On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 10:24 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/19/2014 4:58 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 3:32 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 19 December 2014 at 23:02, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 9:24 AM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> They also failed to foresee that hand-held weapons would become so >>>> powerful. >>>> >>> >>> Are you sure that more powerful hand-held weapons would change their >>> minds about the need to keep a balance of power between the government and >>> the citizens? I suspect it would just reinforce the idea. >>> >>> I'm not sure of anything. However I doubt they could foresee a 9 >> year old girl being shown how to fire an Uzi. >> > > Kids drown in pools all the time but that doesn't mean adults should be > forbidden from swimming. > > >> That was such a moronic thing to do that I can't really feel it was a >> huge loss that she accidentally shot and killed her instructor (indeed a >> Darwin award could be on its way - but it's indicative of the incredible >> stupidity that is exemplified by the NRA (I think it's called) which seems >> to think it's a good thing that America has way more gun related deaths and >> accidents than any other country in the first world (and most in the third >> world). >> > > It probably has far more lives saved and defended with guns than any > other country in the first world (estimates range from 500,000 - 2,000,000 > defensive gun uses per year). But news agencies are less interested in > reporting tragedies that didn't happen. > > > Wishful estimating by the NRA. > So then what estimate is realistic from the studies that have been done ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use )? Whatever estimate you agree with, are you saying you'd prefer that number to be zero? (Keeping criminal attacks at the same level)? > News agencies love stories like that: "Little old lady routs burglar with > revolver." > > I'd bet many instances are never reported to police, never mind news agencies. I'm also willing to bet you did not hear about the mall shooting last year (where 3 people were killed) that was stopped when the shooter was confronted by someone with concealed carry license, at sight of it, the shooter decided to shoot himself. http://www.kgw.com/story/news/2014/07/24/12405148/ > > > >> Something else that I doubt the writers of the constitution foresaw, >> along with the entire society that goes with it. >> >> Still, if the US government really believes in the principle behind the >> right to bear arms they should nowadays - going by your argument that there >> should be a "balance of power" - have no problem with a citizen >> constructing a nuclear bomb in their garden shed. >> > > Nuclear bombs have no defensive utility. A good rule of thumb might be > that citizens should be able to own any weapon police departments have > access to. > > > Actually I think the police should have shotguns and side arms with > silencers. > Interesting, why? > But the idea of the 2nd amendment, to provide citizens for a militia, > means the citizens should have whatever the army issues to individuals > (which would be an M16 now). > > I think there are multiple reasons for the second amendment, the primary one is as you say, defense of the nation (against foreign or domestic threats), but personal defense can't be discounted either. Inherent in the right to life is the implicit right to defend one's life. > > Also, making nuclear bombs illegal won't stop their nefarious use. It is > an illusion tho think that laws (paper) can stop bullets (or nuclear blasts > for that matter). > > > So we shouldn't have laws against theft and murder and fraud because, well > laws are just paper. > Those laws don't stop the act from happening, they just provide a means to prosecute after the fact. Law's against possession of something are pointless, especially so when the law's against using them criminally are so much more severe. Let's say bump keys were made illegal (punishable by $500 fines) because they make breaking into buildings really easy. Would you expect that to stop professional burglars from using them? It would only deter casual users from owning them, despite that one day having a bump key could save someone's life (e.g. you're stuck in a burning building and your only path of escape is through a door that's locked). Thus net harm is increased because criminals who intend on using the tools illegally aren't sufficiently detererred, meanwhile, those who respect and obey the law lose access to what in some circumstances is a useful tool. > > > > In the early history of the united states, battle ships were privately > owned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privateer > > > But they were authorized by the government to engage in warfare on its > behalf (letters of marque). So they fell under the rules of war and when > the warring nations made peace they were subject to the terms. > > Nonetheless, it if cannons and warships could be privately owned then, why not tanks or RPGs today? What's changed since then? 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
