[funsec] Never forget...

Brian Loe knobdy at gmail.com
Fri Sep 14 07:58:29 CDT 2007

On 9/13/07, Gadi Evron <ge at linuxbox.org> wrote:

> > 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.
> No, you are saying that because 1+2=3, 3=4. Your arguments make sense, but
> you take them one step further off-course and that is no way to win an
> argument unless you're a flamer.

I don't know why you think this and would greatly appreciate an
example of it. I'm not substituting "4" for "3" anywhere, I'm saying
that if 1+2=3 then 2+1=3.

> So, pick a point and let's fight it out, or let's talk about rubber fucks.

I've staked out several points we can talk about (guns aren't
inherently dangerous, one person's fear of guns is not justification
for removing another's right to defend themselves, guns aren't
manufactured to kill, etc.). But, you could respond to the rest of
this e-mail, I am after all replying to your statements:

> 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

> 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.

More information about the funsec mailing list