Reply #104: Yawn

[primavera]

Are we going to drag out this battered old argument again? As you know, unless you're an incurable idiot, no one has suggested banning bath tubs or knives or cars or any of the other household objects which, if used extremely creatively, might conceivably produce a death. Those objects differ in that they possess a utility without which modern life could not function, so accepting a low order of risk produced by those objects in order to maintain a functioning society is a valid cost-benefit analysis. Conversely, most people manage to live just fine without guns, so their essential function is belied by the billions of people on earth who don't have guns and somehow manage to survive. There is consequently comparatively little benefit to guns to offset their formidable costs and risks. So, can we lay off this incredibly stupid straw man argument? It's insulting to our intelligence.

Now why Switzerland doesn't have the same problems with their gun ownership, now that's an interesting question and an even more interesting answer. They don't have the same problems we have because, unlike us, they don't tolerate gun nuts who merely want to play with guns for a hobby, but rather require their citizens to receive extensive, rigorous, military training in the proper and safe handling of firearms. Now, if you'd like to adopt the Swiss policy and require each person who wishes to have a gun to undertake a full year of full-time, formal, military training, I would be only too happy to drop my objections to private gun ownership. Any takers?

<crickets chirping>

No, I didn't think so.