zben@umcp-cs.UUCP (09/04/83)
It seems we are back to the same old question again. To wit, suppose we have a stimulus S and a population P. Application of S to P divides P into two subpopulations P+ and P-, where P+ is the subpopulation that can responsibly "handle" S, and P- is the subpopulation that cannot and is presumably damaged by S. Now the $( 2^6 * 10^3 ) question: How much should we infringe upon the human rights of P+ in order to protect P-? If you think about it, you will realize this question applies to guns, legalized prostitution, legalized gambling, and all "recreational drugs". I am from the superconservative school that says the government has its hands in too many pies already. I do NOT want them to protect me. As a matter of basic human rights I should be able to shoot up crankcase oil if it suits my fancy! Ben (makes Reagan look like a communist) Cranston (...UMCP-CS!ZBEN or ZBEN@UMD2.ARPA)
mason@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Mason) (09/05/83)
I agree with Ben Cranston's points, but he seems a different species of
Conservative than Reagan..Reagan is of the school where the government
should only be involved in the RIGHT things..ie. military buildups,
stopping drugs (except for neccessary ones like jelly beans and Valium).
-- Gandalf's flunky Hobbit -- Dave Mason, U. Toronto CSRG,
{cornell,watmath,ihnp4,floyd,allegra,utzoo,uw-beaver}!utcsrgv!mason
or {decvax,linus,lsuc,research}!utzoo!utcsrgv!mason (UUCP)asente@decwrl.UUCP (Paul Asente) (09/07/83)
Ben Cranston starts out a recent submission with
It seems we are back to the same old question again. To wit, suppose
we have a stimulus S and a population P. Application of S to P divides
P into two subpopulations P+ and P-, where P+ is the subpopulation that
can responsibly "handle" S, and P- is the subpopulation that cannot and
is presumably damaged by S. Now the $( 2^6 * 10^3 ) question:
How much should we infringe upon the human rights of P+ in order to
protect P-?
He then argues that this is applicable to gun control, prostitution,
drugs, and so forth. While I will not argue that this model applies to
drugs and prostitution, it certainly does not apply to gun control!
The subpopulation P- that cannot handle guns is not the same as the
subpopulation that is damaged by guns. If you can't handle a gun well,
you are not only endangering yourself but everyone else around you as
well.
-paul asente
...!decwrl!asentezben@umcp-cs.UUCP (09/07/83)
I defend myself a bit: many if not the majority of the victims of handgun accidents are the families of the person owning the handgun. Domestic violence, etc. This is not different from the major victims of gambling (the families of the compulsive gambler). It can be argued, of course, that they belong to P+ and not P-. It all depends on where you draw the line...
paul@phs.UUCP (09/23/83)
One must exercise caution in extrapolating from one country to another. For example, it is frequently pointed out that the rate of handgun murders is lower in Great Britain than in the United States, and the implication made that the difference is due to the difference in gun control laws or the difference in police weaponry. What is less often pointed out is that the rate of knife murders is also much lower in Great Britain than in the United States; knives are legal in both countries, and the police don't carry them in either. --------- Paul Dolber @ Duke U Med Ctr (...!duke!phs!paul)
stanwyck@ihuxr.UUCP (Don Stanwyck) (09/26/83)
The argument that criminals think about the odds before doing the crime has
been found to be a false premise a number of times. This is the very reason
that capital punishment doesn't work. (Although I support it for other
reasons, primarily tax$$ related.)
Criminals do not believe they are going to be caught. Thus, whatever the
potential cost of being caught is, it is not a problem.
In most cities today, the majority of burglary related crimes are done by
juveniles and drug addicts. The drug addict who needs to steal to support a
habit doesn't give a hoot what his odds of getting caught are - he just needs
a fix. The juvenile is usually in on it as a dare, or as a lark. Either way,
it doesn't occur to him that someone would actually shoot a kid.
So who are you stopping by having your gun? The professional won't be bothered
with you; the drug addict doesn't care; and you would shoot a kid???
Don Stanwyck ihnp4!ihuxr!stanwyckdavidl@tekid.UUCP (David Levadie) (09/27/83)
When circumstances become such that a criminal stands a better than even chance of being killed IN THE ACT of committing a crime, and when this becomes an apparent fact to potential criminals, society will realize whatever deterrent effect can be derived from potential loss of life. I don't think capital punishment is even relevant to the question.
preece@uicsl.UUCP (09/30/83)
#R:phs:-200200:uicsl:5400030:000:764 uicsl!preece Sep 30 00:16:00 1983 When circumstances become such that a criminal stands a better than even chance of being killed IN THE ACT of committing a crime, and when this becomes an apparent fact to potential criminals, society will realize whatever deterrent effect can be derived from potential loss of life. I don't think capital punishment is even relevant to the question. ---------- But the criminal in essentially all cases has the advantage of surprise. If anyone is going to get killed in the ensuing gunfight, the odds are it will be the victim, not the criminal. During World War II we found a solution to a similar situation in combatting U boats in the Atlantic, but I doubt you really want to travel only in escorted convoys... scott preece pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece