shallit@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Jeff Shallit) (12/06/84)
There is a poster on my door. It reads In 1980, handguns killed 77 people in JAPAN 8 in GREAT BRITAIN 24 in SWITZERLAND 8 in CANADA 23 in ISRAEL 18 in SWEDEN 4 in AUSTRALIA 11,522 in the UNITED STATES God bless America. Go ahead and explain (with a straight face, please) that gun control doesn't work in Canada. Or Japan. Or Sweden. Or Australia. Go ahead. /Jeff Shallit
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (12/07/84)
Your poster is a blatant distortion of fact. Eight in Canada is the clue. Really now, do you expect people to believe that?
bruce@godot.UUCP (Bruce Nemnich) (12/07/84)
>There is a poster on my door. It reads > >In 1980, handguns killed >8 in GREAT BRITAIN >... >11,522 in the UNITED STATES >/Jeff Shallit I have heard several people say that although the handgun death rate dropped dramatically in Great Britain since gun control, the overall murder rate did not drop at all. Is this statistic correct? My only source is hearsay. -- --Bruce Nemnich, Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge, MA ihnp4!godot!bruce, bjn@mit-mc.arpa ... soon to be bruce@godot.arpa
stewart@ihldt.UUCP (R. J. Stewart) (12/07/84)
>>In 1980, handguns killed >>8 in GREAT BRITAIN >>... >>11,522 in the UNITED STATES > I have heard several people say that although the handgun death rate > dropped dramatically in Great Britain since gun control, the overall > murder rate did not drop at all. Is this statistic correct? At one time, I had a copy of an INTERPOL (a kind of Europe-wide FBI) report that showed that: - European countries differ widely in the degree to which they control citizen ownership of firearms, and - European countries differ widely in their murder rates, but - There was no apparent connection between the two. The conclusion was that the murder rate is determined more by the "temperament" of a country than by the availability of guns. There were no details on possible correlation with punishment of criminals. If I can find the report I'll post the reference. Bob Stewart ihldt!stewart
daf@ccice6.UUCP (Hungry Tadpole) (12/08/84)
> There is a poster on my door. It reads > In 1980, handguns killed > 77 people in JAPAN > 8 in GREAT BRITAIN > 24 in SWITZERLAND > 8 in CANADA > 23 in ISRAEL > 18 in SWEDEN > 4 in AUSTRALIA > 11,522 in the UNITED STATES > > Go ahead and explain (with a straight face, please) that gun > control doesn't work in Canada. Or Japan. Or Sweden. Or > Australia. What a fascinating example of propaganda. What about the countrys that have low handgun death statistics but don't have handgun control? What about the overall crime rates in these countrys, and the differences between them. Are you over simplifying or did you just choose to ignore any statistics that didn't support your opinion. Go ahead and explain (with a straight face, please) why you left out half the facts David Fader -- Amphibian Defender
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/10/84)
At various times in the discussion on gun control, someone brings up the
fact that the law-abiding Swiss must keep military rifles at home in
good condition. This is used as a counter-argument to the idea that
people generally should not have guns.
I found out yesterday that the ammunition for these guns must be kept
in a sealed box which can be inspected at any time. If the seal has
been broken without authorization, it is a severe court-martial offence.
Whether suitable ammunition is readily available outside the military
system, I have no idea.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtlat@stcvax.UUCP (Larry Tepper) (12/11/84)
> From David Fader @ ccice6.UUCP (Hungry Tadpole @ Pool Of Slime) >> (From original poster, not Hungry) >> >> There is a poster on my door. It reads >> In 1980, handguns killed >> 77 people in JAPAN >> 8 in GREAT BRITAIN >> 24 in SWITZERLAND >> 8 in CANADA >> 23 in ISRAEL >> 18 in SWEDEN >> 4 in AUSTRALIA >> 11,522 in the UNITED STATES >> >> Go ahead and explain (with a straight face, please) that gun >> control doesn't work in Canada. Or Japan. Or Sweden. Or >> Australia. > What a fascinating example of propaganda. What about the > countrys that have low handgun death statistics but > don't have handgun control? What about the overall crime > rates in these countrys, and the differences between them. > Are you over simplifying or did you just choose to ignore > any statistics that didn't support your opinion. > Go ahead and explain (with a straight face, please) why you > left out half the facts Dear David, We are all just dying to hear about those other counties too. I don't understand why you expect the original poster to supply the facts to support your argument. Whenever I have a point to make, I present information to support my argument, rather than insisting that the other person (who disagrees with me anyway) prove my point for me. If the original poster left out half the facts, you have contributed none of your own. -- One of the survivors... {ihnp4 hao philabs sdcrdcf ucbvax!nbires}!stcvax!lat Larry Tepper Storage Technology, MD-3T, Louisville, CO 80028 303-673-5435
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (12/13/84)
> > There is a poster on my door. It reads <....> > > What a fascinating example of propaganda. What about the > countrys that have low handgun death statistics but > don't have handgun control? What about the overall crime > rates in these countrys, and the differences between them. > Are you over simplifying or did you just choose to ignore > any statistics that didn't support your opinion. > Can YOU (Fader) list any countries that have no handgun control AND low handgun death statistics?? The fact is that a hell of a lot of people die of handgun shots in the US because there is a hell of a lot of handguns in the US. Anti-handgun regulation people cannot escape that. Marcel Simon ..!mhuxr!mfs
nxs@fluke.UUCP (Bruce Golub) (12/13/84)
> > There is a poster on my door. It reads > > In 1980, handguns killed > > 77 people in JAPAN > > 8 in GREAT BRITAIN > > 24 in SWITZERLAND > > 8 in CANADA > > 23 in ISRAEL > > 18 in SWEDEN > > 4 in AUSTRALIA > > 11,522 in the UNITED STATES > > > > Go ahead and explain (with a straight face, please) that gun > > control doesn't work in Canada. Or Japan. Or Sweden. Or > > Australia. > > What a fascinating example of propaganda. What about the > countrys that have low handgun death statistics but > don't have handgun control? What about the overall crime > rates in these countrys, and the differences between them. > Are you over simplifying or did you just choose to ignore > any statistics that didn't support your opinion. > > Go ahead and explain (with a straight face, please) why you > left out half the facts > > David Fader > -- > Amphibian Defender Speaking about leaving out half the facts, you (David Fader) left them all out. Question number 1, David: What country has a low handgun death-rate and no gun control. In reference to your statement: >What about the overall crime rates in these countrys,< Question number 2, David: Do you mean to imply that a high handgun death-rate is preferable to other crimes (i.e., trespassing, auto-theft, etc.)? Question number 3, David: Why don't you and the Pro-gun lobby grow-up and out of playing cowboys and indians, or better yet go ask Mr O'Roarke(sp?) and Teto to realize your fantasies and leave the rest of us in peace. (ps. I am not against someone defending themselves with any means that are required. Personally I wouldn't use a gun. I am opposed however, to letting every hairbrained idiot purchase a weapon, with no strings attached, no method of tracing ownership, and way of determining if that person really needs one.) go ahead, reach for it Bruce Golub
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (12/14/84)
