Joe Dees wrote:
> >Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 14:06:45 -0400
> >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <email@example.com>
> >To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >Subject: Re: Smart Guns
> >Reply-To: email@example.com
> >Technotranscendence wrote:
> >> On Friday, April 07, 2000 11:01 PM Joe Dees firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> >> > Smart guns will no doubt be a great deal easier to create than smart
> >> (as in responsible) gun owners, >but we can only do what we can via
> >> mandatory safety training to engender responsibility in those who
> >> >purchase them.
> >> I've got an idea! Let's have another useless debate on the Extropy list!
> >> That way we'll all bullshit for several weeks about this, insult each other,
> >> and no one's opinion will change one iota at the end.
> >> Sound like a great idea?
> >Daniel, we've been have a fine, civilized discussion about smart guns
> >for the past week, without even Joes Dees messing things up, and I
> >notice that even he is discussing politely, which give him a few points
> >upward in my book, if he keeps it up he'll even come out of my trash
> >can, which I will welcome.
> >I'd like to make a proposal that might change the course of the
> >I would argue that the best way to decrease gun abuse would be to
> >re-invigorate people's sense of citizenship. I recall that the civics
> >course in high school was a rather lamely taught course that dealt only
> >in rote facts, didn't deal with discussion, development of policy,
> >etc... I would propose that civics courses be moved up to junior and/or
> >senior year, and passing with a grade of C+ or higher be mandatory in
> >order to register to vote, buy a gun, etc., that the curriculum be set
> >as a nationwide standard for national citizenship issues, and statewide
> >to deal with state issues. THis makes the democracy a bit of a
> >meritocracy, but I don't see that as a bad thing.
> >Doing this, you will get more teens thinking seriously about these
> >things just as they are about to assume the actual responsibilities of
> >citizenship, and they will be acting as examples for their younger
> I have an idea of my own; those who wish to buy guns who prove themselves too dense to lock them up when kids are in the house forfeit their right to keep and bear. We are losing twelve kids a day (and no, Mike, this is not your favorite under-25 fiction, but under 16 - source, ABC news (World News Yonight, just on today)) to accidental shootings by either themselves or other kids. That's waaay too many (4380 per year)
This is an absolute lie on the part of ABC (and you by association).
They get their numbers from HCI but have not checked what HCI means by
'children'. The total accidental shootings for all age groups is
actually less than 2500, so the ABC numbers are way off. HCI's numbers
ARE based on a 25 and under definition, and DO count homicides, not just
when simple precautions by responsible adults (including the denial of
gun possession to the irresponsible adults) could drastically reduce
this number. Safety courses should include how to child-proof one's
weapons (by trigger locks, or locking up the guns and/or ammo, or some
other way), and be required, with a test to be passed, prior to
purchase. I'm sure the NRA would love to conduct such courses for a
modest fee, but keeping their cold-dead-fingers propaganda and overt
membership solicitations out of them and presenting just the facts,
ma'am might be a little tough for them.
The NRA has conducted these courses for free or next to free for
decades. States like Massachusetts have now banned the acceptance of NRA
courses, and are requiring that state administered courses be taken for
a cost of $200, even though the course is a direct ripoff of the NRA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:29 MDT