Re: Dai Vernon's Close-Up Non-Sequiturs Explained (was Re:

Dwayne (
Wed, 24 Dec 1997 00:11:18 +1100 (EST)

> I've attempted to show that external costs may exist, with all of the
> attendant ramifications for efficiency. If I can show guns are
> inefficient economically speaking, then I can argue that the right to
> keep and bear arms should probably not include guns. If I can show that
> external benefits make guns even more efficient, then I can argue that
> more guns should be produced. Either way, every argument for or against
> gun control implicates practicality.

Given this, what do you think should replace guns? If access to force is
necessary, but guns are not the most appropriate force, what do you think
should replace guns?

I'm not sold on the force issue, myself. I'd rather be a turtle than a
tiger (well, only insofar as this silly force argument defines the issue,
I'd rather be a tree or an elemental or such), but there seems to be quite
a lack of useful armour other than distance compared to the force which can
be mustered. But I don't own guns, live in a country where guns are now
very heavily regulated (and have zero problem with it) and am in no great
fear of ever coming across one in a life-threatening circumstance unless
I travel overseas, really. I don't deny that use of force could be required
in some circumstances, but I'm not sure that firearms are the right force
to use. Should we scale up or scale down? Knives or nukes?