Subject:
|
Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Jun 2003 19:28:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1975 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
> > 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.
Well, okay. But in that case you need to jettison your argument that increased
gun control leads to (or causes) increased crime.
> > In any case, small-arms fire is irrelevant to a concerted modern
> > military as anything except an annoyance.
> How about we ask the PLO, or the IRA.
I'm not sure that I recall a sustained conflict between the full might of the
military and either of those organizations, though I'm aware of ongoing combat
between small groups of each. Am I incorrect?
Anyway, Hop-Frog has rightly called me on my own use of anecdotes, but I
haven't penned my reply to him yet!
> 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.
The Consitution also allows the government to assemble forces to put down
uprising and insurrections. How do you propose that the government accomplish
this, lacking any weapons? Also, I have never heard a convincing refutation of
the fact that high-tech weapons of time were single-shot muzzle loaders and
dangerous and unwieldy cannon. Do you think that the letter-of-the-law trumps
the facts of advancing weapons technology? If so, I disagree with you, but I
admit that you're not alone in your view. Still, I have never heard a
convincing argument that a madman with a nuke would be deterred by a sane person
with a nuke.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
