[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Mad SCO Disease

[Russell Senior]

>>>>> "gepr" == gepr  <gepr at tempusdictum.com> writes:

Russell> I don't think guns analogize to animals.  Afterall, guns are
Russell> the "equalizing" weapons of the weak.  You don't have to be
Russell> physically dominant to use a gun.

gepr> This is NOT true, either.  I'm not a great shot; but, I do
gepr> improve with practice.  And when my girlfriend tries to shoot my
gepr> pistol, she can't do very well because the gun doesn't fit her
gepr> hand.  Guns are no more "equalizing" for the weak than, say,
gepr> running shoes are equalizers for people who can't run very fast.

My point is that there isn't an obvious outward sign to indicate that
one person is a better shot (or tactically superior in some other way)
than you.  Therefore, "display behavior" is unlikely to suffice to
avoid actual combat as it often is in animals.  They may simply
retreat to behind a tree and shoot you from there.  Who wins in a gun
battle (amongst civilians, anyway) is fairly random and isn't likely
correlated with "goodness".  And again, my postulation is that the
non-gun-toters are more likely to survive because they don't threaten
anyone and thus are not compelling targets.

gepr> [re: universal declaration ...] Why?  Because equilibrium means
gepr> _death_ to a biological system.  So, if we achieve it, then
gepr> society (if not the whole biosphere) will collapse.

Isn't the assumption that violence-mediated access to scarce resources
is immutable a kind of equilibrium?


-- 
Russell Senior         ``I have nine fingers; you have ten.''
seniorr at aracnet.com