|
tj444 -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (9/27/2013 11:43:10 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman
80 million lawful firearms owners in the US didn't kill anyone today. Yes, there will be aberrations occurring, statistics demand them to happen. I notice you omitted the roughly one thousand or so criminals who got shot today. Some died, some lived. The same thing happened all over the planet, and if I recall the figures, about twenty thousand people were shot to death here on Planet Earth in the last twenty-four hours. You forgot about that, too.
The reason we keep nuclear weapons out the hands of unstable regimes is because we did employ them in warfare, and learned what hell-machines they are. But like guns, they can't be uninvented, so we have to do what we can to control and contain the nations that do have them. Some, like Britain, France, and Russia, have governments that can maintain control of their stockpiles even in extreme duress. Others, like North Korea, Pakistan, and (eventually) Iran, have less that stable governments and need to be kept in check.
And "no one having guns" is an extremely naive position to take. How, pray tell, are you going to remove them? Refer back to the 80 million gun owners I mentioned above. To be sure, not all of them are ready, willing, and able to actively resist the roughly two million military and police currently serving in the US. But even if just ten percent did, you'd be facing a host larger than the PRC. And don't bother with the standard "But they won't stand against tanks, drones, and attack choppers." They won't have to. All they'd have to do is inflict the death of a thousand pinpricks on the representative armed forces and police.
What people don't understand about the modern military is, they still specialize in delivering pinpoint strikes, not mass assaults. A missile that can go up a gnat's ass at a hundred miles is worthless against a single man with a scoped deer rifle. That's how it'd be done. A shot here, a hidden explosive there. Uncle Sugar still is learning how to deal with asymmetrical warfare, which is ironic because we more or less invented it. The solution you propose to end the violence will instead create more and in more profound and horrifying ways.
And on the contrary, you'd make a good American. You question, you challenge. Granted, I disagree with your position, but I'll defend to the death your right to do that. Perhaps some day you'll understand what that really means.
I didn't "forget" about anyone.. I was just pointing out that the US govt doesn't actually do much to keep "weapons out the hands of unstable" nutbars.. I expect my definition of a "nutbar" differs from your definition tho... sure, there are countries that have a high death rate from guns but those tend to be less developed countries than the US is.. (like Mexico, etc)..
As far as my opinion goes.. it is not naïve.. I just have a different way of looking at things than most people do.. I am not saying the US should get rid of all guns, I know that is quite impossible.. but the next country I do live in will be one with extremely low gun ownership & low death-by-gun stats as well as a different society that is very non-violent.. such countries seem to do quite well despite the lack of guns.. [;)]
|
|
|
|
