Greg,
I knew that a post on guns would bring you out of your shell!
How the hell are ya!?
You should stop and take a bow - you were the one who convinced me that handgun control was unlikely to reduce crime rates.
But your examples below illustrate exactly what I am arguing against!
The Foreign Minister wrote:
“Why don’t Diane and Co. write legislation to reduce all speeds to 10 MPH and ban any car that goes over 50. It would save a lot of lives.”
You meant for that to sound absurd. And it is.
Public policy should balance societal objectives. Transportation is a societal good. Deaths are bad. So how do we reasonably regulate automobiles while still allowing the good that flows from ease of movement to happen?
How ’bout speed limits at 65 (but not enforced until 75)?
How ’bout mandating airbags? (The gun equivalent would be safeties and gun locks)
How ’bout mandating child safety seats? (The gun equivalent would be kid-proof gun safes)
How ’bout taking away drivers licenses from irresponsible drivers?
How ’bout making prospective drivers pass a test and earn a license?
Are any of those requirements unreasonable?
I’d say they do a good job balancing liberty and minimization of harm.
Balance, people, balance.
Stop buying into the slippery slope. Join me in the middle ground.
UPDATE: Sorry, Greg, I don’t want you to think that, as my valued friend, you weren’t worthy of your very own embedded link insult.
