Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 17:29:00 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no> To: drifter@stratos.net, Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com>, fpawlak@execpc.com Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Does it's true? Message-ID: <19980628172900.08399@follo.net> In-Reply-To: <19980627211308.B392@stratos.net>; from drifter@stratos.net on Sat, Jun 27, 1998 at 09:13:08PM -0400 References: <19980627034631.A944@stratos.net> <199806270857.CAA17321@softweyr.com> <19980627182937.40983@follo.net> <19980627211308.B392@stratos.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jun 27, 1998 at 09:13:08PM -0400, drifter@stratos.net wrote: > On Sat, Jun 27, 1998 at 06:29:37PM +0200, Eivind Eklund wrote: > > There are clear problems with having a large amount of handguns. > > Handguns are more effective weapons than knives, thus you get more > > dead people when criminals use guns instead of knives. This happen > > This is one common-sense statement that I happen to agree with > gun control advocates on. Guns certainly do make it /easier/ to kill > people than knives do. (And bombs make it even easier than guns.) > But sorry, Eivind, Wes is right about personal responsibility. A society should be formed to give maximum benefit to the individuals in that society. Saying "That criminal was irresponsible" when a criminal got a gun and shot your daugther won't bring you anywhere. The interesting question is what is done right or wrong on the level of a society to bring about or deter this behaviour. > While I agree with the necessity for common-sense regulation > of firearms consistent with traditional understanding of the Second > Amendment, (in the U.S., at least) the old NRA adage of "Guns don't > kill people, people kill people" is a truth many don't want to > accept, even if they pay lip service to it. I'm not certain how the traditional understanding of the second amandement is. I've seen so many of them :-) Can you enlightenment as to which you consider traditional? > People kill because they are bad, not because of people like > Charlton Heston talking about gun rights all of the time. I am not > a member of the NRA, and don't even own a firearm. (The only time I > ever shot off one was a time I went skeet shooting -- hit the first > clay pigeon and then went 0 for 29!) But I am sick and tired of them > being blamed for crimes committed by murderers who lack decency and > respect for human life. This is just plain false. I'm sorry - guns kill people in a _large_ set of accidents. You and your family are more likely to be hurt by a gun you buy than the sum of other people. However, I'm not generally blaming guns in themselves - I'm stating that the availability of guns made for killing people make it more likely that a criminal will use a gun for killing people. This is statistically certain, and placing blame won't bring us anywhere. > It is only "murder" if you believe it is immoral to take the life > of another human being if said human being cold-bloodedly murdered someone > else. It /is/ a view-point held by many in this country, though not the > majority. > Remember, Eivind, this argument can be turned on its > head if I ask you about your government's (Norway -- unless 'yes.no' really > is a made-up domain name) and society's attidude towards abortion, > which is apparently more permissive there (very few legal restrictions) than > here in the United States... Yes, I am from Norway. This is depend very much on where you introduce humans and human worth. IMO, human worth is connected to relationships, both to other humans and to self. If you want to bring in 'potential' at an early pre-born stage, you're on a slippery slope - what about the potential of the kid you could have with the lady over on the right? We're wasting potential every day, but IMO that doesn't mean we should attempt to have kids with everybody. However, you're still evading the interesting question: What does having a society murdering citizens to satisfy thirst for revenge (ie, to satify the bloodthirst of many members of the society) do to that society? It at least clearly sends the signal that use of murder for revenge is OK in some situations, and AFAIK this increase the amount of violence in the society. This is not the case for allowing abortion. Allowing abortion may change when non-borns or babies are considered to get human worth, but this does not seem to add the problem of babies being killed. Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980628172900.08399>