Quote:
Originally posted by Kadath
Proposed anything better? Do you really want me to draw up an alternative document? And what changes do you suspect I would make, aside from the whole gun thing? I'm inferring(quite possibly incorrectly) a somewhat ominous tone to that last statement that I don't understand.
|
Well, from former statements I infered that you had more problems with the constitution than just the 2nd Amendment, so I then assumed you meant to change more than just the second.
My bad if that isn't the case.
Quote:
Thus I said when you want to. I wasn't demanding it at the moment. If you want to have a debate about the mechanics of modern warfare, we can do it, but we've jacked this thread far enough already, and I was simply trying to keep the number of heads on this hydra to a manageable number.
|
Agreed.
Quote:
Yeah, let's not put words in each other's mouth. That would be good. I can understand why you thought 50 dollars was not worth someone getting killed. There is no amount of money worth killing somone. Don't take this to mean that I consider life sacred or that people shouldn't defend themselves or anything like that. Simply take it to mean that I would rather give up my wallet than kill another human being, and I hope that everyone would think the same way.
|
Well, I think you've made two points here.
The first is that no amount of money is worth taking a human life.
Is this really what you mean?
Are you against armed guards in banks who WILL shoot to kill even robbers who do not hurt anyone?
The other point is no, not everyone agrees with giving up their wallet vs. killing someone. Aside from the simple question of, "why should I?", robbery is usually just one step on the ladder for criminals. And many robberies are halted simply by showing a gun. The NRA estimates that for every attempted robbery or crime reported, between 3 and 5 are detered by the simple showing of a gun. In other words, you hear the bad stories (criminal usage) without hearing the good ones (deterence).
Quote:
You couldn't carry a knife, or a stungun, or some other nonlethal method of self-defense? Doesn't the same go for women(who, despite your lumping them in with disabled and elderly people, can be quite capable of defending themselves) or the elderly, or disabled people? I'm not arguing that a gun is a pretty effective defense. I'm arguing that it changes the whole tone of the situation and makes it more dangerous for the attacked as well as the attacker.
|
Yes, I know what you mean by tone, but you are not usually the person who sets the tone, it is the criminal. A criminal is looking for an easy victim with as little risk as possible to himself. He isn't looking for a "fair fight". If you want to take your chances with a stun gun or pepper spray, great, go for it. I do not wish to take that chance. I want to keep my options open by possessing something that WILL end the encounter in my favor if I need it.
I see you arguement as a personal willingness to eschew greater force in favor of ending an encounter more peacefully. Unfortunately, the criminal may not play along with your laudable intentions.
Quote:
Your rejection doesn't bother nor surprise me. I'm not ignoring the fact that these leaders confiscated guns, nor that they did it to prevent the people from rising up against the government. I think we both agree that the confiscation of guns did not enable the rise to power, but rather facilitate the holding of the power. Once again I come back to Britain and Canada, who have not, thus far, adopted any sort of totalitarian regime.
|
And hopefully, they never will. But do you know the adage about placing all your eggs in one basket?
Quote:
I had a feeling as I was writing those specs that they would be wrong, and you would call me on it. Thanks for that pertinent bit of info. My argument is not a solution to crime. I am not proposing to end violent crime. I am proposing to curtail gun violence. End of story.
In your situation, where a criminal is threatening me or my family, I don't have the pat answer of "go for my concealed weapon." I'd say I'd have to act as the situation demanded, thinking on my feet, rather than relying on lead to help me. [/B]
|
It is not a pat answer, but it is an option I want.
Please be honest with me and yourself. If tonight an unknown intruder was breaking into your house and you had the option of a gun (with copper jacketed Federal Hydrashok (hollowpoint) ammo) or a stun gun, what would you choose?
Remember, this person is unknown, with unknown weapons and unknown intent. You've called 911 but they may be 5 to 15 minutes away. Maybe your girlfriend or wife is with you, maybe you have children too.
So what do you choose and what do you do?
And this scenario is NOT uncommon. Home invasions happen frequently, where the owners are beaten and killed.