🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: sci.crypt
Article #1594

Re: Registering "Assault Keys"

#1594
From: Pete Gontier
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 07:11
58 lines
2848 bytes
sjo@cci632.cci.com (Steve Owens) writes:
>Please state an example
>of something that is legal to do, that you do not do, and still feel
>your right to participate in such activity should be banned.

Smoking tobacco. Drinking alcohol. Telling kids they'll go to hell
if they do taboo thing X. I could go on for a while.

>It would keep the law-abiding
>citizen from participating in a very satisfying form of recreation.

True. But what's recreational satisfaction compared to the blood
of innocents?

An aside: why is it that terms like "law-abiding" creep into
these descriptions? Are criminals unable to derive the same
recreational satisfaction?

>Since there is no evidence to support the claim that a ban would work, 
>there is no reason to support such a ban.

Name just about any country in the EC. Remember, we're talking
about kids finding Daddy's gun and shooting each other with it out
of ignorance. That's *all* I'm talking about.

>Why can't we address the underlying problems?

How much time do you have? :-) In short, for all the reasons Perot
outlined in his campaign speeches. (Not that I voted for Perot,
nosir.)

>"Patching the system" simply adds kludge on top of
>kludge until you have a system that is so huge noone can understand it
>and noone can support it.  If that's the case, it's time for a new system.

Ah, now we've gotten to crux of the problem, haven't we?

Programmers refer to an old, creaky, patched up system as "mature",
at least when they're trying to hire new blood. "Mature" is the way
I'd describe our system. Hell, it's just about the oldest government
on the planet.

>>I understand that a ban on handguns would merely be a band-aid. That
>>doesn't change my preference.

>If you realize a handgun ban doesn't address the problem, then
>for what reason do you support a handgun ban?

A band-aid *does* address the problem. Just not very well.

>If you really want to solve the problem, try studying the problem
>and comming up with real solutions instead of supporting a band-aid that 
>will only effect law-abiding citizens like you or me.

I'm too cynical for that. Maybe when I have lots of money I'll
start thinking about solutions. For now, band-aids'll do fine.
-- 
 Pete Gontier // EC Technology // gurgle@netcom.com
Technical Details
Message-ID: <1992Nov12.071135.2216@netcom.com>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!gurgle
References: <1992Nov8.030704.3898@netcom.com> <1794@rwing.UUCP> <1992Nov10.044148.22135@netcom.com> <1992Nov10.171546.19992@cci632.cci.com>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,talk.politics.guns
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!gurgle
From: gurgle@netcom.com (Pete Gontier)
Subject: Re: Registering "Assault Keys"
Message-ID: <1992Nov12.071135.2216@netcom.com>
Organization: cellular
References: <1992Nov8.030704.3898@netcom.com> <1794@rwing.UUCP> <1992Nov10.044148.22135@netcom.com> <1992Nov10.171546.19992@cci632.cci.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 07:11:35 GMT
Lines: 58