There seem to be two especially popular ways of building a stance on gun control, one is based on emotion and the hope that someone responsible with a gun is always on hand and can save the day, the other based on statistics which show most gun deaths result from turning them on family members, acquaintances or oneself. Since these two positions appeal to two distinct ways of seeing guns, they talk past each other. The emotional view likes anecdotes that inspire - and there's no doubt they do inspire. Millions of people FEEL safer, based on those anecdotal bits. The more scientific view is based on probabilities, and requires a certain emotional distance from appeals to fear, appeals to American myth and legend, appeals to ego ("I'm a strong brave protector.") and the flashy anecdote which may represent less than one percent of all gun usage.
So discussion between those two modes of looking at the world seems to me destined to fail. The emotional view has no interest in comparatives like how does the number of Good Samaritan uses of a gun compare to the number of uses where a shooter is not impeded from killing family members, acquaintances, random strangers, or themselves? And the scientific view is not moved by appeals to emotion and a handful of anecdote.
A statistical view and an emotion based view are essentially incompatible, and speak different languages. So I'm done with the topic. Enjoy your murder sticks, and try not to shoot yourself or your wife or let the kids get their hands on them.
Poll
