[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: OT: Politics [Was:Social Contract]

On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 12:16:58PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> Matthias Julius wrote:
> > "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?
> > 
> You completely miss the point.  You hold people responsible for their
> *individual* actions.  You do not punish all of society becuase of the
> actions of a few.  The current hysteria over the war on terror is a
> prime example.  We are much more likely to die in car accidents or
> (non-terrorist-related) plane crashes, yet people are happily giving up
> their rights for "security."
> > 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?
> > 
> That is not the point.  I want the *freedom* to own a gun, if I so
> choose.  Whether I want it for self-defense, marksmanship training, or
> making cans and bottles into little shards of metal and glass, shouldn't
> be anybody's business but my own.
> > 
> >>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.
> Right.  But, if I have to defend my home against someone who *may* have
> a gun, I don't want to exert the energy to beat them and risk getting
> killed in the process just to defend myself.

And if the neighbourhood thief is breaking into your home, he is more 
likely to be armed with a gun if he thinks you probably are.

Thus do fears create expectations.

-- hendrik

Reply to: