What Guns Do, and What they Don'tby Megan McArdle Dec 10, 2012 9:40 AM EST Guns make conflict more dangerous. But they don't make it more likely.http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/10/what-guns-do-and-what-they-don-t.html [snip]
[snip]With several examples from "real life" Ms. McArdle delves into some of the reasons/excuses given for using/resorting to violence to resolve both real and imagined threats and slights. She clearly demonstrates that the mere presence/availability of a gun does not cause violence where it otherwise would not have existed. (Other than the anti-gun rights moonbats, did anyone ever think it did?)But will this change the thoughts and behavior of the anti-gun rights moonbats? I say, resoundingly, "No!" Not because (although many have alleged so) that the anti-gun rights moonbats are incapable of accepting facts. It is because the anti-gun rights moonbats are not interested at all in rights - about guns or otherwise - but because they are interested in establishing control, and especially in establishing control over those who would assert their independence and freedom from the State as the provider of all things, from food/clothing/shelter to protection from violence. Over here on this side of the discussion are the folks who understand that the State cannot protect anything from violence and that the Supreme Court's many rulings that the State does not even have an obligation to protect an individual from violence are both logical and correct. At best, the State can react to violence and through the application of a greater amount of violence stop the original violence. Over on the other side are those who, for any of a variety of reasons, will not accept personal responsibility and liability for their own safety. It's sort of like the passenger of a sinking ship who capsizes the lifeboats because if he cannot be saved then nobody else ought to be saved.stay safe.
