(np gun control spam)(gratuitous Pollyannaish reductio)

[David Morris]

This will be my last post on this thread.

On 4/19/07, mikebailey at speakeasy.net <mikebailey at speakeasy.net> wrote:
> David Morris reasonably objected:
> > I understand your line of thought regarding relinquishing power to the government, but that is a part of what government is for. In the end everything is a balancing act, and maintaining balance is a constant effort, not a "once-and-for-all now it's done" thing. BTW, Cho was not the "government."
>
> Gosh, I feel so lucid this morning - it's probably deceptive (wasn't one of Castaneda's Don Juan's 4 great enemies "clarity"?) but, here goes...
>
> a) special case: in a concealed-carry state, to ban guns in a porous-bordered area within the area is to fail to recognize the ease of seepage

I'm assuming you're talking about a no-guns campus in the middle of a
CC state.  Fine, and agreed.  I'm more concerned with the larger issue
of gun control vs proliferation & the 2nd Amendment.

> b) general case: government is a Bad Thing: imposed as a guard against one or more dangers, it becomes a danger itself

Very Libertarian, and I "generally" agree.  But some amount of the Bad
Thing which is government is necessary in order to guard against Worse
Things.  For Instance, is it a bad thing to have environmental
regulations?  Some of Bush's best friends think so, but I don't.

> c) who will enforce the new anti-gun edicts?  Blackwater Security.
>
> d) may as well get ready for it.  Me, I'm practicing proactive non-threatening stances and facial expressions.

> > But really, NRA folks are saying that if EVERYONE on campus had been carrying guns they could have taken out Cho before he'd killed those 32 people. This is absurd logic. Are we supposed to set our standards of everyday behavior by assuming that a murderous rampage by a deranged psycho is likely to occur at any given moment? I'd say making rules based on extremely outlying possibilities is a bad idea.
>
>
> making rules for other people is a bad idea, that's what I think.  Unless they request it.  My personal rule on government is that those who are willing to impose their views by force lose credibility for those views to the extent of the force they're willing to use, and lose opportunities for better methods of persuasion each time they appeal to force...

Yeah, sure.  And Bush is in favor of voluntary cooperation with
environmental "guidelines."  I'm not.  This is why I don't believe in
Anarchy.

> a pragmatic corollary is that, confronted by many people with their own arguments against this principle, and (most definitely) by widely varying implementations of the practice of violence (some are implemented with principle, some less so, for instance), I don't dispute their disagreement at all, but instead try to keep myself and those I love out of the line of fire, while personally establishing bona-fides as a non-violent entity. Among friends, I dare to recommend this course of action as satisfying.

Trying to "stay out of the line of fire" is a good idea, but it is
hardly a recipe for good government, which is what at least *I* think
this discussion is really about.

As for gun control, I live in New Orleans, a city with a very high
murder rate in a concealed-carry state.  And I don't blame the CC law
for the murder rate.  I'd carry a gun myself except for not wanting
the responsibility for possible consequences.  I like the idea of
decreasing the availability of guns in general but I think it could
only work if enforced on the national level because of your "porous
border" thing.

David Morris