Gun ownership

[Don Smith <dasmith@rotse2.physics.lsa.umich.edu>]

Hi,

Some things people have been saying got me thinking.  The claim was made that a
society where it may be reasonably assumed that the people around you are armed
is a safe society, because nobody will mess with anyone else, to avoid taking
the risk of being shot.  I'd like to try to unpack that a bit.  I'm thinking
this through as I type, so I'm not saying up front that I've got an answer
figured out.  What is "safe"?  In this discussion, "safe" seems to mean that
stuff won't get stolen.  Someone said he doesn't lock his house door, because a
burglar would get his brains splattered on the walls (or words to that effect).
Not terribly safe for the burglar.  One might say the burglar deserved it, but
I'm not sure the death penalty is really merited for tresspass and theft.  And
it totally sidesteps the questions of mistaken identity and accident.  Even if
the line of argument is true, I'm not convinced that this is a good deal: the
cost is too high.  I don't want to live in a world where I have to greet
everyone on the street with fear and mistrust as the first emotional contact.
I would rather take the risk that someone will steal my car than risk that
someone (anyone) is going to get shot.  For me, it's about innocent until
proven guilty, it's about giving people the benefit of the doubt, and it's
especially about living life from a place of love rather than fear.  Maybe (and
I'm not convinced this is the case) there is less theft in a society where
everyone is armed.  But I don't think that makes it safer.  I would suspect
that gun injuries would be more prevalent, and I think that people would be
more cut off from each other.  No amount of material stuff is worth that high a
price.

And I think documentaries can and must include some amount of authorial bias.
How much depends on the author, and there's a wide spectrum.  If you have a
point you want to make, even if you came to believe that point through the
study of the evidence, does that mean you are somehow no longer making a
documentary?  Let's take global warming, for example.  The fast majority of
meteorologists and geophysicists came to consensus decision that climate change
was happening and it was being influenced by human activity.  If I were to
report on that, but give equal time to the six guys who are arguing against it
(who are all working under grants from oil companies), am I being fair and
unbiased?  Or am I giving undue emphasis to a biased position?  If I make a
documentary about the Apollo program, do I have to give time to the nutballs
who think it was all a hoax?  No.  A documentary presents footage of real
events; I don't believe there's any demand to be "objective" about them, and
I'm not sure "objectivity" is even a desirable goal.  Better to be up front
about what your biases are, because if you think you don't have any, you're
just fooling yourself.  A documentary presents footage of real events.  How and
to what end the footage is presented is not constrained by the definition.
IMHO.

I was not impressed with the David Hardy web site.  He makes some valid
criticisms of Moore, but he shows a lack of understanding of editing that
borders on the deliberately obtuse.  Just one example: he seems to think BfC is
trying to imply that the footage of Heston receiving the musket was connected
with the visit to Denver.  The film never makes any such allegation.  The image
was clearly just stock footage to illustrate the slogan "from my cold dead
hands" (a phrase we all know around this list, if I'm allowed to say something
about OtR ;-)).  The footage from the Denver visit was separate, unambigiously
so.

And, out of respect for the sentiment Drew expressed, I will now shut up about
it.  :-)

Hope everyone is having a good weekend.  I tried cross-country skiing for the
first time ever this afternoon, and then we watched a double feature of silly
movies on the newly-repaired LCD projector.  Buckaroo Banzai and Mystery Men.
I'm still giggling.  Nice to see Buckaroo up on the big screen, after so many
years of crappy pan-n-scan VHS tapes.  :-)  Laugh while you can, monkey-boy!

To sleep, perchance to dream,
-- 
Don Smith                           Robotic Optical Transient Search Experiment
donaldas@umich.edu                                http://www.rotse.net/dasmith/

---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/