From: Zhahai.Stewart@f93.n104.z1.fidonet.org (Zhahai Stewart)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Registering "Assault Keys"
Date: 11 Nov 92 20:14:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: puddle.19723.2B06AED1
Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/93 - Adelante, Boulder CO


 >>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.

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

 He didn't say it didn't address the problem; he implied it didn't by 
 itself provide a comprehensive solution to what he considered a deeper
 problem (from unquoted context).  Laws against murder, pollution, theft,
 etc do not generally "solve" a problem; at best they reduce a problem.
 It is hardly useful to criticize a proposal because it does not entirely
 solve something; almost every proposal would then be invalidated on these
 generic grounds.

 To take an example: the NRA has often proposed and sponsored legislation
 which adds additional penalties to crimes (after conviction) when a gun
 is involved.  Has this "solved" anything?  Of course not; I'm not sure
 it has even had any measureable positive effect, but it certainly has
 not come close to "solving" the problem of guns used in crime.

 It is hypocritical and ultimately self-defeating for the NRA to turn
 around and pretend that any law which it dislikes is invalid unless it
 provides a full solution.  The case has to be argued in a more 
 reasonable and honest framework.  For example, attempting to show that
 a given law has had a negative net effect, or that the positive effect
 has been outweighed by the costs (of whatever sort) is a much better
 and more honest approach.  (PS: the NRA uses this approach too, they 
 aren't all bad).

 By the way, I distinguish between a "band-aid" approach (a proposal to
 ameliorate but not fully solve a problem) and a "street-light" approach
 ("I lost the item in the alley, but I'm looking for it here because the
 light is better").  That is, between a proposal which only claims to be
 partially effective, and one which is entirely unconnected to any 
 solution.  I do not believe the handgun ban is "obviously" a streetlight
 approach, even if there are other reasons to oppose it.

 At some stage, second amendment advocates are going to have to learn to
 argue without insulting the intelligence and legitimate concerns of their
 opponents.  I hope this happens before they (we) lose out entirely, from
 ineptitude and arrogance.

 ObPrivacy: I hope we will not let this particularly obnoxious yet endless
 line of misreasoning spread from gun issues into privacy issues.  No
 proposal, on any side, is likely to be the Magic Bullet; let's discuss
 shades of gray.
     ~z~


--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!104!93!Zhahai.Stewart
Internet: Zhahai.Stewart@f93.n104.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd