Here's a rather standard pro-gun rights editorial. No need to read it for a guy like me... but for one thing. Down at the end: a new meme!
it is argued that the right should not apply to modern small arms, which are supposedly so much deadlier than 18th-century guns. But the fact is that 18th-century firearms were far more deadly, given the difference in medical care.

Imagine that in 1789 someone fired a double-barreled shotgun into a crowded area. Fifty to 60 people would have been struck and at least 90 percent would have died. Now imagine that a modern crowd just stands there while someone fires four magazines from a 15-shot semiautomatic pistol into them. Assuming the same number of people are hit, fewer than 10 would die while the rest would recover.

I am not sure I buy the comparison, but it is worth thinking about. Certainly the difference in medical care is tremendous. I am less inclined to think that shotguns of the time were likely to hit most of the people in a crowd, though.

In any case, what's really remarkable about this is that I have watched and occasionally added to the victim disarmament debate for years without seeing this meme. Is it just me?

No comments: