gray@s5000.RSVL.UNISYS.COM (Bill Gray x2128) (01/03/91)
In article <ABRAMS.90Dec19001938@division.cs.columbia.edu> abrams@cs.columbia.edu (Steven Abrams) writes: >In article <5308@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) >takes my bait and writes: >>abrams@cs.columbia.edu (Steven Abrams) writes: >>>Is this sufficient reason for making databases illegal? This is >>>almost along the lines of the "guns don't kill people" type of ^^^^ stuff deleted >>Yes it is. The gun analogy is not quite right. In general, things ^^^ ^^^^^^^ >>that can easily cause harm to people through inadvertant use and/or >>things that have the potential for mass destruction are most heavily >>regulated. Plus the degree of regulation (should) depend on the ease >>of use of the potential harmful force. stuff deleted >sarcastically, but it was meant to get a reaction. To put databases >in the same category as guns or explosives is ludicrous, in my ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ >opinion. Let me explain what I feel to be true about databases, Please do. >computers and regulations. These are IMHO, and not meant to be >construed as law or my opinion of law. Lucky us. > >4) The fact that a device can be misused to harm people is not cause >in and of itself for regulation. Yes, guns and explosives are and ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^ >should be heavily regulated. Probably because if you use a gun ^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ >correctly, you shoot someone or something, not only if you misuse it. >And explosives blow things up as a rule, not an exception. Knives, on >the other hand, have many uses. They cut wood, meat, wires, and yes, >they kill people. But they are not (nor should they be) regulated. > I may be naive, but I thought this forum was for issues arising from the increasingly computerized world in which we live. This new malignancy from Lotus certainly qualifies, and I appreciate hearing from writers who have something to contribute to the discussion. However--I am a member of a minority that has been the subject of deadly persecution by both mobs and governments. As a result, I have studied the issues involved in self-defense and weapons regulation with considerable care. I do *not* pretend to be an attorney, but I suspect that on this subject I could give at least some of them a run for their copious sums of money. Are you getting mad yet? Are you itching to hit the 'j' key yet? Are you screaming (even if silently) that this is *not* the place for "gun nuts" to spout off their tiresome drivel? That's how I feel about the anti-gun crowd, except I have actually studied facts and I know that they are wrong. So here's the deal I offer: if your imagination is so infertile you cannot argue about Lotus w/o referring to firearms, don't post. If you just cannot bring yourself to keep still about firearms in this forum, expect rebuttals on the firearms-related errors you post. For my part, I'll keep still about the rape of the Second Amendment as long as the rapists are discreet. Bill -- : gray@rsvl.unisys.com : : : : My gun is safer than Ted : : Unisys has enough problems without being : Kennedy's car. : : blamed for my personal opinions. : :