Subject:
|
Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 Feb 2003 04:57:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
670 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
> > >
> > > *aproximately
> >
> > And I agree that there will always be those that want to break the law, or
> > use a weapon in a moment of passion--I admitted that I'm torn when it comes
> > to me, a gun, and Paul Bernardo (my ethics would prevent me from doing harm
> > to him in the final analysis).
>
> So you want the state to protect you from yourself and your weak will then?
> Is that it? I'm going to campaign to outlaw hot fudge, after all, some
> people can't resist it.
Hit fudge hasn't killed anybody, that I recall-I could be wrong.
Ask a father what he wants done to the criminal who had just raped and
killed his daughter. Weak willed? I don't think so--I'm just glad that
laws are supposedly made by rational men during rational times, and
hopefully debated such that what is right and Just is what is made into law
(another topic covered ad nauseum in o.t-d earlier, but that's neither here
nor there)
Bernardo for me is an intersting issue--first of all because St Kitts is
10-15 min. down the street. Secondly, and most important, is that I have
many female friends who were, justifiably, very upset and had a tough time
even leaving their own houses. It has taken many years for them to get to
the point where they feel remotely safe again. So yeah, I take what
Bernardo did a little close to the heart. It doesn't stop me from
sympathizing with other atrocities in the world, for my compassion isn't
limited to those I know.
It has nothing to do with a weak will--it has everything to do with being human.
>
> > Less access to guns = less gun related violence is what I'm advocating.
>
> It might be what you're advocating, it just doesn't happen to be true.
How can you even say that? If you have less lawn, you have less lawn to
mow. If you have less water, you have less water to drink. If you have
less guns, you have less gun related violence. Where's the fallacy?
> > It's a cyclical arguement--if the bad guys have guns, then we, the private
> > citizens should have guns to combat the bad guys--the problem is,
> > statistically, the more guns we, the private citizens have, the better
> > chance the bad guys have at getting guns--compounded with that is that age
> > old problem of family members shooting family members.
>
> c /problem/canard/
No links but you know, as well as I that family members have shot other
family members. Now if there was no gun in the house in the first place,
what would have happened? Can I make it any more obvious? If one person is
saved by getting the guns out of homes, I think we're better off. If one
person is not shot because we got some guns off the street, then I think
we're better off.
> > What I want is a complete pipe dream, I know, but I never said i wasn't a
> > dreamer, and as yet, I haven't heard any reason why my 'dream' is not better
> > for society than what we have today.
>
> You're not listening, that's all.
And you're believing the propaganda that your gun toting yahoo buddies and
industries are telling you, and not listening to logic. This reminds me of
that other discussion we had a while back when you pointed out that 'red
light cameras cause accidents'. No bias in that article at all, was there.
Where's all this 'critical thinking' people go on so much about? It's not
me who's not listening, it's you who is spouting rehashed flawed rhetoric
and hiding behind an archaic piece of paper to do it.
If ther are no guns, either in homes or in the streets (read in the hands of
criminals) then there can be no gun related violence. No hidden meaning, no
fallacy at all.
I have said earlier that there would still be violence of some nature, but
the *gun* related violence would be gone, and, logically, the total overall
violence to our fellow person would be reduced.
We'll also work at fixing the rest. I don't want to trivialize that
part--taking away the guns isn't the *only* answer to stopping violence,
it's a more complex problem than that.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
| (...) Tell you what. I'll concede that... if you can *completely* eliminate guns from the surface of the earth, no one will be killed with guns any more, or at least not until the aliens come. But I'll ***only*** concede that in return for a (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
| (...) So you want the state to protect you from yourself and your weak will then? Is that it? I'm going to campaign to outlaw hot fudge, after all, some people can't resist it. (...) It might be what you're advocating, it just doesn't happen to be (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
92 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
