Re: The right to bear arms & make salad

["Tomas L. Byrnes" <tomb () byrneit net>]

Yes, but the US has not chosen to ban the automobile, or require
governors on cars to force them to the speed limit.

When a gun banner asks why I "need" a semi-automatic magazine fed
weapon, I ask them why their limousine "liberal" arse "needs" a car that
can exceed the legal speed limit (invariably, although lately they tend
towards the Toyota "Pious", they have a BMW or some other such status
symbol). Especially since the deaths due to car accidents are greater
than those involving firearms, the victims far more often innocent, and
speed is one of the major contributing factors.

We don't ban cars because their utility exceeds their risks. We don't
cripple horsepower, because sometimes you need to accelerate (onto the
freeway), and people LIKE powerful, fast, cars (even the eco-freaks want
a Tesla). Last, but by no means least, we don't ban guns because having
them reduces crime, preserves liberty, and you haven't lived until you
experience the joy of being a great shot, the surety that you can
protect yourself when civil society breaks down (as I had when I lived
in LA during the riots), or the visceral power of providing your own and
family's food.

In the same way, we don't say the government must have our encryption
keys, because then the government would abuse it, or some petty
bureaucrat would be bought off to give up keys that had far greater
economic value than the payoff. There, we're back on topic.

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: funsec-bounces () linuxbox org 
> [mailto:funsec-bounces () linuxbox org] On Behalf Of Richard M. Smith
> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 3:20 PM
> To: funsec () linuxbox org
> Subject: Re: [funsec] The right to bear arms & make salad
>
> Actually the U.S. government has been involved in car safety 
> standards for
> 30+ years.  During this time, automobile death rates have dropped
> substantially.
>
> U.S. government anti-smoking campaigns have also dropped 
> smoking rates and smoking-related deaths substantially.  
> Imagine flying on an airplane nowadays if smoking was still allowed.  
>
> As far as fat people go, is your proposal that we stop eating? ;-)
>
> Richard
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 4:02 PM
> To: Richard M. Smith
> Cc: funsec () linuxbox org
> Subject: Re: [funsec] The right to bear arms & make salad
>
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:55:31 CDT, "Richard M. Smith" said:
>
> > In the US (population c. 298.5m) there were an estimated 16,137 
> > homicides
> in
> > 2004 (FBI, 2006a) - a rate of about 5.4 per 100,000. Of 
> these, 10,654 
> > were carried out with guns (FBI, 2006b).
>
> How many people died in car crashes in 2004?
>
> How many people died from tobacco and alcohol related issues in 2004?
>
> How many people died from weight-related issues in 2004?
>
> If we're looking at banning stuff because people are dying, 
> let's at least save more lives by banning cars, tobacco, 
> alcohol, and fat people.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
> https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
> Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.