> > > There is a poster on my door. It reads <....> > > > > What a fascinating example of propaganda. What about the > > countrys that have low handgun death statistics but > > don't have handgun control? What about the overall crime > > rates in these countrys, and the differences between them. > > Are you over simplifying or did you just choose to ignore > > any statistics that didn't support your opinion. > > > Can YOU (Fader) list any countries that have no handgun control > AND low handgun death statistics?? The fact is that a hell of a lot > of people die of handgun shots in the US because there is a hell of a lot > of handguns in the US. Anti-handgun regulation people cannot escape that. That's not the point he was making. Does anybody have any statistics for, say, knifing deaths in countries like Britain that have gun control? I suspect that it's higher per capita than in the US. It's much worse in most cases to be stabbed than shot, so maybe giving the criminals guns so that they don't have to use knives is a good idea... Wayne
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (12/16/84)
> Perhaps I didn't express myself as clearly as I could have > last time. The basic premise we are arguing is "Should there be > strong control of handguns (in particular, a ban on private ownership > of handguns)?" I'm considering this question to be equivalent to > "Do handguns cause more harm than good?" If you disagree with this > extension, please tell me why you think that, assuming handguns do cause > more harm than good, they should still be legal. > -- Mike Ryan (ryan@decwrl) There are a great many things that do more harm than good in this country; for example, alcohol and tobacco. This test by itself is not sufficient. In order to declare a thing X contraband, it should first be shown that in the great majority of cases a person who possesses X is likely to cause harm to others. This is not the case with handguns. There are perhaps 100 million handguns in the US. There must be several million handgun owners. Obviously the great majority of handgun owners harm no one, else there would be many more than 22,000 handgun deaths each year. The government is not entitled to force these people to dispose of their guns, as these people pose very little risk to others. Handgun control, as distinct from handgun prohibition, is a different matter. Handgun control seeks to ensure that handgun owners know how to handle weapons safely, are of sound mind, and are not particularly disposed to violence. Handgun control will only pass when it is clear that the controls are not to be a first step towards a total ban. Scott Renner {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner
jhull@spp2.UUCP (12/18/84)
In article <162@mhuxr.UUCP> mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) writes: >The fact is that a hell of a lot >of people die of handgun shots in the US because there is a hell of a lot >of handguns in the US. > >Marcel Simon ..!mhuxr!mfs This is an example of a true statement by a gun control advocate. -- Blessed Be, jhull@spp2.UUCP Jeff Hull trwspp!spp2!jhull@trwrb.UUCP 13817 Yukon Ave. Hawthorne, CA 90250
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (12/20/84)
> >The fact is that a hell of a lot > >of people die of handgun shots in the US because there is a hell of a lot > >of handguns in the US. > > > This is an example of a true statement by a gun control advocate. > > jhull@spp2.UUCP Jeff Hull Since I must explain. Less (i.e. under controlled access) handguns would result in less handgun deaths. QED. Marcel Simon ..!mhuxr!mfs
jim@mcvax.UUCP (Jim McKie) (12/20/84)
> Obviously the great majority of handgun owners harm no one, else there > would be many more than 22,000 handgun deaths each year. > Scott Renner > {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner Forgive me, but is that a REAL figure of twenty-two THOUSAND deaths per year from handguns? I find that a rather large number. Until two years ago I lived all my life in Britain, and I never saw a handgun, except in museums. What do you use one for, except killing someone? Jim McKie Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica, Amsterdam mcvax!jim
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/20/84)
>That's not the point he was making. Does anybody have any statistics for, >say, knifing deaths in countries like Britain that have gun control? I >suspect that it's higher per capita than in the US. It's much worse in >most cases to be stabbed than shot, so maybe giving the criminals guns >so that they don't have to use knives is a good idea... > > Wayne Sorry, no numbers at hand... But what is usually quoted in such comparisons is not the relative number of handgun killings, but the relative number of murders. This usually shows the US to be higher by one or two orders of magnitude than other Western countries (maybe I exaggerate a bit, but not much). If this is the case, I shouldn't think knifing murders would be much more in Britain than in the US, and might be fewer. Killing isn't a response to a traffic annoyance that you hear of in most countries. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (Jerry Hollombe) (12/21/84)
>From: jim@mcvax.UUCP (Jim McKie) >Newsgroups: net.politics >Subject: Re: handgun control >Message-ID: <382@mcvax.UUCP> > > > Obviously the great majority of handgun owners harm no one, else there > > would be many more than 22,000 handgun deaths each year. > > > Scott Renner > > {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner > >Forgive me, but is that a REAL figure of twenty-two THOUSAND deaths per >year from handguns? > >I find that a rather large number. Until two years ago I lived all my life >in Britain, and I never saw a handgun, except in museums. What do you use >one for, except killing someone? > >Jim McKie Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica, Amsterdam mcvax!jim Well said! Handguns have no other purpose. The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe) Opinions expressed here are my own Transaction Technology, Inc. and unrelated to anyone else's. 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90405 United States (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 ...{garfield,lasspvax,linus,cmcl2,seismo}!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe -- The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe) Opinions expressed here are my own Transaction Technology, Inc. and unrelated to anyone else's. 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90405 United States (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 ...{garfield,lasspvax,linus,cmcl2,seismo}!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
mag@whuxlm.UUCP (Gray Michael A) (12/30/84)
> > > >I find that a rather large number. Until two years ago I lived all my life > >in Britain, and I never saw a handgun, except in museums. What do you use > >one for, except killing someone? > > > >Jim McKie Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica, Amsterdam mcvax!jim > > > Well said! Handguns have no other purpose. > > The Polymath > (Jerry Hollombe) I don't like guns, and wouldn't own one, but the two posters above seem to think that the thought that handguns are primarily human-killers means that: 1. You can use them to kill others because you don't like them. 2. You can use them to kill people you want to rob. 3. You can use them to kill because you're a nut. etc. etc. etc. From what I have read, many find that handguns can also be used to: 4. Threaten people who are about to harm harm you, without hurting them. 5. Kill someone who wants to rape you. 6. Kill someone who is about to kill you. etc. etc. etc. Are these last three illegitimate purposes? To me, saying something has no use but to kill human beings does not NECESSARILY mean that the something is a bad, nasty, evil thing! In other words, while the existence of millions of handguns in the US has costs, it also has benefits. Some of the costs and benefits are to society (whatever that is) and some are to individuals. ~20,000 handgun deaths is a lot of deaths. A woman who has successfully used a handgun to defend herself from rape may find that regrettable in the extreme, but she has my sympathy and support for her right to decide to carry a gun. Sure, maybe carrying a gun increases the chance that a criminal would kill you, but I really don't feel that I have the right to dictate that choice for others. Do the people on this net (both pro- and anti- gun control) believe that it is such a black and white issue? Let's hear some more careful arguments. One thing that interests me is: There seem to be two equal factors causing the 20,000 annual deaths from guns: criminal use of guns to kill people and accidental deaths from guns. Does anyone on the net have access to statistics to answer the following questions? 1. How many gun deaths per year occur in the US? 2. How many are criminal and how many are accidental? 3. How many of each of the above two categories are caused by handguns, and how many by other types of guns? 4. For accidental gun deaths, how many of the deaths happened in circumstances where the gun-wielder had no training in handling guns? 5. For criminal gun deaths, are there any estimates of how they would decline under strict gun control? 6. For both categories of gun deaths, are there any good demographic or other predictors (age, sex, income, gun club membership, veteran status) of which people are most likely to be involved in gun deaths? (As perpetrators, not victims.) Thanks to anyone who can supply answers to the above questions. For anyone who is curious, I am becoming very sympathetic to the libertarian views I've seen expressed in net.politics and net.philosophy, so my stance is nominally anti-gun control by government, and pro-gun control by communities of people voluntarily living together. (We don't allow nitroglycerine storage in the basement of our condominium, and anyone who doesn't like it, well, they can just move the hell out. :-) ). Mike Gray, BTL, Whippany
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (12/31/84)
> From what I have read, many find that handguns can also be used to: > > 4. Threaten people who are about to harm harm you, without hurting them. > 5. Kill someone who wants to rape you. > 6. Kill someone who is about to kill you. > > etc. etc. etc. > > Does anyone on the > net have access to statistics to answer the following questions? > > 1. How many gun deaths per year occur in the US? > > 2. How many are criminal and how many are accidental? > > 3. How many of each of the above two categories are > caused by handguns, and how many by other types of guns? > > 4. For accidental gun deaths, how many of the deaths > happened in circumstances where the gun-wielder had > no training in handling guns? > > 5. For criminal gun deaths, are there any estimates of > how they would decline under strict gun control? > > 6. For both categories of gun deaths, are there any > good demographic or other predictors (age, sex, > income, gun club membership, veteran status) of > which people are most likely to be involved in > gun deaths? (As perpetrators, not victims.) Let me add some more: 7. How often do people actually succeed in defending themselves from attacks with handguns? 8. In those cases where they try and fail, how often is the effect of the attack made significantly worse (by the attacker getting mad, getting the gun, etc) ? 9. Taking these two things into account, are handguns really effective ways of defending onesself? Wayne
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (12/31/84)
> > >That's not the point he was making. Does anybody have any statistics for, > >say, knifing deaths in countries like Britain that have gun control? I > >suspect that it's higher per capita than in the US. It's much worse in > >most cases to be stabbed than shot, so maybe giving the criminals guns > >so that they don't have to use knives is a good idea... > > > > Wayne Actually unless you consider death superior to life, guns are worse than knives. You are six times more likely to be killed if assaulted with a gun than if assaulted with a knife. Moreover, since assault with a knife generally requires close contact (unless the assailant happens to be an expert knife thrower and willing to bet that one throw hits the mark and doesn't wind up with the same knife being used by the victim) there is a greater chance for struggle and flight. If all criminals were armed only with knives there would be a lot more victims alive today. tim sevener whuxl!orb
shallit@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Jeff Shallit) (01/01/85)
In article <> renner@uiucdcs.UUCP writes: > >There are a great many things that do more harm than good in this country; >for example, alcohol and tobacco. This test by itself is not sufficient. >In order to declare a thing X contraband, it should first be shown that in >the great majority of cases a person who possesses X is likely to cause >harm to others. > >This is not the case with handguns. There are perhaps 100 million >handguns in the US. There must be several million handgun owners. >Obviously the great majority of handgun owners harm no one, else there >would be many more than 22,000 handgun deaths each year. The government is >not entitled to force these people to dispose of their guns, as these >people pose very little risk to others. > >Handgun control, as distinct from handgun prohibition, is a different >matter. Handgun control seeks to ensure that handgun owners know how to >handle weapons safely, are of sound mind, and are not particularly disposed >to violence. Handgun control will only pass when it is clear that the >controls are not to be a first step towards a total ban. > >Scott Renner >{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner Sorry, but this is just nonsense. There are also thousands of people who own submachine guns, and only a few get used. Does this mean that submachine guns should be legal, since MOST submachine guns are not used to kill people? As to whether or not the government is ``entitled'' to ``force'' people to dispose of their guns, let's note that the Morton Grove handgun ban has been upheld by the US Supreme Court. I guess the government IS entitled. Polls show that handgun control is desired by 60 - 70% of the American people. What Renner should have said is that handgun control will pass when the NRA ceases to be a major influence on legislators.
shallit@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Jeff Shallit) (01/01/85)
In article <> faustus@ucbcad.UUCP writes: >It's much worse in >most cases to be stabbed than shot, so maybe giving the criminals guns >so that they don't have to use knives is a good idea... > > Wayne This is TOTALLY false. The Zimring report (sorry, don't have it at hand) shows that you are 5 times more likely to die from a handgun attack than from a knife attack. /Jeff
jack@vu44.UUCP (Jack Jansen) (01/02/85)
What struck me in the gun-death statics was (besides,of course,
the ridiculously high number of victims in the US :-( ) was
the low death-rate in England, even in comparison to the rest
of Europe.
I was wondering wether this has anything to do with the British
police not being armed with guns.
In would be very interested in seeing those statistics split in
'people killed by the police' and 'people killed by ordinary citizens'.
If these statistics show that in coutries where the police is not
carrying guns around, the number of people killed by ordinary
citizens (also including criminals, in this case) is substantially
lower, this might be a very strong reason to have unarmed
policemen (even for their *own* safety).
I've always been in favour of policemen without arms, since I think
that if you're known to be carrying a gun, you've also a much
bigger chance that the other guy doesn't take chances and shoots
you outright.
I think that the above-mentioned statistics could make my point
stronger (or, of course, it could make me change my mind :-).
--
Jack Jansen, {seismo|philabs|decvax}!mcvax!vu44!jack
or ...!vu44!htsa!jack
If *this* is my opinion, I wasn't sober at the time.ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (01/02/85)
To all those people wailing about how many people are killed by handguns and how much better everything would be if those guns were illegal: What fraction of the handguns used to commit crimes do you suppose are actually legally held? I know the answer for New York City: almost none. It is virtually impossible to get a handgun permit in New York. The fellow who shot the four punks on the subway, for instance, did so with an illegal gun: after he was mugged four years ago, he applied for a pistol permit but was turned down because he failed to demonstrate sufficient need for it. If enough people want something badly enough, making it illegal has about as much effect as closing your eyes and pretending it isn't there. If we really want to solve the crime problem, maybe we have to look a little deeper for the solution.
