Subject:
|
Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Jun 2003 00:52:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2344 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
Stop with the fuzzy Hestonesque gun-speak and deal with the actual
issue--less
| |
guns equals less deaths by guns.
|
|
Maybe I just haven’t seen the right studies or something, but you have no
real proof or data to support that statement, do you? It’s just fuzzy
anti-gun speak that doesn’t deal with actual issues but with imagined public
safety protections. I mean, it has no more support than would the statement:
“less hammers equals less death by hammers.” Right?
-- Hop-Frog
|
Well, besides being logical and such, there would be less deaths by hammers if
there were less hammers. Just as, as John points out, there would be less
deaths by cars if there were less cars. Do I need a study to show me the
infallible logic of the point?
Oh but wait! (crowd stops dispersing and listens with rapt attention), the
point is bigger than that--see, this is a multi-layered arguement, not a “gun
lovin’” sound bite--
A hammer is meant to build houses, a hammer is meant to pry nails, a hammer is
meant to tack up pictures of my canoe trip on the wall.
A car is meant to get me to work, to the store to buy LEGO, and to help me pick
up hot babes...Well, maybe not that last bit...
But their intended function--their base function is not to cause harm. They can
be used for things other than that.
And we’re back to the inherent properties of an object. Sure a gun is just
metal laying on that table there, but its intended function is to shoot bullets
at something, and lo and behold, that’s *exactly* what it’s used for--oh wait,
that’s what I said earlier--that’s all it *can* be used for--a gun has no other
characteristic besides shooting bullets. What else is there? And when you put
that gun in your house, in your purse, in your desk, in your dufflebag, you are
*intending* to use that object for its *expressed* purpose of ‘shooting at
someone’ in order to ‘protect youself’ at some point in the future. Now if you
carry a baseball bat around, we could argue the same thing, but a) the bat’s
primary function is not to beat people over the head, nor threaten people, it’s
to play baseball and b) you’d have to get real close to me in order to use that
bat on me, whereas that gun you’re carrying around, you could be at the other
end of the block and ‘git me’.
The second people get that, the better off we’ll all be. Bringing up cars and
bats and axes and wooden chopsticks is all well and dandy to say that they cause
deaths, too. But so did small pox, and yet we worked hard at ridding ourselves
of that. So bringing up other things that cause deaths (like hammers, for
instance) is not germaine to the issue.
Boy am I tired, but eh, whatrya gonna do.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
