From: James Ganong (JGanong@webtv.net)
Date: Sun Jun 06 1999 - 05:16:10 MDT
I think I might have found a way in which the current gun flamewar
differs from others that have gone before.
All the major contributors to the war are gun owners, so the possession
of firearms isn't the core issue. The main proposition by one side is
that gun ownership should be available to all but a few classes of
person that demonstrably (by a history of
physically violent acts against others) or
presumably (by being below some legal
age or by virtue of a clear mental defect)
lack the capacity for reasonable self-restraint.
The main proposition by the opposing side
seems to be that there exist no means by which these restrictions,
however inherently desirable & reasonable they might seem at first
glance, could be put
into effect without falling prey to a system of politics which would
pervert this set of
restrictions to pander to special interest groups, &/or possibly use the
restrictions
as an excuse to expand the list of people
to include political undesirables.
Do these seem to be reasonable summaries of the positions of both sides
in the debate, to those main proponents of each view? If not, please
email me
**OFFLIST** so that we might arrive at a
mutually agreeable, nonprejudicial &,
above all, brief(!) statement of your main position in this discussion.
As to the point of these summaries & requests for clarity:
It is one of the main tenets of this list that
application of rational thought is the best technique our species has
evolved for problem solving. It is another tenet that
the best solutions to problems are often arrived at via grassroots level
efforts as an example of spontaneous order thru
free association of rational individuals.
Many of us have been acting less than rationally regarding this thread.
The impulse to ignore it til it dies out again is strong, but cowardly
in light of the high
principles we would seem to hold in describing ourselves as extropians
&/or
transhumans. I would like to propose
that we try to resolve the following:
Given that there are/may be individuals
who, by demonstration or presumption,
cannot be trusted with firearms, how can an open, free society deal
effectively with
such individuals without infringing the rights of *any* other individual
who might choose to carry firearms?
To make my standards clear, I state the following definitions &
guidelines:
those demonstrably unfit to carry are any individual initiating physical
violence against another human; this would include threat displays
against private property such as malicious vandalism.
those presumably unfit to carry are those below a certain age (what that
age should be is open to debate) or found to be suffering from severe
psychotic disorders
by the best medical judgement of the day
standard netiquette should be observed
(no profanity or insults)
proposed solutions should rely as much as possible on existing
resources, infrastructure,etc.
I realise that this proposal might smack of hubris, but I think we need
to be true to our principles by testing them every so often. If there
are clear signs that this topic is unwelcome on the list (by the
moderators &/or a number of subscribers,
say, 10 requests) I am willing to go private
or, if enough people are interested, to start a separate list or move to
an existing one more suitable. I hope the discussion can stay here, as
I think we are up to it.
Questions/comments/requests to shut up
should be directed to me privately; otherwise, what can we do to resolve
the question offered for debate?
James Ganong
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:00 MST