🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <31b7r7$3nh@tnt.craycos.com>, James Davies <jrbd@craycos.com> wrote:
>ckalina@gwis.circ.gwu.edu (Charles Kalina) writes:
>>	It's a fallacy to think that objects have power.  Condoms don't
>>make people have sex any more than the prescence of guns makes people
>>criminals.  Ideas, however, can have a profound effect, especially when
>>translated into action.  Giving a child a condom is an action that
>>communicates an idea.  A bad idea.  That's what makes it dangerous.

>So what happens if you give a child a gun?  I assume you favor strict
>gun control (because after all ideas can have a profound effect),
>and making guns freely available is implicitly saying that killing is
>good?

	For the record, I am against handing out loaded guns in school. 
Even if those guns are relatively safe because they've only got one bullet
a la Russian Roulette.

>(The thread seemed to be dying out, so I thought it was time to segue
>into a gun-control argument.  Everybody get out your dictionaries and
>look up the word "militia". :-)

	Does anyone keep a list of topics that net discussions must, by
law, devolve into?  My favorite is the dueling FF quotes as to whether
separation of church and state jibes with original intent...

-- 
Charles P. Kalina, Feared Scourge of the USENET
"I have done no harm.  But I remember now I am in this earthly world,
where to do harm, is often laudable, to do good sometime accounted
dangerous folly..." (MacBeth via Shakespeare)