Quote:
You actually believe that? That someone intent on mayhem would decide not to becuse "it's too hard"?
How childishly naive.
|
Maybe
you just don't get it. Like I said before, guns are the easiest, most efficient way of killing someone. If you don't have a gun it may take longer for you to get a chance to kill the person. In this extended period, the constant anger will lessen and you have more time to think over your decision and turn back on it. Or you could make it harder to get a gun (preferable) since the same effect will happen if you have to wait a week to get a gun opposed to two hours. It won’t stop all if not even the majority of killings, but if someone’s life is saved then maybe it would be worth it.
Quote:
|
Is your moral responsibility actually comparable to a five-year old's? That's what you just said..."adults act the same way". Why the last minute rhetorical bait-and-switch?
|
Killing someone to gain respect from peers would be comparable to my example.
Quote:
|
No, it would have happened. But it would have happened differently. In fact it almost did happen differently in 1993....1,500 pounds of fertilizer and fuel oil in a rental truck. Not particularly convenient. And dying in a hijacked plane would strike me as the ultimate inconvenience.
|
In some situations you are right, in some I am. You need to stop thinking in black and white, the level of anger it takes someone to consider to kill another varies. If someone killed my family and ruined my life, whether there are guns or not there is a good chance I will kill that person. If someone beats me on the street I may kill that person out of initial anger later that night but if I have to wait another two days, it may not be worth it.