Re: Gun control

Joe E. Dees (joedees@bellsouth.net)
Thu, 3 Jun 1999 17:28:02 -0500

Date sent:      	Thu, 03 Jun 1999 13:43:11 -0700
From:           	"Mark D. Fulwiler" <mfulwiler@earthlink.net>
To:             	extropians-digest <extropians@maxwell.kumo.com>
Subject:        	Gun control
Send reply to:  	extropians@extropy.com


> > "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 ?
>
Thus keeping them selectively out of the hands of those who have been legitimately proven to be unusually predisposed to use inappropriate force against innocent others seems on the face of it to be a limited yet effective means to reduce the gun-related deaths of innocents.
>
> Please re-read what I said above. The question is whether any particular
> restriction of gun ownership will increase or reduce homicides.
>
And the answer is, yes. Selectively preventing violent criminals, children, spouse and/or child abusers, and the mentally deficient and/or deranged, AND NO OTHERS, from purchasing or possessing firearms could not help but do just that. All the lawabiding, and responsible people could still keep and bear; only those who have been legitimately determined to be the greatest threat to them would be forbidden to purchase or possess.
> > >
> > > 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.
>
Such a law, like any prospective law, while making eminent logical sense, must be verified empirically, that is, in practice. Please do not assume the DEA position of asking for proof of something, then not allowing perple to test for and thus obtain it (don't play marijuana games with gun control). I hasten to add that my proposed regulations are not solely gun control (for instance, they ban no particular firearm type), but as much violence control as they are anything, for only those who have demonstrated a willingness to use inappripriate force against innocent others or those who due to age or verified mental conditions cannot assume responsibility for their actions are prevented from purchasing or possessing guns.
>
> 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.
>
An electronic registry containing the names of those forbidden to purchas (and THEIR NAMES ONLY), and accessible via phone or modem by gun shops, gun shows, flea markets and pawn shops could not cost much to create and maintain, when compared with the human misery such a thing might prevent. Whether or not it does in fact reduce the homicide rate is something which can only be ascertained in practice; yet it is certainly as reasonable to test this law aw a death reducer as it is to test marijuana as a nausea and pain palliative.
>
> 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.
>
No, and the way both save the most lives with the least cost to our freedom and to keep such a movement from gaining momentum with each successive school slaughter splattered across our television screens is not to engage in scary sounding "cold, dead fingers" rhetoric, but to remove the wind from their sails by compromising to pass the reasonable mesures and oppose the unreasonable ones, rather than being as irrational about the same thing (from the opposite extreme) as they are.
> > >
> > >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.
>
As am I, when I can find a calm, reasoned interlocuter (which has been rare, but not nonexistent).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark Fulwiler
>
>
>