Originally Posted by
ThisYouWillDo
I don't know why you suddenly started talking about ancient modes of transport, but I have been referring to this post which clearly relates to 21st century statistics.
I find it hard to believe that the USA still collects statistics on deaths caused by chariots (especially as they have never been used there, not even motorised ones - except, perhaps, in Hollywood), and because of that, I feel somehow you've snookered yourself. Perhaps you were too engrossed in reading The Illiad to realise that my questions about the statistics you quoted were put in the (quite natural) belief that you were talking about cars or automobiles as those words are generally understood in the modern era.
But no matter.
No argument, and complete agreement with what you say about spokesmen attempting to represent the "will of the majority", whichever point of view they want to promote.
The right to bear arms is an anachronism. As I said, the 13 colonies obtained their freedom two and a half centuries ago, and then occupied or purchased much of the rest of the continent. The American people are under no threat except from their own government, and that represents no threat at all. And I contend that, if your government ever did want to oppress the American people, it would do so despite the fact that so many are armed. In fact, it would probably encourage hot-headed armed extremists to create unrest so that it could step in and impose "law and order" to protect everyone else.
What is a "varmint rifle"?
I infer that your family suffered at the hands of an oppressive (European?) regime, for which I am sorry. As you have mentioned it here, I assume you anticipate a response. And it will be brief. It seems your family possessed firearms, but that did not help them when the oppressors took the guns away and deported them. So, yes, the argument does seem ridiculous.
Unnecessarily so. Aren't you better than that?
Corporal punishment is as barbaric as capital punishment. As I said before, it demeans the person meting out the beatings as well as the poor sod who receives it. In any case, what form of corporal punishment is suitable for someone who kills a classfull of students? 1,000 lashes?
I agree with you that psychiatric services are a must. That implies that the death penalty will not be imposed, and I heartily applaud that.
Furthermore, if a person is spotted as a risk, those services can be utilised before any catastrophe occurs, and maybe avert it. So is part of the answer some kind of psycholgical profiling?
And is that already happening when it comes to buying guns?
I don't know what those checks entailed, but it does indicate that all forms of checking are susceptible to failure at key times. Therefore, even with psychological profiling as a preventative, gun-controls remain desirable.
You cite an example of a lunatic using a car to kill children instead of a gun and ask, if guns should be banned because of these university killings, why cars shouldn't also banned as a consequence of this act. I tried to answer that question earlier, when you responded with the statistics I have pasted at the top of this post. Cars are, as you say designed as modes of transport, not as weapons. Guns, on the other hand have no purpose other than killing. Although that does include hunting (and like many other liberals, I would allow that, even though, in this day and age, hunting in America is a recreation rather than an essential for life - so maybe I wouldn't allow it after all).
And, supposing that happened; what would the consequences be compared to bannnng guns? No food or materials could be moved faster than a horsee could pull them. The economy would be ruined at a stroke.
No-one would die as a result of car accidents, but the number of people trampled by horses is likely to rise.
Now, if guns were banned, what would happen? Apart from a few job losses, nothing!
You cannot reasonably put that question, Ozme.
TYWD
Reply With Quote