Re: Never forget...

["Brian Loe" <knobdy () gmail com>]

On 9/13/07, Gadi Evron <ge () linuxbox org> wrote:
> Your problem is that you are argumentative and plain stupid. Why? Because
> you refuse to acknowledge reasonable arguments as reasonable. For
> everything there are pros and cons. You see more pros on the other side
> and that's fine, but you refuse to see pros on my side.

That's patently false, as your statements just made clear. If I
provide another example of accidental deaths, for instance, I'm
conceding the fact that there are accidental deaths with guns.

I won't stoop to calling you stupid but I will suggest you figure out
your purpose for entering the discussion. Is it to simply explain your
own opinions? Fine, no need to defend them as you have. If its to
persuade then you have no reason to expect automatic surrender - I may
be stupid but I'm not French.

> Do more people die in car accidents? Yes.
> Are cars built as weapons of death? No.
> Is the fact guns are built to kill to take away from them being safe? No.
> Is the fact they are built to kill makes them more dangerous? No. Humans
> use guns

I don't disagree with any of this - and haven't argued otherwise. But
you're contradicting yourself. Previously guns were inherently
dangerous, now it requires a human - that was my argument. Cars aren't
weapons nor are they inherently dangerous, but a human can make them
both. Guns can provide defense as well as they provide offense, cars
can be used as deadly projectiles as well as they can provide
transportation.

> Is the fact they are built to kill makes them more likely to be used than
> not used? Yes.


There's no data to back that statement up and quite a lot of data to
dispute it - and that's the crux of the pro/anti gun debate.

I'll also take issue with the purpose you subscribe to a gun. I've
already told you that I am personally aware of the use of a gun in
defense. I also told you that no shots were fired. Did I also have to
tell you that the gun wasn't used to beat someone to death? In other
words, to type more slowly, the gun was used properly, provided the
correct results and no one is dead (and two criminals were removed
from the street, if only for a night).

Guns are like any other weapon, or any other object for that matter,
their purpose is determined by the person wielding them and not the
manufacturer. Nuclear weapons, we are told, are a deterrent to our
enemies. The belief that Israel has nukes is a deterrent to its would
be aggressors. Just because you have it doesn't mean you have to use
it and just because it can kill doesn't mean it must. To say otherwise
is stupid.
_______________________________________________
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.