[Info-vax] Completely OT: Frank Lloyd Wright

[David Froble]

Dirk Munk wrote:
> David Froble wrote:
>> Dirk Munk wrote:
>>
>>> That's good. Just think of the guy who shot his 15yr old son a couple
>>> of weeks ago, because he thought the boy was a burglar. Life must be
>>> hell for him now, waking up every morning in the knowledge that he
>>> killed his own son.
>>
>> We've been here before.  You believe what you want to believe, and
>> nothing can convince you of anything else.
>>
>> Yes, that probably is a terrible tragedy.  But let's look at it for a 
>> bit.
>>
>> 1) The guy shot someone he could not identify?  Wrong!
>>
>> 2) The guy resorted to shoot first and ask questions afterwards?  Wrong!
>>
>> 3) The guy shot to kill, and not to just discourage?  Wrong!
>>
>> You may think guns are terrible, but in the three items above, in which
>> of them did the gun do something wrong?  None of them.  It was the nut
>> holding onto the gun.  Most likely an untrained nut.
>>
>> You don't shoot someone unless you know who and why you're shooting.  If
>> someone is standing in your house, and you have a gun, you should call
>> the police, not shoot him.  Now, if he's bearing down on you with a
>> large knife, then you need to take action.  Maybe shoot him in the leg
>> and he won't be so able to chase you.
>>
>> Got a wife?  Maybe a daughter?  How bad would you feel if they were
>> being hurt, or worse, and you could do nothing to help them?  That door
>> swings in both directions.
>>
>> But, with your attitude, even if you had a gun, you probably would not
>> get training, and would probably hit your wife and daughter instead of
>> the bad guy.  Yeah, for you, no guns ....
> 
> There is a big house in the centre of my city. Some 20 years ago it was 
> restored, and the builders were amazed when they noticed that the walls 
> were about one meter thick. They were even more surprised when they 
> found lope-holes in the walls. It turned out that this house had 
> belonged to an important family in the middle ages, and it was build as 
> a fortified house with the entrance on the second floor. In those days 
> it made sense, but we have left the middle ages behind us. The notion 
> that you need a stockpile of deadly weapons at home to defend yourself 
> against criminals is rather alien to us, as it should be in a remotely 
> civilised society.
> 
> If you check the statistics, you will find that the side effect of 
> having guns at home many innocent people then are killed who otherwise 
> would not have been killed. But those victims are collateral damage 
> caused by stupid idiots who don't know how to handle a gun, so they 
> don't count as much as the victims of crime.
> 
> Suppose you have a disease, and the medicine you are taking for that 
> disease is far more likely to kill you than the disease itself, would 
> you take it? I wouldn't, but it seems you would.

I'd get training on how to use the medicine in a safe and effective 
manner ...