On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Julia Thompson wrote:
[extermination of pests snipped]
>
> So, depending on how you define "rural", I'd agree with Marvin's
> statement, but my definition of "rural" doesn't quite cover all the sorts
> of situations where a gun is still a tool on occasion. Maybe I should
> rethink my definition.
Well, I suppose that there are some suburban situations that have
frontier-like qualities, such as when subdivisions are still relatively
freshly carved from farmland and fields, displacing animals which then
start to wander into town. Depending on where you are, you may or may not
be able to call an animal control officer to handle the problem, in which
case it might make sense to keep a gun around. But there's still no
reason not to keep the thing locked up tight.
Somehow the romance of defending urban sprawl from woodchucks doesn't live
up to my idea of the frontiersman on the lookout for wolves & cougars,
though. :-) And I'd be surprised if there are enough vermin around to
shoot, as a rule, to outweigh the overwhelming media & political messages
about guns which define them nowadays.
(Quick note to prevent misunderstanding: I'm not arguing that the media
are making kids violent. I'm arguing that they play an unprecedentedly
large role in defining what a gun *is*. This change in the definition of
the gun changes the way we use guns.)
Marvin Long
Austin, Texas
Don't be frightened. Adrenaline will just make your blood taste funny.
