Terminal Extent Reasoning

I have no idea if this is present in other systems of logic, philosophy, or whatever, but over the recent years I have developed a system of debating a topic with myself (and others) that seems to work quite well. It is, as entitled, "terminal extent reasoning." Perhaps teleological systems might have this. Anyway, it is a very simple concept: you take an idea and carry it out to its extreme (or, at least what one can perceive is the extreme), and if it is still sound/reasonable/just/ethical, whatever the case may be, then the original form of the idea is also so. If, however, you come across a problem even before the perceived extreme, then the idea is thrown into a question of soundness. I have always found that, after encountering the problem and examining the idea, the idea is indeed unsound. Finally, to carry the reasoning to the terminal extent, one must bring in knowledge of other areas into the question so that one can gain a true appreciation of the issues.

Take, for example, gun control. A friend posted on Facebook an event that was really an invitation for people's thoughts on gun control (it was for a class). I saw the usual comments:

"guns dont [sic] kill people, people kill people"

"I think that guns should be denied to the following people: the mentally impaired, people with a prison record, people who have been ordered to go to anger management classes, people who have a record of abuse or fighting, people who have basically any sort of police record, and people who have certain types of psychological disorders (i.e. schizophrenia, a diagnosed psychopath) and people should NOT be allowed to purchase a gun if they have small children living with them. So basically, a background check should be performed on EVERY applicant and it should be THOROUGH to check for all of the above. Other than that I think it's fine if someone wants to have a fun [sic] in their house for protection, just PLEASE not if their [sic] are children in the house."

And from the other side:

"Gun control is for wimps and incompetents. Let me just get one thing straight; guns don't kill people, I do."

"guns don't kill people, people do, aaaand, yeah, if you make them illegal only the bad guys will have them, and what will the normal law-abiding people defend themselves with?"

 My post (in 2 parts):

Guns kill people. So do knives, wires, baseball bats (any blunt object, really), electricity, weather, gravity, disease. Should all these things be legislated and regulated? Should I have to be screened every time I buy a kitchen cutlery set? Should we deny people's right to gravitational pull because they do yet meet age requirements, under the notion that, because they haven't reached some magical number like 18 or 21, they are just too immature to handle it?

The writers of the Constitution made the right to bear arms the Second Amendment because they knew, from experience, that after all the diplomacy and theories and ideas, the last thing you have to fall back on to protect your safety and liberty is arms. Gun control does nothing but deny good people, who abide the strictures their governments pass, from protecting themselves against others who will seek weapons regardless of the law. Practically all Swiss people own at least 2 firearms, yet, they are one of the safest nations on earth. America was once like this, with everyone owning some firearm. For those concerned with those somehow unable to operate them properly, education is everything. You shouldn't hide the fact that you have a gun from your children, and you should teach them its uses and its dangers. I think many problems could be ameliorated if we just told our children the truth.

The first paragraph is the more relevant to this post. Though I was being humorous (in the grand tradition of Swift's Modest Proposal), I was simultaneously being deadly serious, and using terminal extent reasoning to be so. If it follows that guns are dangerous, and that we need to screen people before they are allowed to own/use dangerous things, and then regulate their owning/usage, then why should we not extend it to these other things? What is it that makes guns so special? The ability to cause harm from a distance? Then we should also control blow darts; however, since all I need for a blow dart is a tube and some projectile that can be blown from it, we would have to regulate all pipe-like objects and able ammunition, and screen people who want to buy some plumbing objects. We see this with cold medicines and other things which, because they are used to make meth, have become highly regulated. Another thing that causes harm from a distance is very large hail. Are you hubristic enough to control the heavens themselves and what they pour fourth? Or maybe you are concerned about the damage firearms cause. They certainly are powerful. So are knives. And gravity. But I've made my point.

Let's not even get on to the subject of ideas themselves, perhaps the most dangerous things of all.

As for that second paragraph that I posted, I'll deal with the Constitution another time.

Now, for a thing of beauty. I have been obsessed with this piece for a while, so I share it with you; it is Pohjola's Daughter, composed by Jean Sibelius (about whom I will certainly have things to blog), and performed by the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra under Thor Johnson: