Inspired by a documentary on BBC3 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/... - I write this with respect to the shootings in Aurora, Colorado, but it is equally applicable to any mass shooting.
For a very long time I have thoughtfully engaged with the debate about gun control, but within limited frames; political D vs. R, thinking of the “big picture”, interpretation of the Constitution (hello Scalia you loon), and of course the whole rural vs. urban dimension.
But I don't want to get into those narrow debates. Politics are transient, the Constitution is no more than a document, albeit one treated, in some quarters, as a pseudo religious text. And few seem to appreciate that these are starting points, and not the end of discourse.
I have lived in various places in the US, and appreciate and respect the different cultures. But, if my friends' guns in rural Missoura is all there is to them, then that would be sad.
I actually find it very simple, the counterfactual. Would the US be better without guns? If you have strict gun control, maybe allowing hunters to hunt, and what do you lose? Not in terms of pablums or principle, how would your life be different?
I am genuinely curious, because for a European, the US debate seems disconnected from reality. The rejoinder to what I say being the typical, well, if we had someone in there with a gun, then things would be different, but when has that ever happened?
I am happy to engage in debates about the 2nd amendment, but that is a rather arid debate don't you think? Isn't the better debate around what a civilised society looks like and what that implies?
