Subject:
|
Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 18 Jul 2001 12:28:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
383 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
>
> > > We have issues in this country and more guns is not the answer.
> >
> > Sure it is. Universal armament is the answer. Distribute the entire • national
> > arsenal to the people where it belongs and you'd see a reign of peace and
> > prosperity like no other.
>
> Just out of curiosity, is there any basis for this assertion? Or
> real-world precedent, other than romanticized and falacious notions of the
> "Old West?"
I think that the strength of my claim makes it difficult to really defend.
however the reading that I have done suggests that when concealed carry laws
are passed and the propensity to carry increases for that venue the violent
crime rate decreases and the incidents of bystanders helping stop crimes goes
up.
> > If I'm ever shot or otherwise brutalized, I'll be pissed off that none
> > of the witnesses was armed sufficiently to stop the crime.
>
> Why should a witness feel a need to stop a crime, thereby placing himself
> in harms' way for a stranger?
A) Because it satisfies their internal justice-o-meter. B) Because
we've seen Charles Bronson movies too much and would like the rush of
being the badmutha with the gun. C) Because they would want the same done for
them. D) See A. (I really do think A is the key here.)
> Long ago you indicated that you would not,
> for instance, offer up your bone marrow for me:
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=5776
If you read what I wrote, you'll see that I _might_ give bone marrow for you.
I placed you somewhere between my cats and your dog in importance. I do know
you rather more well than the average stranger. And I usually value your input
here (when you're not yelling at me because I was snotty :-)
> presumably(!) because we aren't close friends, but are we somehow to hope
> that a stranger will risk not only his bone marrow but his life to intervene
> on behalf of some anonymous stranger?
Everyone I know thinks that's the right thing to do. (By everyone I know, I
mean, everyone that I've discussed this kind of thing with.) Of course, when
time came to put your money where your mouth is, who knows what people would
do. Some people, I expect, would freeze up through no moral fault of their
own, just from fright...maybe I would. But everyone would want to put a stop
to a wrong if they could.
> I know there are anecdotal examples
> of one person taking a bullet for another, but how often does this happen
> for a stranger,
I don't want to take a bullet for a stranger. I'd rather any stranger die than
myself. But I am willing to gamble a little. And I'm willing to shoot a perp
in the back if I think that's the only way to protect an innocent.
> and can we really claim--based on such evidence--that
> prolific gun possession would create the utopia you suggest below?
No, I probably extrapolated too far.
> > If we all carried guns, crime would grind to a screaching halt.
>
> Would it? On what basis is this assertion made? Implicit is the claim
> that everyone would be equally willing to use a gun in defense of a
> stranger, and this is categorically not true.
I agree that it isn't true, but disagree that I implied it. All that it
implies is that enough people would be willing to act to make things better
than an effect would be felt. And the evidence to which I have been exposed
supports that. Crime rates do drop as armed citizens become more common.
> > > need to understand that they are hiding behind the Constitution
> >
> > Wrong. I'm protecting the constitution from you. And I'll win or die.
>
> Well, ultimately you'll die in any case, and the Constitution will
> outlive you, me, Dan, Charlton, and the rest of us.
I'm sure I'll die sometime. But hopefully not at the end of the dreadfully
short 70-90 years that our biology encourages. And I'm sure that the
constitution will live on as a historical document no matter what. But that
doesn't mean that a nation known as The United States of America, and based on
the original constitution will last into perpetuity. I see signs that we are
past our peak and riding the coaster down the last hill of the ride. Maybe I'm
wrong about that perception, but our nation could fail during my lifetime.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
| (...) Just out of curiosity, is there any basis for this assertion? Or real-world precedent, other than romanticized and falacious notions of the "Old West?" (...) Why should a witness feel a need to stop a crime, thereby placing himself in harms' (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
182 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
