rufx2 sent us: > IANSA NGO Presentation 16 June 2010 > ... > Whatever motivation lies at the root of a conflict, whether between > individuals or between communities, the availability of firearms in > the immediate environment multiplies the probability of death, serious > disability, or grave violations of human rights. An assault with a gun > is far more likely to result in death than an assault with any other > common weapon.
I'll forgo arguing whether this is truthful - as I rush to the next point. > Borrowing an analogy from the Public Health Network, combatting > malaria is more effective using multiple strategies. The mosquito is > the vector that carries the disease, but people are more susceptible > if their underlying health is poor. So improving people's health helps > to protect them from malaria ? but we also need to reduce their > exposure to the mosquito, for example with bed-nets. Likewise in > preventing armed violence, we need to strengthen communities to build > up their resistance, but also to reduce their exposure to the vector > of injury, which is the gun. This is perhaps the core of the Public Health Network Fallacious Analogy regarding vectors. If gun == mosquito where does the gun-owner/user come into the analogy? Where does the defender come into the analogy? - for the agressor likely is armed. In Public Health we don't mourn injury to or the death of mosquitos - rather we encourage it. Should the analogy mean that we should be indifferent to harm to the agressors? Or does the above put the well being of the agressor on a par with that of the victim - or perhaps even put the well being of the agressor first? > So we still need strong coordinated measures to limit the quantities > and the types of small arms that can be produced, imported and sold; > and to regulate the purchase, use and storage of these weapons, > whether by governments or by civilians. These must be underpinned by > measures enabling the weapons to be tracked, removed and if necessary > destroyed to protect public safety. While this may sound good to many, the track record appears to emphasize disarming civilians. --henry schaffer > ...
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
