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

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.

don't go!
"Zemedelec" wrote in message
...
Dress well and speak a second language.
zemedelec

don't go!
"Zemedelec" wrote in message
...
Dress well and speak a second language.
zemedelec

don't go!
"Zemedelec" wrote in message
...
Dress well and speak a second language.
zemedelec

That's just not true Barney; more babies are born with or contract STD's
at birth than are shot by random bullets coming through windows and
walls... Do we 'consent' to be born??? It appears that even when you
try to reason the issues out you are still projecting an unfair
programmed anti-gun bias; but as you said lastly...g

Tim K

wrote in message
...

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 devil's in the detail.

That's just not true Barney; more babies are born with or contract STD's
at birth than are shot by random bullets coming through windows and
walls... Do we 'consent' to be born??? It appears that even when you
try to reason the issues out you are still projecting an unfair
programmed anti-gun bias; but as you said lastly...g

Tim K

wrote in message
...

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 devil's in the detail.

That's just not true Barney; more babies are born with or contract STD's
at birth than are shot by random bullets coming through windows and
walls... Do we 'consent' to be born??? It appears that even when you
try to reason the issues out you are still projecting an unfair
programmed anti-gun bias; but as you said lastly...g

Tim K

wrote in message
...

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 devil's in the detail.

That's just not true Barney; more babies are born with or contract STD's
at birth than are shot by random bullets coming through windows and
walls... Do we 'consent' to be born??? It appears that even when you
try to reason the issues out you are still projecting an unfair
programmed anti-gun bias; but as you said lastly...g

Tim K

wrote in message
...

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 devil's in the detail.

In article et,
(Tim Kroesen) wrote:

That's just not true Barney; more babies are born with or contract STD's
at birth than are shot by random bullets coming through windows and
walls...

We were talking about STDs transmitted by sex, if you recall. In fact I
think it was you who first introduced (at least into this sub-thread) the
comparison between banning guns and banning buggery.

I agree that other methods of infection raise other issues.

In any case, as I said, I don't think just stating...

more babies are born with or contract STD's
at birth than are shot by random bullets coming through windows and
walls

....particularly advances the argument. Extending that logic, if there is a
medical condition X which kills more people than any other single medical
condition (and logically there must be), we should direct all research,
public health activity and so on toward X and ignore the rest!

It appears that even when you
try to reason the issues out you are still projecting an unfair
programmed anti-gun bias

I haven't expressed any sentiments that I would characterise as
anti-gun and I don't consider myself anti-gun; in fact I think the British
regulations are unnecessarily draconian and a good example of reflex
law-making.

However, I don't get very worked up about them, partly because I have no
personal interest in guns (my hand-eye coordination is poor and the few
times I tried target shooting at school I was laughably incompetent); also
because although gun ownership is a restricted liberty here, I don't think
it's the most important, or even one of the most important liberties.

However, if you think that any opinion on the matter slightly less
enthusiastically pro-gun than yours is evidence of "programmed anti-gun
bias", maybe you should ponder whether there might not be some bias on
your side too?

In article et,
(Tim Kroesen) wrote:

That's just not true Barney; more babies are born with or contract STD's
at birth than are shot by random bullets coming through windows and
walls...

We were talking about STDs transmitted by sex, if you recall. In fact I
think it was you who first introduced (at least into this sub-thread) the
comparison between banning guns and banning buggery.

I agree that other methods of infection raise other issues.

In any case, as I said, I don't think just stating...

more babies are born with or contract STD's
at birth than are shot by random bullets coming through windows and
walls

....particularly advances the argument. Extending that logic, if there is a
medical condition X which kills more people than any other single medical
condition (and logically there must be), we should direct all research,
public health activity and so on toward X and ignore the rest!

It appears that even when you
try to reason the issues out you are still projecting an unfair
programmed anti-gun bias

I haven't expressed any sentiments that I would characterise as
anti-gun and I don't consider myself anti-gun; in fact I think the British
regulations are unnecessarily draconian and a good example of reflex
law-making.

However, I don't get very worked up about them, partly because I have no
personal interest in guns (my hand-eye coordination is poor and the few
times I tried target shooting at school I was laughably incompetent); also
because although gun ownership is a restricted liberty here, I don't think
it's the most important, or even one of the most important liberties.

However, if you think that any opinion on the matter slightly less
enthusiastically pro-gun than yours is evidence of "programmed anti-gun
bias", maybe you should ponder whether there might not be some bias on
your side too?