Any death that occurs because a gun was not present can be laid directly at the feet of the nearest government and its representatives and enforcers.
Killed by a tiger before a gun could arrive? Mugged and shot or stabbed to death in the park because your city doesn't trust you with a gun? Died in a hi-jacked aircraft or a tower it crashes into because you must disarm to fly? Why was there not a gun present to avert these tragedies?
Fear of breaking the "law" and the draconian punishments that result is why. The bad guys have already decided that the laws do not apply to them. That leaves the good guys at a disadvantage where evil "laws" are concerned. Too many of us good guys obey bad "laws", resulting in unnecessary death.
In a free world it would be up to the private companies to decide wether you should disarm to fly, or not. Do you think that many companies would allow guns in their aircrafts ? Well, once again I'm in favour of guns, but it doesn't mean that every problem could be solved with a gun :)
ReplyDeleteThat guy who was killed by a tiger, and his friends who were mauled, placed themselves in that position by tormenting an extremely dangerous wild animal. That tiger killed the first guy so fast and so unexpectedly that a gun wouldn't have helped him anyway. The cops killed the tiger when they couldn't lure it away from the other two so-called victims, but I still don't feel sorry for any of them. I feel sorry for the tiger.
ReplyDeleteI wrote a blog about it at
http://elfninosmom.wordpress.com/2007/12/30/real-life-zoo-tycoon-freakout/
From what I heard the dead guy ran back to try to get the tiger to stop attacking his friend. I do think they brought the attack upon themselves.
ReplyDeleteI do think a gun is the best way to solve the problems I mentioned, though, even if they don't solve all problems. Few private companies tried to forbid guns until government gave them the idea and set the precedent.
Also in a free world I would be able to sue if I were prohibited from having a gun and I was hurt as a consequence. That doesn't work too well in today's world where governments have established the idea that they have a monopoly on force.
Honestly, Kent, I don't want just anybody to be able to carry a gun onto public transportation, such as an airplane. One bullet discharges accidentally, and the cabin will lose pressure, possibly killing everyone on board.
ReplyDeleteA lot of people who have guns are incompetent in their usage, and even many who are competent with a firearm are unable to maintain a clear head under stress, thus rendering them dangerous. I don't know the answer to this question, but it's far more complicated than it appears.
As for the tiger, I read a completely different version from multiple sources, but it's irrelevant to this discussion anyway. Those boys were so scared that even if they had a gun, they'd probably just rust the barrel by pissing on it when the tiger got out of its enclosure. They got exactly what they deserved, except that it's a damn shame the tiger didn't kill the two who were merely mauled before it was killed. That tiger wasn't going after anyone innocent, after all. It was going only after the three idiots who had tormented it. More power to the tiger, as far as I'm concerned. I mourn only that majestic animal, and not the three brain-deads who thought it was a good idea to mess with an extremely dangerous caged animal under the incorrect assumption that it was defenseless.
As I said, I don't feel pity for the people the tiger mauled.
ReplyDeleteThe myth of planes explosively decompressing because of a bullet is just an excuse used to disarm people on planes, not anything based on reality.
I have also known people I do not trust with a gun, but history has shown there were not massively deadly hijackings until unreasonable prohibitions were instituted.
Kent you are my new hero!
ReplyDelete