karl@osu-eddie.UUCP (Karl Kleinpaste) (01/02/85)
---------- >As to whether or not the government is ``entitled'' to ``force'' people >to dispose of their guns, let's note that the Morton Grove handgun ban >has been upheld by the US Supreme Court. I guess the government IS >entitled. ---------- This is incorrect. What the US SC did was to decline to hear the case, partly at the request of the NRA, in order that it might be heard by the Illinois SC first. This is drastically different from having the US SC "uphold" the decision; they actually decided to ignore it officially for the time being. ---------- >Polls show that handgun control is desired by 60 - 70% of the American >people. What Renner should have said is that handgun control will pass >when the NRA ceases to be a major influence on legislators. ---------- Two points: (1) This is much like the polls which show that well over 85% of the people favor a verifiable nuclear freeze. But such polls (I've been polled on that question twice now) usually forget to ask the related question, "Do you think such verification can be achieved in the reasonably near future?" I don't think so, and hence I don't really favor a freeze at this point. Similar thoughts apply to handgun control; just because it's favorable to get firearms away from criminals doesn't mean that I support the mechanisms currently available to deal with limiting firearms in the general case. (2) The NRA is a major influence on legislators because it represents (in several ways) an incredibly large number of people. It is, firstly, a sporting organization, but the NRA-ILA (Institute for Legislative Action) is supported by (I think) 1/3 of the $15 yearly membership fee. Since the NRA has 3 million members, that means that it can claim an extremely large base from which to work, both for volunteers in doing election- and lawmaking-related activities, as well as dollars for advertising campaigns to support candidates. When the gun control advocates can claim that many people in an organized group who really care one way or the other about it, then I'll consider them a viable force with which to deal. Until then, the support of those who care enough to do more than sit back and complain is weighted on the side of the NRA by at least 2 orders of magnitude. Think of it as "Government by the People" in action. -- From the badly beaten keyboards of him who speaks +-best address in textured Technicolor *TyPe* f-O-n-T-s... | | Karl Kleinpaste @ Bell Labs, Columbus 614/860-5107 +---> cbrma!kk @ Ohio State University 614/422-0915 osu-eddie!karl
shallit@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Jeff Shallit) (01/03/85)
In article <> ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) writes: >To all those people wailing about how many people are killed >by handguns and how much better everything would be if those >guns were illegal: > > What fraction of the handguns used to commit crimes > do you suppose are actually legally held? > >I know the answer for New York City: almost none. It is >virtually impossible to get a handgun permit in New York. >The fellow who shot the four punks on the subway, for instance, >did so with an illegal gun: after he was mugged four years >ago, he applied for a pistol permit but was turned down because >he failed to demonstrate sufficient need for it. > >If enough people want something badly enough, making it illegal >has about as much effect as closing your eyes and pretending >it isn't there. > >If we really want to solve the crime problem, maybe we have to >look a little deeper for the solution. You have listed at least one argument for effective NATIONAL gun control. You can't tell me that if there were strictly enforced registration policies; if illegal transfer of handguns made the seller liable for the buyer's actions; and if it were easy for police departments to request ownership information, that this handgun madness wouldn't decrease significantly. The NRA is agains all these (to me, reasonable) actions. Currently it is becoming more and more difficult to trace ownership of a gun, due in part to Reagan's attempt to dismantle the Handgun Control Act of 1968. Look--you register your car, why not your gun? A handgun's only valid purpose is to kill another person. I want those suckers REGISTERED! /Jeff Shallit
daf@ccice6.UUCP (01/03/85)
> >Forgive me, but is that a REAL figure of twenty-two THOUSAND deaths per > >year from handguns? > > > >I find that a rather large number. Until two years ago I lived all my life > >in Britain, and I never saw a handgun, except in museums. What do you use > >one for, except killing someone? > > Well said! Handguns have no other purpose. > I am sorry but you are incorrect. Another common use of hanguns is museum display.
daf@ccice6.UUCP (01/03/85)
> Question number 1, David: What country has a low handgun death-rate and no > gun control. Israel. > In reference to your statement: >What about the overall crime rates in > these countrys,< > > Question number 2, David: Do you mean to imply that a high handgun > death-rate is preferable to other crimes (i.e., > trespassing, auto-theft, etc.)? No, that is a foolish thought. How did you think of it? The U.S. has a higher rate of violent crime so it follows that hand gun deaths would be higher. > Question number 3, David: Why don't you and the Pro-gun lobby grow-up and > out of playing cowboys and indians, or better yet > go ask Mr O'Roarke(sp?) and Teto to realize your > fantasies and leave the rest of us in peace. Your logic and reason is hard to follow here. Please rephrase question.
myunive@nsc.UUCP (Jay Zelitzky) (01/03/85)
In article <39@ucbcad.UUCP> faustus@ucbcad.UUCP writes: >Let me add some more: > > 7. How often do people actually succeed in defending themselves > from attacks with handguns? > > 8. In those cases where they try and fail, how often is the > effect of the attack made significantly worse (by the attacker > getting mad, getting the gun, etc) ? > > 9. Taking these two things into account, are handguns really > effective ways of defending onesself? > > Wayne This point gets at the very essence of the problem with using guns to defend your property or your person. First as more people get guns to defend themselves and their property more criminals will get guns as well. When someone is attacking you and both of you have guns, you are at a severe disadvantage because your attacker has the element of surprise. Also as most robbers do not want to be caught or seen, if you don't have a gun and they see that you are there, they are likely to run away where as if you do have a gun they might very well shoot at you in "self defence". The other problem is that around half of all murders are by lovers, children, parents, spouses, or other people emotionally close to the victim in "hot blood" which would not have been commited if a gun were not available. Very few murders are actually commited in cold blood by actual criminal types. Most occur in brawls or fights because one or more of the people involved have guns. When people routinely carry guns it can even be used in "self defense" in a brawl to keep the other person from thinking of it first and using theirs. Thus for 2 of the most common types of murders, people having guns for use in self defense is a major contributing factor to the problem and totally useless as a defense. We can cut down on the number of criminals who have guns and make it alot easier to track those who use them. We can require that all gun owners have a gun owners licence, just as we currently require drivers licenses for cars. This way guns used in a crime could easily be tracked down and people could be required to take certain classes and tests on gun safety just as they are for cars. People would be required to get a license before they could buy a gun and then once they bought a gun it would be registered just as a car is currently registered. The licenses could be cross checked against drivers licenses to make sure the person is genuine and against criminal records to see if the person has commited a crime. This would also make it easier to crack down in the resale of stolen guns, thus protecting the rights of legitimate gunowners. Currently in California, all that is required is that you sign a paper stating that you are not a felon. There have been many cases of felons who have lied and bought guns anyway. Although this plan would not cut down on the major uses of guns to kill people it would make it alot easier to track down who did commit a murder and to prove that that person committed the murder. Through requiring education it would cut down on the number of accidental deaths caused by people mishandling guns. By making it more difficult for criminals to buy guns it would cut down on the use of guns by criminals. Jay Zelitzky {hplabs,decwrl,ihnp4}!nsc!myunive If we license cars, only outlaws will drive without licenses.
