A genuine question for gun regulation supporters.

[krispos42]

23. To clarify, I was stating my view of one side, not not viewpoint.

Having said that, the greatest technological change occurs when competition runs fierce. This includes war, but war often focuses tightly on certain aspects of technology that have military benefits that fit within the current military framework and that have senior leaders that can envision how to effectively use the technology.

For example, it would have been feasible for the Union to manufacture and field more advanced weapons than the Springfield rifled musket almost immediately upon rebellion; the Sharps carbine or rifle was created 15 years prior to the start of the rebellion. However, close-minded thinking by senior military officials were worried about ammunition waste, and clung to their Springfields that shot at one-third the speed of the Sharps. Now, they might have had a point because the logistical revolution from the steam engine and the railroad was also underway, but again the people that could not adapt mentally to the ideas of supplies brought in by steam and rapid-fire weapons were a liability to the military effort.

It was not until later on, after the old-fashioned leaders that were unable to adapt were replaced by either new leaders or old but flexible officers did the new technology become commonplace.


Now, given, 1861 and 1941 were very different... the officers fighting in 1861 had seen their world remain largely the same until about 1850, when trains and telegraphs and steamships began to seriously alter the nations of the world. The officers fighting in 1941 had, on the other hand, seen their world change a lot in their lifetimes, and everyday, ordinary lives were affected by this change in fundamental ways, so acceptance of new technologies was not as inherently difficult.

But, it wasn't until after WW2 when the technologies that had been developed for narrow wartime purposes were expanded into general civilian life, and the economic conflict created a dazzling array of new products and ideas designed to survive on the battlefield of market share and customer whim, not the forests of Europe or the jungles of the Pacific.

And many of those ideas that were developed in the competive marketplace were in turn picked up by the military-industrial complex and used to make new or improved weapons and logistical infrastructure.


According to the BBC, there were 95 homicides in Scotland in 2009-2010. With 5,255,000 people in Scotland, that's a rate of 1.81 homicides per 100,000 per year, or about one-third the US rate. However, Scotland's total rate is about our non-gun homicide rate; assuming that NONE of the people killed in the US with guns would be subsequently killed with "other" is of course ridiculous.

We have about 16,000 homicides a year. This means that every year, 15,000 people decided to kill at least one person. Since about 9,000 are using guns, to expect those 9,000 people to just.... I don't know, stay home and play Playstation, is just ridiculous.