On Friday, in article
<fpljoh$pt3$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
rkshullat@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> In rec.arts.sf.fandom David Friedman <ddfr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> > In article <fpkq0j$ae7$3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > rkshullat@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >
> >> > The funny thing to me is that gun absolutists tend to be
> >> > market-worshiping libertarians, who understand "If you make
something
> >> > cheaper, you'll get more of it" in every situation other than
killings
> >> > and guns.
> >>
> >> Umm, no. If you make something cheaper, you'll get more of it up
until
> >> the point demand is fully satisfied. Past that point you might be
able
> >> to take sales from a competitor but total sales won't increase.
> >
> > I don't know what you mean by "demand is fully satisfied." How much
you
> > want depends on how much it costs.
> >
> > Suppose price gets down to zero, and at that price you own five guns.
> > Wouldn't you accept a sixth if someone paid you to take it? That's
> > increased demand when guns get cheaper than free.
>
> My reading of the original post was as a claim that guns made killing
> "cheaper" so that lowering the "price" of killing by providing more guns
> would make it more popular. We're back to the claim that a significant
> percentage of people refrain from killing only because they lack the
> ability.
I would be wary of the term "cheaper" in this context. It's one of those
words with multiple overlapping meanings, and what might be "cheaper" in
economic theory may be different, in important ways, from what you or I
read into the term.
A gun is a tool. As with any other tool, it makes it easier to do
things. The musket wasn't better as a weapon than the longbow--range and
rate of fire--but it didn't need years of training, and didn't depend on
the physical health of the soldier to the same degree. It made it easier
to train an army. Similarly, the availabilty of guns makes some things
easier, even though they cost a lot of money, compared to a kitchen
knife.
And I think you're mis-stating the claim. I think it's true that many
people who kill with guns would not kill without a gun. They might not
have the physical prowess to use a knife. And if there isn't a potent
weapon to hand, the momentary intense rage may pass. It doesnt have to
be "most people". Most people don't kill, even in the USA. But more of
us than we might be comfortable to think about, have felt something that
could be the momentary rage which guns make dangerous.
Have you met Jette? She doesn't strike me as a killer. Have you been
involved with the inanities of the British civil service? I have dealt
with civil servants who would be prime candidates for the undercover
reconnaissance of the lizard invasion. I can believe she could get angry
and frustrated enough that she could feel she would be dangerous. And
stalking the cube farm with an Uzi is a not unappealing fantasy. Isn't
it a part of the appeal of some movies, such as the zombie takeover sub-
genre. All those annoying co-workers become valid targets of the
imagination.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
On the horizon, a carrier task force of the Salvation Navy was
turning into the wind, preparing to launch Zeppelins.
|
