KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (09/04/86)
From: Charles <MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
[ Well, I have noticed that people think print is biased,
I've seen the letters.
Certainly print is biased. The Bible doesn't give equal time
to Darwin. The Communist Manifesto gives short shrift to Adam
Smith. Ayn Rand clearly disagrees with Karl Marx. :-)
... a vacuous counter-argument. The original context was 'liberal
bias', as you well know.
Was it? Last I heard, about equally many people thought newspapers
had a conservative bias as thought newspapers had a liberal bias.
The real question is whether there is diversity. Do all political
opinions get expressed? In print they do. On TV, they don't.
The original point was that giving guns to everyone
would be dangerous for a lot of reasons ...
I don't advocate GIVING guns to anyone. I advocate letting
individual adults choose for themselves whether or not to be
armed.
... another vaccuous counter-arguement. How they get the guns has
nothing to do with the point.
No, this is important. I have noticed that people often phrase
things in ways that either beg the question under consideration or
misrepresent the position of their opponents. I think there is an
ENORMOUS difference between ALLOWING people who wish to have guns to
purchase them and simply GIVING guns to anyone, much less "everyone".
Getting back to the point, ALLOWING people to have guns IS
dangerous. Look at what happened in Oklahoma last week (and note that
NONE of the generally proposed gun control laws would have prevented
it! Something I haven't heard of ANY newspaper or radio or TV station
mentioning). Cars are even more dangerous. Letting people have
GOVERNMENTS may the the most dangerous risk of all!
People should be allowed to have dangerous things. They should not,
and are not, allowed to use those dangerous things to harm others.
- one of which is that most people don't know how or when
to use them.
Probably because they aren't armed and don't need to know.
Before most people had cars, most people didn't know how to
drive. Was this an good argument against letting people have
cars?
... say what? You're saying that everyone who will get a gun will
instantly know how to use one?
No. Did everyone who bought a car know how to use it? Owners of
roads can (and do) require that people pass certain tests before being
allowed to operate cars on those roads. Similarly, owners of shooting
galleries and hunting areas may require people to pass certain tests
before being allowed to shoot their guns their. Shooting a gun in
private, like operating a car in private, requires no tests to be
passed. Shooting a gun where others are likely to be harmed should be
and is illegal just as operating a car without a license where others
are likely to be harmed should be and is illegal. So what's the
problem?
Maniacs do exist, and there really isn't a damn thing we can do
about it without adopting a totalitarian government. The prevalence
of maniacs very small. They just generate news at a rate far greater
than if newspapers printed text in proportion to misery. If papers
did that, about half the paper would be devoted to the effects of
smoking. Most of the remainder would be evenly split between alcohol
and driving (with a lot of overlap). After you read the pages devoted
to the disabilities of old age, the one remaining page would contain
text on radon and acid rain, and on household accidents. A column
inch or two at the bottom of the page would contain news of gun
deaths, many of which were justified (i.e. self defense) intermixed
with clorox poisonings, falling down stairs, electroctutions, shark
attacks, and jet crashes.
If *ALL* handgun deaths were somehow eliminated, INCLUDING the
justified ones, and if NONE of the murderers thought to simplu use a
different weapon, the median life span in the US would be only about
12 minutes longer.
Is THIS a good reason to adopt a totalitarian system? Do you really
fear incidents like the recent one in Oklahoma where 14 people were
killed, or the one three years ago where 21 people were killed in a
McDonald's for no reason, or the one in Texas twenty years ago, so
much that you would throw away the Constitution, throw away the
Declaration of Independence, and vote us behind the iron curtain, on
the off chance that this MIGHT reduce the problem a little? We don't
have ANY reliable figures on handgun crime in the Soviet Union - for
all we know it might be WORSE there than here!
Of course, whoever wins retroactively calls themselves the
legitimate government of the time, so there is a lot of bias
there. Like the tales of stranded sailors who were pushed to
shore by dolphins - obvious proof of dolphin intelligence,
right? After all, there are no tales of stranded sailors
being pushed AWAY from shore by dolphins!
... say what? You've gone one allegory too far into left field on
this one...
Sorry. I will try to keep it simple.
During the revolutionary war, the US government fought the British
govenment and won. THAT is our interpretation. If the US government
had LOST we could say that the US government had fought the British
government and lost. But we wouldn't. Nobody would have. We would
instead say that a bunch of poorly dressed rebels illegally tried to
usurp the legitimate authority of the British Empire, and the
ringleaders were captured and executed, putting an end to the
treasonous insurrection.
