Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 12:42:26 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Firearms; a rational viewpoint

>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.

>>>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.
>>
>> Try again.  I've got significantly more training than most police, yet
>> I can't get a permit because the mayor doesn't kiss my butt.  That
>
>good for you Andy, but is Robert?  I wasn't addressing _you_
>nor should you address all anti-gun people since I'm not speaking for
>them

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
not speaking for them".  That's true but irrelevant; his previous
claim was wrong.  (Joe is right in pointing out that mandated training
isn't on the table.  The anti-gun groups are proposing gun bans
implemented through "training requirements".  In CA, the required
program isn't being funded and there are no legally acceptable
substitutes....  Similar things have been done before in other
states.)

We could discuss training and/or how training fits into gun control
politics.  I'm perfectly willing to discuss the value of training, to
defend the proposition that the only social benefit comes from more
effective self-defenders, which acrues primarily to them, that
incompetent self-defenders impose no direct social costs.  Given that,
the social costs of such requirements exceeds the benefits.  Changing
that balance requires good faith that simply doesn't exist in 1992 and
the only way to earn that good faith is to go after gun-control
abuses.

>>>this appears to be very debatable even if you find that guns do
>>>prevent crime.  Especially in the 19th century, a high saturation of
>>>guns added to agression;
>>
>> Huh?  Where?  Not in the "wild west" - see McGrath's "Gunfighters,
>> Highwaymen, and Vigilantes".  Not in rural american today.
>
>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?)

>> "no danger" is Kates-speak for "we accept far greater dangers every
>> day".  Consider the dangers that come from letting anyone own a modem
>
>good, say that then.  "no relative danger" or "all things considered,
>the danger is minimal" is better than "no danger".

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 said that the standard should be a cost benefit analysis on the dangers
>of guns v. the danger of no right to bear arms, so what's the problem?

I'd be quite willing to participate in a cost-benefit discussion.  Joe
isn't discussing cost-benefits, but what we should do with the result,
so I'm responding to that point.

>> We can repeal the 2nd amendment if we think it's wrong - should we
>> really set the "let's just ignore it" precedent?
>
>I didn't say this.  I spent the whole post making inquires about this
>special case, but did not once suggest that we should limit the right
>to bear arms.  Are you implying I did?

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.

>> My comments were prompted by the beliefs attributed to anti-gun folk.
>> They don't believe those things.  I realise that they claim to be
>> "reasonable", but look at their proposals.
>
>Your comments appear to be prompted by an inclination to believe I'm
>trying to lessen the right to bear arms in some reasonable way when I
>didn't even mention anything to that fact.

Since I explicitly wrote what prompted my comments and there's nothing
in them that is inconsistent with my statement about what prompted
them, I wonder why Joe thinks my statement is wrong.  After all, I do
have some "inside information" that he probably doesn't have.

In pointing out that Joe is incorrectly attributing positions to
others, I'm not implying anything about Joe's positions.  (I happen to
know people who are rabidly pro-gun who think that anti-gun people
have the positions Joe attributes to them, so I find it interesting
that he thinks that I think that making such a misattribution implies
that such a misattributor is anti-gun.)

>I may be somewhat flawed in my protection of the 2nd amendment in my
>eyes, but at least wait until I say how before you attack.

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'm perfectly willing to believe that Joe believes whatever he tells
us he believes.  That's why I haven't attributed positions to him.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu