guns. Some people (and I know this isn't news
> to you) think this way. They replace a very complex
> issue (violence) with something very simple (guns)
> and then are bewildered when others neither see nor
> agree with that simplicity. Point out the
> contradictions in their overly simplistic analysis,
> and they become angrier, not wiser. Religion is based
> on exactly the same strategy. If the problem is too
> complex (or tragic) to solve, then change the
> problem. GS is not making an argument against the
> original problem (murder and violence), he is making
> an argument against guns.
> Bob Hansen

Golly Gee, Bob Hansen!

1. Enabling ready access to guns is actually an invitation to disturbed individuals to use those guns against individuals and groups. Example: Adam Lanza versus those 20 children and 5 or 6 adults at Sandy Hook.

2. Reducing ready access to such murder weapons (guns) is likely to reduce the opportunities that disturbed individuals may have to use such murder weapons (guns) against individuals and groups.

For instance: Severely restricting his access to murder weapons (guns) would surely have reduced the opportunity that Adam Lanza had to use such murder weapons (guns) against those 20 children and 6 adults at Sandy Hook - and might well have prevented such use of those murder weapons (guns) as happened last week.

All of the above seems to be simple enough logically for anyone to understand who has been able to understand the logic of simple arithmetic, algebra, and the like.

To me (and to many others), the connections seem clear enough - in fact, they are obvious and do not need to be spelt out at all. It is evident that such connections are not clear to RH.

As to what can be done about that, I do not know.

("Still Shoveling Away!")