Quote Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg View Post
It was me, alluding to the question of how many of the individuals were armed. If there were many armed people and they failed to use their weapons, that would weaken my point. If they were unarmed, it could suggest a somewhat altered outcome should they have been armed and would lead us to question whether casualties would have been higher or lower.

War changes, Lemur. We know that, but some of the fundamentals remain the same or similar. Guns still hurt or kill people and people still call many of the shots. Guns/other weapons still have a somewhat equalizing effect on power relationships.

Also - both suggestions; that less guns are better for freedom or that more guns are better for freedom - may be correct. 20 very different roads can lead to a similar destination. Some might prefer 1 road, others another. The question of how to get there and why are still legitimate. I am of the opinion that freedom to defend ones self is extremely important, others would seek to specialize and outsource their own defense. My decision may have both positive and negative outcomes for myself and others, as will yours. (as you know Lemur, when I say "you" or "your's" i mean "anyone who is reading")
Being armed is a fundamental part of freedom. The government, a dictator, a crime boss, etc. may allow you to do whatever you want for a long time, but that does not mean you are free. You can do what you want only because you are being allowed to do it. It is a like a 1950's housewife with a husband who allows her to mostly do what she wants. She has no real, concrete rights she can back up, and so her freedom is not real freedom, because it is only had at the mercy of another.

Guns are great equalizers. They give an 80 year old woman in a wheelchair a fighting chance. No, it will never make people completely equal, as a much healthier, most skilled person with a better weapon will have a significant advantage over a physically impaired, less skilled person with a worse weapon. Still though, it is enough of an equalizer to make the more skilled, better armed person serious reconsider attacking, even if they have the advantage.

As liberals are always whining about equality, I find it funny that they do not support the greatest equalizer ever in human history.

It allows nearly anyone to become incredibly dangerous. We will never have equality or a world with very little crime until every individual is extremely dangerous, and every other individual and group thinks twice about depriving them of their rights. In such a world, even the most powerful would fear the least powerful. Good men always outnumber bad men, and a small, wealthy ruling minority would have to be afeared of the individually less powerful but far more numerous majority. Everyone owes it to themselves to be the most dangerous person they can be. (and no, I don't mean more dangerous as in doing bad things or being mentally unhinged, but as in having the potential to do great damage to someone who deprives them of their rights or tries to violate their person) If you are not willing to work for something, you don't really deserve it. If you are not willing to work for a paycheck, you don't deserve the paycheck. If you are not willing to work to safeguard yourself, and instead rely on others, then you have to reap the sometimes tragic consequences of relying on others for your safety.
Liberals are responsible for so many people dying, because they make them think it is wrong to try to be as dangerous as possible, and to try safeguard their own freedom and safety when others are not able to. The blood of those who die as a result stains the hands of all liberals who support things like gun-control.