posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 04:22 PM
Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt
I had this thought the other day, when reading another thread, and some posters were stating that if someone is not a cop or in the military, they
don't need certain types of weapons. So, I attempted to discover their motives as to why they feel that way. Can you help me to understand?
edit on 1/19/2013 by GoOfYFoOt because: sp
I have be studiously avoiding the gun folderol
Trivial or nonsensical fuss: "all the folderol of the athletic contests and the cheerleaders") but you bring up a very valid question.
The training is a big part of it. I grew up an Army brat on base and learned about weapons from a young age - simple sidearms to ICBMs - my dad made
sure I knew the capabilities of each type of weapon and their strategic and tactical uses. However in our home, on base, there was only my father's
sidearm in a safe because the reasearch shows and the army (at least then) concurred that weapons in the home are a danger to the local (base)
community. Those that had privhate arms (rod and gun clubs were popular) had to register them and keep them safe. The army keeps close track (with
some exceptions) of where weapons are (don't want drunken soldiers going postal on the base CO's family).
I don't know police procedures - but training, supervision are huge differences in both cases.
In the general population you have little training and no supervision. Would you really want your neighber to have a Rocket Propelled Grenage
launcher in their house even if trained - what about fires and other disasters? What if the neighbor hood kids break in and steal it - killing
themselves and others. Just too much uncertainty about weapons in general circulation.
In fact, I've a question for gun enthusiasts: do you have to disclose on your insurance if you have weapons in the home? Are weapon 'accidents'
covered by general liability? Are guns and other weapons considered an 'attractive nusience" as swimmings pools are and require extra premiums? Who
is financially responsible for 'accidents' and other distructive incidents?
I think I'm on to something - surely all good libertarians want to be responsible (fiscally and ethicly) for any harm done to another's person or
edit on 21-1-2013 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)