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