🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan19.203140.5215@clsi.COM> kevin@clsi.com writes:
>
>In article <1j9a7cINN1lh@mirror.digex.com>, dougnews@access.digex.com (Doug Humphrey) writes:
>> 
>> One thing that you and the anti-gun fanatics have in common is the 
>> love for static analysis, vs. dynamic analysis.  Static analysis 
>> allows for the changing of a factor or factors, and then the drawing 
>> of some new conclusion about what that change means without taking
>> into account the effects that the changes made have on the whole system.
>> A statement like "if nobody had _____ then nobody would have to suffer
>> the consequences of _____", without further discussion of the consequences 
>> of that change, is static analysis.  It is bogus, without value, when
>> attempted in a real, dynamic situation such as the societal structure
>> in which we live.  
>> 
>> The automobile analogy works a little here;
>
>But not very well.

You don't address any of the points that I make, you just 
blow them off with a one liner.  This is one reason why 
it is not possible to have a rational discussion with you;
there is no give and take, not addressing of the other persons 
points with counterpoint.  If you make points, you expect 
people to address them, but you don't give the same effort
to those you would seek to discuss with.

>There is a happy medium in most things. While we know that if there were no 
>guns no-one will get shot, we also know that there will always be some guns 
>around.  Not everybody wants to carry a gun, so they are automatically at 
>a disadvantage to criminals who do. The aim of a democracy is to find the
> happy medium, and that will require compromise on both sides.

Not everyone wants to wear seat-belts; if they do not, they are 
making a choice that might lower their safety, but it is their
choice.  Not everyone wants to carry a gun; is that a reason 
why nobody should be allowed to do it?  

They are not "automatically" at a disadvantage.  Through their action
or inaction they are at a disadvantage.  They make a concious decision
to be at a disadvantage.  That is not "automatic".

>> >My point was that a shotgun is a perfectly good home defense weapon, 
>> >but it is difficult to carry concealed. It is therefore a weapon that
>> >I have no objection to people owning.
>> 
>> Ah!  Then you might consider a law to allow open carry?  Open 
>> carry laws are VERY strict about concealment.
>
>No, the idea is to make it difficult to buy weapons that are easily concealed,
>which makes it difficult to carry guns on the streets without it being obvious
>(to the police etc.).

But in the paragraph above you state "we also know that there will always
be some guns around".  What kind of guns are you talking about?
Are these "guns that will always be around" concealable?  If so, and the 
bad guys have them, then limiting the good guys to shotguns might 
put the public "so they are automatically at a disadvantage to criminals
who do." to use your own words.  Inconsistant logical application Kev.

>> But, I have to question the belief system that causes you to 
>> have a problem with concealment.  Is it the fact that the weapon
>> is concealed that is a problem to be solved, or is the danger 
>> something to do with the person who is carries the weapon?
>
>Ideally no civilian should need to carry a concealed gun, therefore people
>carrying guns would be either criminals or mentally deranged.

What does that have to do with reality?  Ideally?  

>> Does someone who knows a deadly martial art have to have that 
>> fact tattoed on his or her forehead in bright colors so that their
>> "weapon" is not "concealed"?
>
>Muggers and thieves are not generally martial artists as far as I know.

Really?  Cite your references.  Name the dojo and the instructor 
that gives you this enlightened information.

By the way, I am still waiting for your information on ammo that 
will allow an assault weapon to be safe as a home defense weapon.

Put up or shut up Kev.  Do you know anything about this, or are 
you just a know-nothing blowhard asshole who loves to hear himself type?


-- 
Doug Humphrey    Express Access Public Access Internet   Voice (301) 220-2020
doug@digex.com   Dialup: (301) 220-0462 Login as "new"   Email info@digex.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"I say it again, in the land of the free; use your freedom of choice." - DEVO