At 15:57 15-6-01 -0700, Dean Forster wrote:
> > >You just agreed with me, you're restricting the
> > rights
> > >of law abiding citizens.
> >
> > I'm not completely agreeing with you. You state that
> > you can only reduce
> > gun violence by restricting law abiding citizens
> > from having them. My point
> > however is that you can reduce gun violence by
> > *making it difficult* for
> > law abiding citizens to get a gun.
> >
>
>wow, you are a marvel.
Thanks. I think... :)
>For the sake of argument, what
>specifically would you do?
I think I would do pretty much the same our legislators already did.
Mandatory gun club membership, some kind of exam to prove you can handle
guns responsibly, background checks, very strict regulations regarding
carrying, transporting and storing guns and ammo, active enforcement(*) of
gun laws, and severe penalties for violations (such as confiscation of gun
and permit (neither to be returned in your lifetime), high fines and long
prison sentences).
(*) Active here meaning: go check on gun owners regularly to see if they
play by the rules. This as opposed to passive enforcement: we'll assume you
behave responsible, and only do something when we catch you shooting people.
> > Given the amount of gun violence in the US, it's
> > obvious that if there is
> > one country that needs much stricter gun control,
> > it's the US.
> >
>
>You pretty much underscore all of my arguments about
>personal responsibility. You assume the government
>can fix whatever the problem of the week is without so
>much as a moment of thought over the consequenses or
>alternatives.
I don't assume the government can fix any problem with the blink of an eye.
I do believe though that it's the government's duty to do whatever it can
to solve a problem. Sometimes, the consequence may be that you can't get
everything you want (such as a gun) -- but if that's the price to pay for
(in this case) minimizing gun violence, I'm happy with it.
The rhetoric about "personal responsibility" is nice, but it doesn't work
all that well in real life. With guns it's just like with cars. You can say
that the government should be involved as little as possible, and that
citizens themselves must take responsibility. Unfortunately, this is a
utopian situation; both with guns and cars, there are way too many people
who are not behaving responsibly. So, if some of the citizens can't be
trusted with a gun or car, it's the government's duty to take measures to
protect the population from those citizens, and those citizens from themselves.
>Why don't you get a better point of
>reference about this issue, read Marvin's, Dan's and
>my posts, try and read the underpinnings of what we're
>assuming.
What makes you think I haven't read those posts? The fact that we disagree
doesn't mean I'm not informed.
>Then go to a good search engine and read
>the first 25 topics you find when you do a search for
>'2nd amendment'. I tried it on google and got a
>pretty fair mix of pro and con.
Um, I got a full-time job, I'm studying for my CompSci degree (in my own
time, not on company time), and I have a spouse and a 6 days old child who
both require attention. Thanks for the suggestion, but I really don't have
that much spare time right now. Heck, I'm already having a hard time trying
to keep up with listmail...
Jeroen
_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://go.to/brin-l
