On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 12:13 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/19/2014 6:43 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 20 December 2014 at 13:58, Jason Resch <[email protected]> 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. >> > > 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. > In 2010 there were accidental firearm shootings killed 606 people in the US, out of some 300,000,000 guns. Meanwhile there were 3,533 drownings out of some 8 million in-ground and above-ground pools. What does this tell us? Your neighbor's pool is 220 times more dangerous than your neighbor's gun. > > >> >>> 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. > > When dealing with infinitesimal probabilities it's hard to compare real differences, say 0.00001 and 0.00002. I'd say do it if its something you want to do or experience. Realistically it won't make much difference for your safety unless there's a temporary break down in rule of law or you frequently enter dangerous areas or situations. There's also the more theoretical argument that a right not exercised is a right lost. 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.
