Do you Really Need a Gun?

[NoGun]

Response to Webleymkv, Nathan and Dwight55.

Webleymkv, post #38

While non-lethal weapons can cause death, I think it is safe to assume that it is the exception, not the norm. I think you will agree that your chances of surviving being "tasered" is so much infinitely greater than surviving being shot, that the comparison doesn't exist.

I think we can also both agree that tasers and guns each share drawbacks. In reading the caliber "wars" here I have read of many times where assailants survived multiple gunshots. Here is a study that places a tasers stop efficiency at 85% (http://www.google.com/url?url=http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dhttps://cvpcs.asu.edu/sites/default/files/content/projects/PQ%252520article.pdf%26sa%3DX%26scisig%3DAAGBfm2DyxionF-L_TPRTCLmpsPyiCsdsA%26oi%3Dscholarr&rct=j&sa=X&ei=7KVAUeCQL8f8qwHpoICYDQ&ved=0CCwQgAMoADAA&q=taser+effectiveness+study&usg=AFQjCNHLIKqUDodR9YNGP2hT7Ydwc0VauA), which is according to my limited research is better than a handguns stop ratio. If you have facts that refute this in any way please share.

I agree with you that eliminating guns does nothing to address the underlying cause of violence. However, comparing cities with high population densities fails to acknowledge the fact that the more people you have living in close proximity to each other the greater the crime rate and violence, regardless of gun legislation either way. I believe there is a term for the "crime/population effect but it escapes me at the moment..

Nathan post #39,

This is where this gets funny. You set the trap and some have fallen in. I don't need a reason to own guns I have a constitutional right.

I would counter that the constitution is a "living" document and the 2nd Amendment's meaning has changed over the years and will continue to do so.

As for ladders, bathtubs, cars, etc., It's about utility versus risk. High utility, acceptable risk = ladder. Low utility, high risk = cocaine. For guns I'm honestly still debating the utility versus risk in light of non-lethal options. Which is why I'm here and glad that you are sharing your opinions with me.

As for the tyranny question, I'll answer that in a later post.. I see some new posts that might change my position on that..

Dwight55 post #40,

I do not want to be a victim either. For answers to your questions, please see post #62.

 

[Come and take it.]

In a scenario where a person has a taser and a criminal has a gun in the persons home. Lets say tit for tat both get a solid round off on each other at the same time and the criminal does not have a leather jacket other clothes on to guard against a taser hit.

The criminal will be temporarily disabled but gets back up after a short period of time. The homeowner is getting worse from blood loss if not already dead.

Lets say the criminal is armed with a knife but armored with a leather jacket and the homeowner is armed with a taser. The taser fails to penetrate but the criminals knife hits home.

One can obviously see in both of these scenarios how the criminal would have a hard time of it either way.

Also the gun has greater range, penetration (even in a 22 derringer), than a taser. A firearm will make it through any thickness of clothing aside from the use of multiple layers of heavy weave nylon and on up.

Its blast also has psychological effects which cannot be ignored. The criminal will definitely be put on red alert whereas if you miss or fail to penetrate his clothing with your taser he may not even know you even have one, or if he does he may know the mechanism is too complicated to effectively rapid fire to the effect a firearm can.

In a rural setting the advantage of having the firearm for self defense is even greater.

In the urban setting a shotgun is very deadly, not because it spreads out into a pattern to cover an entire wall (myth) but because it leaves massive trauma no matter what you use through it. Even bean bags or an empty wad are not easy to shrug off without psychological or physical friction (hindering the intent of the target enemy).

You could electrify your door knobs in your home, but you may endanger yourself if you touched them through forgetfullness. Or put nailed boards underneath your window sills to stop burglars, but you might step on them yourself by accident. Perhaps a bladed weapon, or baseball bat, or a crossbow. Maybe even one of the big game rated air rifles even.

Each however have their dangers themselves. Almost all would be a greater danger to a curious child than even a gun except maybe the baseball bat. But accidents with baseball bats happen all the time when a young kid is mad at another and having a baseball bat in hand and not warned just how dangerous they are they hit the other kid upside the head with it.

It is actually quite difficult to get a child to understand that a baseball bat which seems perfectly harmless in sports can at the same time become a brutal weapon that has been known to drop (or even kill) a person with one well placed swing.

