From: Matt Jensen (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Dec 20 2000 - 13:31:37 PST
On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, Jeff Bone wrote:
> There's no way around it: you either have to trust up front and punish
> when trust is broken, or accept some form of coercive tyranny. Me, I'll
> opt for the greater risk in return for greater autonomy.
> > air, etc). Carrying a gun is -not- making up a public safety rule,
> > baby. USING A gun against an individual to shoot them down IS. Lets
> > get that shit straight ok?
> Amen, sistah!
No, most gun control laws *are* about public safety. Regardless of their
effectiveness, they are intended to reduce crime, reduce accidents, and
reduce the level of violence that can stem from heated moments.
It's different from food safety, which is different from traffic safety,
etc, but they're all about the public being protected from things out of
their control. And that's all different from personal safety laws, which
would be things like seat belt laws, helmet laws, or limits on
If you don't have any laws protecting public safety, everything has to be
argued in tort cases after the damage is done. Every time there's an
incident, both sides will rehash the same arguments, call the same expert
scientific witnesses, waste a lot of money. And little will have been
done to prevent future incidents.
Name some public safety laws you're in favor of. How about food
inspection of poultry factories to reduce salmonella outbreaks? Then,
tell me why your rule of thumb shouldn't apply:
>"you either have to trust up front and punish
> when trust is broken, or accept some form of coercive tyranny"
E.g., 'Stop the coercive tyranny against poultry factory owners. If you
get sick or your son dies, you can always take the factory owners to
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Dec 20 2000 - 13:46:38 PST