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (01/03/85)
> Actually unless you consider death superior to life, guns are worse than > knives. You are six times more likely to be killed if assaulted with a > gun than if assaulted with a knife. Moreover, since assault with a knife > generally requires close contact (unless the assailant happens to be > an expert knife thrower and willing to bet that one throw hits the mark > and doesn't wind up with the same knife being used by the victim) > there is a greater chance for struggle and flight. > If all criminals were armed only with knives there would be a lot more > victims alive today. I suspect that many more victims would be seriously injured and maimed for life if knifing attacks were more common. When you consider the difference between being shot with a .22, where the bullet probably passes right though you and mainly causes a lot of bleeding, and having your stomach ripped open with a 8" knife... With higher caliber guns, of course, the damage is greater, but since most handguns are things like .22's and short .38's, it seems that the damage done would be much less. Wayne
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (01/03/85)
> As to whether or not the government is ``entitled'' to ``force'' people > to dispose of their guns, let's note that the Morton Grove handgun ban > has been upheld by the US Supreme Court. I guess the government IS > entitled. -- (shallit@gargoyle) You mean "empowered." The government is empowered to do as much as the citizens will tolerate, and usually does. This does not make it legitimate. We will always disagree on this point because we are working from different premises. I believe that a government should not use coercion except to prevent one person from causing harm to another, and then only with the consent of the person being protected. You believe that the government should force everyone to comply with your ideas of what is good for them and others, regardless of whether they are hurting anyone. There are plenty of people who cannot feel happy or safe unless they can control the lives of everyone else. This desire accounts for much of the evil done in the world. Scott Renner {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (01/03/85)
>> There are a great many things that do more harm than good in this country; >> for example, alcohol and tobacco. This test by itself is not sufficient. >> In order to declare a thing X contraband, it should first be shown that in >> the great majority of cases a person who possesses X is likely to cause >> harm to others. -- Scott Renner (renner@uiucdcs) > Sorry, but this is just nonsense. There are also thousands of people > who own submachine guns, and only a few get used. Does this mean that > submachine guns should be legal, since MOST submachine guns are not > used to kill people? -- (shallit@gargoyle) If a thing may cause harm when misused, the goverment may place *controls* on its use. The more potential harm, the more control. We require people to pass driving tests before operating an automobile. Airline pilots are more stringently tested because the potential for harm is much greater. It is possible, although difficult, for private citizens to obtain a licence to own and use fully automatic weapons. This is consistent with the above: machine pistols can cause more harm than handguns, so there should be more controls. Of course, there comes a point where the potential harm from a thing is so great that it cannot be tolerated because the society cannot survive it. I mention this only to forstall silly arguments like "most atom bombs aren't used to hurt anyone, so ..." Handguns and even automatic weapons are not anywhere near this point. Scott Renner {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner
myunive@nsc.UUCP (Jay Zelitzky) (01/03/85)
In article <276@ccice6.UUCP> daf@ccice6.UUCP (Hungry Tadpole) writes: >> Question number 1, David: What country has a low handgun death-rate and no >> gun control. > >Israel. This is incorrect, Israel has very strict gun control. Many people in Israel have guns but they have very strict laws on who may have them and how people get them. Also their gun deathrate is not low relative to most European countries, only relative to the US which has an extremely high murder rate. Jay {hplabs,decwrl,ihnp4}!nsc!myunive If drivers must have licenses, only outlaws will drive without licenses.
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (01/03/85)
> What struck me in the gun-death statics was (besides,of course, > the ridiculously high number of victims in the US :-( ) was > the low death-rate in England, even in comparison to the rest > of Europe. > I was wondering wether this has anything to do with the British > police not being armed with guns. I have seen this type of statement in several articles. I may be wrong, but I think only London "Bobbies" are unarmed. As far as I know, officers, detectives and members of Scotland Yard DO carry weapons. I would assume the majority of these are hand-guns. Is there anyone out there that *knows* the real facts? *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
rohn@randvax.UUCP (Laurinda Rohn) (01/03/85)
> In article <> ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) writes: > >To all those people wailing about how many people are killed > >by handguns and how much better everything would be if those > >guns were illegal: > > > > What fraction of the handguns used to commit crimes > > do you suppose are actually legally held? > > > >I know the answer for New York City: almost none... > > > >If enough people want something badly enough, making it illegal > >has about as much effect as closing your eyes and pretending > >it isn't there. > > > >If we really want to solve the crime problem, maybe we have to > >look a little deeper for the solution. > > from /Jeff Shallit > You have listed at least one argument for effective NATIONAL > gun control. You can't tell me that if there were strictly enforced > registration policies; if illegal transfer of handguns made the > seller liable for the buyer's actions; Part of the idea of illegal transfer is that you can't trace the "seller". What then? > and if it were easy for > police departments to request ownership information, that this > handgun madness wouldn't decrease significantly. If the gun is illegally owned, there isn't going to be any ownership information. I don't think you quite addressed the question here. I believe Andrew's point, which I think is a relevant one, is that many, and possibly most, handguns which have been used to kill people or to commit crimes are *not* legally held. I'd be interested in answers from the control advocates to the following question: Assuming some sort of national handgun control is instituted, why do you think that that will prevent criminals from getting handguns illegally, just as most of them do now? Lauri rohn@rand-unix.ARPA ..decvax!randvax!rohn "The best laid plans of mice and men are usually equal."
