Subject:
|
Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 Feb 2003 03:19:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
512 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> >
> > > You don't need the gun, you shouldn't want the gun, and if your only reason
> > > to have the gun is to "protect society", you're not--you're actually,
> > > statistically, hindering society.
> > >
> > > I'm just saying...
> >
> > The violent crime rate doubled* in Canada and tripled* in the UK after the • gun
> > control laws went into effect. Yes they are still lower than in the US but
> > that is beside the point. I do understand your point now, but unless every • gun
> > on the planet was destroyed, statistically those that break the law will • always
> > have them and be more inclined to use them with no threat of opposition.
> >
> > -Mike Petrucelli
> >
> > *aproximately
>
> And I agree that there will always be those that want to break the law, or
> use a weapon in a moment of passion--I admitted that I'm torn when it comes
> to me, a gun, and Paul Bernardo (my ethics would prevent me from doing harm
> to him in the final analysis).
>
> Less access to guns = less gun related violence is what I'm advocating.
>
> It's a cyclical arguement--if the bad guys have guns, then we, the private
> citizens should have guns to combat the bad guys--the problem is,
> statistically, the more guns we, the private citizens have, the better
> chance the bad guys have at getting guns
Except that right now it would be easier for me to purchase an AK-47 through
illegal channels than it would be for me to purchase a 6-shooter through legal
channels.
> --compounded with that is that age
> old problem of family members shooting family members.
>
> What I want is a complete pipe dream, I know, but I never said i wasn't a
> dreamer, and as yet, I haven't heard any reason why my 'dream' is not better
> for society than what we have today.
I will definately agree that if your 'dream' could be realized that would be
the best thing for society. Although I think, as is the case with my 'dream' of
eliminating all the dictatorships on the planet to acheive world peace, we
must settle for what will work the most effective not what is best. There is a
reason that short women are the most likely victims of violent crime. They are
the least likely to fight back. As far as family members shooting family
members, well that is tragic to be sure, but they represent a miniscule
fraction of the victims that would likely be the result of imposing gun control
like what Canada and the UK experienced. It would be like cutting off ones left
arm to save ones right little finger. I personally think educating people on
the proper resposibilities of owning a firearm (like the concept of "be sure of
your target") would be more effective at reducing accidental shootings. Also
keep in mind someone is about 5 times more likely to be killed in a car
accident by a drunk relative and about 30 times more likely to be killed by a
random drunk driver. A person is about 20 times more likely to be struck by
lightning and live through it. A person is about 10 times more likely to be
killed by an actual criminal.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
| (...) And I agree that there will always be those that want to break the law, or use a weapon in a moment of passion--I admitted that I'm torn when it comes to me, a gun, and Paul Bernardo (my ethics would prevent me from doing harm to him in the (...) (21 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
92 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
