Quote:
Originally posted by MagiK:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Quote:
The gun is irrelevent.
What occured in America against Britain occured with no other British colony. The Indian revolution involved thousands of Indians, unarmed nonviolently marching up to the British who would knock them to the ground with their rifle butts. There were so many Indians, the soldiers would grow tired of hitting them down.
Also the American constitution declared th right to bear arms,
yet this was in the days before the UZZI, or the semi-automatic. In the days when it took a few minutes to load a bullet.
Technology changed, but the law remained still.
|
The Pen is mightier than the sword (and the gun) and yet the freedom of speech is still in effect.
As for India's revolt, as I recall there was quite a lot of bloodshed..only it was all on the non-violent non-armed side that the deaths were counted no? Oops wait..there were British deaths too..never mind.....the independance of India did not come about without bloodshed and death....it was not some peacful negotiation.
(this from history class a long long time ago..so I could have the facts wrong here)
And if the gun is irrelevant then leave law abiding gun owners alone.
The fact is, passive resistance only works when you have enough people who do not care if they die and you have a government really cares if those people live or die. History has many examples of mass executions of unarmed civilian populaces.
|
The gun is irrelevent to the success of a revoltion, not irrelevent to crime, mass murder, accidental murder, dorky teen-goes-psycho murder or any other form of gun crime.
The argument, that "people kill people" etc is ludicrous when one applies it to a nuclear bomb.
Are those against gun control against nuclear disarmament also? Pro Gun, pro-bomb? If not it's a hypocrisy.
Both are created as tools to either end human life, or coerce through threat of ending human life.
Unlike an axe or a knife, they have no other created purpose than these.
Yes people use them as recreation, but this is a restricive use. Not using it as intended.
The issue is, do we forsake individual freedoms, for safety? Historically this has been an area where Americans have been reluctant to go.
No I don't want to stop shooting racoons on the weekend so that a teenager can't shoot his classmates.
No I don't want to pay more tax so the health system gets better and more affordable.
No I don't want to be forced to drink less if I'm driving, so innocents aren't killed by some (legal) nut who would be over the limit in most other countries.
And that's cool. In general America, like Australia, values individuality where East Asian cultures value conformity.
As long as people are aware of the correlation, and make an informed decision this is o.k. Where people believe that they are an island - that they are both unaffected, and unable to effect circumstances - they are living in delusion and denial.
Guns DO kill.
If you can live with that, and weigh up the cost to justify no gun controls, then fine. [img]smile.gif[/img] Vive le difference.
[ 05-24-2002, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]