10-20-2024, 03:43 PM
(10-20-2024, 03:13 PM)Byrd Wrote: ..
It'd be great if Americans could be acculturated to the idea that the first response to a threat (or someone cutting you off in traffic) is NOT to get out a gun and go after someone.
There's a reason gun laws were passed in the first place (and a reason why, after the Mafia gang wars, machine guns were outlawed for civilians.) There's a reason why some towns in the Old West didn't allow guns. There's a reason why military bases don't allow open carry (or weapons carry unless you've been issued it for a specific reason.)
...
I cut out a fair bit of your reply because I wanted to focus on these two statements, not because I am dismissing what you have said. It was a fair enough reply.
I don't have the exact statistics, but I'm more than confident my estimates are WAY low with what I'm about to say. In the US drivers cut off other drivers probably hundreds of times every second of every day. There are roughly 285 million vehicles in the US. Conservative estimates are that 10-12% of those vehicles will be on the road at any one given time, so let's say 28 million (and that's probably low). There are roughly 395 million privately owned firearms in the US. If even 5% of those were being carried at any one time, this would equate to roughly 20 million. Let's say that 5 million of those drivers are armed. Consequently...
The notion that (every) armed driver's "first response" to being cut off in traffic is to jump out and start shooting...is a wildly exaggerated assertion. Furthermore, it is exactly these kinds of wildly exaggerated assertions which makes arguments such as mine both necessary and relevant. It's simply not true. If it were true, there would be tens of thousands of firearms fatalities every...single...day on America's roadways. And, we know this isn't the case, yet the gun grabbers love to use exaggerated arguments such as this to justify their actions. This, all while failing to accept (and DEMAND) personal accountability and responsibility before piling more legislation on top of already voluminous legislation.
Secondly, yes gangsters in the '20's and '30's wreaked havoc with 'machine guns', but society wasn't brought to the brink of extinction because of these firearms. Far from it. In fact, "machine guns" (i.e. fully automatic firearms) were legal to own in the US up until 1986, fully 60 years later. And, while we're at it, let's take a look at what was happening in 1986 when Reagan passed the National Firearms Act. Where there mass shooting events at schools back then? Nope. Were large swaths of society being mowed down by machine guns in 1986? Nope. The NFA was a political concession by Reagan to assuage the gun grabbing left at the time, one he believed would get them to back off...but they didn't, only doubled down since then.
Lastly, and I can't stress this enough...what has changed in the recent decades? Not guns. People have changed. We will have to agree to disagree on the point that the only purpose of a gun is to kill. Guns, like nuclear weapons, are also a deterrent. They often also prevent bad people from doing bad things without even being fired. So, this is my rejoinder to the notion that a firearm's only purpose is to "kill". Earlier in this thread another member posted an Indiana Jones clip. You saw a man with a sword who surely would have "killed" Indiana Jones had he not possessed a firearm to defend himself. In the absence of that firearm, well, it would have been a sword against a bullwhip, not much of a match. Point being, people will find a method to kill if this is their "intent"...and this has been proven the world over. If they don't have a firearm...they'll find another way. Once again, the firearm is just a tool; it's the "intent" which matters.
(10-20-2024, 03:13 PM)Byrd Wrote: ...Wow... got kind of long-winded there, didn't I? Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk. :)
LOL! That's okay, I think I did too! Likewise, thanks for listening (or reading, as it were).
Cheers!
