X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 21:19:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Firearms; a rational viewpoint
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt386301@drew.edu>, Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU> writes:
>>if you are with a manaic, I don't suggest you encourage them manaic
>>by punching him
>
> If said maniac has said that he's going to attack, you're not
> encouraging him by responding to that threat.

I really don't see the problem here.  The situation offered by Robert
had a group of at least four armed robbers of unknown risk, one
threating violence.  We have a trained armed civilan plus various
innocent untrained unarmed customers and/or workers.  My problem was
that with this threat of violence, one man with limited firepower is
somewhat foolish to start shooting.  Since he can't shoot all of the
people, it is possible (especially with the questionable mental state
of the robbers) that the robbers will shoot back, without worrying
about the innocent people.  I then tried to have a comparision.  Say
this security officer had to deal with a maniac. The maniac is already
dangerous, but starting trouble will worse the danger. And as with the
outnumbered person in the above story, the maniac is in a better
position to harm the guy.  Would you punch the guy?

>
>>>>The person noted is trained as a security officer; manadating people to
>>>>take such training isn't being put on the table, nor is such people
>>>>the ones anti-gun people are worried mostly about.
>>>
> Hold it.  Joe says that anti-gun people are not concerned about
> trained people, but when I point out that they are, he goes with "I'm

no.  I said that anti-gun people aren't "mostly worried" about this
group of people.  Did I say they were "not concerned"?  No.  Am I
wrong to think that anti-gun people are more worried about those not
trained with guns?  Or that they are more or most worried with people
besides those not trained with firearms?

>>I read differently, my location was Washington D.C.
>
> I've got crime stats for 19th century DC and I don't see it.  What
> aggression are we talking about?  (Is Joe referring to the
> "not-very-Civil" war?)

I read about in  _The Congressmen Who Got Away with Murder_ by Nat
Brandt who used some other source.  Having not studied the area as
much as Andy, I reckon the source is debatable, but all I did was
bring up the argument.  The response of the post was to question the
situation Robert stated plus various statements in it.  I didn't
question the right to bear arms, even noted that the crime argument
in support of it was a good one.  But my question on the lack of
agression of a world with more guns (silly me, I thought this
warranted some more material to back up) helped make me look anti-gun
to Andy.  Better stop trying to know more about such things.

> Since we use "no danger" to refer to those other, more dangerous,
> situations, an honest language purist has a better target.  (Obscure
> reference - "nice beam".)

I really don't know your point here, but my point was "no danger" was
an invalid term here for Constitutional liberties have dangers in
them, something I am willing to admit in my strong belief in them

> The word "uphold" is usually a reference to judicial decisions.  Joe
> said that we should use the results of a cost-benefit analysis to
> determine whether or not we should "uphold" the 2nd amendment.  Joe's
> statement suggests that he thinks we should not uphold it if there are
> more costs than benefits.  I'm suggesting that maybe we should repeal
> it instead.

it may to you, but my point was that guns have costs, but the costs of
banning them are arguably worse than the benefits.  All of our
liberties shouldn't be held because of some blind rhetoric, but backed
up by arguments to show why they are to be uphold.  The problem is
when such an analysis is abused to take away the liberties because of
minimal costs with no look at the benefits.

> Pointing out that Joe incorrectly attributes positions to anti-gun
> people isn't an attack, let alone one that attributes a particular
> position to him.

I fail to note when I did this, but sorry if I did.

> -andy

      -Joe