On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:51:52 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

The part where you think I'm saying that my guns specifically have
stopped democrats, or whatever your rant was. I could google it but
it's not worth the effort.

Well, let's take that one apart and see what we can learn from it. First
off, I'll retract the Democrats part.

Gosh, that's awfully nice of you to partially stop putting words in my
mouth.

I don't know who you're planning to
shoo...er, "deter," but we can pull back from that one without losing the
gist of the discussion.

You don't understand that you don't have to shoot someone in order to
keep them from harming you, do you. You just don't GET that. There is
a difference, Ed, between an easy, safe-to-attack target, and a target
which is dangerous to attack. If you know they're disarmed, they're an
_easy target_. I don't know how I can make it any more obvious, Ed.

(snip more word-games bull**** from Ed)

That's what casuists do, Dave. They take raw, rough, down-to-earth ideas,

(FFS...it just goes on and on, dunnit...)

One more time: There is no deterrent without the THREAT you will shoot
somebody. If there is no threat you will shoot, there is no deterrent.

And if your people (spare me the "they're not my people") disarm the
populace, then we're a SAFE TARGET, Ed.

Scrape away the lofty moralisms and you're threatening somebody with your
guns. Otherwise, they're wall decorations that deter
no--one--from--doing--any--thing.

You still don't get it.

Here, let me give you an example. I live in a rural county. There are
probably shotguns ready for defensive use in 80% or so of the houses.
(I'm an EMT so I get into a _lot_ of houses, and I notice that sort of
thing). There aren't a lot of robberies of houses when people are home.
Do you see how those two things are connected?

Of course. Potential invaders and robbers know that having a gun for
"defensive use" means they are ready to shoot said invaders and robbers. The
home owners are threatening any potential invaders with getting shot and
killed. It's the threat that keeps them from robbing.

No, it's the knowledge that there _might be a threat_. Not that "Old
Joe up there on the hill will shoot me", it's that "most houses around
here have armed people so I'd better behave".

The criminals aren't being _threatened_ by the presence of that shotgun,
or by the likely presence of shotguns in general, they're being
_deterred_. Understand now?

Uh, yeah, I understand. What I understand is that you're floating on a
pillow of abstractions, about 50 feet off the ground. g The THREAT of
getting a blast of lead shot in the face is the reality behind the
abstraction. That's why they aren't robbing. They don't care about no
steenking "deterrence." They care about the prospect of taking on a load of
lead.

That's what deterrance is, Ed.

You know what? You haven't made any new points for several messages.
It's just wordgames for you, isn't it. Well, find someone else to play.
You bore me.

It's like
the national parks - you're using them right now, just by the fact that
they exist. You're not there, but the effect they have by existing is
real, regardless of if you're in them or not.

Uh-oh, is that the park where the tree falls, but no one is there to hear
it? Does it make a noise? d8-) If you're going to do zen or ontology now,
I'm outta here.

Once again you completely miss the point.

Maybe you're going to dazzle them with close-order drill on the village
green? d8-)

See, there you go again, Ed. You do it so often you don't even see it
when you do.

Geez, what did I do? I thought I made a funny wisecrack.

Anyway, just tell me what it is you object to. If I mischaracterized
what
you said, I will retract it.

No, you'll pretend you meant something else.

No need to pretend, Dave. Just tell it like it is, but lighten up on the
moralized abstractions and get down to the reality on which they're built.
It makes communication a lot easier.

I know your style.

It's taken years to perfect. gg

And only milliseconds to programattically ignore. plonk