Can you refute the fact that "if it's criminal to have a gun, then
only
criminals will have guns? I don't own one, never have, but if things get
that
bad, I want the right to go get one.
Your right to carry a
gun is irretrievably tied to the right of every criminal to carry a gun.
Now
let us assume that every law-abiding citizen will carry a gun. What's the
result? Criminals cowering in fear? Nonsense. Instead of getting robbed at
gunpoint, you'll just be shot in the back of your head, then robbed
And even
while it is popular in the U.S. to claim so, you can't just shoot somebody in
the back of his head preventively because you think he's up to no good.
By
allowing everybody to carry guns, you choose to fight criminals in their own
field of expertise, with their choice of weapon, and you hand them the first
strike.
But here on Groklaw, the real syllogism is "if it is expensive to get
justice, then only the rich will get justice". This is not quite accurate since
justice is something that is delivered either to everybody in a conflict, or to
nobody. It is more like "if it is expensive to get justice, then rich people
are able to buy injustice".
It turns out that patents are another weapon
where society suffers if everybody can wield it without restraint. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
