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 18:29:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1131 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> 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.
The purpose of bleach is not to kill people, and the purpose of handguns is, so
it's kind of a misleading comparison that you are making when you talk about
banning. My point was simply that people *do* consider household chemicals a
danger and they are trying to do something about it: education, awareness,
safety precautions. Which are the exact same things that are being discussed
about guns. Simple banning isn't the only option.
>
> > 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?
That's a false analogy since many more houses have bleach than guns. It might
still turn out to be true on a percentile basis, but people should be wary of
statistics that only tell half the story.
People are worked up about bleach, as I noted previously. And it still seems
to me that what is being said is: hey, people are stupid about
dangerous chemicals, so why should they complain about doing something stupid
with guns? Two stupidities make a right?
>
> 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.
It is extremely polarized, without a doubt. Just to note: I'm not saying guns
should be banned, I just think we (in the U.S.) go about gun ownership as
foolishly as possible.
>
> > > 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.
Uh, no. I said: at *as* much risk. Not: at much risk. But I understand what
you are saying. What can I say? I disagree. I simply do not accept bleach
being even more dangerous as a logical proof for saying guns aren't dangerous
to kids.
> ...
>
> > 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.
I understood that - I was just following it out to its absurd conclusion for
cheap effect. :-)
> And it was juvenile, and mildly dangerous, but not wildly irresponsible.
Hmmmm, I'm not so sure that that doesn't cross the border into wildly
irresponsible, but I wasn't there and don't know the people in question.
Bruce
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