In contrast a child can be easily taught and very easily be made to understand and respect the deadly potential of a firearm. A firearms purpose if for no other than to put a slug through a bore at high velocity. The purpose is to deliver its slug at a very high velocity at good accuracy to a distant target or to disperse a shot pattern that few other machines can match.

It is true that the firearm was borne on the battlefield, but the club was also born on the battlefield. Yet the baseball bat is found in almost every home. The taser and other nonlethal weapons were also borne on a different kind of battlefield. Most of these weapons found their birthplace in hotspots like Northern Ireland, Gaza and the West Bank. It isn't because the government was concerned for the enemies welfare, but so they could avoid international condemnation.

It is still not clear of the long term health effects from many of these "non-lethal" weapons. Anything that can stun, electrify, cause radiation, or irritate the body obviously isn't good for anyone.

On an ending point a the firearm is a thing of beauty to the collector or owner as the sword, halberd, mace, suit of armor and shield were to his ancestors. Whether we want to acknowledge it or not weapons and warfare are a fact ever since Cain slew Able over what seems today as a petty fit of envy. We cannot study social studies, geography or history without including violent human struggle.

It is in man's nature to be violent. Even the most passive person alive has at one time or another had violent thoughts of doing harm to someone else, if even to punch them or push them. If even the best of us have had these thoughts than imagine the malice in the hearts of the worst of us.

So deadly weapons will always be necessary in a free society, to protect the free, until Kingdom Come.

 

[grizz223]

No Gun
Thank you for acknowledging my service and you and all law abiding people are more than welcome. Now for a question to you let’s say tomorrow your president outlawed all semiautomatic firearms. Who do you see going to get the millions of guns? I can tell for an absolute fact it will not be me or any of the Deputies that I know. So who’s going to do this? The Army? The National Guard? The answer to the question is no one who wants to live to see tomorrow. Can I put your name on the list to go around and pick them up? So the long and short of this is why would we want a civil war to make you and the people like you feel a little safer? As far as I know no one has forced you to get a gun nor would I support that any more than you taking mine and everyone else’s. If you wish to carry a Taser more power to you but do not assume to tell me and others what we need.

 

[Skans]

No-Gun: I didn't think guns' primary purpose was up for debate.. Just because a tool can be used for something else does not change its primary purpose. I can use my riding lawnmower (if I had one) for trips to the mall, but that doesn't change the fact that it's primary purpose is to cut grass

For the most part, I agree with you here. Hunting firearms are made to kill animals - how can that even be debated? Handguns are for self-defense against (mainly) other humans - they are designed to stop the threat by inflicting great bodily harm, and/or death.

Now, some will argue that there are "target guns" that use low powered rounds that are not intended to be used for self defense. Target shooting is a sporting off-shoot of defensive and offensive shooting, just as target bow shooting is an off-shoot of bows being used for and designed for killing. It is practice, or refinement, of shooting skills used for essentially killing (or stopping) through inflicting trauma.

Guns, bows, daggers, swords, clubs - all were originally designed for inflicting human carnage.

No-Gun: I would counter that the constitution is a "living" document and the 2nd Amendment's meaning has changed over the years and will continue to do so.

No, this simply is not the case. The meaning of the 2nd Amendment has never changed. It is quite clear, and has consistently been held and understood to convey a right to own firearms to individuals. The Constitution is not a "living" document. It is a foundational document upon which our government was given its right to exist. Can it be changed? Yes, it can, and it has been changed. But, no one has ever sought to change the 2nd Amendment. Until such time as the citizens of this Nation see fit to change the 2nd Amendment, there is nothing, living, breathing, or changing with regard to the 2nd Amendment - and simply "wishing it so" doesn't change a thing.

 

[NoGun]

Armistice

Ok, New plan. I'm getting buried in responses! I'm not used to this forum/reply system, but it does keep the conversation linear, only hard to reply individually. Especially with sometimes-spotty satellite internet.

Much of what you guys have said is thought provoking. My first impulse is to reply and apply counter argument, yield point, etc. But the more I read here, the more I feel it is a shame to brush off a reply without contemplating the new ideas and doing some research.

Thank you for your time, efforts and thoughts. I will be back with what answers I can find.

 

[Skans]

Thank you for your time, efforts and thoughts. I will be back with what answers I can find.

Why do you need to go searching for answers? Are you trying to support a position that permits the banning of guns, ammo, magazines, etc.?

