In a message dated 5/29/99 2:23:23 PM PST, email@example.com writes:
> > In a message dated 5/28/99 2:05:02 PM PST, Josh.Clingenpeel@wwu.edu:
> > > I'm actually curious as to where you get your information. If
> > > the ability to use violent force, they are going to be less violent?
> > > don't see how this is logical.
> > hehe hmmm... so whaddya think of martial artists? are we more likely
> > to be violent? how does that fit in to this? and whats the diff between
> > average martial artist and an average guy with a gun?
> Hmmm...howzabout the ability to kill a dozen people at a hundred
> yards in ten seconds (supposing black-beltish marksmanship
yup, theres a diff there; a matter of scale. but how many of these black-beltish marksmen do we have killing innocents? very very few. thats my point.
> > i think the main diff is education. many martial artists, like many
> > legal gun owners, know what their doing, and how to do it, and what it
> > and what the reprocussions of using their violence are. they are not
> > ignorant about their ability for violence. ergo, they are more likely to
> > intellegent in their use of violence... and i think that makes all the
> > difference.
> If they're responsible, I have no problem with them keeping and
> bearing, but if they have been legitimately identified as
> irresponsible, they should have to relinquish.
i have no problem with that, in theory... but shit. slopes are slippery, and making laws forcing the goons to relinquish their weapons requires, well, making laws, which means trusting politicians to understand the fine ethical line that i think is being treaded here... basicly, i agree with your goals but not your methods; i think ole crocker & lorray's approach would be, functionally, the lonterm lesser of two evils.
"i believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent enroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." -- james madison