Subject:
|
Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be a priori banned
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 21 Sep 2000 17:30:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
379 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> While I'm sure no one is really interested in rekindling the "guns/no guns"
> debates, the line of reasoning here has helped me realize (I think) something
> that I wasn't seeing before; please let me know if I'm seeing it right:
> Those in opposition to gun control object to further gun regulation as it
> pertains to acquisition of guns. That is, they object to 2nd Amendment-
> restricting laws, since those laws prevent law-abiding citizens from obtaining
> Constitutionally permitted arms--am I correct? As such, to use an analogy
> from Larry's and Frank's assertions about personal responsibility re:
> vehicles, the heavier laws (whether existing or yet-to-be-written) should be
> applied when the crime is committed with the weapon, not in the acquisition of
> the weapon. Is this consistent with the prevailing view on gun rights?
If I understand what you're saying, yes. Paraphrasing:
Guns are tools. Cars are tools. Drugs are tools. Our own bodies are tools.
Rather than regulating what sorts of tools people can possess or behaviours we
can engage in with our own bodies, (which is a way of trying to regulate
intent by constraining what is possible) we should punish inappropriate uses
of those tools, for example initiating the use of force, or using tools in an
irresponsible or reckless manner that results in a bad outcome to people who
have not expressly consented to that possibly happening. (someone who attends
a stock car race is expressly consenting to the remote chance that they may
get hit by a wayward race car, or else they ought not to be admitted through
the gate)
Is that an accurate paraphrase of what you said?
It's an accurate summation of my position on <x> control (where <x> is a gun,
a car that can go fast, an overheight SUV, a joint, a bottle of cleaning
fluid, a part of my body that I am proposing to insert somewhere, whatever). I
can't speak for Frank, but suspect some similarity.
Now, there are some people who say "but <X> is too dangerous, or there are no
uses for X that have legitimate purpose, and therefore we need to regulate use
of X a priori"
There is an extremely tiny class of X for which I happen to agree with this
view.
So far that class, for me, consists of: {strategic nuclear weapons}... but it
doesn't include drugs of any kind, hand portable weapons of any kind or
vehicles of any kind. Certainly not SUVs, even tall ones.
But each and every accident that a tall SUV is involved in ought to be
examined by a pack of rabid lawyers for possible lawsuits against the driver
and his insurance company. 2 or 3 of those and tall SUV drivers are going to
be paying so much higher premiums that it won't be in their economic interest
to drive them.
The argument advanced by some that there is a clear and present danger so
strong that we have to ban SUVs a priori isn't supportable unless we are going
to ban each and every possible thing that might possibly cause an accidental
death. Anyone who wants to argue that as a good course is in for a tough slog,
the world is unfortunately an unsafe place and no amount of banning is going
to make it perfectly safe for everyone. ... Stuff happens.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: I'm lucky to be alive
|
| (...) I'm not sure I'm understanding your statement; are you saying that the occupants of SUV's and compacts are at similar risk of fatality? I think the concern, in addition to SUV-driver risk, is that SUV's may cause more injury to those in the (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
26 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
