Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdahl!tron From: tron@amdahl.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.flame Subject: Re: The quest for rationality? (was Re: Replying to Gun Nuts ...) Message-ID: <17033@amdahl.amdahl.com> Date: Mon, 26-Oct-87 02:35:29 EST Article-I.D.: amdahl.17033 Posted: Mon Oct 26 02:35:29 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 27-Oct-87 06:27:00 EST References: <7428@reed.UUCP> <21198@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <826@pbhyc.UUCP> <16689@amdahl.amdahl.com> <488@brandx.rutgers.edu> Reply-To: tron@amdahl.amdahl.com (Ronald S. Karr) Distribution: usa Organization: Amdahl Coup, UTS Products Hen house Lines: 108 In article <488@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: >In article <16689@amdahl.amdahl.com>, tron@amdahl.amdahl.com (Ronald S. Karr) writes: >>... >> 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. > > ... 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. My comment WRT "non-conventional, non-terrorist attacks" was intended to mean "nuclear attacks, or other devastation-tactics attacks which may or may not be possible in the future." Thus, if your comment here was a response to the interpretation "attacks by criminals" or something akin to that, I don't think this was the original intention of the 2nd ammendment. However, I cannot give a reasonable explanation of how American citizens can defend themselves against commies attacking them in their homes as part of an invasion, if this is what you were hinting at. Though, unless citizens were firing on invaders from windows and rooftops, I don't see why they would spend much time in such attacks. It would be a waste of their time and resources. >> 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. ... > >The first question is, why ban guns? ... I did not ask "why not ban guns?" I asked for a counter argument to a specific argument. > ... then >there are alot more things that cause death and property damage than >guns. I don't see where I mentioned property damage. I can't say I am even very concerned with it, unless it causes death or injury its effects are of secondary importance. >Cars cause ... deaths. Cigarrettes cause ... deaths. Alcohol causes ... >deaths. Sugar causes ... deaths. Electricity is responsible for ... deaths. > [other weopons cause death, such as knives and things] >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. The above mentioned instruments of death generally are quite distinct from guns. American society would not work well without something to take the place of cars. Unless a sufficiently economical and well- connected mass transit system exists, cars are a necessity. Abuse of cigarretts and alcohol nominally only affects the individuals who partake. In an increasing number of regions of the country it is quite illegal for individuals to drive under the influence of alcohol, so the primary similarity between alcohol and firearms is being eroded. The value of electricity is too great to to ban it. Sugar seldom causes death unless it is heavily abused. However, it is true that Americans would probably live longer on average if their general dietary practices were changed. This is entirely up to the individual. >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 Probably need some :-)'s here. Few things kill quite as easily, with as little effort on the part of people involved, as hand guns. However, I agree that keeping a loaded crossbow around the house is asking for trouble :-). It is relatively difficult to accidentally poison someone with arsenic, strangle them with a pillow, blow them up with explosive devices, kill them with biological weopons ... . > ... 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. There was also a lot of disease, poor building construction and job accidents that have been by-and-large regulated, or otherwise pushed, out of existence. >So, I don't see your comments as particularly challenging at a >rational level ... I would like to have seen more of a direct response to the second item in my list of comments. Also, arguments about other weopons or other devices, or vices, that can kill should be reserved for other discussions, which we can start if you wish. tron |-<=>-| ARPAnet: amdahl!tron@Sun.COM tron@uts.amdahl.com UUCPnet: {hplabs,decwrl,sun}!amdahl!tron -- [views above shouldn't be viewed as Amdahl views, or as views from Amdahl, or as Amdahl views views, or as views by Mr. Amdahl, or as views from his house]