> > The entire gun debate revolves around present-day examples,
> > and I don't think present-day humans are an ideal, so they shouldn't be
> > allowed near guns.
> What a paradox. If people were ideal, we wouldn't need guns.
Kind of my point. Shouldn't we be working out how to achieve this, rather than promoting access to weaponry? I see offensive/defensive capability as a sidetrack on the path to transhumanism, myself.
> > Well, no shit, sherlock.
> > I would FAR RATHER discuss technologies which would develop people's
> > self-control and reason such that they are CAPABLE of handling such
> > technologies. Humans nowadays are barely evolved past monkey stage, and
> > I'm usually not at all convinced that we have gone beyond monkeys.
> > Especially en masse.
> Well that is a very politically incorrect topic.
I have no real interest in the political actions people ascribe to my ideas, I just think them, and out they come. If people don't like what I say, it's the key between 's' and 'f'
> Before we can do very much about the
> situation we have to realize that:
> 1. Some people are much better/smarter than other people.
Guns make no distinction at all in this regard. Dead is dead.
> 2. Most of that difference is genetic.
> 3. Despite the fact that the education industry is one of the biggest industries in the
> country, education technology is still in the stone age (it is not very useful).
Absolutely. These are the areas we should be discussing, not the ability or otherwise to shoot people.
-- mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org http://i.am/dwayne "the cricher we kno as dwayne is only the projection into our dimension of something much larger and wirder." ---email@example.com ....return....to....the....source....