More on Elsevier

I actually meant to post this here but one of those 'senior moments' led to me posting it on Effect Measure:

For some years, I worked in and then ran a small library for the medical division of a publishing house in the UK so I am aware of the exorbitant cost of some scientific and medical journals and I agree that they are driven solely by the profit motives of the companies concerned. Are you saying that capitalism is immoral?

I also made a number of points in the previous thread about Elsevier which have not yet been answered. Critics of the arms trade appear to accept it as axiomatic that weapons are irredeemably evil on the grounds that they cause death and injury - both intentionally and unintentionally - to non-combatants. I can well understand why people feel that way but is it rational?

As I mentioned before, following the Dunblane massacre the UK, not suprisingly, tightened the law regulating the private ownership of firearms. Yet privately-owned motor vehicles killed and injured far more people per year than guns ever did without provoking the same level of public outrage or driving stricter legislation.

At the very least, such an attitude is inconsistent (hobgoblins notwithstanding) but, to put it simply, I am pretty sure most critics of the arms trade would use a gun without a second thought if it was necessary to defend themsleves or those they loved. I certainly would. Wouldn't Richard Horton? Wouldn't you?