Thanks for the reference. You have a great search feature there. I heard you were a little under the weather. Hope you are doing well.
Mark makes a good point on the current subject:
"Approximately 50,000 die from secondhand smoke. I looked down the columns and saw that about 2000 people died from gun related injuries."
Yes, compared to smoking, alcohol, prescription drugs, illegal drugs, auto accidents and general accidents around the home the problem with guns is very minimal, yet to hear people argue the subject you would think that the misuse of guns is a major cause of death.
Another point overlooked in those 2000 you mention is a good percentage of those are criminals who were in the middle of committing a crime. Many see that 2000 figure and see innocent people, whereas many of them would have gone on to kill innocent men, women and children if they had lived.
By comparison the current world wide concern over guns is like the guy who goes to the hospital bleeding with an arrow through his shoulder, but wants the doctor to take care of the pimple on his nose. By squeezing this issue of gun control we only make things worse whereas our negligence in other areas can cause humanity great loss of blood or life force.
So where is the Middle Way with gun control?
The midway point of truth here has the illusionary appearance of being about 75% right of center. Therefore, the one who stands on the point of truth is seen as right wing in this instance, for the truth in this case is far right of the wrongly perceived center.
Even so some gun rights people go beyond the point of truth in some of the following ways.
(1) Some believe that all should have guns.
This is the mistake of gun control in reverse.
(2) Some act as if any concern over gun use or misuse is unreasonable.
The fact is that guns do indeed pose a risk and we need to do all in our power to insure safety sort of infringing on the Principle of Freedom. The risk from gun abuse must, however, be seen in its correct relation when compared to other problems we face.
(3) Any form of gun control is wrong.
There are certain types of gun control, which do not infringe on freedom and this was in existence even in the old west.
We've all seen western movies where cowboys had to leave their guns at the door when entering a saloon. No one forced them to go into the saloon, but if they did, the owner had the right to disarm them. If the cowboy did not wish to disarm he could stay out of the place.
Even today, a group or community could establish rules to ban guns and not violate the Principle of Freedom because no one has to join in with them. All are free to reject this idea and join another community.
A group or club can make a rule that no one in good standing can eat peas and not violate the Principle of Freedom as long as no one is forced to join in with them.
(4) We should be able to own any kind of weapon we desire.
Obviously there is a cut off point here. Having a nuclear weapon or poison gas in your basement is obviously against the welfare of the majority. Certain deadly military weapons would cause great unrest in the hands of average civilians. A common sense middle ground must be looked at here.
As we successfully move into the new age, violence will decrease to the extent that gun ownership will be seen as not necessary for many, but all should still be free to possess them if they should so desire.
Keith wraps this up well:
"I do not want to purchase or own a gun, have an abortion (if I could), or ingest illegal drugs. I do not want to join the communist party, a fascist Nazi party, or become an anarchist. The freedom to do all kinds of unattractive things is protected under the freedom principle."
There are indeed many things allowed under the Principle of Freedom that would be distasteful to me but the loss of freedom of one who is opposite to me in point of view would eventually lead to a similar loss of freedom for myself and that would be much more distasteful still.
Therefore, my friends let us encourage freedom among our brothers and sisters and give a little trust to the ultimate goodness of humankind.
Another hot issue is Global Warming. Some make a good argument that this presents us with a real problem and others say that the scientists making such a claim are not real hard scientists, but activists with minimal science skills and that many good scientists say the evidence is not there.
What do you think? Is there a real problem or not? What will the true Aquarian think?
Even if there is no solid proof of such a problem, should we take preventive measures anyway?
How drastic of measures should we take?
Should freedom be sacrificed in the name of saving the world?
"I'm the one who has to die when it's time for me to die, so let me live my life, the way I want to." Jimi Hendrix
Copyright 2000 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved