|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
Hi, Hyroglyphx.
First, I did notice that you expressed support for gun-safety measures, and I wasn't assuming that you were just a crazy gun nut who wants the gubment to mind its own business. I'm sorry to have given that impression. I could have explained myself a bit more thoroughly.
Hyroglyphx writes: It's not an obscure hypothetical, it's a design flaw. This is what I was referring to:
Hyroglyphx writes: Presumably you could kill someone with their own weapon at point-blank range or simply take the ring.
Message 4690 I called it a "hypothetical" because you hypothesized a scenario under which a "smart gun" owner can still be injured/killed by their own weapon. I called it "obscure" because it's a pretty specific set of circumstances. And I disagreed with your calling it a "design flaw" because your scenario isn't a new vulnerability specific to the "smart gun" system: it's a vulnerability that all guns share. Really, it's illustrative of how much better the "smart gun" system performs: sure, some of the same vulnerabilities remain, but many of the others are removed. ----- And, I also admit that I was partly responding, not specifically to you, but to my more general frustrations with the gun-control debate. I still consider myself neutral in this debate: I've seen responsible gun ownership, and I believe it's possible for a gun-owning society to be reasonably safe. But, the arguments in favor of gun rights (and specifically a lot of the comments from you and Cat Sci over the past several pages of this thread) frequently remind me of a Jesus quote in the Bible:
quote: Like this guy. All these hypothetical scenarios about how a savvy assailant could still shoot you with your own gun, or about how the government might be able to hack your "smart gun", or suicidal people having other available options... yes, they're real things; but in context, they're minutiae! Gnats! What proportion of gun deaths do you think would realistically have been influenced by gun-retention holsters, or government hackers, or savvy assassins at point-blank range? Yet, when big numbers come up, like "over 4000 gun incidents occurred within the space of just over a month," these don't seem to have any impact at all. In fact, they're simply dismissed with trite comments about BB guns and statistics. The camel slides right down the throat. There's a serious disconnect there, and I think you're letting yourself fall victim to it. Gun-safety measures will always have imperfections, and they won't solve all the problems. Some people will still find a way to kill themselves, some people will still be killed by tech-savvy assassins, and some people will still be shot by accident. So, let's keep turning down all gun-safety or gun-control proposals because there are still gnats in the soup, and swallowing the camel of 30,000 (or whatever) deaths/year is certainly preferable to trying something that has some gnats in it.-Blue Jay, Ph.D.* *Yeah, it's real Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Faith writes: GDR, Jesus "being numbered with the transgressors" means and always has meant that being crucified is the punishment of transgressors which He was to suffer for His people. He died as a criminal. He's certainly not saying that His disciples are the transgressors because they want a sword; in fact clearly what is written says that HE is telling them to buy a sword, the idea came from Him and not them. His allowing them a couple of swords seems to be related to the upcoming change in circumstances after He is crucified and they hide out from the Jews who crucified Him. He talks first about how they needed nothing when they served Him, but He goes on to say "BUT NOW..." meaning things are now changing, I am now going to be crucified as a criminal... First off it is anything but clear that he is telling His followers that they should be armed. I think that it is clear that is just the opposite of what you are claiming, as I explained in the post you have replied to. Let's look at the broader context. Is there any where where we see His followers actually using a sword, except right after that in the same chapter where they used against a slave of the High Priest and Jesus tells says"Stop! No more of this". If Jesus was telling His followers to use a sword to protect themselves then why do we never see that happening. If you want a crystal clear statement of what Jesus has to say about this then just look at Matthew 26:52. quote: If it is clarity you want then I don't think it can be any more clear than that.
Faith writes: Because NOW things are going to change. Nevertheless two swords for the twelve isn't much so it's not as if He's recommending a lot of brutal self-defense, and overall I think you are right that He's talking more about the effect of creating division. Yes, things are going to change but not in the way that you are suggesting. Jesus knows that what He is going to do in Jerusalem is going to wind up with Him being crucified. It was a very unforgiving society and He was going to upset virtual everyone in authority, whether Jew or Roman. What happened when Jesus was taken to be crucified. Essentially they all gave up on the movement and disappeared to save their own neck. It was with the resurrection everything changed and the movement was marked by their love and certainly not by the sword.
Faith writes: Yes, the division that you are referring to can and often does lead to brutal consequences just as Jesus said it would. Doing the right thing often does come at a cost but doing the "right thing" is still the "right thing".
However, that can lead to brutal consequences, can't it? Faith writes: I think it works as a defense of owning guns today even if we need a lot more restraint than we have right now. What you are saying just goes to make my point. The scripture can and are being misused to support any idea that comes up including gun control.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
First off it is anything but clear that he is telling His followers that they should be armed. I think that it is clear that is just the opposite of what you are claiming, as I explained in the post you have replied to. What you "explained" in that post was the following:
OK. Let's look at Luke 22:36 in context.
35 Then Jesus asked them, When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?Nothing, they answered. 36 He said to them, But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment. 38 The disciples said, See, Lord, here are two swords. That’s enough! he replied. First we can see that Jesus asks them if when he had sent them out with nothing if they had lacked anything and they reply that no they hadn't. Then he says but now you figure you need a purse, a bag and swords. Then he quotes Isaiah 53:12 which is the part of Isaiah that talks about the suffering servant. You have rewritten the scripture here to suit yourself: He did not say "NOW YOU FIGURE YOU NEED..." these things, YOU added that and it completely changes the meaning. What he said was "NOEW IF YOU HAVE A PURSE TAKE IT..." HE said that, it was His instruction to them, and it had nothing whatever to do with anything they had said about such things. You haven't the slightest justification for reading it that way. They have said nothing of the sort. The conversation prior to this point was about how Peter would betray Him although he was sure he was willing to die for Him. He'd given them the wine and bread explaining how they represent His death for them, and generally He was trying to break it to them that He was going to die. THAT's what they are obtuse about, THAT's what they don't get. Where's the slightest hint Peter or any of the others said anything at all about needing purse or sword? Nowhere, GDR. You are playing fast and loose with the scripture here. Again, He is telling them things are going to change: I am going to leave you, I am going to die, I'm going to be counted a criminal and die a shameful criminal's death. There is also an implication that where they had earlier been received in a friendly way now after He is gone there would be hostility against them. THAT is the context in which He instructs them that they need now to have practical means of doing things, money and even a sword whereas before they had not needed it.
Yes, things are going to change but not in the way that you are suggesting. Jesus knows that what He is going to do in Jerusalem is going to wind up with Him being crucified. It was a very unforgiving society and He was going to upset virtual everyone in authority, whether Jew or Roman. "What he is going to do?" Whatever that is He has already done it because this conversation is taking place in the upper room where He and His disciples are celebrating the Passover, right before He goes to the Mount of Olives and is taken by the authorities, having been betrayed by Judas who left the Last Supper early for the purpose. Yes, He rejected Peter's using the sword to defend HIM. That says absolutely nothing about using it for self-defense if such an occasion should arise. And yes, such an occasion never did arise. Nevertheless it was HE HIMSELF who told them to get a sword if they didn't have one, and it had nothing to do with anything they had asked or desired. BECAUSE THEY DIDN"T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING ABOUT HOW HE WAS GOING TO LEAVE THEM, although He kept telling them. This instruction was one of the many ways He kept trying to tell them He would no longer be with them and things were going to radically change for them, but they didn't get it. The fact that they didn't get it is why it wouldn't have occurred to THEM to say they needed a sword. Yes, they all ran away. They were completely flummoxed by His arrest and crucifixion, it didn't fit with anything they'd believed despite the fact that He kept trying to tell them it was going to happen. Yes, it took the resurrection to give them boldness to proclaim the gospel. There is no indication that any of them ever needed or used a sword. That doesn't change the fact that HE TOLD THEM TO GET A SWORD IF THEY DIDN"T HAVE ONE. You've rewritten the scripture to suit yourself, which is expressly forbidden, GDR. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Faith writes: You've rewritten the scripture to suit yourself, which is expressly forbidden, GDR. Well we disagree on what that scripture means and we just aren't going to agree. Actually on looking back at the early part of this thread in 2013 we have already argued this one out. As far as me changing the scripture it is hardly the case. I quoted the scripture as written. Again, we simply disagree about what Jesus meant. Your understanding is completely at odds with everything that Jesus preached and everything that the writers of the epistles wrote. What would it say about Jesus if at one point He says "those that live by the sword die by the sword" and then later tells His followers to arm themselves with swords. Your understanding of that text repudiates the entirety of the rest of the NT.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Well we disagree on what that scripture means No, we disagree on what it actually SAYS. It does NOT SAY the disciples wanted a sword, or money or any of the rest of it, and as I showed, they had no reason to want those things since they didn't even understand that now there would be a reason to have them. NO. Clearly you are changing the scripture to fit your interpretation of it.
and we just aren't going to agree. Actually on looking back at the early part of this thread in 2013 we have already argued this one out. Perhaps you should point me to the relevant message. Argued WHAT out?
As far as me changing the scripture it is hardly the case. I quoted the scripture as written. YOU DID NOT! I quoted it as written, you stuck some extra words into it to make it appear that Jesus was addressing something the disciples had asked, although there isn't the slightest hint that they asked it or had any reason to want to know the answer.
Again, we simply disagree about what Jesus meant. No, that is not the case. You put words in His ,mouth to make Him mean what YOU want Him to mean.
Your understanding is completely at odds with everything that Jesus preached and everything that the writers of the epistles wrote. What would it say about Jesus if at one point He says "those that live by the sword die by the sword" and then later tells His followers to arm themselves with swords. Your understanding of that text repudiates the entirety of the rest of the NT. There is no hint that having a sword for self-defense means LIVING BY THE SWORD. That applies to soldiers who do live by the sword. Besides, many chose to live by the sword even knowing that saying, not the disciples but soldiers. Dying by the sword is simply a fact, it's not a condemnation of living by the sword. Jesus did not condemn anyone who DID live by the sword, such as the Centurions for whom He performed miracles. You are deceiving yourself. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Working hypotheses: No guns, no gun deaths.Some guns, some gun deaths. Lots of guns, lots of gun deaths. Exceptions will be possible and other factors will ameliorate or exacerbate but the common theme is the presence of a gun. I agree with your hypothesis. It's common sense. Mt objection was "not allowing" people to have access to guns doesn't mean they won't get them. The real problem is the prevalence or ubiquity of the guns themselves. As I've stated before, even if a law passed tomorrow banning all guns in the United States, the reality is that there are still some 600 million guns in circulation. "Not allowing" them to have it won't get those guns out of their hands. Actually it would just make them better at hiding them. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
First, comparing just two countries out of a couple hundred is statistically meaningless, and the data that Tangle is referring to has great statistical significance, but I'll examine your comparison anyway. That all depends on numerous variables. Canada vs Brazil is a great illustration of something deeper going on -- namely, that the availability of guns alone doesn't account for the disparity. If it, Canada's gun homicide should actually be higher. That's because there are socioeconomic factors one must consider when looking at Brazil's crime rate versus Canada's.
First, I assume when you say "higher rates of violence" you mean gun violence. Yes, thank you for clarifying.
But the 8 guns per 100 residents must be legal guns. Read any article about gun violence in Brazil and you'll find it suffers from the combination of an enormously high rate of illegal guns and a significant ghetto violence problem, where illegal guns are likely concentrated. These Brazilian internal problems so different from Canada are an example of why you can't just pick two countries and compare them. Thank you for proving the point for me. The prevalence of guns alone cannot account for why gun homicide (or any homicide, for that matter) is higher or lower. My whole point is that the simplistic notion of strict gun laws or loose gun laws don't demonstrate anything meaningful without controlling for a number of different factors, such as you have elucidated.
Mexico and Switzerland? Could you find more different countries to compare? Maybe Luxembourg and Syria? Anyway, looking at Mexico and Switzerland, here's their table Why not? Mexico has extremely strict gun laws and Switzerland has extremely lax gun laws. That's kind of the point.
Elaborating on what you said about gun ownership in Switzerland being "practically mandatory," every able male in Switzerland is required to serve a stint in the military, and most retain their gun when they leave, explaining the high gun ownership rate of 45.7%, almost the same as the percentage of males in the population. Most are allowed to keep their service weapon for life, one for symbolic reasons and the other to be able to defend the country as a militia.
Mexico does allow private ownership of guns, but they do have a significant drug cartel problem, and as you note, there must be a significant source of illegal firearms that is probably the US. Mexico's claims of 15 guns per 100 residents must significantly understate reality. But you're side-stepping the issue. Was not my objection that strict gun laws don't necessarily have an effect on gun violence? Here the data is very clear that there is not necessarily a causal relationship.
