Re: Cell phones of death!

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Rodent of Unusual Size (Ken.Coar@Golux.Com)
Date: Thu Dec 14 2000 - 07:35:56 PST

Damien Morton wrote:
> Interesting that you see 'gun-owner' as a whole class of people
> worthy of elevation to 'protected minority' status.

Sorry, but you are drawing warped conclusions and twisting
Bill's remarks. He explicitly did NOT say 'any OTHER minority.'

> Perhaps the terms 'gun-user' or 'death-dealing-device-owner'
> would shed some light on this connundrum.

Indeed, let us include automobile owners, who kill more than
ten times as many people as gun owners. That's a 'death-dealing
device' for you -- the Little Tailor would probably be impressed.

> Guns are primarily for killing, and every innovation in firearms
> throughout their history has been to enhance their ability to do
> some killing.

Another twist. Let's not lump 'designed for' and 'used for'
like this.

> A handgun is a specialised device for shooting other people. It
> has no other purpose.


> You can use it as a door stop, and you make a show of hunting
> with one

Oh yes, lots of people hunt with handguns. Not.

> but its primary function will always be for shooting people. A
> rifle, especially any kind of repeating rifle, from bolt action
> on up, is a device for killing things, probably people. Period.

Not only do you state your opinions as natural law, but you're
clearly not interested in anyone else's opinions.

> Often the argument comes up about the needs of hunters, and
> thats fine and good. The way I see it, hunters should be limited
> to single shot weapons (ideally muskets or bows), and should be
> required to store their weapons at police stations when not in use.

Mmmm. Once again you're limiting according to need rather than
freedom. There's no *need* for anyone to have a car capable
of travelling at greater velocities than the posted speed limits,
so let's not permit them.

> I think we also might be able to agree that a number of people get
> killed that wouldnt get killed if they lived in a society with an
> intollerance of guns.

England. Australia. Switzerland. Israel. No, I don't agree.

> Certainly the US has an outrageous number of firearms deaths per
> year, compared to the rest of the western world, and most of them
> could be termed 'unjust' and 'avoidable'.

I don't admit your 'certainly' without some corroborating evidence.
And I find the number of automotive deaths to be far more

> The solution is a difficult, because firearms have an outrageously
> long half-life compared to most other manufactured goods of such
> toxicity. Basically a century long eradication program would be
> required, in which the manufacture, repair, sale, transport etc
> etc of firearms and ammunition would be, by default, outlawed for
> civilians.

Two points here: 1) It's clear again that you consider *your* solution
to be the only one. 'Don't you oppress me!' Sorry, I disgree,
and I do not permit you to speak for me. 2) So you're in favour
of having your servants -- police, the government -- have rights
that you yourself do not possess? Interesting.

#ken    P-)}

Ken Coar <http://Golux.Com/coar/> Apache Software Foundation <> "Apache Server for Dummies" <http://Apache-Server.Com/> "Apache Server Unleashed" <http://ApacheUnleashed.Com/>

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 15 2000 - 17:30:55 PST