Gun Control (43 posts)
28. Reasonable?
Wed, Jan 20, 1999 - 11:21 AM/EST
McRostie
Atropos wants to define reasonable before accepting my idea that "reasonable" gun control and drug control makes sense That's a "reasonable" request so I'll resort to a dictionary. This definition appears in the dictionary found by clicking on Edit using AOL4.0
reasonable (adjective)
First appeared 14th Century
l. a. being in accordance with reason
b. not extreme or excessive
c. MODERATE, FAIR
d. INEXPENSIVE
2.a having the faculty of reason
b. possessing sound judgment
Now, my ideas for "reasonable" gun control and drug control would have tr:
1. be in accordance with reason in the choice
of techniques used to accomplish the end desired. Reason doesn't dictate abolishing
all guns simply to create a safer society.
That takes care of lines 1a,b and c of the definition. 1d I'll cover by saying I'm not in favor of creating a whole new beaurocracy to accomplish the job. Lines 2a and b of the definition don't apply.
2. As to reasonable drug control, first, lets face
it. We aren't talking about Aspirin bought by
children. We;re talking about habit-forming
drugs an I think Atropos knows perfectly well
what they are. That said, the level of control
required must be:
1, consistent with the end desired, a more peaceful, orderly society. That would be reasonable in accord with 1a.
2, not be prohibition as that is, in
my view, both extreme and excessive and therefore in contravention of 1b.
3 1c, it seems to me would require again something short of prohibition.
4. 1d would certainly make legal but controlled purchase of drugs
less expensive.
Atropos seems to make the point that "reasonable men" can differ. It's unfortunate that the examples he chooses are, in neither case, fortunate examples of reasonable men. The Pope qualifies by nearly all counts, but to my mind trips over the hurdle of infallibillity. Hitler, on the other hand, is upheld as reasonable by practically no one, on practically no count. But yes, reasonable men can differ over the nature and extent of what is reasonable gun or drug control. Let's try it within the framework of the definition and see where we come out shall we?
29. Thus I must clarify---
Wed, Jan 20, 1999 - 6:04 PM/EST
Atropos
Allow me to clarify myself. In post #28 I wrote:
'reasonable to the pope is not the same as reasonable to hitler.'
By the above statement I meant to say 'we need to use objectivity in our analysis.' Surly the Pope and A. Hitler would disagree on what "reasonable" humanitarian aid is. ~~~By no means do I mean to say Adolf Hitler was a reasonable man!~~~ Perchance these two figures are not appropriate for the context I used. Let me try again. In fact, I'll use it directly in the context of the dialogue thread.
Two individuals: Douglas Weil (of Handgun Control, Inc.), and Charlton Heston (of the National Rifle Association). These two men hardly agree on anything when trying to define what a "reasonable" gun control law would be. They both have ideas; but each thinks the other's suggestions are very "un-reasonable." What I view as a reasonable gun law may not seem reasonable to anybody else. Therefore, for me to say "we need a reasonable gun law," makes the assumption: my ways are reasonable/fair/not extreme or excessive, and should be accepted.
This was the context of the word "reasonable" I was using. If I did not make myself clear, I apologize. I do not mean to sound inconsistent.
The drug analogy could work, but it's a stretch. I am very aware of the context used when the term "drugs" are used. I knew very well what was being referred to.
Narcotics come in many types, so do firearms. Illegal drug use is bad, and so is illegal gun use. As with drugs there are many classifications for firearms. A large number of these firearms are already, as with the more potent narcotics, controlled and regulated. The drug companies Merck and GlaxoWellcome both make drugs that may be used over the counter or by prescription only. The same goes for Colt and Sig Sauer (of course OTC would be a "socially acceptable" gun and the "prescription" guns would be law enforcement and military only"). It could work.
The only problem being is that most crime is committed with the OTC guns; and most illegal drug use, in the context McRostie was referring to, are of the "prescription only" type or worse. The OTC guns and the "prescription only" narcotics seem to be acquired in the same manner, however. Theft, Black market, Gang activity, etc. what then is the proper (reasonable)regulation?
