From: Wings of the Morning (nectar@landmarknet.net)
Date: Wed Dec 17 1997 - 12:36:50 MST
Damien R. Sullivan wrote:
> In case there's a chink to logical thought somewhere...
>
> On Dec 16, 9:25pm, Wings of the Morning wrote:
>
> > didn't even exist. I know obviously that guns are too much a part of our
> > society to just eliminate all together, but just think for a moment about for
>
> Indeed. You can make a functional handgun with standard machine tools,
> I've heard. It won't be professional quality, it might break after a
> few hundred shots, but it'll suffice to mug someone. Or kill. How can
> you eliminate such guns?
>
> > you try to argue its value as a defensive tool, an item of sport, etc., its
> > main purpose is, and will remain to kill. The problem with our society is
>
> Certainly guns are meant to kill. They're meant to kill creatures
> trying to kill me, human or not. Perhaps you've forgotten about wolves
> and great cats? They're not much of a threat now... because they've all
> been shot. I'd hate to lose guns while they're still around.
Perhaps you forgot about something called competition. In the wild animals
kill and get killed all the time. It keeps things in balance. Say we take out all
our predators, and have no threat left, the population will explode and food and
living space will eventually run out. I know thats fairly extreme, but it's
something in the future that we will have to think about. Before man came weilding
our crafty little weapons, nature was in a perfect balance give or take the many
natural disasters that happen on and off.
> > of evolution mentally. I hope that you could clearly see, if there ever is a
> > totally unified society, it's not going to work unless we get rid of weapons
>
> "Totally unified society" is not something we all understand.
> There are always going to be differences. If you haven't noticed, the human
> population is going up, not down, and we are using more natural resources than
> ever. Eventually we're going to be faced with problems when the population
> because to great, or something similar spawned from our knew era of technology.
> Unless we banned together and try to solve problems for the human race as a whole
> instead of worrying about our petty differences, I doubt we'll make it. I know
> this is way, way in the future, but I still think its an interesting thought.
> > these weapons had never been invented, imagine how many wars could have been,
> > and will be avoided if men walked onto the battle field armed only with a
> > sword. When you don't have the comfort a multi-billion dollar war plane to
> > aid you so you don't have too see the faces of all the human beings you kill,
> > you tend to think twice about going to war.
>
> Really. My my. That is not the impression I get from history. I'm
> pretty sure I've read about lots of wars in the distant past. The
> Persian Wars, the Peleponesian wars, Alexander the Great, the
> thousand-year history of Rome, the Mongols, the early Islamic Empire...
> all these people thought twice about going to war? I'd hate to see what
> happened when they only thought once.
I hope you would have realized by now that societal views and values have come
a long way since then. I'm not talking about thousands of years ago. I'm talking
about presently. Within the last few centuries. And I'd like to see you look me
in the face and tell me you wouldn't be more confident to go into war armed with
radar, machine guns, tanks, jets, bombs, stealth technology, etc. than if you only
had a sword. That was my point, I suppose I didn't set it up very well. I'm just
saying when you don't have these comforts of modern combat, you tend to take a
second thought and make sure what you are about to fight for is really worth it?
Dig?
> > more blood won't be spilt. There is no valid purpose today to own or use a
> > gun, unless you are an enforcer of the law, and it is absolutely dire that
>
> And we can all trust all of the enforcers of the law!
>
I have to agree with you there. I'm just saying, guns aren't a necessity of
life. You could live without a gun no? And yes you say you need one to protect
yourself, but that's largely to crime that was made possible thanks to guns. I'm
trying to look at it as a hypothetical situation, where in no guns had ever
existed. Don't you think crime related deaths would be a lot lower?
> > Do you think that gangs would be as previlent today if
> > the members went around armed with wooden sticks?
>
> "Feudalism."
Many of the inner city gangs today view guns as a sign of power and pride. Too
some, they're too ignorant to realize just how serious it all is. Almost like a
game. It makes boys and men equal. If gangs were based on brute strength and
regular old street fighting, and members didn't have a gun to protect them, do you
really think there would be as many deaths? Drive by's? etc.
> It's amazing how the Cold War, the nuclear era, was one of the most
> peaceful periods in Europe's entire history. It still is peaceful,
> apart from some fringe areas like Yugoslavia that don't have anything
> more advanced than primitive artillery, and a bad distribution of guns.
>
Peaceful, but fearful. You're living in your house with loved ones. News has it
an a-bomb might be dropped on your area any minute, any day, any second. You live
day in and day out in constant fear. Is your exsitence peaceful? No my friend,
being able to live freely, and carefree from that sort of thing, thats living
peaceful. There's a difference between fearful peaceful.
> Try this idea out: danger is not in how much deadly power is available.
> It's in how it is distributed. The left doesn't like concentrations of
> wealth, of _productive_ power; it's amazing that they don't see the
> necessity of ensuring equality of destructive power. One person with a
> sword isn't as deadly as a person with a gun... but it's hard to become
> a good person with a sword, so those who do, rule. Guns are easy. Guns
> are democratic. There are rather few stable democracies which predate
> the gun. Iceland, perhaps.
>
Potential energy, kenetic energy, it's still energy. Potential destruction,
active destruction, it's still destruction. I'd don't think you see what I'm
getting at. How bout no destruction at all? Guns are easy, guns are democratic.
Those are some pretty immature statements man. Life isn't easy, it's damn hard.
How would you feel if I decided one day just to take yours away and make all your
effort throughout life for nothing with my _easy_ gun? It's amazing how much
respect I lose when I have the ability to do such a thing, and not even have to
work at it. If I had to beat you to death with my bare hands, I'm gonna think
twice, and I'm gonna have respect. (hehe don't worry just using it as an example,
not threatening you)
> > do just that, to me, is plain wrong. Perhaps if people repected that power
>
> Ah, but people do respect that power... especially when other people
> wield it.
>
Oh come on...no they don't. Do you think the little boy who finds his daddy's
gun and accidently shoots his brothers brains all over the wall respected that
power? Do you think the boy who shoots a schoolmate because he stole his
girlfriend respects that power? Do you think the grown man who shoots down his
wife because she left him after he beat her respects that power? If people
actually respected the power a gun weilds, there would be as many gun related
deaths. I know some of my logic in the first post was sorta messy, and still
is. I was a little worked up I suppose. I just think you only half understood
some of the statements I made, and I'm sure I only half understood some you made,
so feel free to reply. Peace. :)
-Mike Everett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:45:14 MST