"Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
> The main reason there are objections to this debate is that most of the objectors have
> never taken the time to research extropianism in depth before they subscribed to the
> list, and many never ever read the FAQ. The rest of the objectors here are the types
> who usually play devil's advocate against extropian ideas, especially if they don't
> fit in with their statist mindset.
> > I'm certainly not a libertarian, I think they are dangerous fanatics,
> > but I'm on this list.
> Then I suggest you read the FAQ and other info at the extropy.com site.
> > But the Gun Debate is, in fact, politics.
> It is the politics of allowing powerful technology be used by common people with
> little or no government control. I cannot think of a more usefull paralell to the
> problems we will face in the future when human level IQ desktop PCs and
> nanotechnologies will be commonly available and affordable. If we cannot resolve this
> debate now on the mundane technologies like guns, then there is no hope of a minimally
> chaotic future with those other technologies.
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.
So why on earth are we even discussing such a concept? Shouldn't we be working on techniques to enable us to control ourselves, before throwing heavy weapons about?
And yes, I realise that such technologies WILL be in the public hands before long, but then I'm profoundly pessimistic about the future of the human race. I would have thought the entire issue of gun control would demonstrate one salient fact: when lots of people have guns, lots of people die, whether you personally can defend yourself or not. Given the option, I'd rather on guns and tight control, but this is a topic which has been done to DEATH.
Perhaps there should be a firstname.lastname@example.org where these sort of arguments could be moved over to if they get out of hand...
> Too often people want to just stick
> their heads in the sand because they don't want to do the hard work of thinking for
> themselves and acting for themselves.
Sure, but I also don't think allowing everyone to do whatever the hell they want is a great idea for large societies with concentrations of people. That sort of thing only benefits the rich, who can afford to protect themselves, which as far as I can tell is the motivating force behind libertarianism.
> This is the root cause of further government
> encroachment into people's lives, enslaving them more and more, and is also why some
> people don't want to deal with this debate.
That may be the reason why SOME people don't want to deal with this debate, but I think you will find that most people who take this stance outside of the US know how nice it is to live in a country where the citizenry isn't armed to the teeth.
> > > Not politically correct technology, but
> > > technology nontheless.
> > > Those that tolerate supression of such a mundane
> > > technology like guns cannot cry and whine when the really usefull technologies
> > > get banned by the same tyrants.
> > Of course they bloody well can.
> Not if they are to retain any integrity. If they enjoy being hypocrits, ok.
Well, you enjoy your life in your happy little ivory tower, while those of us out in the world will do our best to make sure we enjoy our lives, without binding bullshit concepts of morality about ourselves to such an extent that we are hidebound by dubious precedent. I doubt that you, personally, are totally 100% rigorous in every single action and statement.
> > > When evil men conspire, free men must associate.
> > Blah blah yet more bullshit rhetoric. Can't help yourself, can you?
> > Thank you for making everyone's point once again.
> Thanks for demonstrating once again that your side isn't interested in debating to
> learn but to avoid debate in order to avoid the truths that you deny about yourselves.
Go bite me, Michael. I'm not interested in debating guns with you because your argument is bullshit, okay? I have the option of moving to the US and living in a "free" country armed to the teeth. I have a currently-standing offer of work and a place to stay in San Francisco. The concept of living in the US terrifies me, frankly, as I quite like the fact that I can walk *anywhere* in the city I live in (4 million people) and not get shot. I have a couple of friends who are considering similar options. We all feel the same way.
Why can you not understand this? Why do you get all condescending whenever anyone suggests that free and open access to weapons technologies is a bad idea? Are you incapable of understanding that some people disagree with you? Or is all of this some bizarre point-scoring game with you?
While I might agree with your rhetoric, to a certain extent, I also realise that attempts to bind people to logical precepts encoding lofty ideals is doomed to failure until we address the fact that the normal, everyday human being is not terribly logical, and so it is silly to try to make rules and laws which assume people will do the right, correct, logical thing. When *everyone* behaves like a mature, responsible adult, then yes, I think guns etc. for everyone would be a great idea. Until then, they are bloody dangerous and people shouldn't be allowed near them. 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.