Brian D Williams wrote:
> From: email@example.com (Harvey Newstrom)
> >Guns are tools, and tools are useful. But "usefullness" is not
> >enough to be extropian. Are guns merely useful tools, or are they
> >somehow extropian? Are they transending tools of transhumans, or
> >are they ordinary tools of humans? Are they futuristic intelligent
> >technology, or are they old-style technology from the past?
> >The bottom line: I think guns are low-tech, old-style tools.
> >They are not futuristic, intelligent technology. Guns destroy
> >someone else's future options to limit their potential.
> >(Hopefully because that person's future plans are deemed to be
> >"bad".) They do not create options or expand future options. Guns
> >are only useful in negative situations that are not progressing in
> >an extropian-desireable manner.
Never drive a car without a rear view mirror. Sure you are only interested in moving forward, but you also have to make sure you don't get blindsided or run over by someone coming up behind you. Sounds like you are only interested in driving with blinders on.
As for 'destroying someone else's future options', if someone uses deadly force in an act of agression against me, then they have voided their right to enjoy any future options, since they obviously have no regard for my future options. Get it?
> By the same token, the solution to stopping gun violence has been
> known for a long time, put the offenders in jail and keep them
> there, but people prefer to pretend these people are "victims"
> rather than criminals.
> I also agree with those who suggest that martial arts training is
> a good idea, it is a poor craftsman who only has one tool.
However, it takes years of regualr training to become proficient enough to utilize these skills sufficiently to enable an unarmed individual to disarm an armed attacker, and what happens when the armed attacker is also proficient in martial arts?