Why don't you just explain to us in simple English why you personally want people like us, law abiding citizens who own lots of different kinds of firearms, to give them up, if that is the case? Or, if its not the case, just tell us where you are on guns in general and why.

 

[TATER]

I would counter that the constitution is a "living" document and the 2nd Amendment's meaning has changed over the years and will continue to do so.

That is Just Wrong!

 

[2damnold4this]

Here is a study that puts tasers at 85% stop effectiveness: http://www.google.com/url?url=http:/...P2hT7Ydwc0VauA Some studies put it higher.

Your linked study doesn't say Tasers are 85% effective. Your study says: Questions about effectiveness. In 1991, four Los Angeles police officers were
videotaped beating Rodney King, striking him more than 50 times with their batons. Although not captured on videotape, officers had also used a TASER on King, stunning him twice but failing to subdue him. More recently, in San Jose in September 2004, a police officer was forced to shoot and kill a combative suspect after the officer had already “tased” the suspect twice. Although these cases suggest that TASERs are not always effective, there is currently little empirical evidence concerning the effectiveness of the TASER. Exceptions are the field report analyses produced by TASER International and the in-house evaluations conducted by a number of police agencies, which are discussed below.


Your study goes on to say that several police departments found varying degrees of effectiveness when comparing Tasers to other less lethal devices. The police aren't using Tasers instead of guns, they are usually using Tasers in circumstances that they would use a baton or pepper spray. They are also using Tasers when they have backup against subjects that are more likely than not to be unarmed. It's also telling that 30% of the subjects continued to resist.

Also, civilians can get tasers that fire up to three shots.

Do you have a link to a retailer who sells multi-shot Tasers to non leo?


Edit to add: I see you do have a link to a company that sells multi-shot Tasers to non leos.

 

[NoGun]

Why do you need to go searching for answers? Are you trying to support a position that permits the banning of guns, ammo, magazines, etc.?

By answers, I meant answers to my own questions raised by facts presented here. I am human. I have opinions and biases. When confronted with facts that clash with preconceived notions or opinions, one must check these facts and if they hold up, change the offending opinions/bias not the facts. Such, I believe, is the rational way to live.

Why don't you just explain to us in simple English why you personally want people like us, law abiding citizens who own lots of different kinds of firearms, to give them up?

Thus far my opinion, in simple English, has been the utility versus risk argument. And I have, until recently believed that firearms possess far more risk than utility.

 

[globemaster3]

I would counter that the constitution is a "living" document and the 2nd Amendment's meaning has changed over the years and will continue to do so.

And that is a slippery slope. The meaning has NEVER changed! The verbiage has been ignored and supplanted, but the meaning has never changed! The purpose behind writing it in common language was so that you did not need an interpreter to understand it.

The same could be said of the "separation of church and state". We've seen how perverted that has become.

If we use your perspective, then all of them are open to changing by interpretation, and that includes the first ammendment! Whose then to say what should or should not be changed?

 

[Gaerek]

Thus far my opinion, in simple English, has been the utility versus risk argument. And I have, until recently believed that firearms possess far more risk than utility.

Well, that's a good thing to hear.

I wish you lived near me. I'd take you out to the range, my treat. You might be surprised what you see and experience. Actually, even if you have absolutely no intention of ever buying/owning a gun, I'd recommend taking an introductory firearm class of some kind. You will see first hand, the emphasis on safety, and see exactly the type of people who do shoot (more people than you probably think). I have shooting friends across the political and social spectrum.

 

[Skans]

Thus far my opinion, in simple English, has been the utility versus risk argument. And I have, until recently believed that firearms possess far more risk than utility.

Thanks for the reply - my post was not meant to be critical. Your views are your views, for whatever reason. I am really just trying to get you to explain them in more detail. It is actually great to have you here conversing with us. Believe me, we too speculate what causes "antis" to have such (sometimes) angry feelings toward guns and gun owners. I'm not saying that you feel this way, but we do scratch our heads and go "what is it about an AR15 that they suddenly hate so much"? Just wondering what your perspective is.

 

[AH.74]

Thus far my opinion, in simple English, has been the utility versus risk argument. And I have, until recently believed that firearms possess far more risk than utility.

Can you be more specific in terms of what types of risk you are thinking of?

Looking at the sheer numbers of households having guns in them, and the sheer numbers of guns out there in this country, the problem occurrences (risk) are very, very small. It is the big ones that overshadow everything. But that still doesn't change the statistical significance, or really insignificance.

