And another shooting.

Remove all ads!

Maybe not the ENTIRE premise, but a very, very important one that is almost always ignored these days, even by the gun lobby.

 

In the 18th century the continent of North America was primarily a wilderness. People lived with a variety of danger and most men and many women knew how to use a gun and knew what it would do. In this modern day and age few people know how to use a gun or have killed anything except maybe a fly or a mouse in a trap. We do not gather our own food. Maybe you think that a population that is armed is a wise thing but I certainly don't. Husbands and wives would be killing each other in a fit a spite. Children would accidentally or intentional be shot or shoot others. We do not live in a wilderness. The days of the wild west are gone and for that I am grateful.

Yes, I think Bush has miss used his powers as President but he isn't the first to do so and he won't be the last. We have survived and are still free to complain about and post our opinions on forums such as this one. Even the less powerful rifles and handguns in modern hands are dangerous as these threads show.

I'll probably upset a few people saying this but in my very strongly held opinion anyone who advocates a populous armed with high powered assault weapons is at best a fool. Even less powerful rifles and handguns in modern hands are dangerous.

I guess I do trust our government or at least in this instance I trust it more than the general population.

 

Nakia, considering how prevalent guns already are, you'd think that your scenario would already be played out all the time. This country would be an endless bloodbath. It isn't, though because most people have the sense and moral compass to know that killing their spouse or some stranger is the wrong thing to do. Also, the whole wild west analogy is pretty tired and not at all convincing. The west was wild because it was lawless, not because of the prevalence of guns. Men used guns the way they did because of the absence of law.

 

Surely that should be somewhat comforting. I mean what if one of these shooters, instead of just having access to a semi-automatic pistol had say a tank or nuclear grade missiles?

This isn't exactly a feature of modern, western, constitutional democracies is it...
By extension you'd all be safer should there be an alien invasion.

...which are undeniably already present.

Agreed, however there seems to be somewhat of a disparity between users. Law enforcement rarely uses guns for evil, while school children rarely use them for good.

Absolutely I think the media has a lot to answer for.

Finally - I couldn't resist - Family Guy clip - Right to Bear Arms

 

Er, that's called living in a state. Max Weber once said that something is a state if and only if it retained monopoly on the use of violence, or at least legitimate violence (as opposed to, say, crime). Anyway, if the government is to do its duties in protecting peace from within (i.e. banditry, organized crime etc) or without (invasion from other countries) it needs to have an advantage to allow it to enforce its decisions. It does limit its citizens' freedoms, but the alternative is usually something like Afghanistan, where local strongmen and militia leaders do what the government can't. In the 10th or 18th century things could maybe be different, but today few people can afford the newest weapons and technologies - most of us will be at a disadvantage anyway.

The question right now isn't, however, whether the state should have more power than the citizens, or vice versa: those kids weren't killed by federal agents. The question is whether we can limit, if not deny, psychopaths and thugs in killing innocent people, and how far we are willing to go for that.

 

Thats a dictatorship you are referring to.

The fact is gun's in America are a fact of life until the number of pro-gun people are outnumbered by those opposed to guns. That is not to say they shouldn't add some stricture regulations.