Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/29/2011 1:06 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> That's because a hundred or more years ago they a) fought duels in
>>> public,
>>
>> I think the number of deaths by duel where both sides agree to shoot at
>> each other is nominal, unless you have some evidence that it was common.
>>
> I would argue that the mere fact that it took a long time to load the 

I have no idea what that has to do with duels. And nobody that carried a gun 
carried it unloaded when it takes a minute or more to load.

>>> b) didn't have a lot of rules about when it was and wasn't justified
>>> to shoot someone,
>>
>> Of course they did.
>>
> Depends on what you define as rules.

Laws. Same as we have now. Nobody went around saying "He's italian, so I get 
to shoot him."

> I would, again, argue that rules 
> which operated on a) societal justifications, i.e., the person shot was 
> *obviously* deserving of it, due to race, religion, nationality, etc., 
> b) talking fast enough to convince people you had a reason, especially 
> since it might not be possible to prove otherwise, and c) legal means to 
> handily do away with any possibility of being arrested for shooting 
> someone, all constitute a lack of effective rules. You literally just 
> needed to find the right loopholes/claims and you could shoot damn near 
> anyone.

Do you have any evidence at all for this?

>>> and c) you didn't have whole organizations dedicated to BS like, "Guns
>>> don't kill people, people do!",
>>
>> Because nobody was stupid enough to think otherwise. Guns were tools
>> just like knives were.
>>
> Knives tend to have the trait that, unless you throw them, and even, in 
> many cases *if* you throw them, they don't tend to kill people that 
> where not involved in the altercation in the first place. Guns.. if you 
> don't hit the intended target, and even, in some rare cases, if you do, 
> you have no certainty they won't hit someone else instead. 

Gun control means hitting your target. :-)

Note that automobiles are much more dangerous than firearms in that respect. 
Heck, last I looked, swimming pools were more dangerous than firearms in tht 
respect.

 > The matches have a place and purpose, which doesn't involve improperly 
using them, and no one much
> cares if you have a pack in your pocket, since they don't tend to 
> randomly light things one fire. 

And a gun in your pocket doesn't tend to randomly shoot people.

> Someone that carries them around for the 
> *sole* purpose of, "I might need to light a fire.", tend to justifiably 
> be presumed to be possible arsonists, 

Wow, really? And I guess anyone who carried a pocket knife on the grounds 
it's useful for opening packages ought be arrested for assault if they 
didn't get any fedex deliveries that day?

>> Guns are not likened to cars without brakes. How many policemen carry
>> guns? How many policemen would drive a car without brakes?
>>
> Cars without breaks = guns in places most reasonable people wouldn't 
> bring them,

I don't follow. What normal places would reasonable people not bring guns?

Nevermind. Your analogy is just too tortured to communicate anything.

Indeed, I think your entire screed is too tortured to communicate anything 
worth responding to, since you're not actually making any points except "I 
don't think people should have guns because they're all stupid, even tho I 
have no actual evidence for this."

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
  "How did he die?"   "He got shot in the hand."
     "That was fatal?"
          "He was holding a live grenade at the time."

Post a reply to this message