The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Current Events
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Current Events Help understand the world by talking about things happening in it

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-21-2002, 11:28 PM   #1
Chefranden
Disorderly Disciplinarian
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Superior
Posts: 21
Quote:
Originally posted by Cam


Yes, they are less efficient, but if that is all anyone has to either commit the crime or defend themselves it becomes a moot point. If I have a gun and you have a bow and you want to kill me it requires much more effort on your part to actually commit the murder. If I on the other hand only have a bow it comes down to whether I have the training to stop you.
I would guess, though I have no statistics right now, and any statistics would be invalid, that before guns were mass-produced more murders were committed per person then there are now. Guns make killing easier yes, but once again only if the killer has a gun and the victim does not. If every person on the street possibly has a gun concealed on his or her person, a random killer would most likely think twice about just randomly striking. If everyone only had a bow or a knife on them, it makes it easier to just walk up and kill someone because the chances of them being fast enough to use these weapons is minimal and they are far less likely to strike a fatal blow.
Of course, in the case of the sniper it does not matter because he is striking from a distance and the victim has no chance to defend him or herself.
If what you say is true and the reason for not banning fire arms is self defense then everyone should carry - like in a Heinlein book. That means there will have to be gun subsidies for the poor to make it fair. Every one should get a nine mm auto of some sort so as fire power would be equal. If the government issued them to everyone when they turn 18 then they could buy in bulk and save a bundle. There will have to be ammo subsidies too so everyone gets and equal chance to practice.

The gun ban in my mind is hypothetical i.e. you don't have a gun but neither do I. If that happened the number of killings would go down for the same reason that farmers would grow less food if they went back to plowing with a mule. (The ban is hypothetical in this country because the government wouldn't enforce it. The government doesn't even bother to keep drugs out of prision.)

The argument that people need to carry against random killers is absurd. Most murdered people are murdered by someone they know The argument for the right to bear arm is political. It is not a crime issue! The crime issue is meant to be divisive and it works. It helps keep the people from realizing they could band together to force the government to provide health care instead of cluster bombs for instance.
__________________
I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket. Major General Smedley Butler, USMC
Chefranden is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:55 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.