"Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
> > > 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.
> Until we have acheived this, everyone should be able to protect themselves as they see fit.
No, everyone should be able to protect themselves to an extent, and that extent needs to be agreed upon and decided. I don't think lethal technology is a good idea. You do. I fail to see how your opinion makes things suddenly objectively true, unless you are god or some other higher power.
> Governments are not empowered to protect us. Abdicting the responsibility before attaining the
> new ability is shortsighted and illogical.
On the contrary, until people are mature enough to leave each other alone, I think abdicating the responsibility to a group who are trained and professional is a great idea. I like the fact that the police carry the guns and the people don't. The only real reason I can see for arming the populace is to keep the government in line, and the days when the people can overthrow the govt by force of arms is long gone in most developed countries.
> > > 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.
> Untill you have a solution, stop denigrating those of us with our fingers in the dike.
I have a solution. Ban guns. Quite simple, really.
If the dike is leaking, only a fool would continue to live under it.
-- mailto:email@example.com http://i.am/dwayne "the cricher we kno as dwayne is only the projection into our dimension of something much larger and wirder." ---firstname.lastname@example.org ....return....to....the....source....