,
8 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Pretty obviously the answer to this question is “yes.”
It’s an indication of just how much our culture has completely metabolized the myth of redemptive violence that we don’t argue the very obvious truth that it *would* be better if only criminals had guns.
If you want to stop gun crime, you have to be able to control guns, make them harder to get, make it more obvious that those who have them are breaking the law, make it more obvious that when you’re seeing a gun you’re seeing a criminal threat.
Right now I have to assume that everywhere I go everyone I see has a gun, and if I see a gun I have to perform an immediate risk calculation.
That isn’t better.
Suggesting it’s better is so obviously and stupidly wrong, it should be met with laughter.
That isn’t better.
Suggesting it’s better is so obviously and stupidly wrong, it should be met with laughter.
What’s better?
A society in which all of us have to maintain lifelong vigilance and deputize ourselves to deliver lethal force at any instant as a way of addressing firearm ubiquity
Or
One in which firearms are vanishingly rare & presumed criminal outside controlled contexts.
A society in which all of us have to maintain lifelong vigilance and deputize ourselves to deliver lethal force at any instant as a way of addressing firearm ubiquity
Or
One in which firearms are vanishingly rare & presumed criminal outside controlled contexts.
This argument might make the slightest bit of sense if in the U.S., a country with more guns than people, we did not have terrorist attacks, and the few attempted attacks we did have were thwarted by armed private citizens.
Every single argument that gun defenders make for gun ubiquity exists in an alternate universe unrecognizable outside of action movies, and presuppose observably true things about countries with gun control are self-evidently false.
The pro-gun argument doesn’t just insult our intelligence, it insults the intelligence of the person making it.
