[extropy-chat] The Consensus

[Matus]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dirk Bruere
> 
> Universal and unlimited rights to own weapons does not make a safe
place.
> At best it simply shifts the risk.
> 

Wow, you seem pretty confident in the validity of that statement.  Last
I heard this was a subject of pretty heated debate.  (probably why it
was discouraged from being discussed on this list) Can you prove that
statement empirically beyond all reasonable doubt, or is that just your
opinion?  

Of course you use the qualifier of universal and unlimited rights, so
presumably this may include nuclear bombs, land mines, grenades, and
missile launchers.  To make the question more reasonable, does the right
to own a handgun make a place safer or less safe?  Does it make an
*individual* (the one who carries the gun) more or less safe (after all,
I doubt many of the rugged individualists present on the extropy list
are utilitarians)  The right to own a shotgun?  A handgun or shotgun?
Automatic rifles?  Etc. etc.  Obviously this is a very complex issue and
a question that is difficult to answer. 

And other questions are implied by your statement, should individual
rights be dependant on groups?  Should laws be based on what makes an
area safer or a respect for individual civil liberties?  Random
searches, checkpoints, special permission required to go out at night,
cameras on every corner, etc, might all make a place safer.  Even if
these things make an *area* safer, should they be enacted?  In fact, it
might be that the safety of an *area* is directly proportional to the
govt restrictions placed on it.  After all, walking down the street at
night in an Orwellian nightmare might be a pretty safe venture, as long
as you don't think or do something the govt disapproves of.

Michael