Re: OT: Politics [Was:Social Contract]
Steve Lamb <email@example.com> writes:
> Matthias Julius wrote:
>> Maybe if noone had a gun to threaten you with you wouldn't need one to
>> defend yourself?
> So then what about carving knives, chainsaws, baseball bats,
I didn't say violence would cease to exist.
> Again, if someone is intent on doing you harm, which is against the law,
> another law which tells them they can't use a particular method to do you harm
> is going to deter them?
Yes. Shooting someone with a gun is too easy.
> Finally, it there is a moral double standard here. "I am unwilling to
> take responsibility to protect myself... I pay that person over there to risk
> his life to defend mine! Furthermore I do not feel you, a complete stranger,
> have the right to defend yourself as you might hurt me. But that aformention
> perfect stranger is a-ok!"
How many people are really able to protect themselfes against a
violent criminal? AFAIK in all Europe small firearms are prohibited
from the general public. And I don't think it is a problem there.
Hardly any police officer died on his job over there neither. And if
this does happen it involves highly violent criminals against whom a
gun would not help the average person.