I would still like to know what your plan would be to deal with a home invasion. I missed that if you answered it.

The people who have used firearms in self-defense, as I have, would argue that the utility outweighs the risk. And for them it holds true.

 

[ROCK6]

Well, welcome to the forums and I do appreciate adult discussion and debates from those with differing opinions. I don’t think we will necessarily change your opinions and I truly doubt you could change anyone’s here, but at least we can learn where each other is coming from.

A firearm for self-defense is a very personal choice. I really try to respect the decision of those who choose not to exercise their 2A rights; however, on the reverse, I would like them to respect my choice to fully exercise them whether it’s for recreational use, self-defense or just the sheer enjoyment of collection and personal training.

I think the framers of the Constitution new exactly what they were doing with those original Amendments and they exactly why there was a need for the 2A. No government has been, is or will be void of corruption. Corrupt governments have proven in the past to silence political opposition and cow their citizens; there are more than enough historical examples (some during this past decade) where hundreds of thousands and even millions have been killed by the hand of an evil, corrupt government. Even the most democratic or republic government is prone to traveling down that path and the framers of the Constitution new that the only way to dissuade or control tyrannical tendencies is through armed citizenry.

Now, you mention that no rabble insurgency could withstand the military or law enforcement powers of the United States. I completely disagree as a 25+year member of the Army with several tours to Iraq and Afghanistan and a regional conflict in South America; experience has proven that insurgencies are only defeated (more likely quelled) over extensive time. France was quite successful at controlling Algeria’s insurgents; but their tactics and methods would make water-boarding look like another tourist event at Disney World…would that work here in America? Again, there the majority of early American colonists were passive and even helpful to the British; it was only a handful that fought against the oppressive tyranny. That’s for a whole other debate on a future post….

What I was getting to was this:

The difference in here versus there, is that these were unstable countries and the criminals (so to speak) were either military or paramilitary organizations. Because of the proliferation of guns here in the U.S., a person almost does have to be armed with a gun to go toe to toe with criminals. However, we have a stable government that could change that. If guns could be rendered prohibitively hard to obtain or use, then they would go the way of hand grenades and machine guns, their use in crime would be a statistical anomaly. And there are some very viable ways we could make that happen.

You make the assumption that the U.S. would never devolve into a third-world country with rampant criminal activity and a complete break-down in law enforcement and that civility would disappear amongst society. I think many Roman citizens though the same thing. We already have examples of regional catastrophes where this exact thing occurred. If we were to ever have a collapse nation-wide, it would be armed citizens who would maintain the peace, not the government…the government is the people and not some nebulous entity able to swoop in and save the day.

Whether you live in an urban area or a remote rural area, there will be disasters that have and will occur leaving you utterly alone and void of government protection. There isn’t a non-lethal device available that could provide defense of self or family or even community better than a modern firearm under such extreme conditions.

If guns were “rendered prohibitively hard to obtain”, only the law abiding would be stripped of protection… and there are numerous examples to prove that point. Nothing is too hard to obtain for those wishing to commit a crime or do harm. A corrupt or morally bankrupt government would only fuel that as evident in Mexico. How much money, time and other resources do we spend on “prohibiting” illegal drug trafficking and use? How effective have we been over the years? What freedoms would you sacrifice for the perception of safety? Criminal threats occur more violently in even the most dictatorial countries where citizens have no rights to self-defense...

When I’ve been deployed for months on end, I want to know my wife has the ability to defend hers and our children from any criminal threat. I choose not to trust non-lethal methods and put my faith in both God’s protection (my religious choice) and that of a firearm, something I know works, I’m trained on (as is my wife and children) and is a proven deterrent to evil-doers.

Lastly, I am diametrically opposed to the misguided (my opinion) belief in a “living Constitution” in how we should amend to fit our society’s feelings of the day. The Amendment process is lengthy and difficult by design. When the lack of factual logic, emotions and feelings stir up the “need” for change, the process must be slow enough to readdress the broader implications of changing the foundations of our system. Our society wasn’t designed around a government body, but the trust and belief that citizens can govern themselves within a constitutional construct.

