Subject:
|
Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:30:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
538 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Not to lessen the significance of your prior actions, but for the context of
> > this debate, were these life-or-death situations, on the street, in which you
> > put yourself in harm's way for a stranger?
>
> Admittedly, no. At least as far as I knew, they weren't. At some remove, I
> can tell you I'd think I'd be less likely to intervene in a fist fight,
> though, than in a situation where someone had a gun drawn, assuming I was
> carrying. Fist fights are too dangerous.
That's an interesting perspective. I've witnessed a number of fist
fights, none of which ended in fatality (though in some cases
hospitilization was necessary), but the likelihood of death seems greater
when firearms are in use. Granted, a knife in close-quarters scuffling
could easily be deadly, so if that's what you're referring to I see your point.
> People deride the "wild west" but it's my opinion that people were more
> likely to intervene and aid then than they are now.
I think you're correct to use the "opinion" disclaimer, since the
impression of a Wild West held in check by firearms is largely a fiction. A
real factor to consider is that the population of the old west was a tiny
fraction of that of today's population centers, so it's difficult to
extrapolate the effects of universal firearm possession from one scenario to
another. I would speculate that in a small (by today's standards) town with
no TV, people became more familiar with one another and might for this
reason have been less inclined to shoot each other, too (but that is,
admittedly, fairly idle speculation).
I have a nitpicky but good-faith question about the 2nd Amendment, if
anyone would care to answer. It says that "the right of the people to keep
and bear arms shall not be infringed." In all seriousness, couldn't a
by-the-letter interpretation of this amendment indicate that a person can
own and carry weapons but cannot acquire new ones? That is, at face value I
don't see anything protecting a right to purchase or manufacture arms. I
really don't view this as a viable argument, ultimately, but I'd appreciate
opinions, rather than knee-jerk "that ain't the way it is" answers. Thanks!
Dave!
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
| (...) I think that we can assume authorial intent on this one Dave! Since the text wouldn't mean anything if there was no way to get the arms, I assume that the broader picture of gun availability is protected too. However, I agree that this is (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
| (...) Admittedly, no. At least as far as I knew, they weren't. At some remove, I can tell you I'd think I'd be less likely to intervene in a fist fight, though, than in a situation where someone had a gun drawn, assuming I was carrying. Fist fights (...) (23 years ago, 18-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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