Gun control, in every sense of the word, can only stop those who have been caught and convicted of something bad. The much lauded Brady Bill, waiting period or not, can do nothing to stop a rapist if he or she has never been accused and convicted. We are innocent until proven guilty.
30. A response to Atropos
Thu, Jan 21, 1999 - 11:36 AM/EST
McRostie
I agree that ;;most crimg is committed with what you call OTC guns. Since we have very limited control of the sale of guns, the great majority are sold "over the counter". The "Saturday Night Special" (the cheap $25 hand gun) is an OTC gun. Maybe we could start by stopping the sale of that OTC item to everybody except licensed targe ranges and galleries where they could be used on a rental basis by the hobbist marksman. How's that for free-enterprise? Of course, I have to agree the criminal could break in and steal what he wanted. Criminality isn't stopped, either with laws or guns. The best we can do is hold it down a little.
Drugs on the other hand, the ones that cause the most trouble, are not OTC items in my opinion. That to me is the problem. I think they should be so that the distribution and use can be subject to some "reasonable" control.
Do those two paragraphs shoud inconsistent? I don't think so. In each case, I am in favor or "reasonable" control of over-the-counter sale of a legal item.
Atropos, you spent some considerable time on the question of reasonableness. I agree, one man's dessert is all too often another's garbage. In the case of Mr. Heston and Mr.Weil, I have the idea that "reasonable" would fall somewhere between their extremely polarized positions. All that is required is for the extremists to agree to move from the poles to the center. There is, as I think I've said in this forum before, a vague possibility that the other guy might just be right, at least to some degree.
Regards, McRostie
Drugs
31. Why?
Fri, Jan 22, 1999 - 4:38 AM/EST
Crispus
Why any control, on drugs or guns? Or anything?Why must the government be my dad? I realize that liberals assert that the government knows what is best for us, but that has stopped jiving with me. Also, by banning cheap guns, you remove the ability of the poor to defend themselves; the poor, who need it most.
32. To Crispus
Fri, Jan 22, 1999 - 10:50 AM/EST
JimP
Why? At first glance, why indeed? That was my initial answer. But, then the more centrist part of me began to answer the question differently.
My answers aren't always consistent with what I would like to believe. I agree with you that in creating laws, the government is assuming a role that I often think is obtrusive, becoming the "big brother". But, I also believe that some of these laws are, as McRostie says, "are good and serve a worthwhile purpose."
When a group of people come together, they almost automatically establish the norm for their interaction. Even the so-called lower animals do so. In humans, as the groups became larger, and the communication process between them all becomes more involved, these norms become more formal, and eventually written.
Ideally, we would only need one law. "Do unto others...", though even that simple behavioral injunction can be mis-interpreted. However, we do not live in the ideal. Therefore more are needed.
How many more, and how they are to be applied, is a matter of disagreement. In the US, we have decided through application of a set of standards called the Constitution how those laws will be written and applied.
All the above discussions and dialogues are a reflection of our diverse points of view about many subjects, not only gun control. There are no easy answers. Living in a society as complicated, diverse, and inter-dependent is always, in my opinion, a tension between freedom and responsibility. That tension is like a tug of war, sometimes one side seems to be pulling the other through the muck in the middle, sometimes the other side is winning.
We have an imperfect system, because we are ourselves imperfect in many respects. We are unable to live by that simple injunction. This system of dialogue and discussion informing ourselves, and hopefully our legislators who are charged with maintaining the system of laws we allow them to impose on us, is the best humans have developed to date.
Thanks for your question, once again it causes me to think.
Regards,
Jim
33. Well said Jim
Fri, Jan 22, 1999 - 12:16 PM/EST
McRostie
The best we can do is the best we can do with what we have and are. I shrink at the idea that Crispus seems to hold that laws (controls) are not necessary. It seems to me that the course of human history has adequately demonstrated the contrary to be true.
In the pristine, far-distant past, formal law was non-existent. Social pressure supplied the restraint required for a few, well-scattered individuals. Your point, Jim, about the pressures of an increasingly dense society requiring a more formal technique for maintaining order is well taken.
Regards, McRostie
34. Let me clarify...
Sat, Jan 23, 1999 - 2:30 AM/EST
Crispus
When I say, "why any government control", I mean the federal government. I agree that society needs laws; I am not an anarchist. However, it is my firm belief that the federal government is an almost unnecessary layer of rule that more often assumes the role of parasite than protector. I believe that the United States (a name indicative of the founders' intent) is fully capable of functioning, and functioning well, as a loose confederation of states that bands together for purposes of defense, as was the case in the past.
35. Let me clarify...
Sat, Jan 23, 1999 - 2:31 AM/EST
Crispus
When I say, "why any government control", I mean the federal government. I agree that society needs laws; I am not an anarchist. However, it is my firm belief that the federal government is an almost unnecessary layer of rule that more often assumes the role of parasite than protector. I believe that the United States (a name indicative of the founders' intent) is fully capable of functioning, and functioning well, as a loose confederation of states that bands together for purposes of defense, as was the case in the past.
36. Sorry
Sat, Jan 23, 1999 - 3:11 AM/EST
Crispus
I apologize for the double post.
37. Oh.
Sat, Jan 23, 1999 - 11:08 AM/EST
JimP
Therein lies the rub. There we could have a long debate about the legitimate role of the Federal Government. One of the URL's Gayle posted yesterday had links to information about those roles. I haven't time to go there now, and the URL is written down at the office. It may be interesting to go there, gather some information about the subject, and discuss our views.
For me, personally, I often feel as you do Crispus. But there must be some middle ground. I don't think that we can provide for the defense of the nation through a loose federation of states.
I have to go, but be sure that the question will be mulling in my mind, and I'll ramble on later.
Regards,
Jim
38. Defense ...Is that all?
Sat, Jan 23, 1999 - 1:04 PM/EST
McRostie
I rather think not. There are truly national problems, ones that have an effect on everyone regardless of in which state they live.
International trade, Fair trade, Education (all over the country we are hearing that is a problem), Public health, Immigration and on and on, nearly forever. If we are one nation, not a loose confederation (remember we tried that first) we have to resolve some dilemmas on a national basis. The genius of our Constitution is that it provided us with a way to do so, and still preserve the greatest individual freedom possible in a large, highly integrated but varigated society.
Perhaps as good an argument for "national" solutions to problems as any is seen today in Europe. After centuries of fighting and loss of blood, even the French and Germans are attempting to find solutions to problems at a level greater than the state. Let's not Balkanize the US on the basis of "states rights".
Regards, McRostie
39. My concern.
Sat, Jan 23, 1999 - 10:39 PM/EST
JimP
I think you are right, McRostie. The Federal government does some things better than could be done through individual states. Those things, I believe should be done at the Federal level.
What sort of nudges me toward desiring stronger states though is the tendency that I see in the states to turn to the federal government for solutions to problems that I believe are best solved at the state, or even lower level.
Offhand, without any research or deep thought, it seems to me that the thing the federal government does best is collect taxes. I'm not sure that is what they SHOULD do best, but I think it is their high point. Defense, and foreign relations are lower down the list. I think research under NIH, and other organizations, is stronger at the federal level that individual states would be able to compile. I think collecting statistics is important work done at the federal level (Dept. of Commerce, Dept. of Labor).
Beyone those points, I really believe the states should maintain a strong presence, much stronger than today. Maybe the tax collecting could be done efficiently at the federal level and returned to the states - a Republican idea. "Laugh here"
I hope we continue this discussion, because it really goes to the heart of how we interact as people in the nation. It should conceivably be a thread of its own, and not hidden within gun control.
Regards,
Jim
40. JimP
Mon, Jan 25, 1999 - 1:21 AM/EST
Gayle
"First - to Gayle -COME ON IN, THE WATER'S FINE!"
My problem with this subject is my aversion to any weapon...I keep picturing those metal things melted down and turned into fantastic sculptures.
I'll read thoroughly and make some comments, if possible.
41. To Gayle
Mon, Jan 25, 1999 - 6:21 PM/EST
JimP
Hpoefully, you have read, and see that the conversation has turned from guns, and the pros and cons of their control, to the ligitimate function of government. I'm reasonably sure that you have some valuable ideas to contribute to that subject.
