On 3 Feb, 14:35, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tell Saint Pat who claims "It's obvious that we don't NEED guns or
> cars". Only his earthly form is so weak it prefers carrying a gun.
>
Yup. In the presence of others. If there were no guns available,
then I wouldn't 'want' one. However, I'm not stupid enough to think
that I need one. Plus, I never put myself in that 'Saint' category.
And, it goes without saying (thus, why I'm saying it), that my Earthly
form is weak enough to be 'disrupted' by others' guns, therefore, in
order to better protect myself against such a threat, It would be
better if I had one. Of course, it's THAT kind of logic that builds
arms races without fail. Back in the days of 'sticks and stones'
you'd have been hard-pressed to find a human who didn't have access to
one or the other. But don't hold out for the Ronco's Pocket Nuclear
Device. Ron Popeil's inventions were usually quite peaceful...unless
you're a vegetable.
> On 3 Feb., 15:02, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > What's "Alien" about this behaviour, Gabby? Human have practiced it since
> > long before we were Sapiens. Every pre-modern species of human-kind has
> > developed and carried weaponry, to the best of their technological ability.
> > "Alien" is the supposition we would NOT need it.
>
> > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:00 AM, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Puh, Pat. You cannot deny your American upbringing. Me, myself and I -
> > > full circle. Fear is for others.
>
> > > There are non-criminal people living today who really need guns. And
> > > there are non-criminal people living on this beautiful planet who
> > > really need cars. Let's start thinking what kinds of people these
> > > could be. You might find it helpful to begin with finding potential
> > > reasons for such alien behaviour.
>
> > > On 3 Feb., 14:11, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On 2 Feb, 17:24, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Chris,
>
> > > > > I don't think it's about misperception. A car, a pool, a knife... each
> > > of
> > > > > these serve essential, non-violent, functions. A gun is designed to
> > > kill; it
> > > > > has no other purpose. If people want to shoot targets, use a gun that
> > > shoots
> > > > > an infrared beam at an electronic target, or play a video game. In
> > > terms of
> > > > > the theory, eliminating guns as a risk makes a lot of sense.
>
> > > > > Eliminating cars has inherent functional problems for our society.
>
> > > > Much the same ones as eliminating guns. The biggest one being that
> > > > those who have them and want them simply WON'T be handing them over to
> > > > anyone. This leaves ALL the guns in criminal hands. Personally, I'd
> > > > rather have one myself, so the criminal doesn't ALWAYS have one up on
> > > > me. It's obvious that we don't NEED guns or cars, as humans lived
> > > > many millenia prior to their invention, but, as you say, eliminating
> > > > things that people want is always tricky.
>
> > > > > Ian
>
> > > > > 2009/2/2 Chris Jenkins <[email protected]>
>
> > > > > > In 'Freakonomics', Steven Levitt explored the remarkable phenomenon
> > > of
> > > > > > parental misperception of risk. He noted that a child was 11 times
> > > more
> > > > > > likely to die by swimming accident at a friend's house with a pool,
> > > than by
> > > > > > shooting accident at a friend's house with a gun, and yet parents as
> > > a
> > > > > > generality never restricted play due to the presence of a pool, but
> > > would
> > > > > > restrict play due to the presence of a gun.
> > > > > > Statistically, I am far more likely to kill you with my:
>
> > > > > > car
> > > > > > knife
> > > > > > baseball bat or other blunt trauma intrument
> > > > > > alcohol
>
> > > > > > than with my gun, yet your perception of personal risk is so skewed
> > > that
> > > > > > you literally feel your freedom is impinged upon merely by my
> > > possession of
> > > > > > this tool. That's a psychological phenomenon that is really
> > > irrelevant to
> > > > > > the greater conversation, and which probably deserves a thread unto
> > > its
> > > > > > own.
>
> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Ian Pollard <[email protected]
> > > >wrote:
>
> > > > > >> Your posession of a firearm makes me less safe. Not being murdered
> > > or hurt
> > > > > >> is a pretty fundamental freedom; can we agree on that much? Now, am
> > > I more
> > > > > >> likely to be a victim of gun crime in a country with lots of guns
> > > > > >> or
> > > a
> > > > > >> country with very few?
>
> > > > > >> (First person to mention Switzerland gets bitch-slapped.)
>
> > > > > >> Ian- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
