orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/21/85)
> > Look -- you register your car, why not your sexual preferences? Why > not the contents of your safe deposit box? Why not your travel > intentions? > > Get it? The fact that one registers one thing doesn't justify registering > another, unless they are somehow similar. Given all the "oh but cars > kill people while being used for a constructive task and are therefore > different from guns" I hear from gun control advocates, I'm surprised you > would imply such similarity. Can I kill anybody with my sexual preferences? Or the contents of my safe deposit box? Or my travel intentions? I think these are all different from handgun ownership whose sole purpose is killing or maiming other people. Is it not? tim sevener whuxl!orb
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (01/24/85)
> > Can I kill anybody with my sexual preferences? Or the contents of my safe > deposit box? Or my travel intentions? I think these are all different > from handgun ownership whose sole purpose is killing or maiming other > people. Is it not? > tim sevener whuxl!orb I hate to do this Tim, but you are wrong this time. The answer to your three general questions is an unqualified YES. Don't get caught in the always/never true or false question trap with this type of posting. We need your valuable work for the left-of-center crowd. I am sure our numbers will continue to diminish for "four more years", or so. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
nrh@inmet.UUCP (01/27/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics / whuxl!orb / 11:44 am Jan 23, 1985 >> >> Look -- you register your car, why not your sexual preferences? Why >> not the contents of your safe deposit box? Why not your travel >> intentions? >> >> Get it? The fact that one registers one thing doesn't justify registering >> another, unless they are somehow similar. Given all the "oh but cars >> kill people while being used for a constructive task and are therefore >> different from guns" I hear from gun control advocates, I'm surprised you >> would imply such similarity. > >Can I kill anybody with my sexual preferences? As I recall, somebody went on trial in London, England, about a year ago because a woman he'd had rather kinky sex with had suffocated. In the trial, the bondage mask involved was fitted onto an inflatable dummy's head, which promptly deflated. I don't know about your sexual preferences, but here's a case in point. Should we register bondage masks? Pieces of leather? Condoms? Fact is, an argument can be made that almost ANY item is lethal if used with lethal force and intent. >Or the contents of my safe >deposit box? I don't know what you keep in your safe deposit box, but in mine there are a number of items, which, properly applied, could kill someone. (You force this-many page lease into their solar-plexus, whilst you stab at them with some old keys that could penetrate (say) an eardrum). If you keep a sack of old "mercury head" dimes there, you could roll them into a pretty good blackjack. Get it? A gun could be used to kill someone, so could sheets of paper, coins, and old keys. >Or my travel intentions? Oh but they can! Suppose you're a farmer who is required to keep a farm going. Suppose further that you supply (charitably) a soup kitchen. If you were to go away and not tell anyone where you're going, your workers might not give to the soup kitchen (lacking your orders). A person who depends on the soup kitchen could starve! A libertarian might say: "Pfui! You've every right to go where you like, and no societal (excepting your own sense of morals) obligation to continue charity if you don't choose to." A socialist might say: "You're required to give to the soup kitchen, and to continue to operate the farm, otherwise you're liable for the fate of the soup-kitchen denizens. Because this is necessary, we reluctantly must demand to know where you are at all times." >I think these are all different >from handgun ownership whose sole purpose is killing or maiming other >people. I BEG your pardon. I've posted a poll of why people own guns. THEY don't believe it is to kill and maim others. Do you have some special insight into gun-owner motivations, superior to their own? Do you have some evidence that they're lying?
cjk@ccice2.UUCP (Chris Kreilick) (01/27/85)
> > I hate to do this Tim, but you are wrong this time. The answer to your > three general questions is an unqualified YES. Don't get caught in the > always/never true or false question trap with this type of posting. We > need your valuable work for the left-of-center crowd. I am sure our numbers > will continue to diminish for "four more years", or so. > > *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** gas chamber. -- Peaceful Botanist
ems@amdahl.UUCP (E. Michael Smith) (01/29/85)
> I think these are all different > from handgun ownership whose sole purpose is killing or maiming other > people. Is it not? > tim sevener whuxl!orb No it is not. Do you belong to the *loud* enough and long enough league or what? It has been said many times that there are many reasons other that shooting people for owning handguns. A brief sample: collecting, profit from trade, hunting, target shooting. -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems Comedo ergo sum The opinions expressed by me are not representative of those of any other person - natural, unnatural, or fictional - and only marginally reflect my opinions as strained by the language.
