🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <DOCONNOR.94Nov15121630@sedona.intel.com>,
Dennis O'Connor~ <doconnor@sedona.intel.com> wrote:
>] <sorry lost attribution>
>] After all, it may be people rather than guns that kill, but it is a heck
>] of a lot easier to kill someone with a gun than without one.
>
>Au contraire.  Pushing people off tall buildings is cheaper and easier.

Hmmmmm... a gun can be used anywhere ('cept maybe underwater?) but a
person can be pushed off a tall building only when, well, they are
standing close enough to the edge of a sufficiently tall building.

I happen to agree that its easier to kill with a gun that without one.
I have been faced with the situation of having to kill injured animals,
and I could not do it 'with my bare hands' (e.g. break neck, I
certainly would not have been able to cut its throat or anything
similarly gruesome).  I suppose that is a personal failing.  However,
I am sure I would have been able to do it (or at least attempt it) with 
a gun (although it certainly would have been overkill!).  Its use 
removes you from living creature, creates somewhat of a barrier between 
you and 'death',  at least *before* you pull the trigger - afterward, 
I don't imagine there is much difference.  But afterward can be too late!

This is what worries me most about guns - their impartiality.  I
admit, I am not experienced with guns outside of paintball, gallery
shooting at the fair, and water pistols.  But I can feel the
difference it would make, in me at least, if it came to my 'capability
to kill' (*not* DESIRE to kill, but capability).  I *know* there would
be a difference.

Does no one else see this???  I can't believe I am the only person who
feels this way.

-- 
Melanie Arabsky, Zadall Systems Group - Burnaby, BC      mel@zadall.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Always just be yourself, you can never go wrong -- well unless you are 
a serial killer or something." - K.H.