Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 13:34:36 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: re : uzi on the street

>>> the purpose of guns is to kill things.  they also have the side effect of
>>> sometimes only wounding them.
>
>> No, that's not the purpose of guns.  Guns have a function, to propel a
>> projectile, and one can use them to accomplish a purpose, but the
>> designer doesn't pick the target or the circumstance.  (The designer
>> does have some effect on how effective a given gun will be on a given
>> target.  For example, the M-16 designer made decisions that made that
>> gun less likely to kill than previous military issue....)
>
>So most people that buy guns for self-defense don't say
>to themselves "I am gonna buy a gun so if attacked I can
>protect my family."  Instead they say "I am gonna dish
>out a few hundred bucks to propel a projectile."

Nope.  Most people who buy guns for defense buy them with that purpose
in mind.  People who buy the very same guns for other purposes have
other purposes in mind.  Notice that the gun doesn't determine the
purpose.

>> Yet, if she'd been killed by a drunk driver, no one would have advocated
>> banning cars.  Guns do have a strange effect on people....
>
>Well I am not surprised of this answer.  As long as you
>claim some kinda analogy between guns and cars you are
>bound to make illogical statements like this.

I'm not claiming an analogy.  I'm pointing out that the issue isn't
death, it is guns.  Death is merely an excuse that the "guns kill"
people don't actually care about in other circumstances.

If you want to argue that death is important, then guns are way
down the list....

>And maybe one day when the dangers of cars outweighs
>the advantages we *would* ban cars.

Does KAT know the advantages of guns?  Does he know what benefits we
can reasonably expect from restricting access to them?  Does he have
any idea as to how the costs compare to the benefits?  (Directed at
KAT, those are rhetorical questions because we've previously
established that he doesn't.  People who are honestly interested in
the subject will find Kleck's "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in
America" quite worthwhile.  Wright, Rossi, and Daly's "Under the Gun"
and Wright and Rossi's "Armed and Considered Dangerous" are also
good.)

>In short, those of us who are agist guns or who are
>for more gun control think that the disadvantages
>of having guns has long outweighed the advantages of
>having them.

No, that's not true.  Those who are against guns claim that
the costs exceed the benefits, but they're wrong.  In some
cases it's an honest mistake, but in others ....

>> BTW - Laser printers and modern presses are much further from 1790s
>> technology than modern guns.  Does that mean that their use is not
>> protected by the 1st amendment?  (If not, then perhaps a better
>> discussion of the relevance of technology is in order.)
>
>1st preserves free speech; laser printers are a means to
>express your opinion.  2nd preserves your right to bear
>arms; and then what?????  Where is the analogy?  Laser
>printer is to the 1st as is what(?) to the 2nd?

The 1st doesn't provide a reason for the "freedom of speech",
so KAT's argument doesn't work the way he suggests it does.

The 2nd protects your right to protect yourself and your community,
both from individuals and from govts, and not just foreign ones.

As to technology, laser printers are to the 1st as beam weapons are to
the 2nd; gun technology, as opposed to fashion, hasn't changed much in
the last 200 years....

-andy


--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU