Subject:
|
Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 May 1999 22:04:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
715 times
|
| |
|
|
On Wed, 12 May 1999 00:32:49 GMT, Larry Pieniazek uttered the following
profundities...
> Richard is a good teacher BECAUSE he teaches at a private school. No
> public school would ever allow that level of innovation and excellence.
> Might interfere with training antisocial shooters.
>
> Followups set to .debate
>
>
No comments on education. I am not of schooling age, nor have
children, or likely to in the near future.
(When considering flameage in your replies, remember I am
actually half-American, by way of my father).
The last comment, antisocial shooters. Intriguing, and I shall
dredge up the old, gun-ownership isssue.
In light of the events at Columbine, would you (plural, all
Americans, anyone in general, and perhaps proponents of some
political philosophies), still support gun ownership? Would
it still be the contention that any one of the lives of the
15 that died would be insignificant, when weighed against the
symbolic notion of freedom that the pro-gun people imply gun
ownership to represent?
Would pro-gun people still argue that "keeping the government
in check," to be one of the tenets and responsibilities of
gun ownership? Do people really think that the military
would sit by and allow a dictatorship to evolve and rule?
Do people actually believe the oft-repeated notion that
people kill people, not guns?
Will people keep voting for legislation that makes it easier
to acquire weaponry? Will *any* legislation passed in relation
to gun ownership continue to fail the innocent?
Do people really, truly fear, or believe, that there is a gun-
toting maniac around every corner? Or that their mild-mannered,
harmless neighbour will snap, necessitating them to heavily
arm themselves to protect against such a possibility?
Or will there continue to be a mini-, localised arms race,
and more innocents dying because no politician has the
stomach to do anything about it.
Think about it. By doing nothing for so many years, the problem
has only gotten worse, and much harder to do anything about it.
What real need has anyone to possess a gun. What real justification?
When was the Constitution written, 1789? 210 years ago! What
was life like then? Then, you could argue that justification
existed. "Hostile" natives, the need to hunt for much of the
food to be consumed, etc. ("Hostile" natives. Hmmmmm, a group
of people, though not recognised as being part of the nation,
excersising their democratic rights, both in what would later
be defined in international law, and what would then have been
their constitutional rights, to protect their homes, culture,
and way of life, from what was then a far more hostile and
powerful foe. Sound familiar? A nation being invaded for nothing
more than profit, or to conduct "ethnic cleansing." Oh the irony,
when the US government should decide to send in Apache helicoptors,
to protect the Kosovans. Sending in a piece of military hardware
to protect a group of people from "ethnic cleansing," named after
a group of people "ethnically cleansed" by the owners' recent
ancestors!) Back to the story.....
What justification is there today for gun ownership? None, really.
How many people are shot in their homes by hostile invaders? I
would suggest (I have no *evidence* to support the notion) that
more people are shot accidentally, or by other members of that
household, then by outsiders. From whom might one expect a military
invasion? Canada? Mexico? Cuba? Hunting nowadays, more for sport
than food procurement I imagine. And most meat is available
packaged in the refrigerated section of the local supermarket,
already killed for you. And really, what are the odds, of you going
to a bank or shop, and arriving, or being present, for an
armed robbery? Infinitessimal. And would you really, truly want
everyone to be armed for such an unlikely eventuality.
I cannot explain coherently or eloquently the next point. *I*
know what I am trying to say, I just cannot quite explain it!
One last thing, pertaining to the notion of people kill people,
though I cannot quote a source, it has been proven, from a
psychological standpoint, that guns *do* kill. If faced with a
situation where violence might be used, the weaponry available
to the individual will dramatically alter the life expectancy
of the person on the receiving end. Reactions to different
forms of attack, and the ability to counter different forms
of attack will increase the survivability of that attack. A gun
doesn't so easily enable an individual to have second thoughts
about an action. One has a higher probability of dying from
a gunshot than being stabbed. One might need to stab more than
once, or should one strangle.....I give up. I cannot explain
it! A goodly proportion of murder is "crime of passion." The
methods available to act upon a shock that leads to it, alter
the survivability chances of the victim.
--
_____________________________________________________________
richard.dee@nospam.virgin.net remove nospam.(lugnet excepted)
Web Site: http://freespace.virgin.net/richard.dee/lego.html
ICQ 13177071 AOL Instant Messenger: RJD88888
_____________________________________________________________
For the best Lego news, visit: http://www.lugnet.com/news/
Need instructions for a model? http://www.kl.net/scans/
_____________________________________________________________
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: New Web Page
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Dee writes: <snipped several pointed questions about gun control> (...) How about: People react to a dangerous situation depending on a number of factors, one of which is their knowledge of their capabilities. If (...) (25 years ago, 12-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) Why? People are usually as polarized on this issue as the abortion issue. (...) It is my contention that the only thing more disgusting than bringing up a tragedy like this in such a "if you support the right to own a gun you think those (...) (25 years ago, 12-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: New Web Page
|
| I should probably stay out of this but... Note that I don't personally own a gun. (...) The availability of guns is a factor in the recent school tragedies, but most of the tragedies would probably still have happened in some way (though probably (...) (25 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) How would that change anything? (...) OK, I'll bite :-) (...) Absolutely. 100% (...) I don't want to call them insignificant, but I think that due to the way you've phrased the question, the only answer I can give is Yes. I think that the RKBA (...) (25 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New Web Page
|
| Richard is a good teacher BECAUSE he teaches at a private school. No public school would ever allow that level of innovation and excellence. Might interfere with training antisocial shooters. Followups set to .debate (25 years ago, 12-May-99, to lugnet.build, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 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
|
|
|
|
