On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 10:29 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 26 November 2013 15:17, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Most people wouldn't feel deprived if they weren't allowed to play
>> hockey, or go scuba diving, or take LSD, but if you are one of those people
>> who likes playing hockey, or going scuba diving, or take LSD, you certainly
>> would feel deprived if what you wanted to have or do was made illegal.
>>
>
> I didn't say it should be made illegal. I just said it's odd so many
> people are, ahem, up in arms about something that in most countries is, as
> you say, on a par with skating or SCUBA diving - i.e. a minority interest.
>

It may be an interest that is held by a minority, but it is by no means a
minor issue.  It is a right protected in the Constitution in the same sense
as right to free speech or to a trial.  Would people in most countries not
be upset to see what are perceived as constitutionally protected liberties
be curtailed?


> (Or maybe most people aren't that concerned, perhaps its just those drug
> people who want lots of guns?
>

A large number of law-abiding and law-respecting individuals are concerned.


> But then if guns are mainly used for drug wars,
>

Gun murders are mainly committed due to the drug war, in total, all murders
by guns would amount to perhaps 20,000 a year in the US, but in that same
time there are between 500,000 and a 1,000,000 defenses gun uses (legal
acts of self-defense or the defense others using a gun) occur each year.
 If guns were outlawed, there would still be just as many (perhaps even
more) murders each year, but the law abiding people (who turned in their
guns) would be all the more defenseless, and the criminals with guns would
be all the more emboldened.


> why does everyone want them? To defend themselves against drug barons?)
>
>
There are many potential reasons.  Among the ones I can think of, include:
hunting, recreation, home defense, self-protection, and preventing a
monopoly of power by the government.



> And "The British" as an answer is well out of date.
>

It is difficult for a population to field an army consisting of more than
1% of the population.  This fact was recognized by Madison and Hamilton in
writing the Federalist papers, and remains true for the most part today.
 Therefore, even a well armed military would find itself hopelessly out
numbered if the population is armed to any significant degree.  People say
we can't fight against an tanks with ridles, but the US has only 16,000
tanks.  That is one for every 237 square miles and one for every 18,000
people.  The Finnish managed pretty well against soviet tanks with little
more than bottles full of fuel.



> If that was the case, people would be wanting muskets and flintlocks, not
> semi-automatic weapons.
>

The writers of the Bill of Rights were prescient enough to codify "arms"
rather than the particular weapons of the day.



> But in any case, I'm sure all those westerns and war movies are a much
> more recent influence (but maybe it wouldn't feel quite so comfortable to
> admit that the glamorisation of genocide trumps a centuries-old revolution
> with no current relevance?)
>
>
In the history of genocides\ you will find that gun registration and
confiscation is an almost universal precursor to genocides and democides.

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-dzMcAKk8g

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to