rick_pcfl wrote:
What an excellent analogy. Get back to me when rock walls can drive into your neighborhood and threaten your wife and children.
I have been thinking about this.
1) Sometimes having rock climbing skills can be helpful. Rock-climbing skills HAVE saved my life.
But ......
I probably wouldn’t have been in those situations in the first place if I wasn’t a rock climber.
2) Many people do die in incidents involving climbable cliffs. (Most cliffs are in fact climbable). But that doesn’t mean more rock-climbing skills would reduce the number of falling deaths.
Definitely the opposite is true.
3) Heights and violence are both things that people have an irrational fear of. AND yet people are ALSO irrationally drawn towards heights and violence.
4) People who are drawn towards violence will often be drawn towards guns. (That’s a bad sign)
People who are drawn towards heights will be drawn towards rock-climbing.
(Also a bad sign I suppose).
Different?
It seems that gun violence is often imposed upon completely random people. This is a difference. (I have suppose buses sometimes drive off cliffs).
But it is gun advocates themselves, that argue that “randomness” is actually an emotionally charged exception. That most gun deaths are suicides, gang related or domestic things.
So actually I think the analogy fits better than I initially realized.
Rock climbing is fine.
Gun-ownership is fine.
A person who argues that either activity increases ones overall safety is a nut-case.