Thursday, May 28, 2009

"Smart" Gun Failure

From today's Gun Rights Examiner, Mr. C0drea looks at a possible failure of the so called "smart" gun.
Posted by "Bill Hicks" at 9:01 AM
Labels: , ,

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dear Sir,

I am not an American and I'm in no way criticising customs and culture, I am interested in understanding.

I have read the history of bearing arms by your fellow citizens throughout your history and it's an important aspect of your development in history to arrive at where you are.

I don't understand the link between owning arms and defending your rights against a tyrannical government. It sounds as if gun proponents have a belief that there is a need for preparedness for a revolution or probably more accurately, a counter revolution by arms.

I find it stunning. That the gun would be the means of defending an internal political struggle.

My perspective also is that firearms are intended to kill. Perceptions of self defense with firearms can easily kill another person. People make mistakes in their assessmnet of threat but once a firearm is included in the mixture it's surely a high likelihood that this will be used and if used it's quite likely that someone will be killed. Because of a mistake?

As I said these are my questions and I know that some follow the anti gun lobbies lines. I don't belong to such groups but I really want to understand. I can see how many people believe their right to have arms so my reaction is missing their point.

Sincerely,

Peter

July 9, 2009 at 12:49 PM
"Bill Hicks" said...

Peter,
Thank you so much for stopping by and thanks for your questions. Firstly your statement is correct American culture and the gun are tightly interwoven and we did get where we are today largely in part to having this gun culture.

As for defending our rights against a tyrannical government we have already done it once from 1776-1783. The widespread ownership of firearms (at the time the rifled barrels of most minutemen were vastly more accurate than that carried by British regulars) helped to insure America's victory and thus independence from British rule.

I do not understand why you don't see the gun as necessary for defending against an internal political struggle. How many Jew's and gypsies would have died in the holocaust had they been armed? What turn would history have taken had the people been able to rise up against the tyranny of Mao Zedong?

True peace would be a much better alternative but unfortunately human nature does not always allow that to be the case. Gandhi once said one of the darkest things the British Empire did was disarm the Indian people.

However, you are wrong in your assertion that firearms are meant to kill, they are not. They are only a tool. The intent of the person using the tool is what matters. There are also very rarely innocents killed or injured when firearms are used as a means of self defense.

I hope that some of these answers have helped you out. If not please elaborate more and I will do my best to answer those questions you have.

Thanks,
"Bill Hicks"

July 10, 2009 at 7:41 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
 
Politics