Re: Not always joking, it seems

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 04:33:07 GMT, Gene Ward Smith <gene@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>mike weber <fair****tfan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in 
>news:equpr3hf9elknvhr8mg817ol9b1jitv1cr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> Whether or not the OP wants to admit it, he is blaming the 
>tool,
>> rather than the user.
>
>You "think" in slogans, which isn't thought at all. "Guns 
>don't kill people, people kill people". And therefore, 100% 
>of the time, it must be the case that the murder would have 
>happened anyway, had there been no gun. 

Actually, you are just about 100% incorrect - i'm closer to believing
that if all guns were *successfully* banned, it would have a
Significant Effect on the homicide stats.

>If you think 
>otherwise, you are blaming the gun, not the criminal, and 
>your slogan-dominated mind won't allow it.

Wrong - i firmly believe that a truly dedicated murderer will find
some sort of manually operated weapon, whether it be a knife, a
baseball bat, a left-handed Cornish hop reaper's hook or his bare
hands.

You were the one who either stated or strongly mplies that the only
reason that the particular incident ended in a death was the gun.
>
>It's remarkable, but not in the least amazing, how stupid 
>people can be when they refuse to think.

Yup.  I'm watching it happening right here.

Incidentally, why my anecdote gets a pass and yours is suspect:

Mine was a description of a specific incident which, if i felt like
going to Rome Georgia and persuading the cops or the hospital to let
me look at records  from thirty-five years ago, i could do***ent.  It
was an example of how a particular firearm of a particular type
functione din the Real World in on specific Real Occasion, told to
give some idea as to what the capabilities and effects of a particular
type of firearm might be in a real-life situation.

Yours was a "If it was, then it would be, but as it ain't, it isn't"
type statement of opinion sup****ting an apparentl knee-jerk anti-gun
reaction.