Is THIS your argument? I'm really surprised here. It means you're as bad as that criminal, in the ethical sense.
>Because I want to be armed at least as same as the criminal. The gun is the great equalizer.
>
>
>>How about before Cain & Able? <g>
>>
>>The above question was not serious. Here is the serious one: How about a weapon that can be of use to temporarilly disable a criminal?! Why is this focus on a gun that sends a killing bullet? We might allow people to carry a weapon that has a less severe impact.
>>
>>>Your whole argument is premised on the assumption that if there were no guns, there would
>>>be no murders, or even less murders. Well here's a historical factoid for you: People have
>>>been killing each other since Cain & Able. It has always been, and always will be. Guns
>>>are just the tool of the trade that criminals today choose to use. If you take them all
>>>aways, they'll just pick up a baseball bat or knife. Do we ban all them too?
Groet,
Peter de Valença
Constructive frustration is the breeding ground of genius.
If there’s no willingness to moderate for the sake of good debate, then I have no willingness to debate at all.
Let's develop superb standards that will end the holy wars.
"There are three types of people: Alphas and Betas", said the beta decisively.
If you find this message rude or offensive or stupid, please take a step away from the keyboard and try to think calmly about an eventual a possible alternative explanation of my message.