Well, welcome again. I can respect your opinion on questioning the modern necessity of the 2A or the need of a firearm for self defense. I’ve been carrying a firearm for the past quarter century so you could exercise your 1A rights and debate this issue openly here…

 

[ScottRiqui]

Thus far my opinion, in simple English, has been the utility versus risk argument. And I have, until recently believed that firearms possess far more risk than utility.

The problem is, the simple calculus of "utility versus risk" leads to a LOT of things that should be banned outright. If you just look at "deaths versus benefits", both alcohol and tobacco should have been gone long ago, followed not long after by junk food and professional motorsports.

Worried about the children in the wake of Sandy Hook? Rather than new legislation banning/limiting "assault weapons", you should look at residential swimming pools and hot tubs - those kill more children every year than rifles of *any* type, not just the types addressed by proposed legislation. Also, residential pools and hot tubs have virtually no use other than simple recreation, there are no pesky Constitutional protections to worry about, and it would be a lot easier for police to find an illicit swimming pool compared to an illegally-owned firearm.

Sometimes, freedom and liberty come with increased risks. But that's no justification for stripping away those liberties.

 

[nmbrinkman]

Let's be clear. There aren't non lethal options (plural). There's one, a taser. As a Marine I was trained to use military grade OC spray and as a result had it used against me in training to learn its limitations. I was sprayed directly in the face followed by fighting my way through aggressors and having to subdue them. It's easily acceptable to think anyone with the most basic hand to hand fighting skills to fight through even some of the strongest "pepper spray".

I would also like to add that while both tasers and semi auto handguns can fail both mechanically and ballistically, I feel with the options available in both caliber and ammunition types as well as the simplicity of a the mechanics of, a firearm is superior to a taser. Failures in a firearm are generally a result of a "dud" bullet. More specifically a bad primer. Easily cleared and reloaded in one motion that automatically loads another round to replace the failed round. Takes less than two seconds. The same cannot be said about a taser. I can easily avoid under penetration by choosing a caliber and bullet combination that can easily penetrate all but a teflon and ceramic plate laden vest. Another disadvantage to a taser is it will not penetrate walls or other forms of cover. Not the issue with my .45 ACP. Also, it's reasonable to believe that your pistol in a bedside safe for a very long period of time will fire whereas a taser probably won't or maybe it will. Neither instill confidence.

You were also talking about making weapons harder to get (through price, availability and/or laws). This doesn't take into account the millions upon millions that are already out there and the millions upon millions that "go missing" before they're made illegal. You're never going to unring that bell. Firearm violence will still happen. It will just make law abiding citizens wield a knife in a potential gun fight. Criminals will assume you're unarmed making their firearm even more dangerous.

I remember something about owning hand grenades and if criminals can get them so should citizens. Hand grenades however are not used in home invasions, firearms are and always will be regardless of gun laws.

I'd also like to add that firearms aren't just tools (in reference to the 2A) to fight a tyrannical government. Just a populace owning them is a show of force. You don't have to use them for them to be effective. A deterrent if you will.

 

[thedudeabides]

It's in the Bill of Rights, as I have said.

Saying that its authors didn't have "modern" firearms in mind is like saying the First Amendment doesn't apply to the Internet, TV, Radio, etc.

I really don't have to justify why we're allowed to own firearms, since it's a basic founding principle of our nation.

If it's an esoteric and nonsensical statement as a NEED, then I NEED to protect my family against violence.

Guns are well suited for that, far better than tasers, rape whistles, mace, scissors, bats, or whatever you plan on using.

You even admitted to this by having UN Soldiers (with guns, not tasers I presume) provide you with protection. I'm sure you'd feel just as safe if they were unarmed.

I lived on the Gulf Coast for over 2 decades. It's amazing how quickly society can devolve to Mad Max standards after a hurricane, and how quickly the looting scum turns polite and scuttles off when they see good citizens with 870s and 1911s protecting their homes and loved ones. I don't need to go to some third world hell to know that we're a natural disaster away from chaos, and guns do a wonderful job of putting people into a more rational state of mind.

 

[2damnold4this]

Here is a study paid for by the DoJ on Tasers and other less lethal weapons.

Page 25 tells us: The darts fired from the TASER can reach from 15 feet (civilian model) to 25 feet (law enforcement model). Despite the length of the wire, recent best practices guides by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) suggest restricting targeting to less than fifteen feet (2004). This is consistent with studies, which indicate that beyond fifteen feet accurate placement of probes is difficult (Mesloh, Henych, Hougland, & Thompson, 2005). Early studies indicated this weapon’s effectiveness ranged from 50% - 85% (Donnelly, 2001) when deployed. In a pilot study examining a random selection of four hundred deployments, the TASER was immediately successful in 68% of the cases (Mesloh, Henych, Hougland, & Thompson, 2005). On the other end of the spectrum, this rate has been validated in a second study by White and Ready (2007) who found that 68.6% of suspects continued to resist after a TASER deployment.

It seems like we have serious range limitations and the effectiveness isn't 95%. That's probably why police use Tasers in a situation they might use pepper spray and don't use Tasers to replace their firearms.

Edit to add:

A. Members deploying the Taser operationally, if feasible,
should be supported by at least one Officer
capable of providing immediate cover. (Stockton
Police Department General Order Q-1c III B)

I can't carry around an officer to provide cover, so why would a Taser be a good choice for me?

 

[Gaerek]

If the Constitution truly is a living, breathing document, then maybe we ought to use that standard with the 1st Amendment, or the 4th Amendment...maybe the 5th Amendment also.

It's funny, the only time I EVER hear the Constitution referred to as a living, breathing document is in conversations about the 2nd Amendment. Let's compare the impact of change in both the 1st and 2nd Amendments over the last 230+ years this country has been in existence, shall we?

First, let's compare common firearms from today, with those the Founding Fathers would have been familiar with. Let use the Flintlock pistol, since it would have been a common handgun of the time. We could use the lethality of a single round as our measure, but that would be difficult to do, due to the advances in medicine since the late 1700's. So, instead, let's use rate of fire, since that seems to be one of the major sticking points in today's gun control talk. Someone proficient in it's use could fire off 2-3 rounds per minute for as long as his ball and powder would last him. For the sake of argument, let's use the 2 rounds per minute number.

Now, let's look at the modern equivalent. I carry a Glock 19. It has a 15 round standard capacity magazine. I carry with 1 in the chamber to bring that number up to 16. I also usually carry 1-2 17 round magazines, in the event that I need to change magazines. This gives me 50 rounds, maximum (I usually only carry 1 spare mag...but this is for arguments sake). Looking at rate of fire, including magazine changes, I can fire all 50 of those rounds, aimed, in about 30 seconds (yes, I timed it once, I don't remember the exact time, but it was within a second or two of 30 seconds, one way or another). We could say that I have a theoretical rate of fire of 100 rounds per minute. Others might be able to do it faster, but I know I'm faster than many other people, so we can use my number as an "average shooter."

This means that since the Constitution and Bill of Rights was written, there is an increase in firepower of about 50x. Seems pretty significant. Now, let's compare that to the increase in exposure an average person speaking might get from then to now.

An average person, back in Colonial days, without any kind of clout, might be able to get an audience of 20-50 people. I think the 50 people number is a bit of a stretch, but let's use that. Today, we have the Internet. We have blogs. We have Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube. An average person has the capability of reaching, literally MILLIONS of people from around the world. Take, the Leave Brittany Alone guy. He was an unknown. An average person, not a journalist, not someone with social, economic, or political clout. Just someone who expressed their opinions on a celebrity on youtube. The original video, if you look it up has over 45 MILLION views. This would have been unthinkable back in 1776. The increase in "power" of the voice of the average person, has the capability of reaching over 900,000x the people that the average person in 1776 could (using this standard, of course, I could find you videos from the same type of person that are twice as much, as well as others that were significantly less. I'm trying to pin down how much potential exposure someone might have).

Would you say that because of the possible increase in power of an individuals voice based on technology, and a living, breathing document that we should limit the 1st Amendment? Of course not. Most gun owners are very responsible people. Most recognize the power, and use it in a safe, responsible manner. Yet, you wish to take something away from the 99.9% (made up statistic...sorry...) who are responsible, law abiding, citizens because of what the 0.1% do with that object? If you asked my almost 4 year old daughter whether it was right that her teacher took the crayons away from the entire pre-school class because 1 kid used them to draw on the walls and windows, even she would know that wasn't right, because the other 19 kids in the class were using those crayons responsibly. If my 4 year old can understand this concept, how is it so difficult for others?

 

[SIGSHR]

People do not NEED a lot of things. Women don't NEED designer clothes or fancy jewelry, men do not NEED fast cars or engraved firearms. However, in a free society people are free to choose what they WANT.