Odds and Ends
Armed to immobilize
9 9, 7:40pm
"Physical impossibility due to interconnected nature of United States, and such solution assumes that crime is immobile."
The world is interconnected, and we manage to ban guns in EU while it's not banned in the US. You don't necessarily have to assume that crime is immobile, some people could be in charge of specifying zones where guns are allowed without a license (although there would be a logistic question to answer, but it's manageable)
"I think that in last several decades people in general were so insulated from reality of violence that such price tag will (if it isn't already) will not be seen as acceptable."
An interesting thought (as dreadful as it may be)... Though I don't think it will happen, I think we are living at the peak of our civilisation right now. I don't think it will last more than one or 2 decades longer (because we just don't have the resources on earth to do so more than 2 decades). And I don't think things will be pretty at the end (this is another dreadful future for sure)...
"So instead of 100-300 people killed per year with legal guns there will be 1000-3000, while same or less than how many are killed with illegal guns already. "
Well I'm not an expert but I wouldn't imagine for things to go that way. First granting a gun to almost anybody would mean that it would become the main weapon to kill someone (why would you use a risky way to kill someone when you could just use a gun). Second, as you've now effectively armed everybody, fights would transform into a shooting feast with the potential to kill both the agressor, the victim and additional bystanders. So for each previous tentative of homicide, you now have 1 to 10 death instead of just one possible death, multiplying your current homicide rate by a factor comprised between 1 and 10.
Your argument is basically saying "fights are going to happen anyhow so I should give people the best way to kill eachother, that way it's fair for everybody". It's indeed probably fairer, but it is also probably deadlier. Look at it that way : if you are a bystander and you see two people fight with their fist, you can probably intervene and stop them from killing each other, but if they are fighting with guns, you're likelier to get killed before you managed to stop one of them... Building weapons for "protection" only works for so long (that's how WW1 started and how Russia and USA almost destroyed the world during the cold war)
"The fact that even utilitarian side of 'car rights' is barely discussed at a time, when in UK is in moral panic about kitchen knives and drain cleaner, is an interesting aberration."
I won't fight you on that. But people are not rational creatures.
Also to come back to my first question, it's not because we should "ban cars" (as I already said, it's more complicated than just banning them out of the blue, but we certainly should take the first steps of that long process) that we shouldn't ban guns... You stated you were against cars and pro guns, but all you've said to justify your pro-gun stand is that cars are worse than guns (which is a statement I probably agree with, mainly because car usage and gun usage are not of the same scale). And this is not a very good justification because it is not an alternative, we can ban both or keep both.