----- Original Message ----- From: "d.brin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 5:05 PM Subject: Re: Brin: Brin 9/11 statement shown accurate again
> Sorry guys. This is unadulterated BS. I swear, we'll all be doomed > if you smart guys don't stop theorizing and look at facts. I don't think it is so much theorizing as it is speaking from the experiance of their lives, what they see and what they read. > > Fact, the South has the hugest murder rate and rate of violence. It > is also Gun Central. THE EXPERIMENT HAS BEEN TRIED and utterly > failed. accept falsification. I think it is usefull to look at exactly *who* is committing these murders and acts of violence. Aim solutions at the problem, not at the whole of society. Saying that people are equal in the eyes of the law is not the same thing as treating them as if they were identical clones, yet your take on "the facts" requires that one view the responsible, the irresponsible, and the criminal as being the same. You would make them "all" criminals, fully knowing ahead of time the great degree of dissent that such laws would entail. Having read some of your speeches, I find it hard to credit that you would support such a stance. (I suppose I'm mostly refering to some of your comments at the Libertarian convention. Was that the keynote speech?) I would conter your argument with one that considers Washington DC. Criminals are manufacturing their own weapons there and using them to kill. DC is a gun control parable gone bad, with an unconcionable murder rate. > > It failed because young men are not rational players operating > according to self-interest game theory. They are using reaction sets > inherited from when an angry fit would throw you into a fight with > fists. In a fistfight, even if you lose, you may win the other guy's > respect. I think this typifies the murder problem in the south. Violence is normally commited by the ignorant and those with loose control of their emotions. >In a gun fight, the loser dies and the winner goes to > prison. I think that if you give it some consideration, you will agree that this is a broad and prejudical statement. It ignores that guns are not the only way to murder and that survivors do not always go to prison, sometimes killing is just and sometimes killers escape forever. > > IF we were all armed to the teeth for a thousand years, I agree, > evolution would be very rapid. In 1,000 years all young humans would > be calmer and operate with better game theory. I do not intend to > wait that long. Nearly all of the advantages of Campbellian doctrine > "an armed society is polite" - in other words accountability - can be > achieved using cameras instead of firearms. Are you advocating not just a camera on every street, but a camera in every living room and bedroom? > > With cameras, the first shooter doesn't win, but the one who's right > will. And if you shoot impulsively with a camera, you can say "I'm > sorry." That presupposes a camera in the right location at the right time and most importantly, that no countermeasures exist that would make a camera useless. I suspect dozens of ways to commit murder with a handgun that evade the view of cameras. Cameras would be fairly workable in an urban setting, yet one must consider how much of the world is extra-urban and where most of the handguns actually are. > > Hey, I am "Mr. Accountability". I'm no sweetness goody liberal. > Humans are often maniacs and I want everybody armed to defend > themselves. My opinion of you is exceedingly favorable, I just believe your points on this subject are quite one sided and not explored in enough depth. I have no doubt that you have read essays and arguments beyond count, but the experience of the average Joe and Jane Handgunowner count for much more than all the sophistry that can be mustered. 83 million gun owners behaved themselves today, yet that "factoid" tends to be ignored. > > But I am also a father, and I do NOT want schoolteachers armed to the > teeth. I wouldn't propose such a measure. But on the other hand, what exactly is so bad about that? > I want only rifles in peoples, home, stored high with the > bolts removed and locked elsewhere. We'll have our second amendment > guns... and home defense or sport or hunting. In sentence 1 you want weapons to not be immediately useable, but in sentence 2 you support having them for home defense, a situation that is usually immediate. The two sentences taken together are not workable. >All other types - > including Assault rifles and handguns, are simply substitute penises > for really sad obsessive fellows. > What an awful way to insult millions of people! Doc, you are taking the worst examples in a category and casting them as typical. It reads as if you have never actually known anyone who owned a handgun. I know hundreds, and cant think of anyone who fits that description. Where in the world would you get such an idea? xponent Many Paths To Peace Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
