"I think the constitutional issue is more complicated than you give it credit for. " Absolutely - I was deliberately simplifying, but I don't see a clear way to find a middle ground between "waving it away" and "only the police/military get guns". (I also didn't discuss difficulties re: incorporation WRT gun ownership. Again, a deliberate omission.)
Agreed re: 14th.
I'm not sure that I understand the non-lethal means paragraph completely, but I'll try to give a good faith answer. I think you're asking whether the availability of non-lethal methods should affect the policy towards GC, and without knowing the numbers re: Non-L defense instances, I'm inclined to say no. Without a compelling case to the contrary, people should be able to use the self defense method they feel appropriate. It's an excellent point, though.
re: logical quibble. A fair point based off a piece of hyperbolic rhetoric on my part. It's more accurate to say that you're not actually working optimally to reduce crime/violence/suicide.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 1/4/10 19:50 (UTC)Agreed re: 14th.
I'm not sure that I understand the non-lethal means paragraph completely, but I'll try to give a good faith answer. I think you're asking whether the availability of non-lethal methods should affect the policy towards GC, and without knowing the numbers re: Non-L defense instances, I'm inclined to say no. Without a compelling case to the contrary, people should be able to use the self defense method they feel appropriate. It's an excellent point, though.
re: logical quibble. A fair point based off a piece of hyperbolic rhetoric on my part. It's more accurate to say that you're not actually working optimally to reduce crime/violence/suicide.