Got this alert a while ago
Sept. 7, 2007 12:00 AM Sorry, Alan Korwin, but I am not a gun fan ("Guns vital to our freedom, but schools demonize them," Viewpoints, Sunday). I am also not a "small-minded, fearful bigot who thinks hiding what he hates will make everything just fine." Why is it every gun fanatic out there has to try to equate guns with freedom? Talk about your scare tactics. No guns, no freedom? I think not.
Sept. 7, 2007 12:00 AM
Sorry, Alan Korwin, but I am not a gun fan ("Guns vital to our freedom, but schools demonize them," Viewpoints, Sunday).
I am also not a "small-minded, fearful bigot who thinks hiding what he hates will make everything just fine."
Why is it every gun fanatic out there has to try to equate guns with freedom? Talk about your scare tactics. No guns, no freedom? I think not.
Actually Tom, consider guns as property. When the government decides what property you can and cannot have, you've lost some freedom. We're experiencing that already and each day more and more laws are passed to control what we can do as supposedly free men and women. All for the better good, of course, but it's tyranny nonetheless.
At this time, a well armed citizenry is a constant reminder to our representatives that they're not going to be able to simply walk in and take over. Remember Waco? Of course you do. Even though the Branch Davidians were slaughtered by the Clinton administration, the resulting firefight gave them such a black eye that they never tried that again.
Even in Iraq, small bands of heavily armed insurgents give our military endless grief. Imagine millions of people doing that here coupled with the fact that a lot of the military would refuse to engage Americans.
To the individual level, my 100 pound mother has more freedom since her .38 Special gives her the ability to repel an attack by a person of any size or even multiple attackers.
Not to sound ultrafuturistic, but eventually, there will come a day when guns will not be around. Why not sooner than later? Seems to me it's the gun lovers who are the fearful ones. Fearful of that day.
You don't sound ultrafuturistic, just lethally naive. The future will only see more advanced weaponry, not a utopian environment where everyone loves everyone and violence isn't a part of the human psyche. You make the deadly mistake that you think logic and reason are all that are needed to survive in life. Unfortunately, there are more than enough people who will take advantage of you because that is simply how humans work.
Maybe someday we'll all download our minds into a giant hive of a computer, and then individuality will be removed, but you won't get me to plug in so there's always going to be the Luddites to deal with.
Just because in years gone by we won our independence by war instead of by negotiation and rational thinking, it does not mean we cannot do it in the present and the future. Those who wish to hide behind a gun instead of their intellect will be left behind.
Speaking of a lack of intellect, you apparently have no grasp of history. Do you think we loaded up on guns and starting shooting before we asked England to leave us alone? We declared that we no longer wanted to be part of the King's rule, and he sent troops over to ensure that we knew he was boss.
You see, I can logically come to conclusions you might not find palpable. I could logically say that it is better for society if I decide that you, because of poor health or lack of "proper" skills (we have enough doctors, and your PHD isn't in a field where it's needed), should be eliminated because you're a drain on society. Or, I might say that your genetics aren't good to pass along and force you to be sterilized.
Now, you're not going to go along with this. No matter how much we discuss it, I still see your genetics as not favorable to the human race. So we're at an impasse. How do you prevent me from controlling your life like that?
You fight.
What's "right" has no bearing on force. It doesn't matter how morally wrong it is to bludgeon a nun with a bat, sheer physics will cause fractures and pain. Morality doesn't block the law of physics. Is it morally wrong for the ocean to drown a child?
Even scientists, armed with reams of "proof" argue over things. Intelligence isn't perfect. It's a noble goal to obtain, but you must always realize not everyone has an IQ of 120 or greater.
While I'm an armed person, I do not resort to force unless I have no other option. Because at some point, "reason" will no longer be fruitful and no other course of action will help. At least I don't take that option off the table.
The tobacco industry never thought it would be pushed into the situation it finds itself today. So be it in the future with the gun industry. - Tom Martosko,Mesa
99.7% of guns have no bearing on crime. I don't think tobacco has that high of a non-mortality rate.
No, what you'll see are new weapons that don't shoot projectiles, but dissolve matter, focus a cone of sheer force, short circuit the CNS, or any of thousands of ways to disrupt the human body enough to kill it. Devices small enough to be embedded in hands, or worn as jewelry.
No, the future won't see us as having less violent instruments, simply more efficient.
But if you want to continue believing in unicorns and the tooth fairy and still call yourself intelligent, then by all means please do.
Not to sound ultrafuturistic, but eventually, there will come a day when guns will not be around.