From: k-hat@juno.com To: extropians@extropy.com Date sent: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 23:15:15 -0500 Subject: Re: GUNS) Send reply to: extropians@extropy.com
> Joe Dees wrote:
>
> >This seems like a reasonable (though collapsed) definition of the
> >debate. I would direct this question to the pro-gun-availability-to-
> >kids/certifiably-insane/violent-criminal camp: If we cannot be
> >trusted to logically, rationally and reasonably decide who is unfit to
> >possess the means to committ long-range mass murder, how can
> >we be trusted with guns? I think most of us not only can be
> >trusted with guns, but we can also be trusted with fairly and
> >equitably deciding who the few are who can not be so trusted.
>
> Joe, thanks for the interesting question.
>
> In response, firstly,
> I think that this is blurring one very important distinction.
> Seems to me that there is a difference between making a decision
> about what to do and making a decision about what
> someone else should have the option to do.
>
No, in this circumstance they are the same. Deciding that the
restriction of guns to people of a legal age and of no convictions for
criminal violence or judgment of psychiatric incompetency is the
right thing to do for the safety of the citizenry is the exact same
thing as deciding that those who are underage, have convictions for
criminal violence or have been judged psychiatrically incompetent
should not be trusted in society with the means to commit longrange
mass murder.
>
> Is the argument you propose above significantly different from the
> following?
>
> If we cannot be trusted to logically, rationally and reasonably decide
> who is unfit to speak publicly, how can we be trusted with free speech?
>
Free speech doesn't kill those within earshot. Anyone can dislike
the speech and plug their ears, ignore it, or just walk away.
Bullets penetrate the most resistant and thickest skin and travel
faster than legs can run. If logical, rational and reasonable
restrictions are not made concerning the rights of viloent criminals,
kids and the certifiably insane to keep and bear, the momentum
will inexorably grow for an outright ban, which I do not support. The
right to free speech is not under the same pressure from
irresponsible shouters that the right to keep and bear is from
irresponsible shooters.
>
>
> Secondly,
> I think there is another distinction that is not being addressed.
>
> You say that the question is:
>
> If we cannot be trusted to logically, rationally and reasonably decide
> ^^^^
> who is unfit to possess the means to committ long-range mass murder, how
> can we be trusted with guns?
> ^^^^
> Rather, I think the question ought to be:
>
> If some external agency cannot be trusted to logically, rationally and
> reasonably decide who is unfit to possess the means to committ long-range
> mass murder, how can
> an individual be trusted with guns?
>
Some individuals can't be; specifically, the criminally violent, kids,
amd the certifiably insane - or would you prefer that they be armed
and in your neighborhood? They might be already, and if so, we
need to put a stop to it. There is no other way than by setting up a
prohibited purchase list and having the names of those convicted of
violent crimes and those judged psychiatrically incompetent
automatically added to it as part of the proceedings, without the
intervention (to either add or subtract names) of any "external
agency" or new governmental entity. If people successfully appeal
their inclusion, fine. They should have the right to try.
>
> Seems to me an entirely different question, even not noticing my prior
> objection.
>
> Thirdly,
>
> Assorted objections about difficulties of getting agreement between
> people, differences in opinions between expert and public opinion, and
> growth of power in organizations.
>
I am pretty sure that my proposed regulations would pass if put to
popular vote. I do not see any great power any agency or
organization could gain by them, if the inclusion is both automatic
and appelable, as I have stipulated. Certainly many more people
would be off the list than on it; therefore the deterrent effect that is
asserted in concealed-carry states would not be diminished. I
would rather a board of trained, degreed, experienced and
accredited psychiatrists (expert opinion) decide upon whether
someone presents a danger to themselves and others than
whoever's hanging around the local gas station (public opinion).
>
> --Kyle
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
> Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
> or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
>