garys@bunker.UUCP (01/03/85)
> > If all criminals were armed only with knives there would be a lot more > > victims alive today. > > I suspect that many more victims would be seriously injured and maimed > for life if knifing attacks were more common. When you consider the > difference between being shot with a .22, where the bullet probably > passes right though you and mainly causes a lot of bleeding, and having > your stomach ripped open with a 8" knife... With higher caliber guns, > of course, the damage is greater, but since most handguns are things > like .22's and short .38's, it seems that the damage done would be much > less. > > Wayne Actually, a .22 bullet doesn't have enough power to pass completely through a person's body, especially if it happens to hit a bone. In the latter case, it tends to bounce around and rip things up. This is according to a friend of mine who owns several firearms, including a .22 revolver, a .45 automatic, at least one rifle, and I don't know what else. He also told me about someone he knew whose .22 revolver discharged while in his holster. The bullet entered his thigh, and, due to the spin, spiralled around his femur a couple of times, coming to rest next to the bone. The higher calibers, on the other hand, can pass right through a person's body, but it leaves a hole shaped like a cone, with the vertex at the point of entry, like the hole made by a BB hitting a window, as the force of impact spreads radially. The exit hole can be several inches in diameter. Very messy. It's amazing how people on both sides of an issue, any issue, will grasp at any argument to support their position. To say that a gunshot wound is likely to be less severe than a knife wound is ludicrous, and incredible (i.e., not credible). (If you really believe that a knife can cause more damage, why do you insist on having a gun?) To use such a shoddy argument weakens your entire position, at least in my opinion. Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys
shallit@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Jeff Shallit) (01/03/85)
In article <> karl@osu-eddie.UUCP (Karl Kleinpaste) writes: >---------- >>As to whether or not the government is ``entitled'' to ``force'' people >>to dispose of their guns, let's note that the Morton Grove handgun ban >>has been upheld by the US Supreme Court. I guess the government IS >>entitled. >---------- >This is incorrect. What the US SC did was to decline to hear the case, >partly at the request of the NRA, in order that it might be heard by the >Illinois SC first. This is drastically different from having the US SC >"uphold" the decision; they actually decided to ignore it officially for the >time being. No, YOU are incorrect. On October 3, 1984, the US Supreme Court let stand a Court of Appeal ruling which stated, ``...possession of handguns by individuals is not part of the right to keep and bear arms.'' There have also been four other explicit decisions by the Supreme Court which state similar sentiment. > >(2) The NRA is a major influence on legislators because it represents (in >several ways) an incredibly large number of people. It is, firstly, a >sporting organization, but the NRA-ILA (Institute for Legislative Action) is >supported by (I think) 1/3 of the $15 yearly membership fee. Since the NRA >has 3 million members, that means that it can claim an extremely large base >from which to work, both for volunteers in doing election- and >lawmaking-related activities, as well as dollars for advertising campaigns >to support candidates. When the gun control advocates can claim that many >people in an organized group who really care one way or the other about it, >then I'll consider them a viable force with which to deal. Until then, the >support of those who care enough to do more than sit back and complain is >weighted on the side of the NRA by at least 2 orders of magnitude. > >Think of it as "Government by the People" in action. The idea that the NRA represents "Government by the People" is laughable. First, the NRA has less than 2 million members. Second, in order to vote on policy in the NRA, you must be a life member. There are fewer than 100,000 life members. Third, you must be present at the yearly conventions to vote--this mean that NRA policy is decided by the 1000 or so people who actually attend yearly conventions. Government by the People? More like Government by the Elite Gun Nuts. By the way, Handgun Control, Inc. has about a million members. I submit that this organization deserves to be considered a viable force. So much for your "two orders of magnitude". The NRA USED to be a responsible sporting organization. Recently, however, they have dedicated themselves to the opposition of ALL legislation regulating gun owners, including reasonable legislation like the ban on cop-killer bullets, which was favored by almost every major law enforcement organization in the country. /Jeff Shallit
david@randvax.UUCP (David Shlapak) (01/03/85)
> I'd be interested in answers from the control advocates to the following > question: Assuming some sort of national handgun control is instituted, > why do you think that that will prevent criminals from getting handguns > illegally, just as most of them do now? > > > Lauri > rohn@rand-unix.ARPA > ..decvax!randvax!rohn > > Well, if it IS nearly impossible to legally carry a handgun in New York (which may or may not be true...I've heard conflicting stories about this), but it's easy to get one in, say, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, or Connecticut (which, again, may or may not be the case), it seems like a pretty simple job to acquire an "illegal" handgun in, Philly, and take the traim back to Manhatan. That's the whole point of NATIONAL gun control...making it harder to get a handgun anywhere. One of the most pernicious characteristics of a handgun is its size; it's not at all difficult to carry one from point A, where there are no or lax gun control laws, to point B, where stricter regulations may exist. A national law could be quite effective in preventing this traffic in semi-legal weaponry. Remember, most "illegal" handguns were legal at some point in their travels... --- das
rohn@randvax.UUCP (Laurinda Rohn) (01/03/85)
> > from randvax!rohn (me) > > I'd be interested in answers from the control advocates to the following > > question: Assuming some sort of national handgun control is instituted, > > why do you think that that will prevent criminals from getting handguns > > illegally, just as most of them do now? > > from --- das (David Shlapak) > That's the whole point of NATIONAL gun control...making it harder to > get a handgun anywhere. One of the most pernicious characteristics of > a handgun is its size; it's not at all difficult to carry one from > point A, where there are no or lax gun control laws, to point B, > where stricter regulations may exist. A national law could be quite > effective in preventing this traffic in semi-legal weaponry. > > Remember, most "illegal" handguns were legal at some point in their > travels... I don't deny that nationally controlling handguns would make them harder to get. I'm just not yet convinced that criminals would have a *much* harder time getting them. Heroin is illegal everywhere in the US, but it does seem to turn up a lot, and from what I'm told, if you have the money, it isn't hard to get. Why would handguns be any different? (That wasn't meant as a rhetorical question...:-) ) Lauri rohn@rand-unix.ARPA ..decvax!randvax!rohn "Never test for an error condition you can't handle."
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (01/04/85)
> re article from Jay Zelitzky: > > ... First as more people get guns > to defend themselves and their property more criminals will get guns as > well. Boloney. Most criminals who prefer to use guns have them already. A lot more people than you think have guns now-- there are guns in more than half of American households. Most people who don't have guns now, don't want them. > When someone is attacking you and both of you have guns, you are at > a severe disadvantage because your attacker has the element of surprise. Nice of you to be so concerned about the victim whom you seek to disarm. In fact, one is rarely attacked by someone who was completely unseen and unsuspected; and in a house breakin the victim gets the "drop" on the robber about as often as otherwise. If someone does surprise you, you merely surrender, gun untouched. > The other problem is that around half of all murders are by > lovers, children, parents, spouses, or other people emotionally close to > the victim in "hot blood" which would not have been commited if a gun were > not available. Not obvious. When the strict handgun controls went into effect in Massachusetts, handgun murders went down as a percentage, but the overall murder rate stayed the same. > We can cut down on the number of criminals > who have guns and make it alot easier to track those who use them. Think again, Hammurabi! Of the one to two million pistols in New York City (NYCPD estimate), about one thousand are licensed. Less than 1/10 of 1% effectiveness... > We can require that all gun owners have a gun owners licence, > just as we currently require drivers licenses for cars. This way guns > used in a crime could easily be tracked down and people could be required > to take certain classes and tests on gun safety just as they are for cars. Except for the 1000 people who have an illegal gun for each one who does it legally... However, this and the other licensing schemes miss the point entirely, and make your arguments inconsistent. If all you're after is licensing, the flames above about guns killing mostly in arguments and fights are pointless: the only difference would be that the arguers would have an extra piece of paper in their pocket. To use your own analogy: Cars are licensed in every state. It turns out that there are roughly the same number of cars as guns in America (ca. 150 million). Cars kill four times as many people each year as guns do. > If we license cars, only outlaws will drive without licenses. For what it's worth, this is substantially the case. --JoSH
