Owen Sparks
member
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,523
The other day I was making small talk with a retired school teacher who I have known since I was a kid. The subject of guns came up and she made a statement to the effect that everyday people should not have military weapons. I noticed that she had a pen in her hand so I asked:
Should everyday people have access to sharp pointy things like your pen?
She looked puzzled so I said: Remember a while back when that in the local jail guy got stabbed in the throat with a pen and died? It was in the news?
She said yes.
I asked: You would not stab me in the throat with your pen would you?
She looked surprised and said: NO, of course not.
So I asked: Suppose it was a lot sharper, would you then? I then took out my pocket knife, opened it and laid it on the desk right in front of her.
I said: Now you have access to a deadly weapon. Are you any more likely to kill me now?
NO!
As I retrieved my knife I asked: What if it was a pistol instead of a knife? It would be a lot easier to use right? You could kill me from a safe distance, would that make it easier for you?
No, of course not.
Finally I said: Suppose it was one of those evil black automatic assault rifles. Would that make you any more likely to use it to kill me? You could safely shoot me from across the street and probably get away with it.
She was quite taken aback by all this and said: No I don’t want to hurt anybody.
So I finished by asking: So you would be no danger to others even if you had access to a bazooka while some people are dangerous with a Bick pen?
She thought for a minute and said: I see your point but if I can get a gun what keeps bad people from getting them?
I then asked: If you can get a pen what keeps bad people from doing the same? Or should everyone be punished for what they might do? Is a person guilty simply for possessing the means to commit a crime?
After all you might stab me with that pen. Or should people be presumed innocent until they actually try to stab or shoot someone?
She became very receptive at that point as if a light bulb had come on and I think I got the point across that crime is an action, not a potential action.
Should everyday people have access to sharp pointy things like your pen?
She looked puzzled so I said: Remember a while back when that in the local jail guy got stabbed in the throat with a pen and died? It was in the news?
She said yes.
I asked: You would not stab me in the throat with your pen would you?
She looked surprised and said: NO, of course not.
So I asked: Suppose it was a lot sharper, would you then? I then took out my pocket knife, opened it and laid it on the desk right in front of her.
I said: Now you have access to a deadly weapon. Are you any more likely to kill me now?
NO!
As I retrieved my knife I asked: What if it was a pistol instead of a knife? It would be a lot easier to use right? You could kill me from a safe distance, would that make it easier for you?
No, of course not.
Finally I said: Suppose it was one of those evil black automatic assault rifles. Would that make you any more likely to use it to kill me? You could safely shoot me from across the street and probably get away with it.
She was quite taken aback by all this and said: No I don’t want to hurt anybody.
So I finished by asking: So you would be no danger to others even if you had access to a bazooka while some people are dangerous with a Bick pen?
She thought for a minute and said: I see your point but if I can get a gun what keeps bad people from getting them?
I then asked: If you can get a pen what keeps bad people from doing the same? Or should everyone be punished for what they might do? Is a person guilty simply for possessing the means to commit a crime?
After all you might stab me with that pen. Or should people be presumed innocent until they actually try to stab or shoot someone?
She became very receptive at that point as if a light bulb had come on and I think I got the point across that crime is an action, not a potential action.