daf@ccice6.UUCP (David Fader) (01/29/85)
> > I hate to do this Tim, but you are wrong this time. The answer to your > three general questions is an unqualified YES. Don't get caught in the > always/never true or false question trap with this type of posting. We > need your valuable work for the left-of-center crowd. I am sure our numbers > will continue to diminish for "four more years", or so. > > *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** Death by torture. -- The Watcher seismo!rochester!ccice5!ccice6!daf
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (01/31/85)
>> I think these are all different >> from handgun ownership whose sole purpose is killing or maiming other >> people. Is it not? >> tim sevener whuxl!orb > >No it is not. Do you belong to the *loud* enough and long enough >league or what? It has been said many times that there are many >reasons other that shooting people for owning handguns. A brief >sample: collecting, profit from trade, hunting, target shooting. > >-- > >E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems Let's see... (i) Collecting: lots of things are collectible. Why does it have to be handguns? If some personality quirk insists handguns are the only true collectible, why can't their firing mechanisms be disabled or the barrels plugged irrevocably? (ii) Profit from trade: to whom? only to people who might want a handgun for another purpose, so this one doesn't count. (iii) Hunting: Long guns are better if you just want to kill, bow and arrow if you want a challenge. Who last saw someone stalking through the woods after a deer with a pistol in hand, or awaiting ducks in a blind with revolver at the ready? (iv) target shooting: OK, but then you can keep your gun at the club, as people do with their equipment in most sports. You don't have to have it at home or carry it around (except to go to competitions away from your home club). I don't think anyone has effectively disputed the claim that handguns are really valuable only for killing or injuring PEOPLE. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
daf@ccice6.UUCP (David Fader) (02/06/85)
> >>The sole purpose of handgun ownership is killing or maiming other > >> people. Is it not? > >No it is not. It has been said many times that there are many > >reasons other that shooting people for owning handguns. A brief > >sample: collecting, profit from trade, hunting, target shooting. > Let's see... > (i) Collecting: lots of things are collectible. Why does it have to > be handguns? If some personality quirk insists handguns are the > only true collectible, why can't their firing mechanisms be disabled > or the barrels plugged irrevocably? I must agree with you. As a matter of fact I think you should travel to every museum in the world and explain how you want to modify thier collections. Since museums are filled with educated people, I am sure they will agree at once. > (ii) Profit from trade: to whom? only to people who might want a handgun > for another purpose, so this one doesn't count. An interesting point. Just like talking. Talking: to whom? only to people who might want to talk for another purpose, so talking doesn't count. Just like coin collectors profiting from trade. Profit from trade: to whom? only to people who might want a coin for another purpose, like a gumball machine, so this one doesn't count. > (iii) Hunting: Long guns are better if you just want to kill, bow and > arrow if you want a challenge. Who last saw someone stalking through > the woods after a deer with a pistol in hand, or awaiting ducks in > a blind with revolver at the ready? Long guns are better if you just want to kill from a distance. Bow and arrow are challenging. Pistols are not efficient for hunting deer. Revolvers are not efficient for hunting ducks, neither are automatics. Valid facts. How long have you been hunting with a revolver? > (iv) target shooting: OK, but then you can keep your gun at the club, > as people do with their equipment in most sports. You don't have > to have it at home or carry it around (except to go to competitions > away from your home club). An indesputable point. If the gun was not taken to the competition then it wouldn't be there, unless it was already there. > I don't think anyone has effectively disputed the claim that handguns > are really valuable only for killing or injuring PEOPLE. Perhaps they are waiting for you to refute the claim that handguns are used for: collecting, profit from trade, hunting, target shooting. -- The Watcher seismo!rochester!ccice5!ccice6!daf