Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:44:00 -0500 From: "Crist J. Clark" <cjc@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com> To: Jamie Bowden <ragnar@sysabend.org> Cc: cjclark@home.com, Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, Mark Ovens <mark@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>, Jay Nelson <noslenj@swbell.net>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Guns and freedom [Was: Re: On "intelligent people" and "dangers to BSD"] Message-ID: <20000328224400.B14473@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10003280733530.15600-100000@moo.sysabend.org>; from ragnar@sysabend.org on Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 07:52:20AM -0800 References: <20000327225620.C11538@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com> <Pine.BSF.4.10.10003280733530.15600-100000@moo.sysabend.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 07:52:20AM -0800, Jamie Bowden wrote: > On Mon, 27 Mar 2000, Crist J. Clark wrote: > > :On Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 07:36:23PM -0800, Jamie Bowden wrote: > :> On Mon, 27 Mar 2000, Crist J. Clark wrote: > > :> Tell me something; which gun exactly, isn't an assault weapon? I'm > :> curious, as last I looked any gun could be used for: sport, self defense, > :> hunting, murder, etc. You start banning 'assault' weapons (and let's be > :> honest, a chair is an assualt weapon if you're willing to bludgeon someone > :> with it), and pretty soon none are left. Are we, as a society only going > :> to allow plastic unsharpened knives in restaurants? Are we going to go > :> back to living in bare huts made of leaves because anything else is far > :> too dangerous? Are you getting the point yet? > > :Oh please, not the classic logical fallacy of the "slippery slope." > :When I, and anyone else not engaged in warping another's argument, > :speak of "assault weapons" we are talking about firearms and > :ammunitions designed for military or police use and the specific > :purpose of injuring or killing human beings. I'm sure the lawyers in > :the legislature will be more than happy to define assault weapons in > :painfully precise and unfathomable legalese for you if that definition > :will not do. > > Fallacy? If it's such a fallacy why did the folks who founded the US go > out of there way to make it a difficult slope to start down? You may > dismiss it all you wish. I believe history would bear me out on this. > Once you start giving up rights and priviledges to authority, you do not > get them back without extreme measures. Gee you're right. Remember the armed battles to get the voting age dropped to 18? Or when women got the vote earlier this century? Look, guns are already regulated. Like the NRA says, enforce the laws we already have. I don't think any reasonable person claims that _anyone_ should be able to by _any weapon_ on a whim. Does that mean that we've already set on down this slippery slope? Here, maybe I can start an even _better_ thread than gun control and point out how the fear of the ol' slippery slope theory makes both sides of the abortion debate look like zealots... even the ones that aren't. > Now, let me ask you another question. What's the difference between a > Winchester .30 cal. semiautomatic rifle that holds multiple rounds, and a > Chinese SKS 7.62mm semiautomatic rifle that holds multiple rounds? Other > than the fact that one looks like you're "assult" weapon poster child, > very little. The Winchester's easier to scope up for better accuracy. So > clarify for me, other than twisted semantics, what's the difference? If they are _really_ semi-automatic and are properly designed so that conversion to automatic is impossible or very difficult, then I could not care less what the guns look like; there is no difference. However, the ammunition is important too. For example, one loaded with armor-piercing rounds magically becomes an assault weapon. [snip] > You claim that banning certain types of guns is an acceptable compromise. > I say prove it, since I can use an 'approved for target or hunting' gun to > shoot you just as easily I can use an 'assault weapon' to do it. Well, the only way to really prove it would be to actually try it, and from your fear of slippery slopes, I don't think you'd be up for that. That leaves us analysing other data sources and trying to extraoplate the results to the US. Once we clear the air of useless anecdotal evidence, I'll invevitably trot out statistics about the drastically lower gun crime rates and overall violent crime rates in nations with very strict gun laws (lotsa European nations). You'll then trot out your own statistics showing how my statistics were doctored, and you'll toss in about how the US is unique, has its own traditions, yada-yada, and say it would not work. I'll then pull out statistics saying your statistcs were doctored to make my statistics look doctored and on and on and on and on and on... And this headache of mine will just get worse. Done. Really done this time. -- Crist J. Clark cjclark@home.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000328224400.B14473>