Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 16:34:05 -0400 From: drifter@stratos.net To: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no>, Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com>, fpawlak@execpc.com Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Does it's true? Message-ID: <19980630163405.B714@stratos.net> In-Reply-To: <19980628172900.08399@follo.net>; from Eivind Eklund on Sun, Jun 28, 1998 at 05:29:00PM %2B0200 References: <19980627034631.A944@stratos.net> <199806270857.CAA17321@softweyr.com> <19980627182937.40983@follo.net> <19980627211308.B392@stratos.net> <19980628172900.08399@follo.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jun 28, 1998 at 05:29:00PM +0200, Eivind Eklund wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 27, 1998 at 09:13:08PM -0400, drifter@stratos.net wrote:
> > 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.
No, but when you don't have a consistent pattern of punishment
(read consequences) for such actions, it makes such people all the more
bold about there actions. If this happens unchecked, there will be the
risk of increase in crime as arrogance runs out of control.
>
> > 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?
Very briefly (to conserve space): the right to bear arms at all,
as opposed to the government simply saying 'You may not own or use guns
in any way, any where.' Or less restrictive, but clearly arbitrary laws
meant only to reduce the number of legal gun-ownership cases. I'm not
talking about concealed weapons laws, or laws preventing automatic weapons.
Nevertheless, the point (which I ackowledged) that it is unclear
what laws are consistant and what are not with the second amendment, because
of the poorly worded clauses in that amendment. In any case, the general
trend these days is to make laws more restrictive than they used to be.
>
> > 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
^^^^^^^^^^
What exactly in the above paragraph is false? Or are you just
saying the general attitude behind those remarks is wrong? I mentioned
nothing about accidents. Agreed, people do die with gun accidents. More
people die in car accidents. Should we consider making a driver's license
just as restrictive as the way some people would make gun-owner licenses?
> 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.
The idea is that blaming guns deflects blame where it belongs:
the people who use them. When this happens in a society over a sustained
period of time, the ability to avoid personal responsability increases
the likelihood criminals will commit crimes, because they know there
is a decreased chance they will have to face the music. This is at least
as true as "the availability of guns increases the chances that they will
be used."
>
> > 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
Relationships are important, but if ol' Joe is a drunk on the
streets, with no friends, no home, and no family, he is still worth
something, whether people (including himself) realizes it or not.
Technically, I was not referring to "potential life" because there
is nothing "potential" about an unborn child -- the fetus is
alive. If you mean potential in the sense of having advanced emotions,
intellect, and communications skills, an unborn child certainly hasn't yet
gained those traits. I'm not sure though that those are the right
standards to judge "human" by.
> 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
Some argue justice. Whether justice = revenge ultimately rests
on people's personal opinion. Others say deterrent. Statistics show
that in this country, the states with death penalties have not deterred
murder, bolstering your argument.
Yet it does act as a detterrent in other nations, like Saudi
Arabia, because people know (unlike here) that the death penalty
will most likely occur and will happen swiftly.
Here in Ohio, we have been a death penalty state since 1976. Yet
there hasn't been an *actual* execution since 1964. Currently, there is
a murderer dubbed "The Volunteer", because he actually wants to be
executed. But the mandatory appeals
process would make him wait years before he would actually be killed.
Also, the state has tried to prove that he is not mentally competant
enough to be able to make that judgment. So much for blood thirsty Ohio :)
I think it is safe to say that the overwhelming majority of
first degree murderers are not executed. That inconsistency has largely
removed the cause and effect relationship between the two. I believe
a consistent death penalty probably would deter first degree pre-
meditated murderers, but would probably do little to deter "crimes of
passion" (which generally don't carry the punishment, anyway.)
It may surprise you to find that I have never been super
gung-ho about the death penalty, and have been more apt to favor a
deliberate appeals process rather than the "swift justice" in the
aforementioned S.A. (I have a grandmother who lived there. No way I
would choose to!) But I must admit I won't lose too much sleep over
Timmy McVeigh when his day comes, either.
> 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.
I'm not entirely satisfied that there has been a cause-effect
relationship demonstrated between death penalty and a greater liklihood
to kill, either. Some of these are intangibles, and cannot be as easily
quantified (or they can, but correlations do not necessary demonstrate
cause-effect).
Nevertheless, when I see video games where a fighter turns
his opponent into an infant before frying it with a fireball, or those
stories about the Amy Grossbergs who kill their baby just after it is
born (where, in some states, it would have been entirely legal to get
an abortion just moments before), it makes me think that abortion does erode
respect for human life.
>
> Eivind.
>
--
drifter@stratos.nospam.net (remove nospam to send)
"Ever notice that in every commercial about the Internet, advertising
geniuses can't resist having a bunch of kids staring into a monitor, awe-
struck, looking at a whale jumping out of the ocean? Or is it just me?"
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?19980630163405.B714>