Article View: dc.talk.guns
Article #2134Re: figures for gun-fetiscists
From: Doug Humphrey
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 10:51
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 10:51
49 lines
3083 bytes
3083 bytes
In article <Mar.11.00.34.14.1993.3804@clam.rutgers.edu> felmey@clam.rutgers.edu (Robert Felmey) writes: >Or, continuing with that ?LOGIC? why not just make automobiles in >general illegal? Even the amount of deaths by auto NOT INVOLVING >alcohol is extremely high. > >Is your "license" (it's not actually a right) to drive more important >than my right to own whatever weapon a may or may not wish to? Indeed! It IS logic, and you are asking the right questions, which is the whole purpose of logic; to lead to the asking of questions and the reasoning of answers. The "why not make automobiles illegal" question is a good one, and there are good answers. There is obviously a weighing of values that goes on, in determining if something should be banned. You can ban the car, but the VAST majority of vehicles are NOT involved in accidents, so banning is not a good solution. To ban something is a drastic act, and should only be considered if a large percentage of what is going to be banned is what you really want banned. You can ban alcohol for human consumption, but there are arguments that it has its good uses too (although it would be hard to see someone putting for the productivity issues for booze like they could for the automobile). In short, the pros and cons must be weighed, and that is not a completely logic based process, but the fact that this consideration should happen BEFORE an effort to ban something is made, rather than afterward, IS logic based. Even though the individual componants that go into the decision may be based on other than absolute logic, the framework in which the decision is considered and taken needs to be logical. Otherwise, how can you expect to achieve the goal? Ah, the goal. What is the goal in this case anyway? To reduce the number of gun-related deaths, or to reduce the number of homicides? If the goal is not clearly defined, how will you know what to steer toward, and how will you know when you have gotten there so that you can stop taking action? -- Doug Humphrey Express Access Public Access Internet Voice (301) 220-2020 doug@digex.com Dialup: (301) 220-0462 Login as "new" Email info@digex.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "I say it again, in the land of the free; use your freedom of choice." - DEVO
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1nn5k8INN9jk@access.digex.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!digex.com!digex.com!not-for-mailReferences:
<1993Mar10.161419.10152@apgea.army.mil> <1nlbd4INN3oq@access.digex.com> <Mar.11.00.34.14.1993.3804@clam.rutgers.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10162c,78ab9087c515afbd X-Google-Attributes: gid10162c,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1993-03-11 03:06:54 PST Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!digex.com!digex.com!not-for-mail From: dougnews@access.digex.com (Doug Humphrey) Newsgroups: dc.talk.guns Subject: Re: figures for gun-fetiscists Date: 11 Mar 1993 05:51:52 -0500 Organization: Express Access Online Communications USA Lines: 49 Distribution: usa Message-ID: <1nn5k8INN9jk@access.digex.com> References: <1993Mar10.161419.10152@apgea.army.mil> <1nlbd4INN3oq@access.digex.com> <Mar.11.00.34.14.1993.3804@clam.rutgers.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com