|Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 26 2012 @ 11:59 PM EST|
|I also live in a gun-free(ish) Utopia where mainly only criminals and some|
police are armed.
It seems to be clear that the criminals tend go for weapons that are going to be
"better" than those they have to avoid.
If everyone can be armed with a handgun, there is no point just having a handgun
(which isn't banned); it'd better be a better weapon, like a semi-auto weapon,
or even an assault weapon (which are banned already)
Just like Mick Dundee said in Crocodile Dundee when someone is trying to mug
him: "Call that a knife? This is a knife" producing a rather larger
(more dangerous) knife; so the criminals are going "Call that a gun? This
is a gun..." producing an assault rifle.
The problem you have, it would seem, is that if you ban guns from the populace,
the criminals are not going to give up their "nuclear" weapons
(semi-automatics and assault rifles) just because a handgun is all that is
Looking from the outside in, I think Steve Jobs has summed up your problem
admirably: "I'm going thermonuclear on Android." (or words to that
effect) It seems to be an attitude of ``I've got to be better than you; if I
can't do it by actually being better then I'll do it by eliminating you (or at
least trying to) [underhandedly].'' Rather like the power struggles of medieval
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
- Wrong - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 01:08 AM EST