ajaym@ihu1h.UUCP (Jay Mitchell) (04/14/85)
I think the point of whether it is good or not good to carry personal defense weapons (unconcealed) is moot when compared with the fact that if I WANT to and am not violating someone else's personal rights, I should be able to. I think that says it all. -- ------------------------- Jay Mitchell ihnp4!ihu1h!ajaym -------------------------
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (04/17/85)
> I think the point of whether it is good or not good to carry personal > defense weapons (unconcealed) is moot when compared with the fact that if I > WANT to and am not violating someone else's personal rights, I should be > able to. I think that says it all. > Jay Mitchell The trouble is that some people feel they have a personal right not to be faced with an implicit threat of armed force. Baba
robertp@weitek.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (04/17/85)
>> I think the point of whether it is good or not good to carry personal >> defense weapons (unconcealed) is moot when compared with the fact that if I >> WANT to and am not violating someone else's personal rights, I should be >> able to. I think that says it all. -- Jay Mitchell > > The trouble is that some people feel they have a personal right not to > be faced with an implicit threat of armed force. -- Baba I applaud Baba's statement: it contains the distilled essence of the fuzzy-mindedness that people associate with California. People have a RIGHT to a life that keeps them feeling warm and safe, and doesn't FACE them with such HORRID events such as crime, murder, death, and the worldwide shortage of hot tubs. Jay shouldn't be able to tote a gun, not so much because Baba expects to be shot with it, but because it FACES Baba with the CONCEPT that violence might somehow intrude into an otherwise comfy existence. The answer, of course, is for Jay to carry a concealed weapon. It's just as effective, and doesn't intrude on anyone's dream-world. Robert
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (04/18/85)
> >> I think the point of whether it is good or not good to carry personal > >> defense weapons (unconcealed) is moot when compared with the fact that if I > >> WANT to and am not violating someone else's personal rights, I should be > >> able to. I think that says it all. -- Jay Mitchell > > > > The trouble is that some people feel they have a personal right not to > > be faced with an implicit threat of armed force. -- Baba > > I applaud Baba's statement: it contains the distilled essence of the > fuzzy-mindedness that people associate with California. People have a RIGHT > to a life that keeps them feeling warm and safe, and doesn't FACE them with > such HORRID events such as crime, murder, death, and the worldwide shortage > of hot tubs. > > Jay shouldn't be able to tote a gun, not so much because Baba expects to be > shot with it, but because it FACES Baba with the CONCEPT that violence might > somehow intrude into an otherwise comfy existence. > > The answer, of course, is for Jay to carry a concealed weapon. It's just as > effective, and doesn't intrude on anyone's dream-world. > > Robert As I live in a high-crime area, have already lost one friend to a recreational killer, and don't even *like* hot tubs, I find Robert's gratuitous aspersion on my motives deeply offensive. In his dream-world, I have just killed him. But this is usenet. Theres a saying that the Democratic party operates on the assumption that people are stupid, while the Republican party is based on the assumption that people are lazy. The rationale for Jay and Robert's advocacy of a citizenry generally armed in public is based on the assumption that people are rational, and indeed most people are subject to at least occasional bouts of reason. But people do irrational things. They get angry. They get drunk. They get crazy. Sometimes they just make mistakes. Sometimes somebody gets hurt. And to the extent that people are armed, they hurt one another more severely. There are times when justice is best served by an cool-headed victim with a .44. But shootings over traffic accidents are already ceasing to be newsworthy in California. It is unfair to deny perfectly rational individuals like Robert their street pistols, but how can the institutions of a free society go about determining who is and who isn't rational? Baba
brooks@lll-crg.ARPA (Eugene D. Brooks III) (04/22/85)
> Theres a saying that the Democratic party operates on the assumption > that people are stupid, while the Republican party is based on the > assumption that people are lazy. The rationale for Jay and Robert's > advocacy of a citizenry generally armed in public is based on the > assumption that people are rational, and indeed most people are subject > to at least occasional bouts of reason. > > But people do irrational things. They get angry. They get drunk. > They get crazy. Sometimes they just make mistakes. Sometimes somebody > gets hurt. And to the extent that people are armed, they hurt one another > more severely. > > There are times when justice is best served by an cool-headed victim > with a .44. But shootings over traffic accidents are already ceasing > to be newsworthy in California. > > It is unfair to deny perfectly rational individuals like Robert > their street pistols, but how can the institutions of a free > society go about determining who is and who isn't rational? > > Baba This is a very good point. For once we have moved away from the issue of whether citizens have the right to self defense to the issue of just who should we trust with the responsibility of carring around deadly force on a daily basis. Fortunately there is a ready solution that is already accepted by society. For a criterion of who to allow weapons permits use the same one used by selection of police officers. You might even do better than this and make the selection process a factor of ten tighter.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (04/24/85)
> > I think the point of whether it is good or not good to carry personal > > defense weapons (unconcealed) is moot when compared with the fact that if I > > WANT to and am not violating someone else's personal rights, I should be > > able to. I think that says it all. > > Jay Mitchell > > The trouble is that some people feel they have a personal right not to > be faced with an implicit threat of armed force. > > Baba Some people feel they have a personal right not be faced by homosexuals. Some people feel they have a personal right to not live in the same society with atheists. Baba seems to have the Moral Majority mentality, the view that non-aggressive actions are an appropriate area for intervention by others.