Once more, superficial comparisons of two wildly disparate countries tells us nothing about the effect of gun prevalence on gun violence prevalence. Again, that was intentional to prove my point, which it appears has been made successfully.
There's no puzzle. It's a big a complex world out there, and it's easy to find country by country circumstances that cloud statistical comparisons, but when you do the proper studies correctly the fact emerges that more guns translates to more gun violence. I agree that it is a very complicated issue, and that's my point. This isn't something so simple that we could lay all the problems at the feet of guns.
The murder rate in the UK is 1.0 per 100,000 residents, in the US it's 3.8. Their "knife violence problem" is dwarfed by our gun problem. Yep, it is. And if Americans couldn't get guns, knife attacks would skyrocket. Or bats. Or swords. Or by whatever means. Because this is a social issue that we need to deal with. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
And, I also admit that I was partly responding, not specifically to you, but to my more general frustrations with the gun-control debate. I still consider myself neutral in this debate: I've seen responsible gun ownership, and I believe it's possible for a gun-owning society to be reasonably safe. But, the arguments in favor of gun rights (and specifically a lot of the comments from you and Cat Sci over the past several pages of this thread) frequently remind me of a Jesus quote in the Bible: quote:Ye blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! -Matthew 23:24 Like this guy. All these hypothetical scenarios about how a savvy assailant could still shoot you with your own gun, or about how the government might be able to hack your "smart gun", or suicidal people having other available options... yes, they're real things; but in context, they're minutiae! Gnats! What proportion of gun deaths do you think would realistically have been influenced by gun-retention holsters, or government hackers, or savvy assassins at point-blank range? I see and respect your points.
Yet, when big numbers come up, like "over 4000 gun incidents occurred within the space of just over a month," these don't seem to have any impact at all. In fact, they're simply dismissed with trite comments about BB guns and statistics. The camel slides right down the throat. There's a serious disconnect there, and I think you're letting yourself fall victim to it. Well, I can understand that. All I can really say, especially in respect to there being a serious disconnect, is that many strict gun control advocates seem to equate guns as being the culprit and unintentionally make guns the enemy without judging the actions of those who wield them with malice -- as if they forget that history hath shown that incredible violence occurred long before the advent of the gun. The heart of the issue is why we have people wanting to kill other people to begin with. I have no illusions that it will ever go away completely, but we have to question why New Zealand's crime rate is so low and why El Salvador is off the charts. Why this is precisely is no doubt extremely complicated, but suffice it to say that if we had to summarize the reasons, guns don't make people homicidal. If they did, I'd be a serial killer. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
For those interested in such things CNN has a story devoted to these things. If you plan to use them, it might be a good idea to trace the stats to the source material when possible:
U.S. gun violence: The story in graphics | CNN Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Hyroglyphx writes: Thank you for proving the point for me. The prevalence of guns alone cannot account for why gun homicide (or any homicide, for that matter) is higher or lower. My whole point is that the simplistic notion of strict gun laws or loose gun laws don't demonstrate anything meaningful without controlling for a number of different factors, such as you have elucidated. I didn't prove any point for you. Rather, you seem to be rebutting points not made. No one here believes the strength of gun control laws is the only controlling variable for murder rates. The simple argument is that increasing gun prevalence leads to increasing gun violence.
