How do I avoid looking and acting American while traveling in Europe?

There are risks to 'risky' behavior; life itself is risky behavior
considering all the 'acts of God' we may routinely die from, no consent
required.

Let's discourage, regulate, register, and ultimately prohibit gay sex
like firearms grab logic suggests to abate AIDS death and damage in the
US... It's wildly spreading to innocent and unknowing heterosexuals
who do NOT usually consent to a dose of a fatal disease just because
they had sex, or blood transfusion, or newborn ...

Firearms are *less* a risk of injury and death than sexually
transmitted diseases in the US today, unfortunately... Both cause harm
to society and innocents; which offers benefits that may offset their
damage rate in any way?

Tim K

wrote in message
...
In article et,
(Tim Kroesen) wrote:

The same argument can be applied to the fact that cars are many more
times deadly to children who don't even drive, yet dart out into the
street

Yes, it could. But I wasn't talking about cars; I was addressing your
comparison of firearms with unsafe sex, which I don't think is a valid
one. Poor arguments don't help the debate!

There are risks to 'risky' behavior; life itself is risky behavior
considering all the 'acts of God' we may routinely die from, no consent
required.

Let's discourage, regulate, register, and ultimately prohibit gay sex
like firearms grab logic suggests to abate AIDS death and damage in the
US... It's wildly spreading to innocent and unknowing heterosexuals
who do NOT usually consent to a dose of a fatal disease just because
they had sex, or blood transfusion, or newborn ...

Firearms are *less* a risk of injury and death than sexually
transmitted diseases in the US today, unfortunately... Both cause harm
to society and innocents; which offers benefits that may offset their
damage rate in any way?

Tim K

wrote in message
...
In article et,
(Tim Kroesen) wrote:

The same argument can be applied to the fact that cars are many more
times deadly to children who don't even drive, yet dart out into the
street

Yes, it could. But I wasn't talking about cars; I was addressing your
comparison of firearms with unsafe sex, which I don't think is a valid
one. Poor arguments don't help the debate!

There are risks to 'risky' behavior; life itself is risky behavior
considering all the 'acts of God' we may routinely die from, no consent
required.

Let's discourage, regulate, register, and ultimately prohibit gay sex
like firearms grab logic suggests to abate AIDS death and damage in the
US... It's wildly spreading to innocent and unknowing heterosexuals
who do NOT usually consent to a dose of a fatal disease just because
they had sex, or blood transfusion, or newborn ...

Firearms are *less* a risk of injury and death than sexually
transmitted diseases in the US today, unfortunately... Both cause harm
to society and innocents; which offers benefits that may offset their
damage rate in any way?

Tim K

wrote in message
...
In article et,
(Tim Kroesen) wrote:

The same argument can be applied to the fact that cars are many more
times deadly to children who don't even drive, yet dart out into the
street

Yes, it could. But I wasn't talking about cars; I was addressing your
comparison of firearms with unsafe sex, which I don't think is a valid
one. Poor arguments don't help the debate!

There are risks to 'risky' behavior; life itself is risky behavior
considering all the 'acts of God' we may routinely die from, no consent
required.

Let's discourage, regulate, register, and ultimately prohibit gay sex
like firearms grab logic suggests to abate AIDS death and damage in the
US... It's wildly spreading to innocent and unknowing heterosexuals
who do NOT usually consent to a dose of a fatal disease just because
they had sex, or blood transfusion, or newborn ...

Firearms are *less* a risk of injury and death than sexually
transmitted diseases in the US today, unfortunately... Both cause harm
to society and innocents; which offers benefits that may offset their
damage rate in any way?

Tim K

wrote in message
...
In article et,
(Tim Kroesen) wrote:

The same argument can be applied to the fact that cars are many more
times deadly to children who don't even drive, yet dart out into the
street

Yes, it could. But I wasn't talking about cars; I was addressing your
comparison of firearms with unsafe sex, which I don't think is a valid
one. Poor arguments don't help the debate!

Have any opinion you like; perhaps even change your opinion in the light
of mine...g But don't of course demand I abide by your opinion as a
gun grabber would have me abide. There is *plenty* of logic to support
private firearms ownership along with *plenty* of Law!

SO the 'non armed citizen' does indeed benefit from firearms in society
we agree, just like happy electric customers benefit from nukes despite
inherent accidents and heath concerns. Reactors and Rifles are both
socially useful instruments...g

Do I believe there should be publicly enacted laws regarding reactor
design; absolutely; so they don't blow up on the users and harm
bystanders; same as riles... Consumer Law you were inferring, right...

Tim K

wrote in message
...
In article . net,
(Tim Kroesen) wrote:


wrote in message
...
In article et,
(Tim Kroesen) wrote:

I *use* electricity made by the Perry (OH) nuke...

By the same token, non-gun-owners /use/ the guns that their
country's
police, military etc. wield on their behalf...

...and those firearms represent their will and protect them very
well
too...

Broadly speaking, yes. So to return to the point: if your indirect use
of
a nuclear power station entitles you to have opinions on its design
purpose etc., doesn't the same apply to non-armed citizens' indirect
use
of guns?

Have any opinion you like; perhaps even change your opinion in the light
of mine...g But don't of course demand I abide by your opinion as a
gun grabber would have me abide. There is *plenty* of logic to support
private firearms ownership along with *plenty* of Law!

SO the 'non armed citizen' does indeed benefit from firearms in society
we agree, just like happy electric customers benefit from nukes despite
inherent accidents and heath concerns. Reactors and Rifles are both
socially useful instruments...g

Do I believe there should be publicly enacted laws regarding reactor
design; absolutely; so they don't blow up on the users and harm
bystanders; same as riles... Consumer Law you were inferring, right...

Tim K

wrote in message
...
In article . net,
(Tim Kroesen) wrote:


wrote in message
...
In article et,
(Tim Kroesen) wrote:

I *use* electricity made by the Perry (OH) nuke...

By the same token, non-gun-owners /use/ the guns that their
country's
police, military etc. wield on their behalf...

...and those firearms represent their will and protect them very
well
too...

Broadly speaking, yes. So to return to the point: if your indirect use
of
a nuclear power station entitles you to have opinions on its design
purpose etc., doesn't the same apply to non-armed citizens' indirect
use
of guns?

Have any opinion you like; perhaps even change your opinion in the light
of mine...g But don't of course demand I abide by your opinion as a
gun grabber would have me abide. There is *plenty* of logic to support
private firearms ownership along with *plenty* of Law!

SO the 'non armed citizen' does indeed benefit from firearms in society
we agree, just like happy electric customers benefit from nukes despite
inherent accidents and heath concerns. Reactors and Rifles are both
socially useful instruments...g

Do I believe there should be publicly enacted laws regarding reactor
design; absolutely; so they don't blow up on the users and harm
bystanders; same as riles... Consumer Law you were inferring, right...

Tim K

wrote in message
...
In article . net,
(Tim Kroesen) wrote:


wrote in message
...
In article et,
(Tim Kroesen) wrote:

I *use* electricity made by the Perry (OH) nuke...

By the same token, non-gun-owners /use/ the guns that their
country's
police, military etc. wield on their behalf...

...and those firearms represent their will and protect them very
well
too...

Broadly speaking, yes. So to return to the point: if your indirect use
of
a nuclear power station entitles you to have opinions on its design
purpose etc., doesn't the same apply to non-armed citizens' indirect
use
of guns?

In article . net,
(Tim Kroesen) wrote:

There is *plenty* of logic to support
private firearms ownership along with *plenty* of Law!

Plenty of logic on both sides of the argument IMHO - it's not an easy one.

In article . net,
(Tim Kroesen) wrote:

There are risks to 'risky' behavior; life itself is risky behavior
considering all the 'acts of God' we may routinely die from, no consent
required.

Let's discourage, regulate, register, and ultimately prohibit gay sex
like firearms grab logic suggests to abate AIDS death and damage in the
US...

I think you're missing the point here, which is that exposure to STDs via
sex requires consent to the specific act, whereas exposure to harm from
legalised firearms does not require consent to anything other than the
much broader act of being in the country where firearms are legal.

There are lots of good parallels you can draw between firearms and other
risks, but this isn't one of them.

In article . net,
(Tim Kroesen) wrote:

There is *plenty* of logic to support
private firearms ownership along with *plenty* of Law!

Plenty of logic on both sides of the argument IMHO - it's not an easy one.