Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site tilt.FUN
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!mhuxj!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!princeton!down!tilt!chenr
From: chenr@tilt.FUN (Ray Chen)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: gun control, seatbelt laws, drunk driving, etc.
Message-ID: <226@tilt.FUN>
Date: Wed, 16-Jan-85 03:03:32 EST
Article-I.D.: tilt.226
Posted: Wed Jan 16 03:03:32 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 17-Jan-85 13:04:48 EST
References: <2974@allegra.UUCP> <1912@sun.uucp> <297@desint.UUCP> <1931@sun.uucp> <318@ll1.UUCP> <42@osu-eddie.UUCP>
Organization: Princeton University EECS Dept
Lines: 48

Some of you may be wondering how everything in the subject line ties together.
Well, here goes:

The problem I see with all the above is that the governments are trying
to stop a certain act (be it people shooting each other, driving drunk,
getting killed) by regulating what can lead up to the act and not by
imposing large penalties on performing the act in question.  In other
words, they don't penalize you for doing something but are trying
to regulate your behavior in order to lessen the chances of you being
able to do that thing.

I personally object to this.  A lot.  It seems to me that a fairer way
of keeping drunk drivers off the road is to set huge penalties for
being caught driving drunk, not by closing down happy hours, etc.
Sure, cutting down on happy hours will cut down on the number of
drunks on the road, but it also gets in the way of people who
go to happy hours and DON'T drive afterwards.  The drinking laws
are another example.  If the purpose of those laws are to keep
people from under 21 from consuming alchohol, ok.  Then we can
debate on why then they can vote and get shot at at age 18.
If on the other hand, the purpose is to cut down on the number
of teen-age drunk drivers on the road (which is the purpose in
most cases I know of), then I think the law is a really stupid thing.

Likewise on the subject of gun control.  Make the penalties for
committing a hand-gun related crime so big that anybody will think
twice about using a gun on somebody, instead of making hard to buy
handguns legally.

I also think that mandatory seat-belt laws are silly.  Unlike the
case of drunk driving, you don't endanger anybody but yourself when
you don't wear a seatbelt (I wear one all the time, myself).  However,
I think also think that in a case like Andy Banta's, where the other
driver was hurt badly because she wasn't wearing a seat belt, that she
shouldn't be allowed to sue for damages, or that the awarded damages
should be made smaller.  Sueing somebody for damages in a car accident
when you weren't wearing a seat belt is like sueing somebody for 
loading your gun before you looked down the barrel and pulled the
trigger.

The bottom line is -- DON'T restrict freedom unnecessarily.  Instead,
make the penalties for abusing that freedom higher.  When you restrict
a freedom unnecessarily, you're penalizaing not only the people who
abused that freedom but also those who took advantage of the freedom
and didn't.

	Ray Chen
	princeton!tilt!chenr