('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
>Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 09:42:26 -0400
>From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <email@example.com>
>Subject: Re: GUNS: Prevention vs. Punishment, Parental vs. Child Responsibility
>Joe Dees wrote:
>> As the Prez said, we punish reckless drivers, but we still install child seats and seat belts. We punish airplane hijackers, but we still have metal detectors and luggage inspection at airports. It is said that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Why should firearms be the only thing where prevention is forbidden?
>> As for teaching children to be responsible, sure, do it, but this should not absolve parents of THEIR responsibilities incurred concommitant to firearm purchase, such as child-proofing their weapons with trigger locks (the keys to which they should keep on their person, not on a casually-left-on-the-endtable key chain) or by locking them in a drawer, or by locking up the ammo or ammo clips. Do not forget that children are not allowed to enter into contracts because it is assumed that before they reach an age of accountability that they are NOT RESPONSIBLE; the requirement of responsibility thus falls to their caregivers. Give the kids a safety class, sure, but require every adult purchaser who may have kids come into his/her home (and that is virtually eveyone) to take a gun safety class (including gun storage safety), and to abide by certain safety standards designed to prevent the deaths of children, rather than just waiting passively for them to die and then punis!
>ing the culpable over their dead
>While I understand your sentiment, and I applaud your turnaround on
>training children in the use of firearms, the simple fact is that
>'childproofing' locks and safes also proof the guns against being used
>in self defense, when seconds count. Properly trained children don't
>need locks to keep them away from guns. I also agree that parents should
>be made as responsible and liable for the actions of their children
>almost as if they had done the deed themselves. If the technology comes
>along to allow a gun owner to program the gun to be used by any and all
>family members they wish, for a cost marginally above current
>manufacturing costs, I will embrace the smart technologies for all new
Are you incorrigible technophiles saying that nanotechnology, A.I., immortality and uploading are feasible goals, but that we as a species are cognitively and/or technically unable to construct efficient and economical smartgun technology? I have much more faith in human ingenuity that that.
>The whole point of the trigger lock laws are to cause the self defense
>statistics of gun owners to drop to a level consistent with non-gun
>owners, so the gun grabbers can then say "See, it doesn't protect you
>any more than non-gun owners are protected, so you don't need them...
>bye bye." HCI got a major black eye when John Lott's book came out,
>which is why they've gone to so much trouble trying to discredit him,
>which hasn't worked out.
TYrigger locks are, quite simply, to prevent children and intruders from accidentally or intentionally misusing a weapon. Deal with it.
Your baseless canard is less likely that the likelihood that the NRA WANTS criminals to get guns, because the resultant fear among the general populace increases their gun purchases and provides the NRA with more prospective dues fodder. John Lott, BTW, is the Bernard Nathanson of the progun movement, and his book is the literary equivalent of the antiabortion movie "The Silent Scream." He is the only mojo progunners have to shake to ward off the big bad responsibility wolves, so they invoke his sacred and holy name at every opportunity to justify continuing on their willfully irresponsible path of punish but do not prevent, and teach children but not their parents.
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:23 MDT