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (04/26/85)
>>> I think the point of whether it is good or not good to carry personal >>> defense weapons (unconcealed) is moot when compared with the fact that if I >>> WANT to and am not violating someone else's personal rights, I should be >>> able to. I think that says it all. >>> Jay Mitchell >> >> The trouble is that some people feel they have a personal right not to >> be faced with an implicit threat of armed force. >> >> Baba > > Some people feel they have a personal right not be faced by homosexuals. > Some people feel they have a personal right to not live in the same society > with atheists. Baba seems to have the Moral Majority mentality, the view > that non-aggressive actions are an appropriate area for intervention by > others. > > Clayton Cramer Are trying to say that homosexuals and atheists are public safety hazards, or are you suffering from feelings of sexual or religious persecution? Regulating the bearing of arms in public places has more to do with preventing accidents and fatal emotional outbursts than with enforcing anyone's standard of morality. What people do with consenting firearms in the privacy of their homes and churches is their own business. Baba
brian@digi-g.UUCP (Merlyn Leroy) (04/26/85)
> I think the point of whether it is good or not good to carry personal > defense weapons (unconcealed) is moot when compared with the fact that if I > WANT to and am not violating someone else's personal rights, I should be > able to. I think that says it all. -- Jay Mitchell Interesting that this statement can be parsed two ways: ...I should be able to [carry personal defense weapons]. ...I should be able to [violate someone else's personal rights]. The first meaning was meant, of course, but it makes the second easier, too. Merlyn Leroy "Eat photons, terran scum!"
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (04/26/85)
> > Theres a saying that the Democratic party operates on the assumption > > that people are stupid, while the Republican party is based on the > > assumption that people are lazy. The rationale for Jay and Robert's > > advocacy of a citizenry generally armed in public is based on the > > assumption that people are rational, and indeed most people are subject > > to at least occasional bouts of reason. > > > > But people do irrational things. They get angry. They get drunk. > > They get crazy. Sometimes they just make mistakes. Sometimes somebody > > gets hurt. And to the extent that people are armed, they hurt one another > > more severely. > > > > There are times when justice is best served by an cool-headed victim > > with a .44. But shootings over traffic accidents are already ceasing > > to be newsworthy in California. > > > > It is unfair to deny perfectly rational individuals like Robert > > their street pistols, but how can the institutions of a free > > society go about determining who is and who isn't rational? > > > > Baba > > This is a very good point. For once we have moved away from the issue > of whether citizens have the right to self defense to the issue of just who > should we trust with the responsibility of carring around deadly force on > a daily basis. Fortunately there is a ready solution that is already accepted > by society. For a criterion of who to allow weapons permits use the same > one used by selection of police officers. You might even do better than this > and make the selection process a factor of ten tighter. Let me know a couple of facts on the fire that are not generally known. (In fact, many people in Washington and Vermont aren't even aware of this.) In the State of Washington, state law *requires* a judge or chief of police to issue a concealed weapons permit to anyone who is legally allowed to own a handgun in the state. Now, I'm sure that most people don't in fact go out and get one --- but they could, and I'm sure that some people do, and the State of Washington isn't awash in accidental shootings. In fact, for the last year that I was able to easily find crime figures (1980), Washington had a much lower crime rate than California, where concealed weapons permits are issued (abusively) at the discretion of the chief of police or sheriff. (Yes, I know there are substantial differences between the two states, and since crime is a multi-factorial problem, you can't compare crime rates and claim that concealed weapons permits are the reason Washington has the lower crime rate.) Vermont doesn't even require a permit to carry a concealed weapon. There is no process for one to be issued, nor is there a prohibition against carrying concealed weapons. (Although I wouldn't be surprised if some of the cities might have ordinances, I can't find these ordinances in the admittedly incomplete Federal publication of State and local firearms laws.) Vermont has a much lower crime rate than some of its neighbors (like New York). Again, you can't directly compare the two states, but certainly the evidence so far is not persuasive that armed populations go around killing people by accident. Perhaps people aren't as stupid as certain over-educated elitists think.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/01/85)
> >>> I think the point of whether it is good or not good to carry personal > >>> defense weapons (unconcealed) is moot when compared with the fact that if I > >>> WANT to and am not violating someone else's personal rights, I should be > >>> able to. I think that says it all. > >>> Jay Mitchell > >> > >> The trouble is that some people feel they have a personal right not to > >> be faced with an implicit threat of armed force. > >> > >> Baba > > > > Some people feel they have a personal right not be faced by homosexuals. > > Some people feel they have a personal right to not live in the same society > > with atheists. Baba seems to have the Moral Majority mentality, the view > > that non-aggressive actions are an appropriate area for intervention by > > others. > > > > Clayton Cramer > > Are trying to say that homosexuals and atheists are public safety hazards, > or are you suffering from feelings of sexual or religious persecution? > Regulating the bearing of arms in public places has more to do with > preventing accidents and fatal emotional outbursts than with enforcing > anyone's standard of morality. What people do with consenting firearms > in the privacy of their homes and churches is their own business. > > Baba A lot of fundamentalists now argue that homosexuals *are* a public health problem (because of AIDS). In fact, the city of San Francisco *has* started to regulate private actions between consenting adults in the gay bathhouses as a "public health" issue. Second, the Second Amendment to the Constitution makes it very clear that the government cannot prohibit the carrying of firearms in public places. Regulate, perhaps, but if you look into the history of court decisions in relation to the Second Amendment, you'll see that the courts have far more often upheld these rights than denied them. (The Senate Select Subcommittee on the Constitution published a list of decisions a couple years ago in the hearing proceedings on this issue.) Finally, about that cheap shot: I am not persecuted for my sexuality or my faith; I am about as mainstream as you can get in this country. I was trying to point out to you how similar in attitude you are to Moral Majority with reference to your remark about "implicit" threats.