On Wed, 5 Sep 2007, Brian Loe wrote: > On 9/5/07, Drsolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > If I am killed on a plane by some loony then whoever it was that > > > disarmed me is as guilty for my death as the loony. That is what I am > > > saying. > > > > > > If you think guns and bullets are responsible for murders you'll > > > probably never understand this. > > > > What I don't understand, is why gun-nuts persistently represent anti-gun > > folk as having this idea. > > > > Guns and bullets aren't responsible for murders. They are responsible for > > making it easier to commit murder. And quelle surprise - when somethng is > > easier to do, it gets done more often. > > Murder does not rely on ease of execution.
Many of them do. > To say so is to deny that > murder is anything more than a normal, everyday human act...like > traveling across the room. Does a gun make it easier to kill someone? > Yes. Does that mean more murders will be committed when more guns are > present? No. Yes. Because when something is easier, more people can do it. > Proof? How about revisiting gun ownership statistics that > were on the list just last week. Based on those, I would say the US' > murder rate would need to be 100-1000 times higher for a correlation > to be made. The same argument is made for suicide and Japan, bless > their hearts, prove it to be wrong annually. > > What I don't understand is anti-gun folks' inability to realize the > obvious: if its easier to take a life with a firearm then it must be > easier to defend a life with a firearm. It's easy to show that isn't true. If it were, then it would be easier to defend a life using a terrorist bomb, because it certainly is easy to take a life using a terrorist bomb. > > Consider the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. The Jews there had guns. But the > > Nazis still slaughtered them. Guns aren't some magic potion that makes you > > invulnerable to harm. The progblem that you Americans have, is if your > > government wanted to slaughter you, the popguns you own wouldn't do much > > against the artillery, tanks and bombers that your government could > > deploy. > > And what did they accomplish with those guns? Nothing?! What they didn't accomplish, was survival. Which is what you keep saying guns are for. _______________________________________________ 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.
