I’m not sure you understand what Harris’ argument is.
He makes an ethical argument for the right to self-defence based on the practical and undeniable fact that a total ban on guns is impossible.
He also, it's worth noting, supports far stricter gun control laws than any current serving politician.
And what is your solution to guns in the US?
Not only that, but I have two - count 'em - two Neighbourhood Watch stickers on my porch.
I didn't put them there and I've never heard anything from anyone associated with Neighbourhood Watch, of course, but you can be sure they strike fear into the hearts of any potential wrongdoer.
Although, when I looked at the sticker closely, I did notice that one of the chaps featured seems to be a bit...y'know...ethnic. :- I can only assume the bobby has taken the fellow in hand and is planning to take him to the station and kick him down the stairs.
http://thumbs.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/...FNyiDJzACA.jpg
No, I do understand it. I listened to it on his podcast. My point is that the 'self-defence'
argument is a nonsense, since there is little meaningful evidence beyond isolated anecdotes that legally-owned guns offer much practical protection. And certainly when weighed against their downsides, such examples as there are fade into meaninglessness.
And, if we're talking about the ethics of self-defence, calling for restrictions on ownership flies in the face of any such argument, since it is essentially to argue that some people have a right to defend themselves and others do not. How is that fair?
Not at all; we've established that neither of us has ever been burgled.
Personally, I like the idea of being responsible for things. I've done alright and I find it abhorrent that some kid on 3-400 quid a week gets shot at protecting me and my family and my stuff.
There is no solution. However, outlawing the legal ownership of guns by the vast majority of private
citizens and demanding they be handed in at the local cop shop would immediately ameliorate the situation.
Whereas I take the view that that's what the kid signed up for and that no-one forced him to do so.
I have sons; it's my duty to show and teach responsibility and doing what's right.
Not because it always works, mind you. But because it's.. well.. right.
You don't think that would potentially make things worse,
when the inevitable backlash arrives as the deaths of former gun owners denied the right to protect themselves (however rare these incidences are in reality) killed by gun-wielding criminals start stacking up?
Or do you see this is a generational battle for which will only see the true benefits in decades/centuries to come?
here with no general speed limit on the autobahn
But strict controls in built up areas people seem far more courteous driving around cities
The likelihood of the crime rates increasing because the victims didn't have guns is negligible imo.
I thinks it's mostly about whether you have guns right now or whether you don't.
If you don't then introducing them would naturally be problematic if not downright terrifying. Making them freely and legally available to every teenaged delinquent and angry ex-wife in London would, of course, lead to carnage.
If you have them, you surely see no compelling reason to give them up.
I would point out that it's not M-Way speeding where the vast majority of deaths occur
so limiting speed to 65mph would serve no purpose whatsoever
Trucks being restricted to the inside lane only and banning anyone for life that causes a M-Way accident would help more
Unless eveyone drives at 20mph maximum then deaths will occur
Essentially, for the rest of us, the US is just a television show,
subject to the necessarily restricted perspective of that medium.
To me, the only "fact" that matters is there are more than 300 million people over there and they seem to do alright.
