Sure, after all the rude assholes get done plugging each other! Which is likely gonna take awhile cause they breed! Used to think anal sex couldn’t result in pregnancy, but its the only explanation…
You mistake my argument.
I am not arguing that you can ever perfectly restrict something’s availability.
Nor am I arguing that having atomic weapons would deter others from obtaining their own nukes.
I am arguing that the ‘genie’ argument, brought to its logical conclusion, would make nukes available to every nation.
After all, M.A.D. was based upon the concept that having nukes would prevent other from using theirs. This seems to be similar to the logic that people with guns make other people with guns not want to use them.
Am I wrong in that, as you see it?
Now, should atomic weapons be given to every nation?
If your answer is no, as your remarks about North Korea and Iran suggest, then why should some people have access to hand guns but some nations should have access to nukes?
Is it the destructive power involved?
If that’s the case, would you support a total ban on all assault rifles/sub machine guns, etc…?
You see a world where everybody would be polite.
I see a world in which the other guy would just wait to shoot you in the back.
Or everybody would wear Kevlar.
Or some folks would walk around with, what, Uzi’s, RPG’s, rocket launchers?
How much force would be required to make sure you had the upper hand in any dispute with your neighbors?
Wow, civility enforced under threat of death. Now there’s a wholesome society to live in. :rolleyes:
But then, I’m one of those doofy folks who’s civil to people because it’s the right thing to do…
It would be, but a simple examination of history or current conditions in inner cities shows it doesn’t happen, because human evolution is still catching up to the inherent deadliness of the handgun.
Physiologically humans are still geared for the ‘roughhouse a bit, then back off’ method of aggression which you can see on any playground, or litter of puppies. But when handguns are thrown into the mix, bullets start flying mighty quick. If you could guarantee that firearm use would be limited to those who have reached the age of majority, who have had sufficient training, and are willing to back down from a fight rather than risk death, then yes, people are capable of owning and carrying guns on a daily basis. What we’ve got is a bunch of childen packing heat who kill because they get hit by a water balloon.
I missed this on my first read-through…
Are you honestly proposing that we put guns in classrooms, as policy?
Is the risk of Columbine style attacks really so great that we need history teachers with a .45 under the desk?
Would the risk of having the guns, even in locked boxes, be too great?
If there was going to be violence at a school, what would be the possibility that students could get the gun away from a teacher?
Do we really want our teachers to be well trained with firearms in the event that they need to shoot some of their students?
Not so.
I simply think that guns are, in general, far more dangerous than advantageous for a society.
The rare cases when people would be protected by being armed are outweighed by the cases where people are murdered/killed by guns.
And before/during the fact can take lives in error.
We are a nation of laws and due process.
Not lynch mobs and shootouts.
But how many non-lethal situations would be turned lethal?
Does the guy demanding your wallet deserve to be shot in the chest?
Are you sure that you can level your gun on him before he grabs it and takes it away from you?
If people were determined to do violence in this society, wouldn’t they just make sure that they were more heavily armed/armored than any potential victims? (hell, maybe just lob concussion grenades at you and then steal your wallet instead of going and asking)
Not all that wacky actually. I think that society can get there in a few easy steps.
- Every citizen is armed with a government issue .45 caliber handgun.
- Criminals now need body armor and machine guns if they want to have a chance of robbing anybody.
- Citizens now need to make sure they’re armed with machine guns with armor piercing rounds as well as being covered with ceramic and Kevlar armor.
- Criminals need new gear.
- Civilians need new gear.
- etc
- those not dissuaded by the difficulty of a target will, perforce, come up with effective countermeasures.
And again, if conventional small arms are kosher, why not large arms?
Is there a cut off point?
If so, where and why?
If not, why shouldn’t we sell rocket launchers in K-Mart?
Columbine? There was (a presumably trained) armed guard at the high school who was driven off by the kids’ firepower. Do we up the deterrence to a 30 cal. water-cooled machine gun on a desk, à la Les in the older Funky Winkerbean strips, to make kids “safe”?
Politeness? I have no idea where Heinlein got that little gem, but we had a period where “politeness” was enforced on a personal level and the citizens of the towns where that occurred took steps to disarm themselves without waiting for the states or the Feds to interfere, on the grounds that the presence of weapons was adding neither courtesy nor safety to the streets.
I am more likely to support than to oppose personal gun ownership, but using arguments that are contradicted by factual history do nothing to support the pro-gun position.
As a frequent visitor to the US, can I ask how this proposal caters for my security? Will I be able to bring my Kalashnikov on the plane, be issued with ‘tourist class’ firearms at the border, or is the plan to keep all the foreigners vulnerable as a counterterrorism measure?
