In response to the bubling discussion over arms control perhaps this article will add a different perspective. Do read the article in full.

I don't agree with the title of this article but I agree with most of the content. It's the first time I've read an article that answers a few questions I've had and mentions recent reports that has information I've had a hard time getting my hands on.

The most interesting finding was that a prevalence of gun ownership does not only increase the rate of gun homicide in that state/county but that the overall rate of homicide also goes up. The idea that a murderer will murder anyway and will find some other way does not necessarily follow.

The second argument worth noting is that owning guns in general do not make you more safe and can make you less safe. An argument that I have heard repeated ad nauseum in the literature I've so far read.Must states and countries start to control arms more strictly? That's up to them. Should the debate focus more on stronger and clearer arguments with a grounded understanding of the benefits and dangers? Yes. Should we pay far more attention to statistics and empirical research. No brainer.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2...

Views: 1076

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Because a flame thrower is bulky, cumbersome, and carries an near absolute certainty of hitting something you didn't want to hit, in a non-warzone context, and fires tend to get out of control quickly and continue after the threat is neutralized, as opposed to bullets which do their thing quickly and are then harmless.

Honestly if you're going to criticize the mindset, understand it first.  The law-abiding carrier of either a knife or a gun, or any other weapon for that matter, wants to be able to stop an attack without harming bystanders and a flamethrower.  Your stereotype of the mindset is simply insulting.

Davis's ilk is used to feeling high and mighty by looking down on the lesser beings from his fluffy little cloud and passing judgment.

But it isn't designed for murder. "Suggested uses for the flame thrower, found in the site's FAQ section, include: clearing snow, weed control, agricultural ground clearing, pyrotechnic displays and starting bonfires."

I can see it having uses in fighting forest fires to quickly start backfires, for example. However, most of their dealers are gun dealers, rifle ranges, etc. I have a friend who goes out in the woods with his ex-military buddies and shoots off his weapons. I can see him going to a quarry and playing with his flamethrower.

Anything can be misused to kill people: cars, hammers, baseball bats, rat poison.

However, I can foresee great possibilities in terms of crowd control. You might stick around and throw rocks at advancing police with tear gas guns, but suppose they were shooting flaming gel?!!!

As always, people kill people. You want to cut way back on murder? Make our society a happier and gentler society. I can kill at a distance with poison. I can drive a car into a crowd. I can throw a gallon jug Molotov cocktail onto a crowd and do the same thing as the flamethrower. 

RSS

© 2017   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service