Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!uunet!labrea!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!brandx.rutgers.edu!webber
From: webber@brandx.rutgers.edu.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: The quest for rationality? (was Re: Replying to Gun Nuts ...)
Message-ID: <488@brandx.rutgers.edu>
Date: Wed, 21-Oct-87 22:50:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: brandx.488
Posted: Wed Oct 21 22:50:55 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Oct-87 15:49:43 EDT
References: <7428@reed.UUCP> <21198@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <826@pbhyc.UUCP> <16689@amdahl.amdahl.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 80
Summary: well, since you asked for rationality

In article <16689@amdahl.amdahl.com>, tron@amdahl.amdahl.com (Ronald S. Karr) writes:
>...
> Miscellaneous comments by myself:
> 
> 1.  Our paid "well-regulated militia" is probably better suited to
>     handling conventional or terrorist attacks than bands of
>     urbanites weilding handguns.  For non-conventional, non-terrorist
>     attacks, this discussion is not useful.  The historical reason
>     for the 2nd ammendment is thus not valid.

A case can be made that the government can probably prevent some one
from holding a fortified position within this country for any long
period of time.  A case could also be made that after you had been
killed by some ``conventional or terrorist attack'' that they will
probably have a better chance than you of seeking vengence.  However,
government forces make absolutely no attempt to provide individual
protection in any such attack.  The number of people who have been
attacked and had a policeman/state-militiaperson/combat-soldier
intervene before the attack was completed is trivially small -- even
smaller than the number of people who have successfully defended
themselves by using a handgun.

> 2.  I would like to hear a rational counter-argument from an opponent
>     of gun control to the argument that a large supply of readily
>     available firearms increases the likelihood of accidents,
>     domestic murders and suicides.  Citing the 2nd ammendment or the
>     statement:  "If guns were outlawed then only outlaws would have
>     guns," or: "guns don't kill people, people kill people," are not
>     sufficient counter-arguments to this issue.

Well, I wouldn't want to put myself forward as an ``opponent of gun
control,'' but I don't think it is too difficult to find rational
counter-arguments (although I don't think rationality has much to
do with the subject).  

The first question is, why ban guns?  You have indicated that guns
should be banned because they are a public nuisance, resulting in
many deaths and occasional computer equipment damage.  Well, if
you accept this as sufficient justification for banning something, then
there are alot more things that cause death and property damage than
guns.  

Cars cause a great number of messy deaths.  Cigarrettes cause a great
number of protracted expensive deaths.  Alcohol causes a great number
of protracted expensive deaths.  Sugar causes a great number of
protracted deaths.  Electricity is responsible for a great many deaths
(more often as a cause of fire than from direct electrocution).
And of course, guns are just a special case of the more general class
of explosives with weapons potential that have also been responsible
for a number of deaths over the years.

So, before you talk of banning guns and not these other things, you
should find some rational distinction between them that make guns more
bannable than them.  Of course if you want to ban all of these things,
that's fine by me (as long as you leave me enough electricity to power
super-conducting chips and manufacture same).

The other thing worth noting is that people are fairly easy to kill.
If guns were not available, knives would probably become alot more
visible as causes of intended deaths.  Unintended deaths might have to
rely on crossbows, however, it is not unreasonable to expect that
people would become more interested in poisons again.  Inciderary and
biological weapons are not implausible.  Then of course, there will always 
be ``martial arts people'' who were ``just showing off'' when they broke
someone's neck.  These things are relatively minor in current society,
but that is only because of the availabilty of guns.  You don't banish
the stupidity that makes guns popular by getting rid of guns.
Certainly there was alot of crime, violence, and death in pre-handgun
society.

So, I don't see your comments as particularly challenging at a
rational level (although I will admit that conjuring up images of
children accidently shooting each other while playing with a `toy gun'
they found has significant emotional content that is certainly not
matched by references to the deep inner need of people to go out and
shoot wild animals for sport -- it does not argue for banning guns any
more than it argues for government-run childcare (rather than leaving
children in dangerous private homes)).

-------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)