View Single Post
Old February 19, 2009, 03:57 PM   #103
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,610
Glenn, if you don't mind, I would address these out of order.

Quote:
As far as the Brady business - that was introduced as an argument accusing folks of arguing for some FA restrictions of sorta being Brady-ites. We see it all the time on lists - not a true believer, you are a BRADY. Let's let it pass for the moment for the theoretical.
My assertion isn't that any individual here is a brady supporter. It is that the brady analysis appears to be to determine who should have what according to their preferences, and argue those prefered restrictions as a basis for law. It is likely that most here would find Brady's conclusions wrong, but to use the same analysis to come to a different conclusion is an improvement of degree, not kind.

I confess that I don't always find Ken's style clear (as he may not find mine) but if the contention is that I've tried to end the discussion by calling him a Brady supporter, that is a strawman.

Quote:
Quote:
Third, the concept of the lethality of a maxim isn't a principled or reasonable basis for restriction of FA arms
Is the argument that the lethality of weapon, in general, is not a reasonable basis for restriction? Or is it that of a FA vs. a shotgun or a 50 BMG rifle?
I was specifically addressing the latter. On the whole, a FA 10/22 might be less lethal than a 50bmg rifle. Tennesse Gentleman argues that FA is most useful for suppression fire; this does not indicate lethality.

The core problem of the lethality test when applied to firearms is that nearly all of them are lethal. Adopting a lethality test for banning or restriction legitimises a test that is used elsewhere to justify draconian restrictions.

Quote:
That leads again to the argument that WMDs are ok for the general public. If you say NO - then you are arguing the specifics of FA vs the others and doesn't that become a matter of risk analysis and empirical evidence as compared to some absolute principle?
Only if you assume that there is no pertinent different between a "WMD" and a firearm.

And just to be clear, I am not pressing anyone for absolutes. I am noting that a restriction not based on an articulated, reasonable and plausible principle may be literally unprincipled.
zukiphile is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.05798 seconds with 7 queries