Hi again Glen, somewhere along the line our wires are getting crossed,
because I really don't recognise my perspective in the position that you
seem to be criticising.
>
> Sam wrote:
> > (Compare the murder rates of inner city London with inner city
Washington
> DC). That
> > doesn't seem an outrageous claim.
Glen wrote:
>
> Well it certainly seems like you avoided my previous question pretty
> effectively.
Tell you what, if you repeat as explicitly as you can the question that you
think I'm avoiding, I'll do my very best to answer it.
> Do you only know what the "experts" tell you or do you know
> where of you speak?
I always endeavour to apply my independent judgement to all the sources of
information at my disposal (including my experience of cities in the US, UK
and continental Europe), after careful reflection on, and analysis of, the
facts.
> Washington DC, if memory servers, has a lot of gun
> control laws, while other cities in the US do not and still has a lot of
> crime (with guns).
This point isn't clear. To which sort of city does the 'still' refer to in
the last clause? See my last point as well.
> The point people that guns don't cause crime, people
> cause crime.
True, but misses my principal point: that if there is a high crime
environment, then the presence of guns will make it more likely than not
that people will die. That seems to me to be something not only intuitively
reasonable, but also backed up by a great wealth of statistical evidence.
> I see no contradiction between guns and the passage in Lila. If a social
> pattern kills an individual for violating social prohibitions (mal
prohibum)
> then yes that's bad but if I kill someone intent on doing me bodily harm
> then that's good! I am simply choosing my intellectual pattern over
someone
> elses additionally the other person is acting as the initiator of force
not
> me.
>
The point that RMP is making is that you need to have a very good reason for
killing someone, because any individual has the potential to provide a DQ
breakthrough within the social environment. If it is a choice between your
life and the life of the person attacking you, then yes, it is reasonable to
act in self-defence. The point about the widespread availability of firearms
is that it increases the likelihood of someone being killed, when the same
situation in a different environment (that is, one without the widespread
availability of firearms) would not lead to the death of the individual
concerned - and that is a higher quality outcome for all parties involved,
as well as the wider social structure.
Your objections seem to centre on the positive value of the freedom to own a
firearm, and the negative value of laws restricting that. My argument is
more centred on the (MoQ) analysis of firearms prevalence in the first
place. I view the question relating to the laws/state involvement etc as
secondary, and to be determined once the prior question (about the different
quality level of the opposing environments) has been resolved.
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
