Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Zen Cycle Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech Subject: Re: Todays rant Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 12:51:49 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 102 Message-ID: References: <181gljtmioa4ne2vlk605pbhs32gr7pi7k@4ax.com> <4gnhlj1gifu67ce73os02vgkb5eadq97oq@4ax.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 18:51:51 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7ede4a2b95a85bce8350c0238dcaaa32"; logging-data="2264718"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ut8QpHxDWTAKJ1GvoBK5WGquLe6dFe1I=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:XtL21lS76LUFIPKL1xPEL7avHpk= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 5673 On 12/12/2024 8:48 AM, AMuzi wrote: > On 12/12/2024 7:19 AM, Zen Cycle wrote: >> On 12/11/2024 4:59 PM, AMuzi wrote: >>> On 12/11/2024 3:06 PM, Zen Cycle wrote: >>>> On 12/11/2024 3:00 PM, AMuzi wrote: >>>>> On 12/11/2024 12:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: >>>>>> On 12/11/2024 12:36 PM, AMuzi wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/11/2024 11:07 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/11/2024 6:06 AM, John B. wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Reality is that ALL firearms are dangerious. [sic] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> John, are ALL firearms equally dangerous? Really? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course not! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The AR was specifically designed to be more dangerous to the >>>>>>>> enemy than its predecessor. If that were not the objective, >>>>>>>> there would have been no need for a new design. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That was 65 years ago. Designs have progressed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also, although I haven't looked recently, for many years the #1 >>>>>>> fatal round in USA was .22LR overwhelmingly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Without editing or rephrasing Mr Slocumb's comment, "all firearms >>>>>>> are dangerous" in in fact obviously true. >>>>>> >>>>>> John was using "All firearms are dangerous" specifically as a >>>>>> defense of wide proliferation of AR- style rifles. Check the >>>>>> thread. By ignoring that fact, his buddies are pretending that all >>>>>> levels of danger are equally bad. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ignoring levels of danger is beyond absurd. If you accept that, >>>>>> you may as well extend the concept to straight pins, stairways, >>>>>> sunburn and hell, everything else in the world. And you may as >>>>>> well advocate for private ownership of nuclear weapons. >>>>>> >>>>>> (And I'll note that the gun fetishists here actually _have_ tried >>>>>> to do that with other everyday items! I won't remind people of >>>>>> their other chosen items, because that will just set them off on >>>>>> other illogical chases.) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Every farmer in my are has plenty of ammonia rich fertilizer and a >>>>> few hundred gallons of diesel. Not one of them has emulated Timothy >>>>> McVeigh. Not once. >>>>> >>>>> Materiel is not volition. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Ammonia-rich fertilizer and diesel fuel were not designed with the >>>> intent to kill humans. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Oh, for all the difference it made to 19 children; 168 people >>> altogether. >>> >>> Perhaps the difference is in the act and the actor not the tool. >> >> Still a bad analogy, the same used to compare deaths from car crashes, >> kitchen knives (any manner of pointy objects) - all lethal when used >> with the intent to murder, but none designed with the intent to murder. >> >> The AR-15 when used for the intended design is specifically lethal to >> humans. That cannot be said for fertilizer, ammonia, cars, ball-point >> pens...... >> >> > > So you agree with me that the crucial aspects are the actor and the act, > not the hardware. > To a certain extent. If every human being could be trusted to act responsibly, allowing a device that was developed expressly to kill other human beings to be possessed without any restrictions wouldn't be a problem. But Humans can't be trusted. Following your posit to the extreme, there should be no reason therefore to prevent me from mounting a fully-operational m134 minigun on the roof of my car. Hey, I'm a responsible adult, never been arrested, I've never committed any acts of violence, even had a security clearance for a time. If the criteria is _solely_ 'the actor and the act', why shouldn't I be able to do that? Why shouldn't _any_ one who has never had any history of violent behavior _not_ be allowed to own weapons of war? It's not like people with no history of violence have _ever_ engaged in a mass shooting.... -- Add xx to reply