Subject:
|
Re: guns vs. household cleaners vs. gamers (was Re: What do other parents do with Lego guns?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Jul 2000 18:43:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1209 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> 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?
The primary use of a handgun is to shoot people. If you want to go hunting,
it's a poor choice. Target practice? Yes, but that's not why handguns were
invented.
Ruger. Good choice. Very solid. I liked my Ruger much better than either of
my Smith & Wessons. And yes, I bought them for target practice, not home
defense (I sold all my handguns when my son was born). But the guns were
designed to be a handy weapon to shoot someone with.
>
> I own a gun for several reasons, but most predominantly as a home defense
> measure. It is not to kill people.
??? Of course it is! Please note, I said "kill", not "murder". Oh, they may
live, but to say its purpose is to intimidate or just give 'em a fleshwound is
much less accurate.
> 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.
It accomplishes its main purpose by killing the intruder (wounding may work,
but then again, that's not as effective).
>
> Further, gun manufacturers operate to sell the guns, not to produce objects
> which kill people.
Somehow, I doubt there are many gun manufacturers in business that design guns
that aren't capable of killing.
> 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.
To make a profit. And to make that profit, they design a gun that it really
good at killing people. If it doesn't, it won't sell. They don't necessarily
want to see people killed, but to accomplish its function, that is what it has
to be capable of.
>
> 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.
The primary reason for handguns existing in the first place it to kill people:
not kill animals, not target practice, but to shoot at people and hit them with
a high velocity projectile. I'm not trying to put a moral spin on this. I'm
not making a distinction between murder and home defense. I'm boiling it down
to the express reason handguns were invented, for good or evil. Bleach was not
designed to poison people (though it does that), but handguns are designed to
shoot holes in people. If they didn't do that, they simply wouldn't exist.
>
> > 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.
Good luck changing the constitution. And since that is only one of many things
being considered, focusing solely on that is misleading.
> 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.)
For the third time, do two stupidities equal a right? C'mon, we both know this
a smokescreen argument. If you want to rail against household dangers, more
power to you, but it doesn't lessen the other danger.
>
> > > > 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?
Yes. But you seem to equate "press coverage" with "lack of effort".
Every school and day care center I have come in contact with stress
common household dangers over handguns. Further, you seem to be saying, if one
stupidity is being ignored, this "lesser" one should be ignored also.
>
> > 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.
In the meantime it should be ignored? I don't get it.
>
> > > 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.
You don't have the slightest clue about guns? You have money? Oh good, here's
your gun. Good day.
Seems mighty stupid to me.
>
>
> > > > 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.
Clearly we have different definitions of dangerous.
>
> 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
How many people leave sharks around the house? I don't get the connection.
Besides, watch the frenzy when even one child is killed by a shark - I'm not
sure you want to make this comparison!
Watch out for the riptides on west-facing beaches like Manhattan Beach.
They'll get you before the sharks do. And all the schools hereabouts
constantly warn about riptides (though I always went to the south facing
beaches and still haven't seen a rip-tide).
Home defense: twelve-gauge!
Bruce
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
44 Messages in This Thread:
  
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
