Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ubc-visi!majka
From: majka@ubc-visi
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: YARL (Yet Another Reply to Laura)
Message-ID: <522@ubc-visi.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 11-Nov-83 14:37:10 EST
Article-I.D.: ubc-visi.522
Posted: Fri Nov 11 14:37:10 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 13-Nov-83 16:03:26 EST
Lines: 67

From: Marc Majka <majka@ubc-vision.UUCP>

> If you know how to differentiate between violent people and not-violent
> people, let me know. Otherwise, if one cannot decide, one is left either
> allowing everyone access to guns, or nobody. Clearly, you favour the first
> approach.

Where on earth did you drag up that idea?  If I ever said I favoured
allowing everyone access to guns, I must have been delirious.


> 	B.  Normally non-violent people easily BECOME violent in highly
>       emotional or stressful situations. This results in people with holes.
> 
> This is not the only cause of people with holes. And not everyone gets
> violent in emotional or stressful situations. 

No, but it is one cause, and no, not everyone does, but some do.

> Giving guns only to people who can demonstrate
> that they can use them properly sounds like a very good idea to me.

Sounds like a good idea to me too.  Do you have any good ways to determine
if someone is responsible enough to own a gun and never kill anyone with it,
or allow their children to accidentally play with it?  I don't.

> I do not feel safe here; I do not feel safe anywhere. I think that safety
> is one of the great illusions of life. There are many ways in which I can
> get hurt, and many ways in which I can be killed. I do not think that I
> have ever been or ever will be safe. 

Sounds like first-class paranoia to me, Laura.

> However, I think that some people are safer with their guns than without
> them. Expecting them to give up their guns so that you can feel safer
> strikes me as unreasonable on your part. You will probably not see it this
> way, I know.

You are correct. 

> 	Society has (as it should) the power to legislate for the
> 	general well-being of the population.
> 
> Well, there is the big question. WHAT IS the "general well-being of
> the population"? Can it be legislated? Really? Suppose I decided that
> 2 hours of yoga a day was the best thing for everyone -- should I
> be able to legislate that? Can I?
> 
> And what do you do with legislation that only gives the appearance of
> benefitting others but actually leaves them worse off than before?
> 
> And what happens when we cannot agree?

There is a system which is widely used to answer these kind of questions. It
is called "democracy".  It has, in some countries, the power to legislate.
It is also generally agreed that it is the fairest system going.  Would you
rather have another system?  If so, which?

In answer of my question of organized crime, you tell me about bomb shelters
and something I can't understand about money and legal guns:

> I think, however, if they are going to go to the trouble of building a bomb
> shelter they could probably have used some of the money they spent on
> armament for other things -- and that money would be available if guns were
> legal here.

Ok, If you say so. (?)