If this isn’t too far off the topic, I was wondering…
How many of the pro-gun ownership lobby would support the same logic outlined above when it comes to nation states arming themselves. Surely, as outlined, it would be a much safer, polite and friendly world if every single country had the equalising deterrent of nuclear weapons at their disposal.
Not to use, of course, but to prevent others from using against you. That would put a brake on all aggressive behaviour, world-wide. Peace would truly be within our grasp…
I’m glad you can see Beyond This Horizon! 
(Snerk! :D)
What are we indulging in adolescent male gun fantasies here again? Once agian bringing up a once a how many years? event like Colombine or 9/11 to justify some psychotic dream of everyone owning a gun? Why don’t we make dueling legal again as well?
You assume that people will always behave rationally. That’s is not the case. People get angry. People get drunk or stoned. They act irrationally or make stupid decisions. And you want to put more guns out there for them to play with?
I’m not even anti-guns. I’m anti stupid people with guns. When I hear someone say “everyone should carry a gun so that the world would be a safer place”, that is the very person I believe should not own one.
Yeah we would be a lot more polite to each other if we were all armed. There would also be a lot fewer of us.
If you want to seriously argue that, please provide relevent statistics. In other words, “cite?”
ONE gun in American hands on each of the 9-11 flights would have saved thousands of lives.
One flight never made its target cause Americans banded together and gave their lives for the greater good rather than cowering in fear from a middle-easterner with a box cutter. We don’t know how many lives that saved, already.
I guess you read the part about less guns and increasing crime in Australia, so you’re in reaction?
Please see post # 31, above. 
That’s been debated and disproven already. That’s the ‘Teddy and Diane’ argument, and it’s hysterical hyperbole.
Those states who have recently passed “shall issue” legislation, meaning that barring some valid reason anyone can carry a gun concealed, never showed any indication that it caused an increase in such improbable incidents.
There were no shoot-outs in the streets, no increase in gang wars, NOTHING!
In fact, in every state (34 at last count) that passed such legislation had a decrease in violent crime.
The bullies might leave the 110-pound weakling alone, that’s one possibility. Another possibility is three guys still ganging up on him and beating the shit out of him. Ah, but this time he can strike back! He shoots the three guys… Just to face the death penalty afterwards. That’s another possibility: 4 people dead in the end.
If we were to arm the population, I would like the government to train every women at the age of 16 to use and carry firearms and it would be illegal for men to use guns. Arming half of the population - and the less aggressive half at that - should be sufficient to guarantee everybody’s safety.
Read the article again.
They tried that, in England and Australia, and crime went up.
With concealed carry, crime goes down.
What do you want? More crime or less crime?
Gee, maybe we ought to apply the same idea to the war on drugs! If we prevent both sides from having drugs, no problem! See how well that idea worked?
I think gun control advocates are clueless. Living in la-la land if they think they can take criminals’ guns away. Even in Britian and Australia the criminals still have guns.
It’s trite, but true:
“Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns.”
I have read the article.
I just went back and re-read the article.
I still can’t find anything to prove that arming everybody would be a good thing.
For instance, first they make the claim that individuals could somehow stop terrorism.
Imagine this implications.
For one, you’d have to ** allow people to carry guns onto planes**.
Even if you did allow people to carry weapons, who’d make the determination of when to use lethal force?
Would we see citizens turning weapons with live ammunition on ‘suspicious persons of color?’
If everybody is able to be armed, how do you keep weapons out of the hands of those who will use them with calculated malicious intent? (you only shoot them after they open fire, right?)
[QUOTE=SnakeSpirit]
Gee, maybe we ought to apply the same idea to the war on drugs! If we prevent both sides from having drugs, no problem! See how well that idea worked?
[/quotes]
Apples, oranges.
It is very hard to walk up to someone and demand that they give you their wallet or you’re going to make them smoke a big fat joint.
It is even harder to splatter someone’s brains all over the pavement with that joint.
So the solution to outlaws having guns is that everybody should have guns?
Would you then be willing to extend this logic to international politics?
North Korea has nukes so every nation should have nukes (If they want).
After all:
** When nukes are outlawed, only rogue nations will have nukes**
You don’t have, and can’t get, statistics to back this. It’s just opinion. Please label your opinion as such unless you like being challenged and eventually ignored.
Frankly, I think the rest of your arguments are ludicrous anyway, a bunch of strawman arguments backed up by hyperbole.
Statics show that you don’t have to arm everyone, that having a proportion of the population that is well-trained in firearm use carrying concealed weapons is adequate to quell violence. We’re talking firearm enthusists, here, people who train and practice with some regularity. Kind of a civilian extension of the police force.
There are peaceful places in the USA where this works. As Barbarian pointed out, the inner-cities, which typically prohibit firearms, are where all the firearm deaths occur.
As a frequent visitor to the US, has our possession of firearms ever threatened your security?
Not everyone has to have firearms, just enough to balance our the crazies.