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: Re: The quest for rationality? (was Re: Replying to Gun Nuts ...) Message-ID: <505@brandx.rutgers.edu> Date: Tue, 27-Oct-87 04:53:22 EST Article-I.D.: brandx.505 Posted: Tue Oct 27 04:53:22 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 30-Oct-87 20:39:51 EST References: <7428@reed.UUCP> <21198@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <826@pbhyc.UUCP> <17033@amdahl.amdahl.com> Distribution: usa Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 67 Summary: relevance of other weapons In article <17033@amdahl.amdahl.com>, tron@amdahl.amdahl.com (Ronald S. Karr) writes: > ... > 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. Well, invaders might disrupt Usenet services, in which case it would be nice to take a few shots at them (particularly if I was in the middle of a posting when the system went down). But if you view invaders as no different from a change in party at an election, then you are probably right. > >> 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. ... >... > 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. Ok, let's see if we can bring it more directly to your point. Having a license for a gun does not make it any less likely to cause an accident, a domestic murder (I assume you mean here unpremeditated), or a suicide. So only aggressively reducing the number of guns will have much effect on this. Given the raw dangerousness of a gun, it is hard to imagine a rational justification for giving anyone a gun in a perfect world. However, the world is not perfect. While the police and army manage violence reasonably well at a global statistical level, most people have only one life and so don't feel particularly comforted by control of average violence but instead are fixated by isolated cases of violence. This creates a large market for guns. If you ban guns, this market will not go away, so the question remains, what will happen to this market? The three specific issues you raise are accidental deaths, unpremeditated domestic murders, and suicides. Moving from last to first, suicides have quite commonly been committed by weapons other than guns. People have hung themselves, drowned themselves, poisoned themselves, and even axed themselves. While you may think guns are the cleanest approach, remember suicides are desparate people. They will use what they can find. Of course those who do not ``really'' intend the act (whatever that means), should just be catalogued along with the other accidents. In the case of unpremeditated (or even premeditated) domestic murders and accidents, I would say that you have to first figure out what people will have if they don't have guns. If they take to poisoned sharp objects or explosives, they will be dealing in items that are very easy to make oneself and even harder to control than guns. Such items would be just as useful in unpremeditated murders and accidents as would guns. So I repeat: banning guns does not seem particularly useful - making society such that people no longer wanted guns would however be quite useful. In those societies that have banned guns, it is worthwhile looking at how things were just before guns were banned and how people adjusted afterwards. Of course it is easy to mistake such concerns as addressing the practicality of a current gun ban, but I am really asking whether or not society is civilized enough as a whole to live without guns (and not create something just as bad to take their place). -------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)