Usually hard to tell whether a cop is bent or good. I fear
incompetence.
On 3 Feb, 15:48, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
