Dees wrote:
> Anton Sherwood wrote:
^^^ [Actually, he DIDN'T write this, that's just to keep it clear.]
> > To pick a nit - the *purpose* of most guns is not to kill but to
> > threaten, as in "Let go of that nice lady before I do something
> > permanent." The threat, to be effective, requires the *ability* to deal
> > death; but the ability and the purpose are not the same thing. "The
> > most effective weapon is the one that need never be used."
> >
> It depends upon who buys the gun; that's NOT why muggers buy
> them.
I was just skimming, but figured I'd throw in a 2 cent point. Actually,
that's EXACTLY why muggers buy them. Only in their case, it's "Gimme your
money before I do something permanent." Muggers want money, not death.
Does this apply to war, as well? Most wars, yes: the ones where the final
objective is surrender, instead of complete obliteration.
But, to come down on the other side of this point, there are some people
who have guns for the purposes of killing people. They're also, by and
large, the sort of people who get rid of their guns after using them once
or twice. (With the exception of soldiers of soldiers bent on
obliteration rather than surrender.)
But none of this matters at all.
-Dan
-unless you love someone-
-nothing else makes any sense-
e.e. cummings
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:05:12 MDT