From: Joe E. Dees (joedees@bellsouth.net)
Date: Mon Jun 07 1999 - 00:59:04 MDT
Date sent: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 01:04:44 -0500
From: Steve Tucker <stevet@megsinet.net>
Subject: Re: [GUNS] a comment
To: extropians@extropy.com
Send reply to: extropians@extropy.com
> "Joe E. Dees" wrote:
>
> > Date sent: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 21:40:52 -0500
> > From: Steve Tucker <stevet@megsinet.net>
> > Subject: Re: [GUNS] a comment
> > To: extropians@extropy.com
> > Send reply to: extropians@extropy.com
> >
> > > Actually, I was an anti-gunner until someone challenged my views, and I checked
> > > the evidence and arguments.
> > > - Steve
> > >
> > What is the scientific evidence that it is safe to allow violent
> > criminals, kids and the certifiably insane the free and unfettered
> > right to keep and bear?
> > Breathlessly Waiting, Joe
>
> My intention is to bow out of this argument, since it is no doubt harming the list
> and no solid evidence has been presented or challenged to refute the "guns in the
> hands of responsible citizens make for a safer society" idea. However (sigh) I feel
> compelled to respond to Joe's insinuations and publicly take his words out of my
> mouth (ptooie).
>
> Neither I nor anyone else (afaik) who has posted in this debate claimed that it is
> safe or desirable to place guns in the hands of Joe's interminably-repeated list of
> likely gun abusers. Joe, when I say that I am no longer an anti-gunner, it does
> _not_ mean I have decided that putting guns in the hands of the insane et al is a
> positive thing. How you could have made that leap in good faith is beyond me. I am
> obviously not going to produce evidence to back a claim I never made and do not
> support, so you may as well go ahead and breathe.
>
> However, and perhaps this is the point that has been lost, just because I (and
> perhaps some others) agree with you in principle does *not* necessarily mean that we
> believe your proposed solution will be effective, or that it will not have unintended
> negative side effects. This point has been made many times by myself and others.
>
> I (and I suspect others) harbor doubts that these laws will be effective. Economics
> teaches us that a demand will always find a supplier. Experience informs us that an
> unreformed violent criminal (insane or not) will not be greatly deterred from
> breaking yet another law if they're already in the process of breaking several
> others. I believe it is already illegal for most of these individuals to purchase
> guns, yet as far as I know there is no particular dearth of repeat offenders in
> gun-related crimes. I believe another poster mentioned Chicago, where gang-bangers'
> demand for guns they could not legally purchase resulted in a black market being
> supplied by the Chicago cops(!).
>
There is an article in the July issue of Playboy about a squad of
Chicago cops masquerading as bikers and gang members and
asking to buy guns with which to commit crimes. The firearms
dealers were most helpful, and in just two months, the police had
purchased 171 weapons for $65,000, all for the explicit purpose of
aiding in the commission of criminal acts. One particularly
enterprizing gun shop, nestled in the midst of a suburb with a
population of 14,000 souls, sold 6500 weapons which were
subsequently confiscated by Chicago police after being used in the
commission of crimes. In fact, of the 32, 909 people who died of
bullet wounds in 1995 (cars kill more, but not many more), most of
these were suicides (18,503), and of the remailing 14,406
homicides, only 616 were ruled justifiable and the rest (13,790, or
about 96%) were murders. One out of every five handguns
purchased in the US is used to commit a crime within four years of
purchase.
>
> Your response has been that your solution must actually be implemented before any
> judgement or prediction can be made as to its effects. (I must confess I am not
> aware (and too tired to research it now)--is it actually legal for convicted felons
> or the criminally insane to purchase guns now, anywhere?) I am not certain that a
> good percentage of your solution hasn't already been implemented.
>
> The responses I have seen posted to the idea of trying your solution mostly relate to
> the oft-mentioned slippery slope which governmental solutions often traverse. I
> believe this is a valid concern--history shows that a tool placed in the hands of a
> government is often used for unintended purposes; and is almost never relinquished
> regardless of how poor the results.
>
> In reponse to this, you have stated that in a democracy, any official who misuses
> such a law would either be influenced by the voters to change his actions, or be
> removed from office. I am far more cynical in this area than you. In my
> observations of the legislative and enforcement process I have rarely seen instances
> of officials held accountable for such deeds (except for certain high-visibility
> exceptions), and have seen nothing to persuade me that this is likely to improve
> anytime soon.
>
> In my opinion, it is entirely reasonable to ask what the effects of a change are
> before making the change. If there is reason to doubt the change will have the
> desired effect, and/or reason to suspect the change will have other negative effects,
> it is also reasonable to search for alternative ways to achieve the desired effect.
> Simply reiterating that it must be tried proves nothing. I could as easily claim
> that mandatory gun ownership for everybody is the solution, and in the face of your
> doubts insist that it must be tried to be invalidated. The logic is equivalent, and
> I can claim that solution is as "obviously" right to me as yours is to you. But it
> proves nothing. (Pre-flame note: I do _not_ support mandatory gun ownership for
> everybody--this was only an example, please go back to your normally scheduled
> activities.... :-)
>
> So, to wind this up, and hopefully never return, I share what I believe is your
> desire, which is to remove weapons from people who will misuse them. (In fact, if we
> could definitively identify these people we should probably do more than that.)
> However, I have doubts that the laws you proposed would be effective, and am
> concerned that, if enacted, they would be (mis)used by the government in ways
> unintended by you. You, on the other hand, believe your laws would be effective and
> that government officials could and would be brought to task if they attempted to
> misuse these laws. I believe the most productive result of this debate is for us to
> agree that we disagree on these points, and to look for other topics likely to
> produce more "extropian" debates.
>
> - Steve
>
>
> "Joe E. Dees" wrote:
>
> > Date sent: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 21:40:52 -0500
> > From: Steve Tucker <stevet@megsinet.net>
> > Subject: Re: [GUNS] a comment
> > To: extropians@extropy.com
> > Send reply to: extropians@extropy.com
> >
> > > Actually, I was an anti-gunner until someone challenged my views, and I checked
> > > the evidence and arguments.
> > > - Steve
> > >
> > What is the scientific evidence that it is safe to allow violent
> > criminals, kids and the certifiably insane the free and unfettered
> > right to keep and bear?
> > Breathlessly Waiting, Joe
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:01 MST