On 2/20/10, CheekyGeek <[email protected]> wrote: > If we are all better off (safer) if everyone is carrying firearms then > it logically follows that the world is a safer place if all > governments have nuclear weapons.
I've been trying to stay out of this debate, but I have to call "bullshit" on this. > This is not only counterintuitive, it is clearly wrong. What is wrong is your bad analogy. A large majority of the population anywhere are more-or-less sane and responsible. The same cannot be said for governments. > If we could imagine two scenarios: one in which > we could magically ASSURE that no one in that conference rooms had a > gun, and one in which we could assure that everyone in that room had a > gun (even if they are all on the table in front of them) ... in WHICH > of those two scenarios is there a 100% chance that NO one would be > dead of gunshot wounds right now? I'll see your straw man and raise you a paranoia. No magic is required. Just have everyone go through metal detectors to enter the university. Or do extensive background checks on all employees, including psychological evaluation. Or post armed guards to protect the leaders. Or ... To me, such police state developments are far scarier than armed citizens. And of course, the psych profile might have missed her, and without a gun she might have poisoned the coffee or made a bomb and killed far more people. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
