leimkuhl@uiuccsb.UUCP (09/01/83)
#R:tekecs:-195400:uiuccsb:3200003:000:361 uiuccsb!leimkuhl Aug 31 11:35:00 1983 Who wants to make people more responsible, Laura? All I care about is reducing the probability that myself, my family or my friends will meet a violent end. One need only compare the numbers of people meeting violent ends in this country and in the rest of the civilized world to guess that banning handguns works. uiucdcs!uiuccsb!leimkuhl (Ben Leimkuhler)
preece@uicsl.UUCP (09/01/83)
#R:tekecs:-195400:uicsl:5400016:000:3142 uicsl!preece Aug 31 08:46:00 1983 Laura is absolutely right that responsibility is not adequately inculcated these days (whether it ever was is another discussion). But in the absence of responsible people it seems reaonable to use society's pressure to limit the amount of irresponsibility as much as possible. That means limiting behavior that is generally accepted as irresponsible when that irresponsibility is dangerous to the rest of society. Hence, people are required to demonstrate at least minimal competence before being allowed to drive a car legally. One of the reasons people form governments is to protect themselves from the irresponsible. Now we all know that drawing the line between irresponsible and unconventional is a problem and that authority tends to accumulate authority. But that doesn't eliminate the real need for society to draw a line. Do you really think the Lunie society of Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (NO laws, most people armed) would work? If people carry guns, people will feel they have a right to use them. I don't think most of us want to live in a society where someone who feels threatened, or sees a situation in which he/she believes someone is threatened, can start blasting away. I don't think the insurance companies would like it much either (the liability suits would be awesome). It's all very well to say that guns aren't the problem, the people who use them are the problem, but that doesn't provide an alternative to restricting guns. If there were some way to make a world in which we didn't have to worry about those people, that would be fine, but I don't see one (short of putting each of us on our own personal asteroid and saying the only viable society is no society). I believe in the guiding principle that everything should be legal which doesn't interfere with others' rights, but I have to admit that there are an appalling number of places where that principle simply is insufficient. (Does the right to respond to someone else's statements override other's rights to an uncluttered net.general?) Physical safety is clearly a pretty central right, but is it enhanced more by letting people carry handguns "to protect themselves" or by keeping deadly weapons off the street to the greatest extent possible? Reasonable people can disagree. I personally feel safer knowing that people are not likely to be armed. I personally feel safer with traffic moving slower than it did before the 55mph limit. So that's the way I support. On the other hand, I absolutely oppose restrictions on the sale or ownership of pornography (but not its display) and most restrictions on drugs. And I think the draft is a fine case of society imposing its will unnecessarily. The ultimate support I find for all these things is a deep belief that there are no absolute rights and wrongs, goods or bads, and that my personally held set of rights and wrongs, goods and bads would lead to a better world. So, I promote them. My deepest, most central societal right, though, is the right to oppose others' views, so feel free to promote your own (but not here, please; try net.flame). scott preece pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl