 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dissident
Well not everyone had guns, but honest citizens gun ownership was much, much higher percentage-wise than it is now.
Look at the 19th century. Crime was almost non-existant. Sure you had the occasional OK corral. But contrary to what western movies would have you believe, shootouts were very rare. Why? Because everyone was packing, and you were libel to get yourself killed drawing your weapon on someone else. School shootings? They would not be a problem of the students were packing heat.
Why not commit crimes now? I look around my city, and armed robbery is so easy to do. No one ever gets caught. I can't figure out why everyone doesn't do it. The police don't even investigate armed robbery anymore. They are too busy with more serious violent crimes. But they hardly solve those either.
Why trust your life in the hands of inept police?
I suggest buying a gun. |
Diss, get yourself to a library or bookstore right now and get a copy of Luc Sante's Low Life, which is his account of crime in New York in the 19th century. That should put to rest any ideas you have about the crimeless 1800s.
After that, remember that, far from everyone "packing heat," frontier towns practiced a form of gun control that would send Charlton Heston into apoplectic fits: guns often had to be left with the sherrif when you rode into town, and only picked up after you left.
Finally, remember that "everyone" had guns only in rural and frontier areas; big cities had a much smaller percentage of gun owners then than they do now.
Now, you were saying? 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
quote:
Mitchell, you're a dreamer. |
...I point out an ideal situation then I point out a reason why it's not worth trying to make it happen.
quote:
Ideally there would be no bad guys. |
Of course. But then if there were none, we wouldn't need any guns because we wouldn't have anything to protect ourselves from right?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
|
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mrmitchell
If NOONE had guns, there would only be for the large part nonviolent crime--many less muggings and shootings etc. You might see a bit more beatings, but those are a lot better than shootings, right?
Now, on the other hand, if EVERYONE had guns, people would still shoot people no matter what the odds of getting killed. (I don't think many murderers would really care about that )
When SOME people have guns, the rate is as high as if EVERYONE has guns, and it's a more successful rate at that because only so many people pack protection.
The ideal is NO guns, but banning something only makes it more attractive to get.
So what do we do? |
A few years before he died, Daniel Moynahan (moderate Senator from NY) confronted this very question, and came to pretty much those conclusions. Plus, he noted, even if we did ban guns right now, there are already enough floating around in our society to make the ban meaningless.
His solution: ban bullets. Seriously. Ban the sale of handgun bullets to everyone but licensed law officers, and have law officers get them through tightly-regulated government distribution.
I tend to agree with Sloww that the genie is already out of the bottle. But you have to admit, it's an interesting idea.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-09-2003 13:15
|