SharkD wrote:

> On 11/6/2009 9:15 AM, Stefan Viljoen wrote:
>> This meant that you could have 400 or 500 guys, and maybe five or six
>> may be armed at any one time, AND have ammunition.
> 
> This is still a lot more than the average office complex or neighborhood
> school. Hence the "arms race" where the number of guns is increasing.
> 
> Mike

Ok, I see your point there - my argument sucks as regards that particular
illustration. An arms race is of course taking place, and the people making
the guns benefit, and it is to their advantage to sell more and more of
them.

But what is the difference between making guns, and making medicine? Either
serve a purpose or fills a need. You could probably say there is no
comparison, since guns kill people and medicine heals people. That's the
old hackneyed "guns don't kill people, people do". Misuse medicine and it
could kill or make you sick. Same with firearms. Misuse it and it could get
you killed.

What do you think about the nuclear arms race then? It was on a different
scale of course, but the fact that the "West" (the United States and its
allies) had thousands of nukes and the "East" (Russia and its allies) had
thousands of nukes, lead to a long period of relative peace and stability
between nation states that could have conceivable obliterated mankind, if
they ever warred. Both sides knew complete and utter destruction was
ensured, so both sides went to considerable lengths NOT to get embroiled in
conflict.

Doesn't this compare to the private citizen having automatic firearms, if
the criminal who wants to steal from and murder him have automatic
firearms?

Or what do you consider proportional if you find the argument above
specious?
-- 
Stefan Viljoen

Post a reply to this message