Re: The gun analogy (Was: Design Principles)

[Jonathan S. Shapiro]

On Sat, 2006-04-29 at 11:11 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> At Sat, 29 Apr 2006 01:22:27 -0400,
> "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Perhaps I have misunderstood your position on confinement. If so, I
> > invite clarification.
> 
> You did. 

I am pleased. For the benefit of those with aging memories, could you
summarize it?

Ah. I see that you did this lower in your message, so you can ignore
this. No. My statement remains correct, but I will clarify this in a
less diversionary thread. And: Thank You.



ALL: I need to preface the following by an explanation. I am not a fan
of owning guns, but I would like to offer some history.

I was once nationally ranked #1 in the U.S. at target shooting with a
rifle. I am a "natural" shot with a pistol, and I find target shooting
(in the appropriate context of a pistol range) to be very relaxing. I do
not own a gun, and this is a considered decision. I have been held at
gunpoint twice by attackers. I have also some practical experience with
horses in remote settings where a gun is simply a necessary tool. As I
say, I do not own a gun, but I do not think that guns should be banned.
I do think that certain types of mandatory training should be required,
but that is a longer discussion.

I beg to remind everyone that the current discussion about guns is
merely an analogy.


On Sat, 2006-04-29 at 11:11 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: 
> This is true.  However, in the second scenario, my next question would
> be: "What do you want to use [the gun] for?" and then you can tell me what
> you want to use it for.

How incredibly arrogant and selfish. Here I have an animal that is dying
of a broken leg, and you wish to debate ethics while the animal suffers.
What a horribly twisted and misguided sense of ethics you advocate.

When your parents are dying of cancer, in pain, I hope you do not have a
doctor who shares your sense of ethics. [I also hope that no such thing
should happen to your parents, but you understand my point.]

>   Then the next thing I'd say is: "I do not own
> a gun."

That falls outside the scenario. You *do* have a confinement mechanism,
which is the true focus of this analogy.

>   Then we would have a long discussion about interesting
> subjects, like, what is the safest and least painful way to put a
> damaged animal out of its misery (hint: this involves a veterinary, at
> least in preparation).

The capacity of ignorant people to impose stupidity on others never
ceases to amaze me. You presume that the veterinarian is available. I am
standing in a field, with you, and with my horse. The horse has just
stumbled into a hole dug by a gopher, and it has a broken leg. It is in
mind-altering pain. It cannot stand. It will never be whole. It will
never understand why it is in such pain, and it is incapable of consent.
You want me to call the fucking veterinarian for a consultation? However
bad a bullet may be as a device for terminating the horse, it is
certainly better than waiting the hours that it will take for the
veterinarian to arrive. Assuming that I am remotely experienced with
horses (which, in fact, I am), even the suffering during the time of the
phone call is horrible cruelty.

My veterinarian [and Marcus knows, but may not have considered, that I
have done animal rescue for 10 years now] would agree completely.

Your perspective on this is the perspective of a well-intentioned but
ignorant city dweller, who has never actually had to deal with this
circumstance in the real world. As it happens, I have. It is *much*
better to shoot the horse -- and given the circumstance, it would still
be much better even *after* the long, involved debate that some ignorant
city dweller would insist on.

Perhaps you would prefer that I carry a lethal injection kit. That would
not be unreasonable, but it would create a "Hobson's Choice". Many who
are strongly anti-gun would be even more strongly opposed to allowing
civilians to carry lethal injection kits. In many respects a gun is
preferred: it makes noise, and noise draws attention. It is not
"clinical" or "clean". Among decent people, there is a reasonable
hesitation to fire a gun at a living being. It is, at best, messy and
noisy. When it is done at close range, you cannot escape the blood or
the brain matter of the victim. There is no ability for a normal person
to distance yourself emotionally from the taking of responsibility. A
lethal injection is clean. It is sterile. It creates no noise to call
people to see what you have done. It is emotionally distant. On the
whole, I would prefer that the mechanism in such matters should be
noisy, messy, and very very personal.

