🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov10.171546.19992@cci632.cci.com> sjo@cci632.cci.com (Steve Owens) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.044148.22135@netcom.com> gurgle@netcom.com (Pete Gontier) writes:
>>pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
>
>>>Would
>>>you be as cavalier about someone trying to deny YOUR choice on something
>>>you consider of signifigant importance to you (assuming the choice being
>>>foisted on you is not the one you would take). Since you don't care
>>>for guns, a ban on them will not affect you, at least in the short term,
>>>so you consider that an acceptable restriction,
>>
>>The fact is that plenty of activities, substances, and what-have-you
>>are banned even though plenty of people don't do or use them. I don't
>>smoke pot. I don't break into other peoples' computers. I don't
>>expose myself to old ladies. Like shooting guns, I don't have any
>>urge to do any of those things. I don't see what that has to do with
>>whether I should be allowed to, though.
>
>	However, all of the things you mention above are illegal.
>The last I knew, target practice was not.  Please state an example
>of something that is legal to do, that you do not do, and still feel
>your right to participate in such activity should be banned.
>
>>>Or could it be that a ban
>>>on guns looks to be the quick fix, even though I have yet to see any
>>>evidence of its efficacy in reducing either homicide or other crimes of
>>>violence, or overall accidental deaths.
>>
>>Quick, I dunno. Sure wouldn't hurt. Let's give it a try.

It has been tried - and has failed dismally wherever it has been tried.
What is different about your proposal?  And it CAN (and does) hurt.
While I said evidence was lacking as to the efficacy of such measures,
I didn't mention the lacking of evidence showing deleterious effects.
Those abound.  Primarily because gun bans tend to GUARANTEE those that
prey on others the safest environment possible.  They are assured of
the fact that their potential victims have no meaningful countermeasure
- especially if the criminal teams up with a partner or two.  That pretty
well neutralizes any effective resistance even the most athletic can
provide.  And gun bans make SURE that the elderly, physically
disadvantaged, etc. are rendered as helpless as possible by denying the ONLY
meaningful option available to them (short of just staying behind heavy,
securely locked doors, of limited value if you have something the attacker
wants).  These folks often don't even have the option of running.  But
perhaps the elderly and physically disadvantaged should just get out of
the way to make room for the Beautiful People anyway, right?  I am being
cynical because these folks seem to be never considered when these
'wonderful' remedies are proposed.  When they are considered, the 'options'
offered to them usually consist of enhanced dependence on the STATE or
reduced freedom of movement - both unacceptable, IMO.

Could it be possible that what determines a good band-aid measure is that
it does not impact YOUR lifestyle (but its ok to impact others), that
while it puts others at risk, since it has no effect on your level of risk
since you allready opt to not make use of firearms, it is a good one to employ?

Perhaps it is because you simply don't like guns, that you wish to deny
them to others, REGARDLESS OF THE COST?

>	Actually, yes it would hurt.  It would keep the law-abiding
>citizen from participating in a very satisfying form of recreation.
>Since there is no evidence to support the claim that a ban would work, 
>there is no reason to support such a ban.
>
>>>Please explain why
>>>*I* should be penalized for something some irresponsible producers seem
>>>to like to feed us for a non-stop diet, or that irresponsible (but
>>>oh-so-progressive) community 'leaders' could be taking to address the
>>>root CAUSES of urban violence (except that it would require recognizing
>>>some unpleasant truths, and a bit of effort)?  Better to blame some
>>>inantimate hardware...

Still haven't explained why I should be penalized for the irresponsible
behavior of producers or community leaders.  I am still waiting.  Perhaps
I missed the post....

>>It's true that addressing the underlying problems would be the more
>>elegant solution. But it'll never happen. All we can do at this point
>>is patch the system. This seems like a good patch to me.

Please outline why you feel it is a good patch, seeing as it doesn't
work, even a little bit apparantly, and only makes life safer for
the criminal element.

>	Why can't we address the underlying problems?  What's keeping
>us from doing so?  "Patching the system" simply adds kludge on top of
>kludge until you have a system that is so huge noone can understand it
>and noone can support it.  If that's the case, it's time for a new system.

#define SARCASM 1
#ifdef SARCASM
We can't address the underlying problems because:
   1: It would involve some work, and offend those with money and power.
   2: It doesn't have media support, and lacks that 'flair'.
   3: It doesn't limit availability of coercive force to the elite.
   4: It wouldn't address the real goal - denying everyone access to
	  a tool one just plain doesn't like, and thus wishes to impose
	  their preferences on the population at large.
#endif
#undef SARCASM

In short - reducing crime and violence has nothing to do with it.

>>>Of course, all this lacks the appeal of the 'magic bullet':  Just pass
>>>this one more 'reasonable' law, and all our problems will go away...
>>
>>I understand that a ban on handguns would merely be a band-aid. That
>>doesn't change my preference.

If it is because you just don't like guns, and wish to ban them regardless
of the cost, say so.  But please don't pretend you want to ban them because
it will make us all safer.

>	If you realize a handgun ban doesn't address the problem, then
>for what reason do you support a handgun ban?  If it doesn't solve the
>the problem, what purpose does it serve?

See above for what I think the reason is.

>	If you really want to solve the problem, try studying the problem
>and comming up with real solutions instead of supporting a band-aid that 
>will only effect law-abiding citizens like you or me.  The information
>is out there. All you have to do is look it up.

But that would require EFFORT, and the possibility of not being able
to find any real evidence to support ones agenda.

-- 
pat@rwing.uucp                                  (Pat Myrto),  Seattle, WA
                      If all else fails, try:
         ...!uunet!{pilchuck, polari}!rwing!pat
WISDOM:    "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket"