Re: OT: Politics [Was:Social Contract]
"Roberto C. Sanchez" <roberto@familiasanchez.net> writes:
> Matthias Julius wrote:
>>
>> How do you recognize well-intentioned and law-abiding citizens? What
>> makes this difficult is that people change. They buy a gun as a
>> well-intentioned and law-abiding citizen in case they need to defend
>> themselfes. Then a while later when they are upset or drunk they find
>> they have a gun handy and do harm somebody else. A lot of such
>> violent crimes are committed out of an emotional reaction. While
>> taking away guns may not completely prevent all such crimes ti might
>> make them less harmfull. Using a gun is too easy.
>>
> So, because little Johnny *might* misbehave, the whole third grade is
> not allowed to attend the museum field trip. Yup, that's definitely the
> way to go.
A hand gun is solely made to harm other people. How can you compare
the possession of a gun to a museum field trip of third graders?
How many people needed their gun for self defence? Did you? And how
many people used their gun to harm others? Do you know of any such
statistics?
> If I was in my home and some invader came in, I would not want to first
> find out what he was carrying and get a matching weapon. That is
> lunacy. I want to know that I can defend myself. Besides, how will
> make sure that noone has a gun?
I don't think nobody will have a gun just because there is a law that
prohibits it. But, I think the availability of guns will be
drastically reduced and so will be the likelyhood that one will
be pointed at you. It is just too easy to shoot someone with a gun.
Any 10 year old can do that. It is much more voilent energy required
to beat someone up.
Reply to: