Subject:
|
Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Jun 2003 18:30:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1913 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
>
> > > > Seriously though we need to keep this whole "high crime rate in
> > > > the US" thing is perspective. A person more likely to be killed in a car
> > > > accident on their way to work then they are to be robbed by an armed
> > > > criminal and live through it. (And armed robbery is far more frequent than
> > > > actually being killed by a criminal.)
> > >
> > > That may be so, but so what? The fact remains that gun-homicide rates are
> > > shockingly high in the US (with its relatively loose gun control laws) as
> > > compared with other nations (some of which have relatively tight gun control
> > > laws). Relative to other nations, the US gun-homicide rates *is* high,
> > > objectively speaking.
> >
> > That has always been the case regardless of the other countries Gun Control
> > laws.
>
> Then you need to pick a side to stand on. Are you saying that increased gun
> control *does* lead to an increased crimerate, or are you saying that increased
> gun control is irrelevant to an increased crimerate? If the former, then your
> statement invalidates itself. If the latter, then your statement invalidates
> your prior arguments in this thread. Which is it?
You are absolutely right Dave! The statistics do not show any positive or
negative one way or the other for or against gun control. The funny thing is
that only further increases my belief that gun control is all about Government
control over civilians.
>
> > Gun Control is not about crime it is about Government
> > control over the people. It is just another piece of the puzzle.
> >
> > http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=21135
>
> That may be your belief, but the post to which you've linked is pure
> witnessing rather than argument, except as anecdotal (and therefore non-useful)
> evidence. In any case, small-arms fire is irrelevant to a concerted modern
> military as anything except an annoyance. Sure, it's tragic that a marine was
> killed by a sniper, but the overall objective is not really affected. Ask David
> Koresh how useful his small-arms weaponry was against the ATF. Then ask Randy
> Weaver how useful his small-arms weaponry was.
How about we ask the PLO, or the IRA.
> There are those who advocate full freedom of ownership of any military-grade
> weaponry for all citizens, including tanks, nukes, battleships, and
> what-have-you. But once that point is made, I consider the argument to have left
> the bounds of reason.
Really? As per the US constitution it was intended that the Government not have
any weapons and that the citizens were the military in the form of a
self-regulated militia.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
161 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
|
|
|
|
