I'm not sure you can really substitute "fighter aircraft" in there very effectively, unless you substitute "go to war" for "commit violent acts," too, but brass knuckles, sure. I note brass knuckles are generally illegal. :-)
Mostly, it means that I think people who try to argue "guns don't increase violence" are idiots. It is possible that there are reasons why guns are ok even given they increase violence (level-the-playing-field for self defense being the most prominent one - I don't think the data supports this one in terms of actually making you safer, but I can appreciate it as a theoretical proposition; "revolution" being a historic one that I don't think makes sense anymore, given fighter aircraft), but "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is moronic.
So yeah, I lean towards "things that increase violence without redeeming purpose should be banned", but am willing to listen to people who claim there's a redeeming purpose. I'm not willing to listen to people who claim they don't increase violence.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
winterfish
no subject
Date: 2013-03-21 07:44 pm (UTC)Mostly, it means that I think people who try to argue "guns don't increase violence" are idiots. It is possible that there are reasons why guns are ok even given they increase violence (level-the-playing-field for self defense being the most prominent one - I don't think the data supports this one in terms of actually making you safer, but I can appreciate it as a theoretical proposition; "revolution" being a historic one that I don't think makes sense anymore, given fighter aircraft), but "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is moronic.
So yeah, I lean towards "things that increase violence without redeeming purpose should be banned", but am willing to listen to people who claim there's a redeeming purpose. I'm not willing to listen to people who claim they don't increase violence.