> "Joe E. Dees" wrote:
> > The issue of guns is something I think ought to concern extropians
> > because of the possibility that gun ownership may help us increase our
> > life spans. The question of whether or not gun control does or does not
> > reduce homicides is a question of fact , not ideology.
> Gun discharge can certainly cut them short - also a fact.
The sky is also blue. That's a fact. I don't understand your point. Certainly guns kill people. Who would disagree with that ?
Please re-read what I said above. The question is whether any particular restriction of gun ownership will increase or reduce homicides.
> > Your personal
> > feelings towards guns are irrelevant to the factual question. I think an
> > analysis of the facts shows the anti-gun people to have, by far, the
> > weaker case.
> It is not a stark and bipolar choice between an absolute ban and
> the absence of all restrictions. This is an illicit and absolutistic
> straw-man argument which possesses not even a passing
> acquaintance with the rational, reasonable, targeted and limited
> proposals under discussion.
I never said that I was against any and all regulation of gun ownership. Please don't put words in my mouth. However, the burden of proof for any restriction on gun ownership lies with those advocating it. Present a logical argument backed up with facts and I'm willing to consider it. However, simply because something seems like a good idea, it does not follow that it is. "Common sense" can be wrong.
To go off on a tangent -It used to be that many states required people getting married to get a VD test. Sounds like a good idea, right? Well, it turns out that it costs thousands and thousands of dollars to identify each case of VD this way, so many states dropped the requirement because the cost/benefit analysis was so unfavorable.
You do realize, of course, that there is a sizable group of people in this country who would like to confiscate all guns. Therefore, the arguments of these people need to be addressed. You obviously do not hold that extreme anti-gun viewpoint.
> >Professor John Lott's book is a good starting point for
> > those unfamiliar with the issue. Mr. Lott does not engage in name
> > calling, responds calmly to criticism , and presents an excellent
> > overall case for private handgun ownership. Why is it that so many other
> > people can't discuss this issue without going off the handle?
> Not only am I responsible for the insults I issued, but they were in
> response to the epithets slung by the progun-for-all-including-kids-
> violent-criminals-and-the-clinically-insane fanatic zealots.
Well, I don't see the point in trading insults. I am interested in calm, logical discussion.