Subject:
|
Re: guns vs. household cleaners vs. gamers (was Re: What do other parents do with Lego guns?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 30 Jun 2000 13:50:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1010 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > > > Right, but there is something about the GUN icon that freaks people out. I
> > > > have tried to show people statistics demonstrating how few people (kids in
> > > > particular) die from guns and they just refuse to come to the obvious and
> > > > logical conclusions. (e.g. More kids die every year in the US from • ingestion
> > > > of household chemicals like turpentine, bleach, soap, etc. than from • firearms.
> > > > But no one is frantically lobbying to remove bleach from the public.)
>
> Actually, they are trying frantically to get people to lock up dangerous
> chemicals and keep them away from kids, so I can't agree with this line of
> logic.
What I assert is that "no one is lobbying to remove bleach from the public."
And to the best of my knowledge, this is true. Trying to get people to lock
their bleach away from kids is different -- in several senses -- than trying to
remove their ability to buy, own, possess, or use the bleach. You don't see
any of those ludicrous measures being advocated.
> Thinking about it more, this line of logic is: hey, people are stupid about
> dangerous chemicals, so why should they complain about doing something stupid
> with guns? Two stupidities make a right?
That's not it at all. It's more like: having bleach around the house is more
dangerous than having guns around, so if you're so worked up about guns, why
aren't you just a bit more so about bleach?
And I still hold that the answer to this question is that the icon of the gun
has occupied a strange place in the collective mind of our society. Some of us
worship the right to own a gun and some of us vilify guns. There is very
little middle ground.
> > But, people lobbying/arguing/whining against guns invariably say that it's • for
> > the children. But the children just aren't at risk. There are tremendously
> > more likely fatal hazards out there.
>
> Children just aren't at risk? Do you mean at as MUCH risk? If yes, the
> operative phrase is that they are still at risk. If no, what can I say beyond
> I disagree (but I presume you meant the former).
You have, of course, surmised my intent correctly. They are not at much risk.
...
> So the tubby old guy was going to shoot him in the back because he was mocked?
> (Scratching head in perplexion) And you are arguing against gun control?
No! He wasn't going to shoot my friend. He was trying to scare my friend.
And it was juvenile, and mildly dangerous, but not wildly irresponsible.
> Or
> maybe we should just ban gamers? Oops, Weird Groups are impervious to
> Government Groups. Fnord. :-)
;-)
> One guy walks into the GM's apartment and spots the grenade sitting there.
>
> "That real? 'Cause if it is, I'm leaving." He was reassured that it had the
> explosives removed. "And the primer?" Yes, that too.
>
> Second guy walks in, spots the grenade, picks it up and pulls the pin,
> releasing the arming handle and THEN asks, "Is this real?"
>
> I can't describe the panic that ensued one we told him it was!
I'm glad I wasn't drinking while I read this. That's great.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
44 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
|
|
|
|
