Thanks for the alert; I'll send some e-mails later today.
utbagpiper wrote:Off the immediate topic, but of interest to me and perhaps others, I find myself having to disagree with Thomas Paine: the balance would not be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, particularly when the word is used to refer to firearms.Today’s Maxim of Liberty:
"The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on
the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and
the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as
property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world
destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not,
others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one
half the world deprived of the use of them..."
-- Thomas Paine
There's a lot of truth in the old saw "God made men. Sam Colt made 'em equal." A gun and a little bit of practice makes an 80 year-old, 90-pound woman equal to a 20 year-old, 250-pound man. Without firearms, the wide variation in physical capacity means that there is no balance.
People who think that disarming everyone -- if it could be done -- would make us safer are simply wrong. You can't eliminate violence by removing the tools of violence, because violence does not require tools.
I don't think Paine actually meant to say that; his point was that disarming just some of the people was a bad idea. I run across plenty of people who think the world would be a better place if they could snap their fingers and make all weapons disappear, though.