When I wrote my post earlier, I realized that I could have gone on for quite some time. Time of which I am woefully short these days. Nonetheless, I'm back to make a few points:
1) Initial design -- NoGun, a few times in this thread, you have mentioned that "guns were designed for killing." My query: Even if you are correct in that, how much difference does the initial designer's intention really matter? If dynamite were designed for the purpose of destroying large sections of rock, say to make railroad tunnels, would that mean that I should be able to buy dynamite down at the 7-11? If not, then why would a firearms "design purpose" factor into this equation?
2) In a fairly recent post, you said:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NoGun
In most of these situations I don't believe a gun or even a taser in my hands would have done me or my group any good (I am NOT saying there is never a situation where guns can do good). On the flipside, good guys with guns probably saved my life at least once and definitely rescued us from molestation. In the spirit complete honesty, I've been protected by U.N. forces, various police/military and even private security while abroad. And I was very glad they were armed.
|
(Emphasis supplied by Spats)
Why were you glad? If Tasers were the answer, should you not have been worried that the UN forces had firearms instead of Tasers? Those soldiers carried guns, because those are the most appropriate and effective tools for the job.
Your post highlights one of the things that really sticks in many gun owners' craws: elitism. There is a very strong push right now to limit access to firearms, and that push is coming from people who are surrounded by armed guards. If guns are such a bad idea, why do the rich and famous surround themselves with men with guns? Why is it OK for their security squads to carry firearms, but not OK for a single mother who can only afford an apartment in a questionable neighborhood? As gov't ramps up the requirements (education, training, licensing, etc.) to exercise the RKBA, that right gets further and further out of reach of the poor.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NoGun
The difference in here versus there, is that these were unstable countries and the criminals (so to speak) were either military or paramilitary organizations. Because of the proliferation of guns here in the U.S., a person almost does have to be armed with a gun to go toe to toe with criminals. However, we have a stable government that could change that. If guns could be rendered prohibitively hard to obtain or use, then they would go the way of hand grenades and machine guns, their use in crime would be a statistical anomaly. And there are some very viable ways we could make that happen.
|
(Emphasis supplied by Spats)
Our "stable government that could change that" . . . Have you looked at the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports? Some of the highest per capita murder rates are in Chicago, NY and DC. Many of us do not think that it is an anomaly that those cities have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.
The post quoted immediately above and here:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NoGun
But if guns were made to be prohibitively hard to obtain or use than (which could be done fairly easily) then their significance in crime would drop to nearly nil. Thus, there would be no need for civilians to carry them. Also, there are drawbacks to guns as well.
|
also point out one other fly in the ointment. Even if we assume, but only
arguendo, that making guns prohibitively expensive or hard to obtain would drive down "gun crime," the first people to be affected will be law-abiding citizens who purchase their firearms through legal channels. Criminals who steal guns do not have a "reserve price" which they must get back when they sell a gun. If Mikey Meth steals a Glock, he can sell it for $100. IOW, making guns more expensive only makes them more expensive for law-abiding citizens, and the long-term effect is to turn those folks into defenseless victims first. Criminals and violent felons will remain unaffected. Further, even if we make the above assumption, does that really improve matters? Is it really any better to be beaten to death with a crowbar than shot with a gun? Is the gun really the problem?
As for whether making guns hard to use, I have my doubts as to whether this could be done fairly easily, and I don't think it's a good idea.