Subject:
|
Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:20:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2262 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
What it does do is reduce the number of fatalities/injuries from bullets.
|
Lots of things can kill you -- like automobiles for example. We keep
dangerous things around because they are useful -- like automobiles for
example. People can be taught to use dangerous yet useful things without
harm to anyone, or at least with greatly reduced risk to others -- like
automobiles for example.
How is a gun any different?
|
What’s the purpose of a car--to get me to my job, to get me home, to wash on
Saturday and watch it rained upon on Sunday. What’s the purpose of a knife? To
open boxes, cut my food, chop the cabbage I threw into my crock pot yesterday.
What’s the primary purpose of a bat? To hollow out and put cork in it, to hit a
little ball out of a park, to beat my carpet and get the dust/dirt out of it.
What’s the primary function of wooden chopsticks--to eat east Asian food, to
build log cabins whilst waiting for the food to arrive.
What’s the purpose of a gun? What’s the *primary* purpose of a gun? What’s the
intent of the gun owner when he’s weilding a gun. What is it? To look good?
My uncle has a musket from our little war b/w our two countirs displayed on his
mantle. So yeah, I guess a purpose of a gun is to look good. However, I rather
doub that my uncles gun could be used to shoot someone (considering it’s been
rendered inoperative after sitting under the water that long, as well as the
fact that it has concrete in the barrel.) Protection? Tell that to the
neighbour who just had his wife shot by the gun stolen out of your house. Oh
wait, then we’re back to the primary function of a gun, and that is to *shoot*
something--target, animal, person.
Stop with the “Well axes kill.” It’s not germaine. It’s a straw man, it’s
whatever you want to call it--an axe is used to hew wood, cut rope, whataveyou.
Axe manufacturers aren’t thinking that, “hey, we’re making these axes to cause
bodily harm on people”. Guns, well, that’s their *intended* use.
| |
You might argue that the apparent utility of the gun does not compensate
sufficiently for it’s supposed danger to others -- but that’s about all you
can say about it. We would rate it’s utility differently -- and that is the
crux of the disagreement. You cannot imagine a use for a gun that outweighs
its risk to others. I believe that the mere presence of guns in the hands of
the many keeps fascism and totalitarianism at bay, while at the same time
protecting people in their homes.
|
I don’t have to try to imagine utility of a gun outweighing the danger--it
doesn’t exist. In not one instance does the utility outweigh the danger.
Specific examples “Hey, I shot that guy before he shot my wife!” But if the guy
didn’t have a gun in the first place... that’s all I’m saying.
As long as you cannot guarantee that the gun will stay in law abiding hands,
then all guns outta the pool.
| |
Freed slaves learned quickly that freemen beared arms. While it is said that
many slaves lived good lives as slaves, let’s not forget that putting a slave
to the whip or selling off his/her loved ones was not an uncommon practice.
How could such a thing happen? Because we allowed the existence of a class
of persons for whom civil liberties did not exist. When they were freed,
they learned that they sometimes had to back up their newfound freedoms with
exclamation point provided by a gun or rifle.
|
True, but that’s history--Israelites were freed from Egypt--I don’t see them
carrying around bronze spears. History is great, but know that it’s history and
times change. Symbols of freedom are great, but then we’re elevating the gun to
a symbol. This is rhetoric that fails to take in account the evolution of
society. Now freedom is covered by law, not by the gun, therefore the gun is
not needed. The idea that the ruling power can take away your freedom is also
irrelevant--they could take away your freedom whether you have a gun or not.
There was a time when gold was the currency of choice because it was worth
something. Gradually, paper money was used in lieu of gold, but there was gold
to back it up. Today there is only money, and the ‘belief’ in ourselves that
this money is worth what it is--‘real’ gold is no longer needed to back it up.
The time for guns, like gold as official currency, has passed.
| |
And Kooties, aren’t you the one to so readily see the madness of the current
infection residing in the White House? Why should I be keen to give up my
last security measure against tyranny? The pendulum has swung a little too
favorably in the direction of the politically elite for me to be comfortable
giving up my guns at this time.
|
When an F14 can drop a cluster bomb on your hose from a few miles away, me
thinks your gun ain’t going to help you. Again this is cute, warm, fuzzy,
“outta my cold dead hands” flawed ideas--the power of your vote will get this
moron out of office quicker than you and your gun, and all the rest of the gun
owners ever could, and not one life has to be lost in the process. Nixon left
with *no* physical threat, not *one* gun to be seen.
| |
I understand your arguments about guns, and I am not without sympathy. Sadly
we live in a world where guns mean freedom -- the last hope of preventing
political enslavement.
|
Guns != freedom. Guns=death. Cute fuzzy rhetoric doesn’t change
reality--reality is that guns kill people--that’s their intended function. Take
away the guns and the gun related homicides stop.
| |
Why don’t you go tell the Iraqis to drop their weapons. Without guns, the
U.S. too would be ripe for the plucking. Really, it’s as simple as that.
|
Again, rhetoric--what’s stopping foreign incurrsion into your country are your
military forces. You having a gun in your house isn’t stopping Commander Biff
from Bad Foreign Country from flying his Bombers with BFG9000’s over your
airspace.
| |
Might doesn’t make right, but an equalizer levels the playing field. Even a
guy with nuke in his briefcase can be killed with one bullet to the head.
|
If there are guys walking around the United States of America with nukes in
their briefcases, you have far more to worry about. And again, your gun in your
house isn’t going to stop that guy, the armed services are. So we’re back to
“Hey, if you want a gun, be in the services--otherwise you don’t need a gun, you
don’t warrant a gun, and society’s better off beause of that.”
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
161 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
