Reply #59: You talk about irony going over somebody's head.

[caseymoz]

About the mace vs. the hydrogen bomb, the defense of our entire country was based on our mutually assured destruction. But the hydrogen bomb example was meant to be hyperbole, something way beyond the imaginable.

If you're so relaxed with everybody armed to the teeth and you trust them so much with guns, why can't you trust them with less firepower? Your carrying a gun shows that to some degree, you don't trust the people, strangers, in your environment already, and you're saying that you find them trustworthy with guns then. Why would you arm yourself if you didn't think somebody was hostile or irresponsible? If people are, just ordinarily, armed with such weapons, you could expect criminals to be armed that well, just from stealing and selling the weapons. There's presumably nothing about putting guns into people's hands that makes them more responsible, or better people. One thing worse than being attacked by thugs, is being attacked by thugs who are as well armed as you, and the worst would be if they have the drop on you, too.

If they get the drop on you, it doesn't matter if you're armed or not. I've heard that Giffords was armed, too. In Arizona with such a crowd, I'm presuming at least several other people were armed. Did it really help?


"If you were walking along and saw a child being attacked by a pack of feral dogs, would you not want as much ammunition as possible? Would you complain about having too much?"

I don't know enough about where you live to say much about the packs of feral dogs, but if you live in an environment where they are really that much of a problem, then, yes, carry a good gun. However, if it's just another scenario you've imagined, then I might suggest that you actually carry a gun due to your marvelous imagination, or perhaps having a gun inspires such fantasies, like a drug. I'm sorry to say I'm not encouraged by your examples, especially when you give the impression that you should shoot into the melee and kill every one of them regardless of whether you might hit the child or not. It should take one bullet shot or one dog being killed to get them to run, it wouldn't be necessary to have a great amount of bullets. Though I would say while it's happening, you'll wish that you did.

Normally, your sanity comes back afterward.


"Why not? There are many ways to kill twenty unarmed (or armed) people that have nothing to do with firearms."

In just the sentence before this, you said "bullets are more reliable." In other words, you can't reliably kill 20 people without a gun. Yes, there are other ways of killing twenty other people, but would you bring a knife to a gunfight, really? No, you wouldn't because you know which one is better at killing people. Though gun people like yourself know this, they keep on claiming, from propaganda that guns don't kill people (and animals). Guns kill people the way a hammer drives nails, and if they don't, they're the only tool invented that has absolutely no use, despite their popularity. So, if they don't kill people, do I just presume that guns get you high?


"The founders were far from perfect, but they were spot on regarding the superiority of a government willing to trust the people WITH ARMS."

About the founders, one of the reasons for the Second Amendment was, as Hamilton said in the Federalist Papers, the country was surrounded by hostile Native Americans. So, in other words, it was part of the plan to annihilate the "hostile savages." You're right they were wise; this was very effective.

:sarcasm:

Try not to forget that was a large part of their reasoning.

Plus, the States wanted militias just to be sure they wouldn't actually be invaded by other States, which was also happening with disappointing frequency then, or, yes, downright invasion by the Federal government, in favor of other states.

Lastly, having an armed populace was seen as a way of preventing the formation and need of a standing army. This was stated explicitly by Jefferson in the Virginia Constitution, which has the precursor to the Second Amendment. That seems to have . . . not worked as planned. All right, it was a downright failure. Maybe those guys weren't as wise as your saying.

Gun technology has changed a lot since then. You definitely weren't going to kill twenty people on a spree . . . with a musket. I think what we have now goes a little beyond their wisdom.