From: Mark Phillips (clay8@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Jun 04 1999 - 16:57:17 MDT
Thanks to Nadia and Tom!
Based on both ethico-political considerations and empirical evidence (e.g.,
Lott's study), it would seem not at all especially UNreasonable to advocate
(or at least be sort of neutrally sanguine toward) right-to-carry laws (both
concealed and unconcealed) and other hand gun possession laws. That is, it
would seem reasonable (or at least not especially UNreasonable) to permit
competent adults to acquire/obtain handguns and not only to possess them on
there (domicilic) property(s), but, indeed, to carry them in their motor
vehicle(s) and/or ON THEIR PERSON, if they so choose. But there are a few
snags that should not be swept under the rug:
1) How to determine "competency." Is one "COMPETENT", even as a
(statistically, anyway) "normal," reasonably mentally/psychologically
"healthy" adult (and what's the age of adulthood, by the way?), ONLY AFTER
ONE HAS HAD AT LEAST A *MODICUM* OF PROPER FIREARMS (HANDLING) INSTRUCTION??
Or can one just be a normal, healthy, etc. Joe or Flo from Kokomo, waltz
right into a gunshop (or, better still, a gunSHOW) and "buy mysef one a them
thar guns--I likes that purdy pearl-handled one raght thar!" As a
(more-or-less) libertarian anarchist, I am very, very tempted to say that,
sure, they can buy it, without first having training, etc--surely (at least
intuitively for me) it would violate a basic (natural, whatever--the point
is that it's fundamental and non-derivative) RIGHT of said person to
forcibly interfere with their doing so. Yet I for one don't want
un(der)trained dolts walking around with guns. So this IS a bit of a
normative conundrum. Now, Mike (Lorrey, that is), don't start tap-dancing
on my trachea (so to speak!!) just yet. I am more or less in agreement with
your position (your arguments are usually reasonably cogent (at least) and
well-stated), but I think Joe Dees's position and his specific proposals are
also not at all unreasonable, which brings us to...
2a) Surely it is counterintuitive (or at least it is for me), that the
clearly, obviously, rather unarguably-otherwise INCOMPETENT person should
NOT be able to access (much less on-goingly possess/use) a handgun (or, for
the most part, any other weapon, for that matter). But, then again, for
anyone who has read even just a smattering of Tom Szasz and/or Pete Breggin,
one must be very careful and cautious about the criteria and protocols for
ascribing incompetency (the extreme paradigmatic horror is a Sacharov being
labeled insane (or disturbed, whatever) by the State, the de facto Power
Elite, or whomever. I mean, geez, many extropians and transhumanists (as
well as many if not most randomly selected Joe or Jane Does) could plausibly
(or at least not especially implausibly) be "diagnosed" with SOME (mild or
otherwise) "disorder" out of the current DSM-IV!! (and this point, of
course, touches on a tangent of the topic of transhumanist
"ultra-rationality" and "ultra-psychological health" etc., also discussed
here recently). We need to be very cautious about bandying around the label
"incompetent" or "mentally disturbed" (or if you PC-prefer, "psychologically
challenged"), yet on the other hand the clearly psychotic, or even
"borderline" psychotic (e.g., say, a paranoid schizophrenic), can and should
be legally (i.e., rightfully) precluded from obtaining/possessing a deadly
weapon. So this particular prong of Joe Dees's proposal, is, I think,
reasonably sound at the level of principle, but will inevitably encounter
the OCCASIONAL "gray" case in practice. Yet as a principle, it is
reasonably sound.
2b) What about criminals? This has always been a (at least as yet)
not-(quite)-completely/satisfactorily-resolved point in both more-or less
libertarian philosophy(s) and not-exactly-libertarian philosophy(s). I
mean, do we throw 'em onto a Tanahill labor-farm (say), or do we do the
Randy Barnett restitution thing, or...or... (and, of course, there are many
well-argued hybrids and variations (Rothbard's, Peter Ferrera's, John
Hosper's, and, of course, I'm sure Tom Morrow and Max More have thought
about this occasionally)) But sure it is intuitively reasonable to hold
something along the following lines: criminals convicted of
violence-with-a-(artifactual) weapon should be prohibited from
obtaining/possessing such weapons until such time (IF EVER) as they are
INDEPENDENTLY judged genuinely rehabilitated and now no longer having much
(if any) propensity/proclivity for violence. This new thread will probably
not quite satisfy Joe or Mike, but I sympathize with Joe's not wanting to
have criminals (even after their having "served time" to have immediate
access to weapons (especially guns), but I also sympathize with Mike's
point(s) that even a (former) criminal does indeed have rights, and
could/should UNDER PROPER CIRCUMSTANCES be recognized and accorded such
rights, including the right (if s/he proves sufficiently rehabilitated) pack
heat.
Paradoxically, for a transhumanist, I am currently a bit of technopeasant of
sorts (I'm accessing this list/chat site via a public (library) computer,
and must shortly quit. So I now must sign-off, even though I have(had) more
to say. But let me THANK ALL OF YOU VERY DEEPLY AND SINCERELY FOR YOUR
CONTRIBUTIONS SINCE I'VE JOINED THE LIST. I respect the hell out of ALL of
you, and hope that the ongoing discussion(s) will be some less flamewar-ish,
yet I am not discouraging the discussion of any topics.
One last thing: in BC Crandall's 2nd anthology (whose title I can't recall
just now), there is , of course an article on u-fog and embedded in there,
almost as an incidental-thought-in-passing, is the notion that nanotech (of
some sort--some type of u-fog more or less) would enable a kind of
macro-level active shield sort of interpersonal environment by be programmed
to disallow (and pre-empt, intervene against, etc.) any would-be act(s) of
AGGRESSION between and amongst people (and we're talking bodily aggression
here, but this could be applied to some extent to "property" objects and
what-not, as well). This struck me a way-cool (and utterly logical) and
could be seen as the ultimate evolution/limiting case of non-lethal "weapon"
tech thread here on the chatlist lately. Just a thought/quasi-reference!!
I have a genuine fondness for all of you, as fellow transhumanists!
(and Anders, you've got a great website; thanks for your feedback, always;
and thanks in advance to Joe and Mike and all the rest who may wish to
comment of this missive (hopefully not a rant, geez!!)
Best regards to all,
MCP Beyond Eutopia--Toward (Meta)Cosmic Horizons!
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:59 MST