Re 477 Days. 521 Mass Shootings. Zero Action From Congress.

["Dave Farber" <farber () gmail com>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Synthesis:Law and Technology" <synthesis.law.and.technology () gmail com>
> Date: October 3, 2017 at 11:55:51 AM EDT
> To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
> Subject: Re: [IP] Re 477 Days. 521 Mass Shootings. Zero Action From Congress.
>
> Dave,
>
> I think the very simple answer is that you sometimes don't do as Dave Crocker suggests.  You accept the need to do 
> something as being stronger than the need to give everyone the right to guns.  Australia did it. It's a pretty famous 
> example.  Cell phone laws are another example.  Some people can talk on the phone, tell their kids in the back to 
> stop fighting, have a screaming fight with their partner in the passenger seat yet we have no problem as a society 
> saying "hold on. we draw the line ....here ".   Same with alcohol laws.  Some people are better at .09 than most 
> people are with zero BAC but as a society....we set limits.  If every time we go about setting limits someone gets to 
> say "but hey...I'm not like them" we effectively get nowhere.  The question has to be "are there reasonable 
> restrictions that can be placed?"   Australia said yes.  And the numbers are there.  They just said "hand in these 
> things. we don't care if you are a threat or not".
>
>
>
> Dan Steinberg
>
> SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> 2-45 Helene-Duval     
> Gatineau Quebec
> J8X 3C5        
>                
>
>
>
> > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Dave Farber <farber () gmail com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > > From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker () gmail com>
> > > Date: October 3, 2017 at 9:58:46 AM EDT
> > > To: dave () farber net, ip <ip () listbox com>
> > > Subject: Re: [IP] 477 Days. 521 Mass Shootings. Zero Action From Congress.
> > >
> > > What action should Congress take?
> > >
> > > Consider this question carefully because as important as it is that this issue have action taken, it needs to be 
> > > constructive.  It needs not only to seem to be relevant, it needs to actually be effective, will few or no 
> > > collateral damage.
> > >
> > > As each of us makes assertions about what action will be effective, we need to ask what basis we have for the 
> > > belief, beyond logic; many logical things are not actually useful.  So where is the fact-based, objective analysis 
> > > of concrete experience that demonstrates the efficacy?
> > >
> > > A person takes a gun and kills a lot of people.  Logic says we need to do a better job of detecting such people.  
> > > Logic says that we need to control access to some/all guns.  But review the history of such a person and often we 
> > > will find few or no signs that point to their action.  For people who do appear to have a history of some aberrant 
> > > behavior, note how many others have a similar history but do not take this sort of action.  Shall they become 
> > > collateral damage?
> > >
> > > So how do we detect those who are a real threat, as distinct form those who have a similar history but aren't, or 
> > > those who have no distinctive history?  We need to try to be very pragmatic about the choices that are made, 
> > > especially concerning legislation.  Legislation can have its own social downsides...
> > >
> > > d/
> > >
> > > -- 
> > > Dave Crocker
> > > Brandenburg InternetWorking
> > > bbiw.net
> >
> > Archives  | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now        



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/18849915-ae8fa580
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-aa268125
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-32545cb4&post_id=20171003125804:03076462-A85C-11E7-ADE0-92CE7AC5B36F
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com