🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1j9a7cINN1lh@mirror.digex.com>, dougnews@access.digex.com (Doug Humphrey) writes:
> 
> One thing that you and the anti-gun fanatics have in common is the 
> love for static analysis, vs. dynamic analysis.  Static analysis 
> allows for the changing of a factor or factors, and then the drawing 
> of some new conclusion about what that change means without taking
> into account the effects that the changes made have on the whole system.
> A statement like "if nobody had _____ then nobody would have to suffer
> the consequences of _____", without further discussion of the consequences 
> of that change, is static analysis.  It is bogus, without value, when
> attempted in a real, dynamic situation such as the societal structure
> in which we live.  
> 
> The automobile analogy works a little here;

But not very well.

There is a happy medium in most things. While we know that if there were no guns
no-one will get shot, we also know that there will always be some guns around.
Not everybody wants to carry a gun, so they are automatically at a disadvantage
to criminals who do. The aim of a democracy is to find the happy medium, and that
will require compromise on both sides.

> >My point was that a shotgun is a perfectly good home defense weapon, 
> >but it is difficult to carry concealed. It is therefore a weapon that
> >I have no objection to people owning.
> 
> Ah!  Then you might consider a law to allow open carry?  Open 
> carry laws are VERY strict about concealment.

No, the idea is to make it difficult to buy weapons that are easily concealed,
which makes it difficult to carry guns on the streets without it being obvious
(to the police etc.).

> But, I have to question the belief system that causes you to 
> have a problem with concealment.  Is it the fact that the weapon
> is concealed that is a problem to be solved, or is the danger 
> something to do with the person who is carries the weapon?

Ideally no civilian should need to carry a concealed gun, therefore people
carrying guns would be either criminals or mentally deranged.
  
> Does someone who knows a deadly martial art have to have that 
> fact tattoed on his or her forehead in bright colors so that their
> "weapon" is not "concealed"?

Muggers and thieves are not generally martial artists as far as I know.

Kev.
--