When something better than a gun exists for this purpose, it will become
reasonable to advocate that the better solution should be adopted.
*Until* such a thing exists, it is NOT reasonable to ban guns. License
them, perhaps, but do not ban them. In the meantime, it is not ethical
behavior to complain about guns. Ethical behavior would be working to
find a replacement that strikes a better social balance and actually
works in the real circumstances where guns are legitimately employed by
civilians.

In the case of the horse, the lethal injection may be better. In the
case of a cow, it is not. Most forms of lethal injection leave the meat
in a state that cannot be consumed by humans.

It is easy to say: ban guns. It is naive to propose this in the absence
of context. One thing cannot be considered in isolation from the other.

> ... or the effect of the presence of hand-fire
> weapons in a situation of emergency (which can substantially increase
> your risk of being killed)...

Have you actually been there, or do you just have a dogma?

ANY tool can endanger an untrained user. The decision to wield a tool
carries a responsibility of establishing competency. If a gun owner
fails to establish appropriate competency, and is killed in the type of
situtation you describe, I have no objection to this. My only objection
is the risk that the incompetent threatening party may come to possess
the gun.

Your concern fails the basic test of banning things. I am entitled to
commit suicide in elaborate ways. The real concern here is third-party
acquisition.

I will add that this risk is low. No sensible criminal wishes to own a
gun that has been fired in a situation where a civilian life has been
lost. The firing patterns are recorded by law enforcement, and such a
gun has no street value.

>  and about the entertainment value of
> possessing destructive power (and what other values one can enhance
> with play).

Yes, let us speak of this. Do you propose that my target shooting was
somehow wrong? I confess readily that I placed thousands of surprisingly
small holes in pieces of paper.

Is there sickness that can be associated with a tool? Yes. Are guns
exempt? No. Are sick people an argument for banning tools in the absence
of better tools? No. They are, perhaps, an argument for health care.

> Say I would live in
> Canada in a remote place where bears are strolling around, then I
> would consider owning tools that can deal with a dangerous bear trying
> to take apart my family.  So, with many caveats and only under
> extraordinary circumstances, a weapon may be a useful tool, although
> my suspicion is that even in these cases, we could develop better,
> safer and more effective tools if we wanted to and research would be
> directed to the cause.

I think that we agree about this. But the action of the moral person is
to develop the tool, not to decry the gun before a better alternative
exists.

> First, let me address your moral objection: It's wrong.  If a tool is
> dangerous and needs to be controlled, then it is dangerous and needs
> to be controlled.

Please explain a mechanism of control that will work for the horse, 200
miles from the nearest veterinarian. Remember that the example is not
hypothetical.

> The absence of better tools is not a sufficient
> reason to allow it.  It's a good reason to develop better tools.

Nonsense. Yes, it is a good reason to develop better tools. In the
absence of better tools, disallowing the best available tool is
unethical. You appear to advocate an "arm chair morality". One that
complains, but refuses to act.

> That this is actually
> true is easily seen when you look at how highly controlled drug
> production, sales and use are, or many substances used in the
> industrial process.

Yes. Note that in EVERY case where drugs have been banned, the ban has
failed. Now let us consider the regulation of drug distribution.

The most *conservative* estimates on drug regulation are that MORE THAN
50% of the controlled drugs available through regulated retail sources
in the united states are counterfeit. Given that this is true, it is
apparent that the purpose of regulation is to inflate the price of
drugs, not to serve the interests of the public.

> > A dogma is a position that does not admit of change or reason. It is
> > therefore irrational. A principle is a position based on the best
> > available reason, but is subject to change in the face of better
> > information, new facts, or clearer understanding. The DRM position is a
> > dogma.
> 
> Well, whatever "the DRM position" is, I don't support it then,
> accepting your definitions of the words for the scope of this discussion.

Ah. Then you must concede that there exist legitimate uses for DRM.
Interesting, because this contradicts your earlier statements. No. Your
position on DRM is dogma, not principle.



shap