Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!asente
From: asente@decwrl.UUCP (Paul Asente)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Handguns (and other controlled dangerous substances)
Message-ID: <3056@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 6-Sep-83 18:05:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: decwrl.3056
Posted: Tue Sep  6 18:05:15 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 6-Sep-83 22:03:59 EDT
References: <2394@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: DEC Western Research Lab, Los Altos, CA
Lines: 21

Ben Cranston starts out a recent submission with

     It seems we are back to the same old question again.  To wit, suppose
    we have a stimulus S and a population P.  Application of S to P divides
    P into two subpopulations P+ and P-, where P+ is the subpopulation that
    can responsibly "handle" S, and P- is the subpopulation that cannot and
    is presumably damaged by S.  Now the $( 2^6 * 10^3 ) question:

     How much should we infringe upon the human rights of P+ in order to
    protect P-?

He then argues that this is applicable to gun control, prostitution,
drugs, and so forth.  While I will not argue that this model applies to
drugs and prostitution, it certainly does not apply to gun control!
The subpopulation P- that cannot handle guns is not the same as the
subpopulation that is damaged by guns.  If you can't handle a gun well,
you are not only endangering yourself but everyone else around you as
well.

	-paul asente
	    ...!decwrl!asente