Revolvers for Everyone, Round 2

  • Thread starter Thread starter TinaG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TinaG

Guest
Say you had a world in which the only way someone could die was by revolver and murder was not a crime.

Would you have a better world if everyone was required to carry a loaded revolver at all times, or if revolvers were successfully removed from society? In other words, a world in which everyone is fully accountable at all times to everyone else, or one in which there really is no personal accountability?

-Tina “Inspired by Another Thread” G
 
Both situations remove accountability.

If everyone has a revolver, then one person can simply step aside and assume someone else is going to do the killing when it’s necessary. While there are times that killing might be needed, someone trapped under a car that is on fire, burning alive. They cannot die. You can put them out of their misery and all of the years afterwards, just by shooting them in the head. (Is life precious becomes the question? Or is death preferable in this world?)

Then you also have the fact that murder is not wrong. That makes one completely unaccountable for their actions. They could rightly go around and shoot everyone they see, with no provocation or need and no repercussions.

If on one has a revolver, then no one is accountable for death. The simple fact is no one can die. So your actions have no consequence either. You push someone off a cliff, oh well. They aren’t going to die.

Both remove accountability.
 
I have thought about the idea of compulsory carry over the years. I think that your addition of “murder is not a crime”, sorta guts the hypothetical. I’m gonna give this one some more thought. Thanks for posting.
 
bmullins said:
Both situations remove accountability.

If everyone has a revolver, then one person can simply step aside and assume someone else is going to do the killing when it’s necessary. While there are times that killing might be needed, someone trapped under a car that is on fire, burning alive. They cannot die. You can put them out of their misery and all of the years afterwards, just by shooting them in the head. (Is life precious becomes the question? Or is death preferable in this world?)

Then you also have the fact that murder is not wrong. That makes one completely unaccountable for their actions. They could rightly go around and shoot everyone they see, with no provocation or need and no repercussions.

If on one has a revolver, then no one is accountable for death. The simple fact is no one can die. So your actions have no consequence either. You push someone off a cliff, oh well. They aren’t going to die.

Both remove accountability.
Click to expand...
If someone starts shooting everyone else, someone will eventually get the shooter. Correct?
IMHO that counts as accountability.

If we could all kill each other without notice I think we would be a lot more polite to each other?

-Tina “Not Packing Right Now” G
 
Buck_Crosswhite said:
We’d run out of gripy wives right quick.
Click to expand...
And likely a great many husbands too. =/ A world where murder is neutral and guns are in everyone’s hands could likely become a world of 1.
If we could all kill each other without notice I think we would be a lot more polite to each other?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure it would work that way at all. Why be polite if you can just kill them instead of dealing with them. Sure I could be nice and polite about the way they didn’t do my driveway… but it would be just as easy to just shoot them and not pay them or bother dealing with it. In a world where murder is fine, it reduces politeness to an inconvenience.
 
When it became legal to carry a concealed weapon crime dropped by 1/3.
 
Buck_Crosswhite said:
When it became legal to carry a concealed weapon crime dropped by 1/3.
Click to expand...
That’s in a world where murder is still a moral issue. By removing murder as a constraint, it removes one of the major crimes, while actually increasing the likely hood.
 
TinaG said:
If someone starts shooting everyone else, someone will eventually get the shooter. Correct? …
Click to expand...
But why would someone need to “get the shooter” if murder was not a crime ?
TinaG said:
Say you had a world in which the only way someone could die was by revolver and murder was not a crime …
Click to expand...
bmullins said:
And likely a great many husbands too. =/ A world where murder is neutral and guns are in everyone’s hands could likely become a world of 1.
…
Click to expand...
LOL

I imagine that scenario would come to pass first among bullet and revolver manufacturers , in a world where *eliminating the competition *could be taken literally .

Then we always have to worry about those crazy criminal lawyers pushing the envelope , trying to reinterpret the law by shoving a revolver down someone’s throat to choke them to death and/or using the revolver to bludgeon someone to death.

Another thing that hasn’t been considered yet:

Murder is not a crime , and the only way you can die is by revolver. So what about someone who commits suicide with the revolver ?

The legislation is still too rough, I don’t think all the bylaws have been thought out too clearly yet.

We could also note that God has been excluded from this hypothetical “world” . Whatever laws a civilization may enact , God’s moral law is absolute , and God is immutable. This in turn opens up a whole new can of worms pertaining to creatures participating in the divine immutability.
There are more disturbing thoughts which arise as well : Our present world continues the onslaught in the terrible scourge of abortion. Estimates worldwide put the figure somewhere between 40 and 50 million a year. I ended up with a very graphic image in my head of how that would work in the OP’s scenario.

When I was researching the statistics, I came across a site that really makes one stop and reflect. Check this out guys. Click on the link and just watch the counter for a minute… **REALITY CHECK **
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top