Re: Guns possessed by citizens and the State

On 25 Aug 2005 05:52:17 -0700, "Phil Smythe" <smytph@xxxxxxxxxxx>

>Charles L wrote:
>> Which is of more concern, firearms in the hands of private citizens or
>> firearms in the hands of the State?
>> Who has the worst record when it comes to the misuse of firearms?
>In the US in 2002 12,129 persons died as a result of homicide/legal
>intervention where a firearm was used. Of this total 300 were killed by
>way of legal intervention.
>So, in terms of raw numbers, as private citizens were responsible for
>92% of US firearm homicides. I have no doubt this situation would be
>similar in other western democracies and possibly more pronounced.
>But if we assume that private citizens hold more firearms than the
>state this might explain that massive discrepancy. It might even be the
>case that 92% of guns are in private hands. Even if that were so it is
>beyond dispute that the weapons held by law enforcement are far more
>liley to be used in situations where a death might result than those
>guns held by private citizens.
>Based on this I'd say that firearms in the hands of private citizens
>are of more concern than firearms in the hands of the State.

And, like trevor, you seem to think that a fatality must occur for a
gun to be used defensively.

Try doing something original like thinking....

>> By whom is citizen's liberty more effectively protected?
>Clearly the state which is a major reason why states exist, to protect

Taking away liberty to protect liberty?

> Sadly some states, like some people, do not go along with

Correct: 38 states permit good citizens to carry concealed firearms.

>Be glad if you live in a state that does, which about 99% of
>those in this newsgroup would be part of.

>> Is the State frightened by citizens being armed? If so, why?
>No, therefore part 2 of the question is irrelavant.
>> If firearm ownership by citizens is banned or hampered with onerous
>> restrictions (which amounts to the same thing really) can citizens trust the
>> State with it's firearms?
>Poor question as banning and hampering with onerous restrictions are
>clearly not the same thing.

Yes they are - you just choose to believe otherwise.

> Flying a commercial airliner is highly
>restricted with many strict regulations that must be adhered to, but it
>is not banned. Based on this fact your question is a classic strawman.

Gee, did you say commercial? Quite a bit different than private

In the heart of the Ozarks