From: Joe E. Dees (joedees@bellsouth.net)
Date: Tue Mar 14 2000 - 15:49:44 MST
Date sent: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 13:54:10 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian D Williams <talon57@well.com>
To: extropians@extropy.org
Subject: [GUNS] Re: g*n c*ntr*l
Send reply to: extropians@extropy.com
>
> From: Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com>
>
> >Short-sighted people try to control the misuse of those
> >technologies by restricting their use with government. What that
> >generally accomplishes is to limit their good uses while ensuring
> >that they will still get into the hands of criminals and the
> >insane--especially those working for the government.
>
> >It's no wonder this is a hot-button issue among Extropians; we are
> >the architects of the future and proponents of technology. How do
> >we expect to address the public's fears about its misuse when we
> >still have so much fear and misunderstanding of centuries-old
> >technology?
>
> >If it seems like we are beating a dead horse with this issue, it's
> >because it is so central to our core values--to what it means to
> >be an Extropian--that we can't simply gloss over it. We need to
> >decide how access to future technologies will be controlled, and
> >the best way to do that is to examine how present ones are being
> >controlled, and how well current methods work.
>
> Excellent point, you've clearly cut to the heart of the matter.
>
> This is a conflict between those who say that technology is not
> merely material, it can have "inherent evil" and therefore can be
> justifiably banned, and those who say "punish those who misuse
> technology, not technology itself." The latter position argues in
> favor of personnal responsibility, a core extropian value. The
> former excuses misusers from personnal responsibility, and is
> therefore anti-extropian.
>
This is a false dichotomy; I am not in favor of banning firearms
outright, just keeping them out of the hands of those who can be
expected, from their mental condition or past behavior, to abuse
the responsibility concommitant with the right to keep and bear
firearms. Such a position is required of those who would call
themselves responsible, and should have the support of all who
favor responsible gun possession. To advocate the free access of
firearms for convicted violent criminals, those who have had to be
legally restrained from intimidating and abusing others, the
incompetent and the insane is the height of irresponsibility, and
furthermore, demonstrates a substitution of dogmatic and
mantric progun-for-everyone rhetoric for rational reflection and
common sense. The world may be safer if everyone has a gun
than if everyone does not (although the experiences of Japan and
Great Britain put the lie to this contention), but there can be no
question that the safest world of all would be the one where only
the responsible retain the right to keep and bear, and that although
such a utopia may be in principle impossible, we should put into
practice measures designed to more closely approach it.
>
>
> Brian
>
> Member:
> Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
> Adler Planetarium www.adlerplanetarium.org
> Life Extension Foundation, www.lef.org
> National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
> Mars Society, www.marssociety.org
> Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:27:23 MST