Re: Guns are a specious issue (was Re: Are guns extropian?)

Michael M. Butler (
Fri, 10 Jul 1998 21:05:34 -0700

Much evident agreement <snipped>
>> >If my plans would run into the point
>> >that I think I will have to become a killer, I think I would try to
>> >reshape my plans. If my plans get to the point, that I think that there
>> >is no way to avoid an unpleasant situation and that I am stuck with the
>> >situation that the universe has handed me, I think I would try to change
>> >the universe.
>> Indeed. Hear hear. Saving your own life is changing the universe, is it
>Yes. If you are an extropian researcher who develops nanoprobes that can
>reconstruct cryogenically frozen humans, then you are saving litterally
>of lives. If a government agent comes to you, points a gun in your face
and tries
>to kill you, is your killing that agent right or wrong? There is a difference
>between killing and murder.

You appear to be stating the obvious. Is there some subtle thing you intend? Or are you just making sure of common ground?

>> >When somebody comes into my office and lab to see the neat stuff that I
>> >want to demonstrate for the future. I want to show them my computers
>> >and state that those who can keep up with the technology will rule the
>> >future. I don't want to unlock my gun cabinet and explain that those
>> >who are better armed will rule the future.
>> As more power is concentrated in your computers, expect them-and-yourself
>> to be treated exactly the way others-and-their-guns are treated. How are
>> you going to prove you have a trigger lock on that GP assembler, hombre?
>> How are you going to convince me you can be trusted with that Orion engine
>> you plan to build?
>How do I know that you can be trusted with the power supply that keeps
hundreds of
>AI's alive???

What's your point? Who are you talking to here? I'm confused.

>> Fools are fools, no matter what they have in their hands. The problem here
>> is impulse control, not guns. Self government makes the whole gun matter a
>> non-issue. Absent more prevalent self government, the human race has a very
>> dim future.
>Hardly. Self government mandates self defense to whatever level the
>feels negates the accepted risk level.

"Hardly"? I think you miss my point. I'll break it down: The "_*gun*_" (qua gun) issue is a non-issue to any set of people which is largely self-governing (no "Gummint"/minimal "Gummint"). Such people don't give a hoot whether another of their kind owns a gun, as long as they can/do too. Thus it is a _non-issue_ for them. Get me?

I get tired of making this point, but it boils down to "it's not about gun control, it's about impulse control, stupid." :) High individual self-government->high impulse control->less fear of technology X-Y-Z in individual hands, as long as the said hands are also not cocksure or arrogant. Are we in agreement about this?

Your "Hardly," as situated, appears to be a dismissal of my last sentence. I stand by it.
What say you?

>Mike Lorrey


===================> Am I expecting a message from you? <=====================
If you're not sure, may I suggest you change my return address when/if you send mail? Remove the bracketed portion of butler[j-nkmail]
===================>        "Go team, beat SP*M."       <=====================
"The highest love [is] uniquely human, the product of compassion and liberty--

_not one at the expense of the other_." -- L. A. Chu & M. M. Butler