From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: guns in backcountry? no thanks
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Lines: 35

In article <1993Apr16.174436.22897@midway.uchicago.edu> pkgeragh@gsbphd.uchicago.edu (Kevin Geraghty) writes:
>wrong about the  whole guns-for-protection mindset, it ignores the
>systemic effects of cumulative individual actions.  If you want fire
>insurance on your house that's prudent and it has no effect on me; but
>if you and a bunch of other paranoids are packing handguns in the
>backcountry it makes me, and anyone else who doesn't chose to protect
>himself in this manner, pretty f**king nervous. 

Why?  If you're not a threat, you're not affected at all.

>I mean, take this to its logical conclusion, suppose we all carried
>handguns all the time, for protection from all the other people
>carrying handguns. Would we collectively be, or feel, safer? Hell no.
>We'd feel a lot more insecure.

Why?  I note that the available psych info says that feelings of
security INCREASE.  The victimization stats say that that increase
is rational.

>Another systemic effect of all the "good" people protecting themselves
>is that the "bad" people are going to modify their behavior in
>response:

Yes, they are, but how?

>they're going to be much itchier and much more willing to
>kill people in the course of routine muggings if they think their

Nope - that doesn't happen.  Instead the switch (among those who
change behaviors) to property crimes.  That's an improvement even if
the economic take is unchanged.  Sure - not everyone switches, but
they were killing before.

-andy
--
