Thursday, July 10, 2003
Spotted a news story which illustrates the sort of thing I'm talking about.
posted by Jack |
Wednesday, July 09, 2003
We reached my holiday. :-)
posted by Jack |
During which, incidentally, I had a chance to eyeball a few police militaire of the 2ème Regiment Etrangère de Parachutistes (of the French Foreign Legion) carrying their rifles (weird-looking bullpup thing with a carrying handle on the top; I thought they were Steyrs for a moment, but they didn't have the front vertical grip that the Steyr has) and a couple of anti-tank missiles (look like two-and-a-half foot-long lengths of green pipe, about six inches in diameter, with fat black rubber feet on each end).
Anyway... What do I think would happen if my fellow commuters were able to carry guns?
I think that there are two types of people - those who have the necessary sense of moral duty/responsibility/intelligence/whatever to carry a gun and only use it appropriately, and those who are protected from Darwinism by the National Health Service, social welfare and the laws which discourage me from make the world a better place by removing them from the gene pool. Unfortunately, I think that the latter are more numerous than the former.
I think we'd see more gun crime (e.g. muggings at gunpoint, armed robberies, etc.), an awful lot of negligent discharges, an increase in gun crime (i.e. shootings and murders) resulting from arguments amongst young (i.e. mid- to late-teens) urban people (the type who hang around street corners, dressed like rappers, smoking and trying to look hard), and a lot of people losing their tempers over relatively small things and pulling guns, with the obvious escalation, brief gun fights, woundings and deaths. That's why I think relaxing gun control laws would cause more problems than it would solve.
Might be a nice population control measure, though!
Dershowitz makes an interesting and good point. It brings to my mind the Supreme Court's recent endorsement of affirmative action.
Focusing on making gun laws uniform across the country - unless you plan to adopt the lowest common denominator (e.g. take the most/least liberal laws and apply them nationwide), there would have to be a certain amount of adjustment. Broadly, what sort of laws would you propose?
I think we're at a point in Tytler's cycle where simply breaking the cycle and preserving the status quo is not desirable. I think that our society is already "disconnected, apathetic, ignorant and irresponsible". It would be nice to reverse the cycle and stop it further back. The question is, is that possible?
Finally, I have to say that I don't have as much faith as you do in "my fellow-man to make the right decision if given all the information". I mean, isn't that the reason a republic is preferable to a democracy?
posted by Kevin |
Have we reached impasse, or is there still life in this discussion?