Kai Becker wrote:
>
> First of all: I am sure that you're right about the USA, and I think I am
> right about Germany. But my real question is still unanswered - and I
> think the answer _is_ important for this list: Even if the USA can only
> lower their highest crime rate in the western world when all their citizens
> have guns (and I doubt this, because "correlation is not causation"), why
> do the other countries have a rate four times lower _without_ this? There
> must be other factors than guns, and for me, these are the important
> factors.
A worthy question. Some possibilities:
(po) Other countries have been sorted for compliant populations
(po) US "melting pot" is lumpy
(po) US has many more stupid laws
(po) US does a better job of enforcing stupid laws
(po) Other countries under-report their crimes compared to US
(po) A relatively few people in the US commit an average of more detected crimes than elsewhere
I have no way of determining which, if any of these is "the" "cause" of
any discrepancy. So I stop. You are free to puzzle, or think you've reached
some conclusion.
> > Actually, firearms, as technological instruments of individual
> > empowerment, are extropic.
>
> Firearms empower to what? To kill. I can't find this extropian. Like the
> proverb says: For some one with only a hammer, everything looks like a
> nail. Someone who has a gun has no need to think about better alternatives.
What _are_ you talking about? I have a gun, and I think of better alternatives
every day. So does every person I know who owns a firearm. So do most cops here.
Speaking for myself and the people I know, it's empowering to realize that one
_doesn't_ have a solution to every problem just because one owns a few ounces of
low explosive wrapped in metal. One, dare I say it, _grows up_. But there are others,
it's true.
Have you heard of the Happy Land Social Club fire in the Bronx? One dollar's worth of
gasoline, one disgruntled man, one narrow staircase in an unlicensed dance club==
87 people dead.
I recast my questions from a divergent thread which you might not have read
(the thread is "Re: The Friendly Skies meets "Schedule Suntan", Fwd: Nekkid Air",
and my original post has an interesting New York Times article quoted at the end;
Anders and others have posted some thoughtful replies):
(1) If you can't trust an ordinary person with a few ounces of low explosive
wrapped in metal, how can you ever trust any person with the foreseeable
technologies of the near future? (any suitably powerful/dangerous technology)
(2) What magic transforms an ordinary person into a trustworthy person?
I'm particularly interested in your answer given your .signature line.
> --
> == Kai M. Becker == kmb@kai-m-becker.de == Bremen, Germany ==
> "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced"
--MMB is reachable via butler at comp dash lib dot o r g * My moronic mnemonic for smart behavior: "DICKS" == * * diplomacy, integrity, courage, kindness, skepticism. *
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:32 MDT