It is the WINNERS of a war who write the history books. Just as it
is the SURVIVORS of a war that write the war stories. And just as it
is the SURVIVORS of shipwrecks, quicksand, tornados, earthquakes, and
avalanches that get their disaster stories published in Reader's
Digest.
... Dozens of governments are currently fighting wars with
internal dissenters. Does the fact that the anti-
government forces have guns stop the governments?
No. Did the fact that George Washington's troops have guns
stop the British? Not at first. Was he an internal
dissenter, or a great hero? The latter, of course. Mainly
because he won.
... say what? What does what you say have to say have to do with
what I said? It sounds like you agree with me, then say something
about George Washington? You're out in the left-field bleachers
now.
The use of guns does not NECESSARILY stop a government. But the
LACK of them certainly means the government will NOT be stopped. To
stop a government, guns are NECESSARY but not necessarily SUFFICIENT.
Saying that having guns will not always cause the good guys to win is
true. It is also true that having a car will not necessarily get you
where you want to go. Cars break down, run out of gas, can't cross
oceans, etc. But that is no reason not to allow cars.
...Keith
-------MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU (09/04/86)
To: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
Last I heard, about equally many people thought newspapers had a
conservative bias as thought newspapers had a liberal bias.
... That's not what I heard. I've heard the conservatives say
that newspapers are to liberal, and the radical-left say that
newspapers aren't liberal enough...
Do all political opinions get expressed? In print they do. On
TV, they don't.
I'd say they do; I'd say that the liberals get more time, but that's
about all.
I think there is an ENORMOUS difference between ALLOWING people
who wish to have guns to purchase them and simply GIVING guns to
anyone, much less "everyone".
... and I think that that still isn't part of the point...
Getting back to the point, ALLOWING people to have guns IS
dangerous. Look at what happened in Oklahoma last week (and note
that NONE of the generally proposed gun control laws would have
prevented it! Something I haven't heard of ANY newspaper or radio
or TV station mentioning).
... since that's obvious, I shouldn't think they'd have to. They said
the guns were National Guard guns, and that's enough. Isn't this the
flip side of letting people do what they want, and think what they
want?
Cars are even more dangerous. Letting people have GOVERNMENTS may
the the most dangerous risk of all!
... and certainly letting governments have cars is the worst thing on
earth! :-) I'm still sticking to my point of guns being a dangerous
thing in the hands of silly people. I don't think that comparing
guns, which are a method of livelyhood and transport to 'normal folks'
and guns, which aren't (let's not digress into cops and the army,
please) is going to win you any points. I'd suggest you find another
allegory.
They should not, and are not, allowed to use those dangerous things
to harm others.
... did I lose something, or are you advocating guns that aren't
dangerous? What's the point of having a non-harmful gun?
Is THIS a good reason to adopt a totalitarian system? (etc)
Whoa! Since when did I advocate anything like that? I won't defend
something I didn't say, sorry. (Back in the bad old days, they used
to call this a 'straw man'.)
During the revolutionary war, the US government fought the
British govenment and won. THAT is our interpretation.
... I beleive you'll find that that's the British interpretation as
well...
If the US government (had lost) ... We would instead say that a
bunch of poorly dressed rebels illegally tried to usurp the
legitimate authority of the British Empire, and the ringleaders
were captured and executed, putting an end to the treasonous
insurrection.
... oh? Well, I'd say that is not always the interpretation. I
suspect that the rebels would be viewed as patriots trying to fight
for freedom. Many people down south still respect the rebels of the
American Civil War, many people respect the American Indian for his
fight, the Philippine rebels of the 1900's are revered in the
Philippines. They all lost.
It depends on who writes the history and when. I'll agree that some
histories simplify things to a ridiculous level, but I'd say that it
depends on who you read. But I think we're digressing again...
The use of guns does not NECESSARILY stop a government. But the
LACK of them certainly means the government will NOT be stopped.
To stop a government, guns are NECESSARY but not necessarily
SUFFICIENT.
... I'd be interested in seeing your explaination of the success of
India's non-cooperation campaign against the British, which used
economic non-profitability to force the English out. How many guns
are necessary amongst the American people to keep the government in
line?
Charles
-------
-------