Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 00:47:50 +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: <19980701004750.24786@follo.net> In-Reply-To: <19980630163405.B714@stratos.net>; from drifter@stratos.net on Tue, Jun 30, 1998 at 04:34:05PM -0400 References: <19980627034631.A944@stratos.net> <199806270857.CAA17321@softweyr.com> <19980627182937.40983@follo.net> <19980627211308.B392@stratos.net> <19980628172900.08399@follo.net> <19980630163405.B714@stratos.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jun 30, 1998 at 04:34:05PM -0400, drifter@stratos.net wrote:
> > 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 believe I had included a paragraph referring to "Guns don't kill
people - people kill people" or somesuch. If I hadn't, I made a
mistake in quoting. That was what the comment was intended to apply
to.
> 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?
Since you're referring to "some people", I have a large difficulty
answering that question. I'm probably in favour of much more control
of drivers licenses than you are - I'm not certain the amount of
education/tests here (in Norway) is enough, and it is presently at a
level where getting a drivers license cost $1500-$2500 in required
tution etc.
I believe it reasonable to have a similarly large amount of training
before somebody is allowed to buy a weapon, and that requiring
demonstration of special needs to let somebody buy a weapon specially
intended for killing humans.
> > 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.
It is not self-evident that this idea is correct. I can't say I
recognize the attitude at all, actually - I recognize certain aspects
of this WRT those always blaming the childhood etc, but I can't say I
recognize the re-targetting of blame WRT weapons.
> 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."
Oh? Then give me some statistics to underpin it.
The truth of "the availability of guns increases the chances that they
will be used" I have from personal experience, involving at least two
cases of people not being shot due to the inavailability of usable
guns.
> > 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.
And the egg is alive. Whether the sperm is avlive may be somewhat
debatable.
Saying "it is alive" doesn't bring you anywhere, and if you seriously
thought it did, you're either ignoring or missing elementary
molecular biology.
> 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.
I meant the potential for what the person can be in life, how he/she
can touch the lives of others.
And if those are not the right standards: What are?
> > 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.
> [...]
> But I must admit I won't lose too much sleep over Timmy McVeigh when
> his day comes, either.
Sorry, this is just rationalizing over why death penalty may be
instituted and how it is practiced :-) It is instituted because of
people generally being irrational, deciding before they get most of
the facts, not understanding scientific method, and being bloodthirsty
("we want justice") - we've covered all of that :-)
You're still evading the interesting issue: What does having it do to
the society?
> > 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).
They're at least both indicative of a society where violence and
killing is accepted in large parts of the population. I believe the
correlation is fairly strong also on the after-effects of introducing
death penalty, but I haven't done anylyses on the numbers myself, so I
can't really vouch for that.
> Nevertheless, when I see video games where a fighter turns
> his opponent into an infant before frying it with a fireball, or
You should totally disregard violence in video games. It is not
indicative of anything. Trust me; I was a games developer for a
number of years.
> 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.
Being able to get abortions up to right before the birth is IMO gross.
I can see that destroying respect for human life, yes.
We have a "no-older-than-9-weeks" law (or was that 6 weeks? I don't
remember - never had to have an abortion (or have a girlfriend have
one, which would be as close as I could get)). This means that the
fetus is emotionally clearly different from a baby. Also, IIRC, the
person getting the abortion have to talk it trough with a doctor first
(ahe don't have to get a permit, but she has to talk it through).
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?19980701004750.24786>