From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Subject: Re: The 'pill' for Deer = No Hunting
Lines: 117

In article <PA146008.710.734831135@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
> In article <1993Apr14.182610.2330@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
> 
>>In article <1993Apr14.120958.11363@synapse.bms.com>, hambidge@bms.com writes:
>>> Self defense is a valid reason for RKBA.
>>
>>	The vast majority get through life without ever having to
>>	own, use or display a firearm. 
> 
>        You might have missed the U.S. News & World Report excerpt
> I posted.  It is fairly consistant with other such polls, finding
> that approximately 40-50% of households have at least one firearm.
> How this translates into individual ownership is questionable, but I
> think it's fairly safe to say that you're wrong about the "vast majority."

	OK ... a near-majority actually OWN firearms, but I will still
	claim that the VAST majority never needs to use them or even
	threaten anyone with them. What do they do right ... or are
	they just lucky ? In either case, this means the 'average
	threat level' in this country is rather low. 
 
>>       Besides, there are other
>>	means of self-protection which can be just as effective
>>	as firearms. 
> 
>        Please name them.  The key phrase is "can be."  Theories are
> nice, but practicality is more important.  A taser (to chose an
> exmpale outlawed virtually everywhere) "can" be as effective as a gun,
> under optimal conditions when dealing with your absolute average
> [...]

	I think you have weapons on the brain. I never said that these
	alternative means of self-protection involved any hardware.
	Why are 'good' neighborhoods 'good' ? It isn't because every
	person is armed to the teeth. It is because of (1) attitude
	and (2) cooperation. In the 'good' neighborhoods, the residents
	make themselves aware of their neighbors and notice when
	strangers are lurking around. 'Good' neighborhoods form groups
	like 'crime-watch' to increase this effect, and the relative
	effectiveness of the police. When hostiles are arrested, the
	good neighbors step up and say "THAT'S the one officer ! He
	was robbing Mr. Jones' house". 

	In short, the alternative to firepower is gangs ... or at
	least a benificent manifestation of that social cooperative.
	Replace lead with flesh ... the flesh makes a better
	conversationalist too and you can invite it over for a
	block party. 

>>> Freedoms and rights are not dependent on public opinion, necessity, or
>>> scientific scrutiny.
>>
>>	New to this planet ? EVERYTHING is dependent on either public
>>	or political opinion, usually political. To imagine that
>>	inalienable 'rights' are somehow wired into the vast cold
>>	cosmos is purest egotism and a dangerous delusion.
> 
>        In a very real sense *everything* the government does is based
> on public approval, if for no other reason than at any particular time
> there aren't "public servants" commonly adorning trees.
> 
>        But legality and legitimacy also matter.  If a government's charter
> makes a rule, which the government then violates, it is violated the
> basis for its existance.  Enforcement of its will becomes a matter
> solely of force of arms.

	Oliver North. The man is positively worshiped in many
	all-American 'conservative' quarters. He and Big Ron
	set-up a secret government and did all sorts of severely
	illegal deeds - the kind of stuff you and I would be doing
	twenty-to-life for, yet he walks free. This BS happens all
	the time. In fact, it happens so much that no one really
	cares anymore.  'Legitimacy' is a non-issue. Legality is
	a non-issue. So long as we get T-bones and our MTV, who
	gives a rats ass ? 

>>> No arguments against RKBA can withstand scientific scrutiny.
>>
>>	They don't have to. Like so many other things, the issue
>>	is one of -perception- rather than boring statistics.
> 
>        Excuse me, sir, but *you* were the one suggesting that arguments
> for RKBA would not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

	No. I claimed that no one is interested in the statistical
	aspects of the argument. Pure emotion, like the abortion issue.

>>	Every time some young innocent is gunned-down in a drive
>>	by, every time some kid is murdered for a jacket, every
>>	time a store clerk is executed for three dollars in change,
>>	every time some moron kills his wife because she took the
>>	last beer from the fridge, every time someone hears a 'bang'
>>	in the night .... the RKBA dies. 
> 
>         Emotion is hard to argue against.  But it must be done anyway if
> emotion is wrong.

	Argue away ... you can't win. 

>>       The stats are not all *that*
>>	clearly behind firearms - 
> 
>         And just yesterday you claimed they weren't behind them at
> all.
> 
>>       the protection factor does not
>>	strongly outweigh the mindless mayhem factor. 
> 
>         Operating under the assumption that the same conditions absolutely
> govern both of them.  That the expansion of one automatically necessitates
> the contraction of the other.

	Firearms-related mindless mayhem will be related to the
	availibility of firearms. If they become scarce and 
	and expensive, a different psychology will take hold.
	I *think* they would be used far less to settle trivial
	complaints. 
