"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:13:12 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Our opinions differ. Profoundly. And if you don't mind, don't try to
tell me what my points are. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we
don't understand each other. Resorting to mis-stating my position
makes
the whole conversation a whole lot less interesting.

I've looked back to see where I misstated your position, but I'm not
finding
it. Apparently you object to my characterization of your theory as
"threatening with guns." Perhaps you'd prefer a softer euphemism:
"intimidating," or "coercing" may be better. That's Ok, I'll be glad to
change euphemisms.

The part where you think I'm saying that my guns specifically have
stopped democrats, or whatever your rant was. I could google it but
it's not worth the effort.

Well, let's take that one apart and see what we can learn from it. First
off, I'll retract the Democrats part. I don't know who you're planning to
shoo...er, "deter," but we can pull back from that one without losing the
gist of the discussion.

You say the effect is one of "don't do (thing), it's too risky." So, what
makes it risky? Is there a threat to use the gun involved? No? Then there's
no risk. End of problem.

But you say there is a risk. You're playing casuist -- or maybe sophist --
with an idea that makes no sense unless there's a threat to USE your guns.
That's what the "deterrent" is: the threat that you will shoot somebody. If
you aren't making that threat, if you don't intend it to be understood that
you will USE that gun, then the gun has no effect. It's a wall decoration.

You're making the threat. That's how your "deterrence" works. It's like the
"deterrence" the US has with our nuclear weapons. We have made an implied
threat that we will use them. If we aren't threatening that, then we're just
warming holes in the ground with our missiles.

"Deterrent," though, is the kind of word you can use at a church social.
Nobody would miss the fact that it's the *threat to use it* that is the
actual deterrent. But "deterrent" is one of those words that gets through
the moral filter. It's a euphemism that makes one feel better about himself.
You can say it while looking grave and passing the potato salad.

That's what casuists do, Dave. They take raw, rough, down-to-earth ideas,
and apply lofty-sounding abstractions to make them morally palatable for
polite society. That's what you're doing here.

One more time: There is no deterrent without the THREAT you will shoot
somebody. If there is no threat you will shoot, there is no deterrent.
Scrape away the lofty moralisms and you're threatening somebody with your
guns. Otherwise, they're wall decorations that deter
no--one--from--doing--any--thing.

Not by threatening, Ed.

Here, let me give you an example. I live in a rural county. There are
probably shotguns ready for defensive use in 80% or so of the houses.
(I'm an EMT so I get into a _lot_ of houses, and I notice that sort of
thing). There aren't a lot of robberies of houses when people are home.
Do you see how those two things are connected?

Of course. Potential invaders and robbers know that having a gun for
"defensive use" means they are ready to shoot said invaders and robbers. The
home owners are threatening any potential invaders with getting shot and
killed. It's the threat that keeps them from robbing.

The shotguns aren't threatening to shoot them. It's the people in the house
who are threatening to shoot them. If there is no such threat, the robbers
don't care about the guns in the closet or on the wall. But they know the
home owners are making such a threat. That's the reality that pokes through
the veil of "deterrence," and that turns the vague moralism into the blast
of lead shot in the face. That's the reality that keeps them from robbing.


The criminals aren't being _threatened_ by the presence of that shotgun,
or by the likely presence of shotguns in general, they're being
_deterred_. Understand now?

Uh, yeah, I understand. What I understand is that you're floating on a
pillow of abstractions, about 50 feet off the ground. g The THREAT of
getting a blast of lead shot in the face is the reality behind the
abstraction. That's why they aren't robbing. They don't care about no
steenking "deterrence." They care about the prospect of taking on a load of
lead.


Otherwise, what role do they fulfill, in your claim about guns
protecting
the other amendments? I mean, if you aren't threatening to *use* them,
how
do they have any effect?

You can use a gun in many more ways than just shooting it.

Yeah, you can use them as bud vases for long-stemmed roses. One gun, one
rose.

It's like
the national parks - you're using them right now, just by the fact that
they exist. You're not there, but the effect they have by existing is
real, regardless of if you're in them or not.

Uh-oh, is that the park where the tree falls, but no one is there to hear
it? Does it make a noise? d8-) If you're going to do zen or ontology now,
I'm outta here.


Maybe you're going to dazzle them with close-order drill on the village
green? d8-)

See, there you go again, Ed. You do it so often you don't even see it
when you do.

Geez, what did I do? I thought I made a funny wisecrack.


Anyway, just tell me what it is you object to. If I mischaracterized
what
you said, I will retract it.

No, you'll pretend you meant something else.

No need to pretend, Dave. Just tell it like it is, but lighten up on the
moralized abstractions and get down to the reality on which they're built.
It makes communication a lot easier.

I know your style.

It's taken years to perfect. gg

--
Ed Huntress