Re: look out! long-haired gun loon!

Wings of the Morning (
Tue, 16 Dec 1997 21:25:15 -0500

Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:

> If you detect any anger in my replies, it is because those who
> fight /against/ weapons have far more blood on their hands than
> those who advocate them, and their insufferable arrogance and
> faux compassion grows thin after years of solid proof that
> private ownership of guns /reduces/ violent crime. After 10
> years of relaxed concealed carry laws in Florida and other states,
> we now have hard statistics on that. Maybe decades ago one could
> have argued that guns were "designed only to kill and maim
> humans" or were "instruments of destruction" or that "senseless
> human waste" was caused by the weapons rather than by the laws
> against them; but after the long experience of years and hard
> numbers, such rhetoric today is hollow. Even if one is careful
> to stop short of advocating laws, sentiments like that contribute
> to attitudes that make such bloody laws popular, despite their
> proven miserable failure.
> It is beyond my comprehension as a compassionate human being to
> understand how the disarmers can live with themselves after the
> suffering they have caused, and continue to advocate disarming
> new generations of victims.

Just wondering a few things myself. Number one, why do you carry a gun.
You mentioned that private ownership of a fire arm reduces violent crime. I
don't mean to jump on your case, but do you realize that there would probably
be a drastic reduction in violent crime altogether if guns or any such weapon
didn't even exist. I know obviously that guns are too much a part of our
society to just eliminate all together, but just think for a moment about for
what purpose the gun was originated - to kill. Regardless of wether or not
you try to argue its value as a defensive tool, an item of sport, etc., its
main purpose is, and will remain to kill. The problem with our society is
we've slowly become so programmed and so desensitized over the years we don't
even think twice on the matters.
I'd like to think personally that the human race is entering a new wave
of evolution mentally. I hope that you could clearly see, if there ever is a
totally unified society, it's not going to work unless we get rid of weapons
of mass destruction, starting with guns. You say the fact that it was
originated to "maim and kill" is more or less outdated. Well what is its
purpose then, to sit on your mantel, looking bright and shiny? For sport? A
sybmol of power. Let me clear something up, you see, the reason a gun is
built just so, and bullets are produced, is because those bullets are
supposed to escape the barrel of that gun at high velocity, destroying, and
KILLING what's in its path.
I'm sure you could argue quite well the many good points to owning a
firearm, many argue it's a basic human right, part of the constitution; well
times have changed my friend. Just think about when the constition was
written, think about what was going on - war. There are certain basic
statements in the consitition that will remane valid for a long time to come,
but the more specific the statment, the more room there is for it to become
invalid sooner. The constition states that all men are created equal, yet
slavery was excused for many, many years. Changes are made to accomodate the
times, and what becomes morally acceptable as time goes on.
Man started with a club, and from that more sophisticated tools, swords,
then muskets, machine guns, grenades, mortars, tanks, planes, jets, atomic
bombs capable of whiping out mass amounts of peole and causing mass
distruction. It's inevitable that with guns come other weapons. Imgaine if
these weapons had never been invented, imagine how many wars could have been,
and will be avoided if men walked onto the battle field armed only with a
sword. When you don't have the comfort a multi-billion dollar war plane to
aid you so you don't have too see the faces of all the human beings you kill,
you tend to think twice about going to war.
Now I know you're not concering yourself with this, and you probably
think I'm getting way too into this, but the fact is, this is all tied in
with, and roots from guns and the concept of weapons. You look down on those
who oppose the use of personal hand guns, saying the laws passed to protect
actually end up working against them. Sorry but I fail to see the logic in
the statement that those who fight against weapons have more blood on THEIR
hands than those who produce and use them. Logic. How can someone who has
never touched a weapon have more blood on their hands if what they had been
pushing for had succeded, and there were no weapons to spill any blood to
begin with. Hello, get rid of guns all together and imagine just how much
more blood won't be spilt. There is no valid purpose today to own or use a
gun, unless you are an enforcer of the law, and it is absolutely dire that
you need to use one. Many argue they use them for sport. Do you think that
perhaps it might be too much to ask, to give up such a sport that it might
save thousands upon thousands of lives. What about the tragic stories of
children getting ahold of guns. The UN peace keeper shot down in Africa by a
small boy weilding a gun, who didn't even know any better. Perhaps you,
yourself, are a responsible firearm owner, congrats, but for every gun that
falls into the hands of a responsible owner many more fall into the hands of
irresponsible owners. Do you think that gangs would be as previlent today if
the members went around armed with wooden sticks? Sure a firearm protects
people from crime, but ever stop to think crime would probably be a lot less
acceptable and convenient with out the ability to end a life with a flick of
the finger.
Ok well, sorry, I'd like to make it clear im not responding to you
individually, this was just a chance for me to jump in this. I just tend to
think gun owners exuse the mishaps of guns in general by blaming it on the
owner, which is probably very, very true. BUT. When you agree to accept
guns, wether you like it or not, you are indirectly fueling a lot of
violence, and a lot of death. Think about how many guns are sold to third
world countries, not motivated by soley a concern for the country, but more
or less - profit. Life is amazing, and a tremendous amount of effort goes
into creating it, and a tool that can end it instantly, that was designed to
do just that, to me, is plain wrong. Perhaps if people repected that power
it wouldn't be such an issue, but you know and I know that they don't. What
happens in the future if there is an uprising, I'd hope, and I hope you would
too, that we could come together and solve our differenecs through logic, and
intelligence, compromise, rather than by shear force, death, and fear. If
we, as an intelligent people, are never able to come together to resolve
conflict in a peaceful manner, than I've given up all hope.

-Mike Everett aka Nectar
(give it sometime we're currently reworking it)