There's no puzzle. It's a big a complex world out there, and it's easy to find country by country circumstances that cloud statistical comparisons, but when you do the proper studies correctly the fact emerges that more guns translates to more gun violence. I agree that it is a very complicated issue, and that's my point. This isn't something so simple that we could lay all the problems at the feet of guns. The problem is actually very simple. We know adding guns to most situations, like households, places those in the vicinity at greater risk of injury and death. Guns being the actual instrument of injury and death, clearly they are the single most significant problem. You take a crime-ridden ghetto in Brazil and add guns and you get a big increase in murders. By comparison to Brazil Canada seems nearly crime free, and adding guns there only causes small increases in suicides and gun injury and death. You can't make a nudnik claim of, "Oh, this is so complex, the various factors could never be identified and quantified." Of course they can, and they have. Adding a gun to any situation that doesn't include training, practice, refresher courses, proper storage, regular maintenance, etc., only puts people at greater risk of injury and death. Studies that examine guns in households, and other studies that look at different countries and compare apples to apples (e.g., the US, Canada and Europe) and not Mexico to Switzerland (unless the variables are controlled for), show that increasing gun prevalence correlates with increasing gun violence. It makes little sense to argue that the problem is so complex that it defies analysis. The gun lobby is so sure that studies of gun violence would go against them that they've influenced the passage of laws that prevent the government from funding studies. What's next, book banning? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
A lot of commentary on the web seems to agree with GDR, e.g.: Bible Hub on Luke 22:38. Just quoting a small portion:
quote: --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
A lot of commentary on the web seems to agree with GDR, e.g.: Bible Hub on Luke 22:38. Just quoting a small portion: This is an example where cherry picking a verse (i.e. quote mining) creates a problem. Jesus clearly discusses in prior verses people out without money or shoes and showing them that even in such circumstances that they lacked for nothing. It is pretty clear that he was addressing people who were complaining when they had far more than the nothing that sufficed before. Jesus told them to take the two swords because they were whining and not because he thought it was the best policy. Of course shortly thereafter Peter or some other disciple draws his sword in defense of Jesus and cuts of the ear of the high priest's slave. Jesus tells him to sheath his sword and heals the man's ear. Overall lesson? Bear arms? I don't think so. Rather it is clearly a concession to the weakness of the disciples who quite often just seemed not to get Jesus during the time of his life on earth. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Hyroglyphx.
Hyroglyphx writes: I see and respect your points. Thanks for allowing me to blow off some steam!
Hyroglyphx writes: ...many strict gun control advocates seem to equate guns as being the culprit and unintentionally make guns the enemy without judging the actions of those who wield them with malice... I don't think anybody is actually anthropomorphizing the guns. I think it's just formulaic thinking: "guns" and "human behavior" are both variables in an equation that determines "number of deaths." So, assigning some of the blame to guns isn't necessarily anthropomorphism. Also, the "human behavior" variable is, on the face of it, a much messier and less quantifiable variable than the "guns" variable. It also seems to have messier ramifications for a larger array of other legal equations. So from a practical standpoint, doesn't it seem more productive to focus on the simpler variable? You also seem very focused on the "malice" aspect of human behavior. It would certainly be informative to examine a dataset of "all deaths" and see whether "malice" or "guns" was involved in a greater proportion of them. But then, if it turned out that "malice" was a more frequent contributing factor, what measures could we propose to regulate "malice"? Regulating guns still seems more straightforward, and thus more likely to bear practical fruit, to me.-Blue Jay, Ph.D.* *Yeah, it's real Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The commentaries at Bible Hub are divided on the interpretation, some reading it literally.
Luke 22:36 Commentaries: And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. In any case there is no excuse for GDR to have added the phrase in the passage that implies that Jesus was addressing a question they had asked. The context is as I kept saying: He is telling them things are going to change, they will now be in a hostile world where self-defense may be necessary. If he means the sword nonliterally why not the purse and the scrip too? And, to my mind, none of the claims that Jesus didn't mean the sword literally fit the text. It is certainly true that the gospel is to be furthered by the sword of the Spirit and physical force is certainly no part of it at all, but this passage seems to have a completely different context in mind. ABE: By the way, where's the "cherry picking" when the entire chapter, all the thirty five verses before this subject comes up, have nothing to do with this subject and say nothing that would give the context for it you are insisting on. ABE; Since so many commentaries treat it as figurative instead of literal, and since I agree that Jesus' teaching is always nonviolent, I would happily concede the point. My problem is that it doesn't read figuratively. Another point on that side I'd mention is that if He didn't mean it literally, why rather than saying "it is enough" didn't He just say "You misunderstand Me, put the swords away, they have no part in this." ABE: Also, this doesn't sound figurative: "if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hyro writes: I agree with your hypothesis. It's common sense. Mt objection was "not allowing" people to have access to guns doesn't mean they won't get them. The real problem is the prevalence or ubiquity of the guns themselves. Well yes. So the task is to do something that will reduce the number of guns available, right? A start would be to not allow people to have them. This was done in the UK and Australia with good results.
I've stated before, even if a law passed tomorrow banning all guns in the United States, the reality is that there are still some 600 million guns in circulation. "Not allowing" them to have it won't get those guns out of their hands. Actually it would just make them better at hiding them You're simply advocating doing nothing. 'Not allowing' would reduce gun numbers and over time it would change culture - laws have that affect. But I understand the seeming political impossibility of this for the US as it stands. Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024