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (01/04/85)
> > ... There are also thousands of people who > own submachine guns, and only a few get used. Does this mean that > submachine guns should be legal, since MOST submachine guns are not > used to kill people? "Dead" wrong. Last year more people were killed by machine guns in Miami than were killed by machine guns in Chicago in the '20's at the height of the gang wars, when machine guns were legal. > As to whether or not the government is ``entitled'' to ``force'' people > to dispose of their guns, let's note that the Morton Grove handgun ban > has been upheld by the US Supreme Court. I guess the government IS > entitled. Wrong again. The US Supreme court refused to hear the Morton Grove case pending its being heard in Illinois Supreme Court. The case is still going through the works. In any case, the Supreme Court has flip-flopped on this (and numerous other issues) many times. The SC generally dispenses beautiful words in which to clothe the ugly prejudices of the times; and the government will do anything it can get away with, "entitled" or not. > Polls show that handgun control is desired by 60 - 70% of the American > people. Right. HCI and the CBH send out polls with questions like: "Do you think Hardened Criminals should be able to walk into K-mart and buy Deadly Handguns and Saturday Night Specials with no legal oversight whatsoever?" so most people say no, and the gun-haters come out with another statistic "70 percent of the American people believe that there should be some form of handgun control." --JoSH
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) (01/04/85)
> I suspect that many more victims would be seriously injured and maimed > for life if knifing attacks were more common. When you consider the > difference between being shot with a .22, where the bullet probably > passes right though you and mainly causes a lot of bleeding, and having > your stomach ripped open with a 8" knife... With higher caliber guns, > of course, the damage is greater, but since most handguns are things > like .22's and short .38's, it seems that the damage done would be much > less. > > Wayne Since neither of us are presenting statistics, here is my intuition: Most of the damage sustained by being shot would be by fragmentation of the bullet itself. If the bullet fragments sufficiently, there is no reason that it should pass right through you. Also, I would think that the main damage caused by a knife is also bleeding. Greg
david@randvax.UUCP (David Shlapak) (01/04/85)
> > > from randvax!rohn > > > I'd be interested in answers from the control advocates to the following > > > question: Assuming some sort of national handgun control is instituted, > > > why do you think that that will prevent criminals from getting handguns > > > illegally, just as most of them do now? > > > > from --- das (David Shlapak) > > That's the whole point of NATIONAL gun control...making it harder to > > get a handgun anywhere. One of the most pernicious characteristics of > > a handgun is its size; it's not at all difficult to carry one from > > point A, where there are no or lax gun control laws, to point B, > > where stricter regulations may exist. A national law could be quite > > effective in preventing this traffic in semi-legal weaponry. > > > > Remember, most "illegal" handguns were legal at some point in their > > travels... > > I don't deny that nationally controlling handguns would make them harder > to get. I'm just not yet convinced that criminals would have a *much* > harder time getting them. Heroin is illegal everywhere in the US, but > it does seem to turn up a lot, and from what I'm told, if you have the > money, it isn't hard to get. Why would handguns be any different? (That > wasn't meant as a rhetorical question...:-) ) > > > Lauri I'm prepared to argue, Lauri, that we'd see a lot more junkies on the street if heroin was legal and could be purchased legally at K-marts and "sporting goods" stores... I used to keep a loaded gun (rifle, not handgun) by my bed, because I lived in a bad neighborhood and felt I needed the protection. When I moved "across the tracks" I first unloaded the gun, then got rid of it entirely. I don't think guns are evil...they're instruments, just like a jack handle, which is also lethal if misused. The problem is, handguns are intended for one and only one purpose...the destruction of human beings. I DON'T believe possesion of handguns necessarily should be outlawed, for all the reasons that you and others have been bringing up (the same reason I don't think arms control is the best thing since sliced bread....verifiability is a problem in both cases). I DO think that national legislation severely restricting who can own such weapons would go a long way towards easing the slaughter on our streets...I mean, do you realize that more Americans are killed every year by fellow Americans with guns than were ever killed in a similar time span by Viet Cong and NVA with guns, mortars, artillery, etc? Look at the numbers...most handgun murders are committed by non-criminals. I'm realistic enough to know that gun control is not the entire answer to the problem of violence in our society...in fact, I'm sufficiently cynical to believe that there is no answer...if, however, stringent national gun control can cut the number of needless deaths in half, that's about 10,000 more mothers and fathers and husbands and wives who will live to celebrate another Christmas than would otherwise be the case. I think that's a worthwhile goal, even if it still means that some "criminals" still have guns. Better none dead than 10,000, but better 10,000 than 20,000. --- das
bhs@ccice2.UUCP (Ben Stoltz) (01/04/85)
> > Is there anyone out there that *knows* the real facts? > For heaven's sake Rob! This IS USENET you know!
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (01/05/85)
> What struck me in the gun-death statics was (besides,of course, > the ridiculously high number of victims in the US :-( ) was > the low death-rate in England, even in comparison to the rest > of Europe. > I was wondering wether this has anything to do with the British > police not being armed with guns. > In would be very interested in seeing those statistics split in > 'people killed by the police' and 'people killed by ordinary citizens'. > If these statistics show that in coutries where the police is not > carrying guns around, the number of people killed by ordinary > citizens (also including criminals, in this case) is substantially > lower, this might be a very strong reason to have unarmed > policemen (even for their *own* safety). This isn't very good logic you are using. I would say that the police not needing guns is caused by the low level of violence, not the other way around. Why there is less violence is another matter, but you shouldn't take a symptom of low violence to be the cause. Wayne
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (01/05/85)
> Actually, a .22 bullet doesn't have enough power to pass completely > through a person's body, especially if it happens to hit a bone. > In the latter case, it tends to bounce around and rip things up. > This is according to a friend of mine who owns several firearms, > including a .22 revolver, a .45 automatic, at least one rifle, > and I don't know what else. He also told me about someone he knew > whose .22 revolver discharged while in his holster. The bullet > entered his thigh, and, due to the spin, spiralled around his > femur a couple of times, coming to rest next to the bone. > > The higher calibers, on the other hand, can pass right through > a person's body, but it leaves a hole shaped like a cone, with > the vertex at the point of entry, like the hole made by a BB > hitting a window, as the force of impact spreads radially. The > exit hole can be several inches in diameter. Very messy. > > It's amazing how people on both sides of an issue, any issue, > will grasp at any argument to support their position. To say > that a gunshot wound is likely to be less severe than a knife > wound is ludicrous, and incredible (i.e., not credible). (If > you really believe that a knife can cause more damage, why do > you insist on having a gun?) To use such a shoddy argument > weakens your entire position, at least in my opinion. I wasn't arguing for or against gun control, I was just making the point that there are many ways to kill people, and guns aren't always the worst way. I've never been attacked with either a knife or a gun, so I can't give the best information about this kind of thing, but I'm told that a large sharp knife can do a lot more damage than a small-caliber gun (the most common), and the wound can take a lot longer to heal. Wayne
karl@osu-eddie.UUCP (Karl Kleinpaste) (01/05/85)
