🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov8.030704.3898@netcom.com> gurgle@netcom.com (Pete Gontier) writes:
>perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Oct30.033830.24244@netcom.com> gurgle@netcom.com (Pete Gontier) writes:
>>>On the other hand, I don't think a seven-year-old boy is about
>>>to shoot his six-year-old sister with an encryption key because
>>>he didn't understand death.
>
>>Or feed her Drano? Uh oh, it's time to start registering and regulating
>>assault drain-openers! :->
>
>How many movies and cartoons have there been in the last few
>decades glorifying Drano? How many do you expect there to be?
>How likely do you think it might be that a child understands
>that Drano is a poison? The very reason you use it as an example
>is that children sometimes eat it because they *don't* know.
>So no, I don't think we should regulate Drano in that context.
>Pick another example. Try kitchen knives. I've got an answer
>for that one, too.

Kids have accidents with guns because they don't know that it could
be poison to them, either.  Its just this curious metallic object...

And this is, of course, ignoring the fact that the only thing that
is LOWER on the accidental death scale than guns for kids is poison
gas...

As to glorifying guns on TV, how about putting all the energy you seem
to want to apply to deny MY choice whether to own a gun or not to making
the producers of those cartoons and movies clean up THEIR act?  Would
you be as cavalier about someone trying to deny YOUR choice on something
you consider of signifigant importance to you (assuming the choice being
foisted on you is not the one you would take).  Since you don't care
for guns, a ban on them will not affect you, at least in the short term,
so you consider that an acceptable restriction, but the TV producers
cleaning up their act might remove some shows you enjoy, and that would
be an inconvenience from your point of view?  Or could it be that a ban
on guns looks to be the quick fix, even though I have yet to see any
evidence of its efficacy in reducing either homicide or other crimes of
violence, or overall accidental deaths.  If accidental death prevention
is your goal, there are many things one could devote their energies to
that would save a *LOT* more lives than going after guns.  Only problem
with these are are that they are not considered fashionable, 'hip', or
'cool' or whatever term is applcable these days.

The *ONLY* difference between a gun of some type and another tool that
can be used to cause death or bodily injury is that so much of our
movie/TV fare glorifies solving ones problems with a bullet.  Death by
bullet, by knife, by bludgeon, or Draino or similar things is still
death:  the person ends up rotting and stinking...  Please explain why
*I* should be penalized for something some irresponsible producers seem
to like to feed us for a non-stop diet, or that irresponsible (but
oh-so-progressive) community 'leaders' could be taking to address the
root CAUSES of urban violence (except that it would require recognizing
some unpleasant truths, and a bit of effort)?  Better to blame some
inantimate hardware...

Of course, all this lacks the appeal of the 'magic bullet':  Just pass
this one more 'reasonable' law, and all our problems will go away...

poo.

-- 
pat@rwing.uucp                                  (Pat Myrto),  Seattle, WA
                      If all else fails, try:
         ...!uunet!{pilchuck, polari}!rwing!pat
WISDOM:    "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket"