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

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 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 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.

Following up to

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.

and they don't do condoms for guns.
--
Mike Reid
If god wanted us to be vegetarians he wouldn't have made animals out of meat.
Wasdale-Lake district-Thames path-London "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

You're missing the point too. Consent or NO, people are harmed by
*both* STD's and firearms in certain percentages in the US. Many more
are harmed by STD's matter of fact in the US. So if we wish to
legislate 'safety' in the US let's start with the most risky and
socially damaging behavior first... Gay sex, not gun ownership.

I don't agree gay sex practitioners should be registered with the
government like Prostitutes in many places of the world are to prevent
(and monitor) the spread of STD's. No more so than firearms owners and
users should be registered (and monitored) for the much smaller social
damage they cause than gay STD's. BOTH cause harm in society but only
one has SOCIALLY USEFUL purpose. Both having private gay sex and having
a private firearm are *free will* issues IMO not to be legislated away
in the US.

Better *education* to prevent accident, therefore social damage, is the
ticket IMO!

Tim K

wrote in message
...
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.

Dress well and speak a second language.
zemedelec

Dress well and speak a second language.
zemedelec

Dress well and speak a second language.
zemedelec

In article . net,
(Tim Kroesen) wrote:

You're missing the point too. Consent or NO, people are harmed by
*both* STD's and firearms in certain percentages in the US. Many more
are harmed by STD's matter of fact in the US.

That's believable. But I do think consent to taking the risk /is/ the key
issue in this comparison.

I don't think anyone except the most extreme anti-gunner is saying that
the hunter or target shooter should be prevented from taking the risk that
their gun might malfunction and hurt them - informed consent, in other
words, comparable to the consent that a sexual partner gives to taking the
risk that they might contract an STD.

The problem is that it is much easier to get hurt by a gun /without/
giving that consent than it is to contract an STD without consenting to
sex. The hunter might accidentally wound or kill me just because I happen
to be walking in the wrong part of the woods at the wrong time. Unless
it's a clearly marked part of the woods set apart for hunters (and perhaps
there's a case for that?), we can't say that I have given consent to
taking that risk in any meaningful sense.

In any case, I'm not sure that...

So if we wish to
legislate 'safety' in the US let's start with the most risky and
socially damaging behavior first... Gay sex, not gun ownership.

....is much of an answer. If the damage wrought by gay sex and gun
ownership is greater than their benefits (both practical and in the sense
that the freedom to exercise personal choice is inherently desirable), we
should ban them both. In fact I don't believe we should ban either, but we
can't justify the one by pointing to the other.

ISTM the problem with this whole debate as it is generally seen on Usenet
is that it is perceived as being between two polarities: "ban all guns,
their effects are utterly negative" and "permit all guns, their effects
are utterly positive".

But really, I think we all (or at least nearly all) of us share a middle
ground, at least if we leave aside the particular constitutional issues
that apply only to the US: guns can be used in harmful ways but they can
also be used in harmless and even in positively desirable ways; there are
circumstances where people should be allowed to have them, and
circumstances where they shouldn't (only the most absurd pro-gunner would
argue that two-year-olds or convicts should have free access to automatic
weapons, for example).

IOW both sides are talking about a freedom limited by regulation (much as
with sex). The devil's in the detail.

In article . net,
(Tim Kroesen) wrote:

You're missing the point too. Consent or NO, people are harmed by
*both* STD's and firearms in certain percentages in the US. Many more
are harmed by STD's matter of fact in the US.

That's believable. But I do think consent to taking the risk /is/ the key
issue in this comparison.

I don't think anyone except the most extreme anti-gunner is saying that
the hunter or target shooter should be prevented from taking the risk that
their gun might malfunction and hurt them - informed consent, in other
words, comparable to the consent that a sexual partner gives to taking the
risk that they might contract an STD.

The problem is that it is much easier to get hurt by a gun /without/
giving that consent than it is to contract an STD without consenting to
sex. The hunter might accidentally wound or kill me just because I happen
to be walking in the wrong part of the woods at the wrong time. Unless
it's a clearly marked part of the woods set apart for hunters (and perhaps
there's a case for that?), we can't say that I have given consent to
taking that risk in any meaningful sense.

In any case, I'm not sure that...

So if we wish to
legislate 'safety' in the US let's start with the most risky and
socially damaging behavior first... Gay sex, not gun ownership.

....is much of an answer. If the damage wrought by gay sex and gun
ownership is greater than their benefits (both practical and in the sense
that the freedom to exercise personal choice is inherently desirable), we
should ban them both. In fact I don't believe we should ban either, but we
can't justify the one by pointing to the other.

ISTM the problem with this whole debate as it is generally seen on Usenet
is that it is perceived as being between two polarities: "ban all guns,
their effects are utterly negative" and "permit all guns, their effects
are utterly positive".

But really, I think we all (or at least nearly all) of us share a middle
ground, at least if we leave aside the particular constitutional issues
that apply only to the US: guns can be used in harmful ways but they can
also be used in harmless and even in positively desirable ways; there are
circumstances where people should be allowed to have them, and
circumstances where they shouldn't (only the most absurd pro-gunner would
argue that two-year-olds or convicts should have free access to automatic
weapons, for example).

IOW both sides are talking about a freedom limited by regulation (much as
with sex). The devil's in the detail.