From: mjp@austin.ibm.com (Michael Phelps)
Subject: Re: Registering "Assault Keys"
Originator: mjp@bwa.kgn.ibm.com
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 13:17:16 GMT
Reply-To: mjp@vnet.ibm.com (Michael J. Phelps)
Organization: IBM Kingston NY


In article <1992Nov12.071135.2216@netcom.com>, gurgle@netcom.com (Pete Gontier) writes:
|> sjo@cci632.cci.com (Steve Owens) writes:
|> >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.
|> 
|> Smoking tobacco. Drinking alcohol. Telling kids they'll go to hell
|> if they do taboo thing X. I could go on for a while.

 Are you serious?  I don't smoke, and rarely drink, yet i would strongly oppose
banning them.  The US already tried banning alcohol, and all it did was to allow
orgainzed crime to make a fortune.  
 I will defend your rights, even your right to do things with which i personally
disagree, AS LONG AS YOU DON'T ABUSE THEM!  If you do, i expect that you will be
punished for that abuse.  In return, i expect the same consideration and respect
from you.  In summary, i believe in personal liberty.  Society is not homogenous,
and we cannot reasonably expect one set of standards to fit all people.  We should
however, expect all members of society to be held responsible for their actions -
which seldom seems to be the case today.

|> 
|> >It would keep the law-abiding
|> >citizen from participating in a very satisfying form of recreation.
|> 
|> True. But what's recreational satisfaction compared to the blood
|> of innocents?

Do you feel the blood of innocents on your hands every time you pick up a 
kitchen knife?  Drive a car?   

|> 
|> An aside: why is it that terms like "law-abiding" creep into
|> these descriptions? Are criminals unable to derive the same
|> recreational satisfaction?

Because its important to make the destinction between the people who are obeying
the law (excersising their rights in a responsible manner) and those people who
are disobeying the law.  Sort of like making the distinction between people who
are using a bank in a lawful manner, and those people who rob banks.

|> 
|> >Since there is no evidence to support the claim that a ban would work, 
|> >there is no reason to support such a ban.
|> 
|> Name just about any country in the EC. Remember, we're talking
|> about kids finding Daddy's gun and shooting each other with it out
|> of ignorance. That's *all* I'm talking about.
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So you are only talking about accidents?  Do you realize that the total number
of firearm accidents per year is ~1400, and the situation you describe is a
subset of this number?  BTW, falls, drowning, fires, poison, and choking all
are responsible for more deaths per year than firearms accidents.  As an aside,
the accident rate per capita has been steadily falling for years. 

|> 
|> >Why can't we address the underlying problems?
|> 
|> How much time do you have? :-) In short, for all the reasons Perot
|> outlined in his campaign speeches. (Not that I voted for Perot,
|> nosir.)

 We don't have the time to waste on band-aid cludges.  If we start addressing the
real problems now, we can hope to eventually fix them.  If we keep wasting time
with band-aids, we'll never fix it.  

|> 
|> >"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.
|> 
|> Ah, now we've gotten to crux of the problem, haven't we?
|> 
|> Programmers refer to an old, creaky, patched up system as "mature",
|> at least when they're trying to hire new blood. "Mature" is the way
|> I'd describe our system. Hell, it's just about the oldest government
|> on the planet.

Actually, the Swiss goverment is much older, seems to be quite democratic, and
(BTW) allows ownership of firearms that we can't legally own in the US.  

|> 
|> >>I understand that a ban on handguns would merely be a band-aid. That
|> >>doesn't change my preference.
|> 
|> >If you realize a handgun ban doesn't address the problem, then
|> >for what reason do you support a handgun ban?
|> 
|> A band-aid *does* address the problem. Just not very well.

 So, if you had a leak in your plumbing that floods your basement, you'd band-aid
the problem by buying a sump pump?  It would address a problem (water in the 
basement) but wouldn't actually do anything about the real problem (that hole
in the water main),  
 To go back to your "mature system", how many band-aids (temporary fix cludges)
have later caused yet another problem, resulting in another band-aid, etc..  how
many times have you heard the argument that "if we'd fixed it right the first 
time, we'd not be seeing this problem now"..

|> 
|> >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.
|> 
|> I'm too cynical for that. Maybe when I have lots of money I'll
|> start thinking about solutions. For now, band-aids'll do fine.

 What about when the proposed band-aid fix hits something that you care about?
Maybe a band-aid to free speech - you know the type, to prevent offending others,
all free speech must be approved by the FSA (Free Speech Agency) before use..

|> -- 
|>  Pete Gontier // EC Technology // gurgle@netcom.com
-- 
Michael Phelps, (external) mjp@vnet.ibm.com ..
                (internal) mjp@bwa.kgn.ibm.com .. mjp at kgnvmy         
 (and last but not least a disclaimer)  These opinions are mine..