| |
On Tue, 1 Jun 1999 19:45:08 GMT, Christopher L. Weeks uttered the following
profundities...
> Richard Dee wrote:
> >
> > But can you rule out the possibility that you might face a non-mortal
> > danger, that results in you drawing and using the gun? Non-mortal=
> > emotional trauma, where violence is not involved, for instance. (Not
> > addressing the issue, just the particular statement).
>
> As much as anyone can. Can you rule out the possibility that you might
> freak out and decide to use your automobile as a deadly weapon? Since
> you can not rule that out any more than Mike can rule out the same WRT
> his handgun(s), I figure that if ownership of one is allowed, then
> ownership of the other must be also. Right?
And, as much as I hate guns, can no more say now how my opinions would
change (or not) had I or someone close to me been, or should become, a
victim of violent crime.
> > > If someone breaks into my home with the intention of taking what is
> > > mine or harming me or my family, he will more than likely be shot to
> > > death, as he deserves. If someone smashes my car on the road
> > > (happened twice now) he won't even get a rise out of me - my insurance
> > > company will take care of it.
> >
> > To death? Someone's life is worth a yellow lego castle or a television?
>
> Right on. Let's say that there is only a 1% chance of being killed by
> an intruder anytime an intruder is burglarizing a house. I would prefer
> to kill the ratfilth SOB even though I'm not in much danger such that I
> prevent him from killing 1/100 of his victims. And even without
> considering his future victims, I value my life much much more than 100
> times how I value his.
>
> > Even an "eye for an eye, life for life" philosophy would suggest
> > that as being "over-kill" for something as trivial as theft. (Trivial
>
> What's so special about that philosophy? It's really pretty primitive
> after all.
>
> > when compared to murder). The car, what if they deliberately rammed you?
>
> Killing someone for breaking into your house isn't about retribution,
> it's about protection. if the guy ramming your car is then going to
> jump out with a hammer and try to kill you that way, then you shoot him
> and be done with it. If he's injured and you have the option of just
> letting the police have him, then call it attempted murder and put him
> in jail.
>
> > > > Or is gun ownership a really important right for some people?
> > > > Why?
> > >
> > > If you have to ask you will either never understand or you don't care.
> > > I'd guess a little of both based on other things you've said.
> >
> > Possibly the former. That I don't care would be inaccurate. I
> > care about the consequences of irresponsibility relating to and
> > frequently demonstrated by ownership. Concerned that unstable
>
> Demonstrated in what way? How frequently? Twice as many kids die of
> eating household products than die as a result of firearms misuse...it's
> not that common.
And as such, the users of them should be psychologically evaluated,
trained extensively on their use, and be required to keep them
locked up at the local police station, as well as be licensed.
When use is required, forms should be signed, in triplicate,
and distributed to various agencies, such as BHCP (Bureau of Household
Cleaning Products), and release from the police station delayed
until all relevant agencies have approved their use. That it takes you
94 days to clean the toilet is not relevant.
Either that, or household products should only be used by
officially licensed and sanctioned agencies, for which one must
pay excessive taxes and fees to maintain.
:o) Turning one of my own arguments, never actually mentioned
before, on myself!
> > A relief that you claim to be a responsible gun owner. No
> > doubt instilled in you from your army service. Of less
>
> Those of us that grow up in a gun-toting society are taught to respect
> guns before army service is possible. I'd bet that Mike had guns around
> when he was a kid and there was a significant father-son thing related
> to taking care of them and learning safety. This could be totally off
> the mark in his case but it is very common.
I grew up in NJ. Not much gun-ownership where I lived.
Cannot comment, no experience except that my Dad did have
guns, but my mother refused to let him keep them. I am
personally pleased by that. But an example of non-gun culture
vs gun culture, where non won. Dad was from a farming family,
and grew up in a time when guns for protection (from crime)
was not an issue. In his area it was more for pest control.
(non-human pest!)
--
_____________________________________________________________
richard.dee@nospam.virgin.net remove nospam.(lugnet excepted)
Web Site: http://freespace.virgin.net/richard.dee/lego.html
ICQ 13177071 AOL Instant Messenger: RJD88888
_____________________________________________________________
For the best Lego news, visit: http://www.lugnet.com/news/
Need instructions for a model? http://www.kl.net/scans/
_____________________________________________________________
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) As much as anyone can. Can you rule out the possibility that you might freak out and decide to use your automobile as a deadly weapon? Since you can not rule that out any more than Mike can rule out the same WRT his handgun(s), I figure that (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
