Subject:
|
Re: guns vs. household cleaners vs. gamers (was Re: What do other parents do with Lego guns?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 1 Jul 2000 12:59:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1001 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > 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,
This seems like a funny issue. I've tried to talk about it before without much
success. Who gets to decide purpose?
I own a handgun. Do I get to decide what it's purpose is as the owner? Does
the company (Ruger) that manufactured it get to decide? Or does someone else?
I own a gun for several reasons, but most predominantly as a home defense
measure. It is not to kill people. If I ever have to use it to defend my
home, it may kill one or more people, but it may not. And whether or not it
kills people it will more than likely be effective at it's purpose. The deaths
of any intruders is a side effect, not the main purpose.
Further, gun manufacturers operate to sell the guns, not to produce objects
which kill people. They probably don't care one bit whether the guns kill
people aside from the fact that guns which are more capable of killing may sell
better. From their perspective, the guns are manufactured to meet a market
demand. To sell. And that's all.
Certainly there are those who's business is the killing of humans, and they
sometimes use handguns. For them, the purpose of the object is to kill humans,
but only for them. Handguns are not in any objective way for the purpose of
killing people.
> 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.
But my point is that those things aren't the only things being done WRT
handguns. Banning them, in various forms, is a serious consideration.
Barring for the moment the differential propensity of a household to have
bleach and handguns (and I grant that it messes up the comparison of danger) If
any two objects or situations are of equal likelihood to kill an innocent
child, shouldn't they be reacted to similarly? At least to the degree that the
concern is saving children? (Obviously guns have other issues associated than
just killing children.)
> > > 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.
Right. Good point. What if it does turn out to be true on a percentile basis?
Or, what if we look at it a little differently. If we examine the phenomina of
kids dying as a result of mis-storage of bleach vs. mis-storage of handguns and
regardless of the prevalence of bleach, we find that more kids die from bleach
than from handguns, can't we agree that from the perspective of saving the
lives of kids, curbing the misuse of bleach is a more important social issue?
> 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?
But that's not what I'm saying. I think that people shouldn't be stupid about
either. I'm saying that bleach is a greater (not exclusive) concern. Once we
get the number of bleach-related deaths down below the number of gun related
deaths, then gun-related deaths will be a greater (not exclusive) social
concern.
> > 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.
How so? I think there is a great deal wrong with out gun ownership laws and
procedures, but I suspect they're not the same things you're thinking of.
> > > 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.
No, I didn't mean that bleach has anything to do with the fact that guns aren't
that dangerous to kids. They just aren't. A way of pointing that out is by
showing that bleach is more dangerous, and we generally consider bleach to be
fairly benign.
What does it take for something to be dangerous? I grew up in Orange and LA
counties. I lived in Manhattan Beach, four blocks from the sand, and swam in
the ocean hundreds of times. I was never killed by a shark. But kids are
sometimes killed by sharks. Are sharks a big danger since kids are sometimes
killed by them?
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
|
|
|
|
