To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 21332
21331  |  21333
Subject: 
Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Wed, 18 Jun 2003 21:40:58 GMT
Viewed: 
2255 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
   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 wsooden 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.

Yes. Protection. Why do you give an example of an unintended use of a gun? By that reasoning we should ban driving due to all of the auto related fatalities (far more BTW than deaths by handguns...)

   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.

By the same token, gun manufacturers aren’t thinking that, “hey we’re making these guns but somebody might steal one and use it to cause bodily harm on people.” The intended use is deterrent. Protection. Nobody wants to kill anyone. Just mind your own business and things will be fine.

  
   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.

God help me, I’m siding with Hop-Frog! :-/ ;-)

   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.

This is reality, Dave. There will always be guns no matter how hard you try to destroy them all.

   As long as you cannot guarantee that the gun will stay in law abiding hands, then all guns outta the pool.

Again, your wish is pure fantasy. All your efforts to control guns will only result in the disarming of law-abiding citizens, that’s it!
  
  
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.

I believe the weapon of choice today is the Uzi;-)


   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.

You are hopelessly naive and simply a clueless idealist.

   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.

See previous statement.


  
   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.


Once again, Dave, reality is that guns will never go away! That is reality. Deal.

JOHN



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
 
(...) Yes, autos do cause far more deaths than guns. However, they seem to have far more use too. (...) "just mind your own business". Please do so...and stop insiuating that you can stop something that you are unlikely to ever be a part of. (armed (...) (21 years ago, 18-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
  Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
 
(...) Reading comprehension 101--the purpose of a car is not to cause any harm. The purpose of a gun is. If you want to weigh in on *accidental* deaths of automobiles, then we're off on a differnt topic. Shooting someone with a gun is not an (...) (21 years ago, 19-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
 
(...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 18-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR