On 12/19/2014 6:43 PM, LizR wrote:
On 20 December 2014 at 13:58, Jason Resch <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:


    On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 3:32 PM, LizR <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]>>
    wrote:

        On 19 December 2014 at 23:02, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]
        <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:


            On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 9:24 AM, LizR <[email protected]
            <mailto:[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.


I'm not sure how that has any relevance whatsoever, but basically you should look after kids in potentially dangerous situations, e.g. near swimming pools.

        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.


Saved from other people with guns.....can you spot the flaw in the argument? The total number of gun related injuries and deaths in the US is massively greater per person than anywhere else in the first world.

Most of the problems from having guns around is due to "unintentional misuse" (like the 9 year old girl). To avoid this one could, oooh, I dunno - try not having guns around so much? Seems to work for the rest of the world.

I don't think that's the case. Almost half of gun related deaths in the U.S. are suicides and hence quite intentional.

        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.


I'm glad no one told that the the respective rulers in the cold war. They might have replied that they had defensive ability in that having them stopped anyone else using them. It was called Mutually Assured Destruction (they really should have found a suitable acronym for that)

Sadly, however, this isn't the case with guns, where there is an idea that having more lethal weapons around makes you safer.

It's actually a personal problem I've been pondering. Because of a court ruling California is now a "must issue" state; meaning that so long as you don't have some disability (like being a felon) you must be issued a permit to carry a concealed gun after completing a simple course and written test. I have a lawyer friend who thinks this is great and is applying immediately. I could do the same. I own several guns, including two hanguns. But then what would I do? Having a gun for defense means you need to carry it all the time, since you by definition don't know when you'll need it. Would I be any safer? I don't think so. Maybe marginally less safe - it's easy to get shot by a trigger happy cop if he thinks you have a gun.

Brent

--
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.

Reply via email to