Fair warning: this article is rather long. Before adding this introductory paragraph, EMACS me informed that it was 12K long. Those without a strong disposition on the subject may wish to 'n' right away. ---------- >>This is incorrect. What the US SC did was to decline to hear the case, >>partly at the request of the NRA, in order that it might be heard by the >>Illinois SC first. This is drastically different from having the US SC >>"uphold" the decision; they actually decided to ignore it officially for the >>time being. > >No, YOU are incorrect. On October 3, 1984, the US Supreme Court >let stand a Court of Appeal ruling >which stated, ``...possession of handguns by individuals is not part of the >right to keep and bear arms.'' ---------- OK, I'll bite. In order to properly consider your claim, I wish to know a full, detailed reference which I can use to hunt it down myself. I will admit openly to being suspicious about this claim, because if in fact the US SC had upheld anything with respect to the Morton Grove case, it would have received a phenomenal amount of news time on newspapers, TV, and radio, and I don't recall seeing any at all. So, please: supply us with a complete reference. If you wish, just post the whole thing, if it's not too terribly long; but whatever you do, please give it a contextual reference point. ---------- > The idea that the NRA represents "Government by the People" is >laughable. ---------- We'll see. The primary problem I see with your posting on the subject of the NRA is that your figures are abysmally out-of-date, and you have no knowledge (and I mean that literally, NO knowledge) of the makeup of the NRA. Each point in turn... ---------- >First, the NRA has less than 2 million members. ---------- False. I refer you to the following the following issue of *American Rifleman*, which is one of the publications of the NRA. In particular, it contains each month a column titled, "Here We Stand," by NRA Executive VP Harlon Carter, and a large section called the Official Journal. November 1984 issue, page 7, Carter's HWS column: "There are now three million of us. NRA members, loyal and decent citizens. Bigger than most churches in America." That is indeed what he means: a full 3 million people in the US belong to the NRA. To quote further from later in the same column: "In 1978 NRA had less than a million members. Six years later, with three million dues-paying members, NRA has gained an average of over 25,000 *net* new members per month. Over 25,000 *net* new members per month for six years. And this year is the same as the others. The people are coming to the NRA and they are remaining. They are renewing their membership at a higher rate than ever before in history." [italics his.] As I will show later, HCI hasn't got "membership" in any normal sense of the word. Hence, they can't even discuss the concept of "renewing" the way the NRA can. ---------- > Second, in >order to vote on policy in the NRA, you must be a life member. ---------- False a second time. In the December 1984 issue of *American Rifleman*, page 51 (Official Journal section), in an article having to do with members' rights and responsibilities (which I will be detailing later for other reasons): "Under the NRA's bylaws, life members AND ANNUAL MEMBERS FOR FIVE CONSECUTIVE YEARS [caps mine] are permitted to vote..." The reasoning, as I understand it, and with which I am in complete agreement, is that NRA doesn't want people becoming members for one year just so they can vote in the next elections. This keeps people from trying to "stuff the ballot box." So they require 5 years' membership before voting privileges are given. A perfectly good idea. In 1984, of the 3 million total members, 739,978 were eligible to vote. Same article, same page. I presume that the rest weren't eligible because they just hadn't been around long enough, since most of the remaining 2.3 million were gained in very recent years, i.e., less than 5 years' membership. ---------- >There >are fewer than 100,000 life members. ---------- False a third time. Actually, it's closer to 400,000. Considering that we gain 25,000 new people each month, that's a reasonable if not completely overwhelming average. The problem is that it costs (I think; my figures may be out of date here) $300 for a Life Membership; it's the equivalent of a 20-year annual membership. That's a few more bucks than most people are willing to shell out at one time for such a thing. ---------- >Third, you must be present at the >yearly conventions to vote--this means that NRA policy is decided by the >1000 or so people who actually attend yearly conventions. ---------- False a fourth time. Voting members get a ballot when they are needed for elections; voting members mail the ballots in. No big deal. (I'm not a voting member yet; I've only been an annual member for 3 years now.) ---------- >Government >by the People? More like Government by the Elite Gun Nuts. ---------- False a fifth time. Even if you're not a voting member, there are many, many things you can do. Specifically, I cite the December 1984 issue of *American Rifleman*, the same article from which I quoted before on the subject of who can vote: "--NRA non-voting members receive at least one association publication monthly. "--NRA non-voting members pay predetermined annual dues upon receiving a bill from the NRA. "--NRA non-voting members enjoy the privilege of competing in matches, receiving advice and assistance concerning firearms, range constrution, club management and competitions, and BEING HEARD AT ALL OFFICIAL MEETINGS OF THE MEMBERS, ATTENDING ALL MEETINGS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AND CIRCULATING AND SUBMITTING PETITIONS FOR NOMINATING DIRECTORS. "--NRA non-voting members MAY FORM COMMITTEES TO CONSIDER, DEBATE, AND RECOMMEND POLICIES, STRATEGIES, PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. "--A non-voting member MUST BE GIVEN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND ALLOWED A FORMAL HEARING BEFORE HIS MEMBERSHIP MAY BE TERMINATED." [caps all mine.] If you don't think that gives significant influence and power to those who don't actually vote in the NRA, you misunderstand the power of a petition written to the right people with a suitable number of signatures on it. ---------- > By the way, Handgun Control, Inc. has about a million members. ---------- False a sixth time. Same article in Dec 1984 *American Rifleman* as before (page 51): "Prior to [a ruling against HCI by the Federal Elections Commission], HCI had loosely defined 'members' of the organization as anyone who made any type of contribution within the preceeding 24 months. There was no official membership apparatus or procedures specified in the organization's bylaws--a direct violation of federal law. [it doesn't take much to verify this -- just look at their <previous set of?> bylaws.] "...HCI had amassed more than $122,000 from more than 600 contributors in 1982. Under federal law, corporate political action committees may solicit funds only from employees, their families and stockholders, while legally recognized membership organizations [such as the NRA] may solicit from their rank-and-file. HCI employed approximately 12 people at the time..." A similar complaint was submitted against the NRA, by HCI of course. The FEC dropped it on the floor with the following comment: "In this matter we believe that the NRA organization provides all of its members with sufficient rights, obligations, and privileges [see preceding list]...[We] find no reason to believe that the Nation Rifle Association violated the United States code." Anyone inclined to contest the accuracy of these items is free to check facts for themselves. You will find that the last complaint was filed by HCI on 27 Aug and dropped by the FEC on 23 Oct. ---------- >I submit that this organization deserves to be considered a viable force. ---------- I submit that 600 people contributing to an organization over the course of a year doesn't constitute anything at all of substance. I submit that 12 people constitutes even less. Now, they certainly have *supporters* and *sympathizers* in the vicinity of the 1 million mark. Fine. But if HCI has a million armchair quarterbacks, NRA still has 3 times that many active, annual members (as opposed to HCI's "contributors" -- not a regular "member" in any sense recognized by the appropriate law-making bodies which it is trying to influence). ---------- >So much for your "two orders of magnitude". ---------- Actually, it's closer to 4 orders of magnitude. 600 divides into 3 million about 5000 times. ---------- > The NRA USED to be a responsible sporting organization. ---------- We still are. In the words of President Reagan at an address to the 1983 NRA annual convention: "No group does more to promote gun safety and respect for the laws of this land than the NRA." [October 1984 *American Rifleman*, page 7, Carter's HWS column.] ---------- >Recently, >however, they have dedicated themselves to the opposition of ALL legislation >regulating gun owners, including reasonable legislation like the ban >on cop-killer bullets, which was favored by almost every major law >enforcement organization in the country. ---------- Uh-huh. Like the Fraternal Order of Police, which issued a statement including the accusation that HCI must bear most of the blame for the increased awareness among criminals of the existence of "cop-killer bullets"; but it seems that, even up to the present day, no police officer has ever been hit, much less killed, by a "cop-killer bullet." Oh, about that term: "cop-killer bullet" is a term coined by [can you guess?] HCI. It's got great emotional impact; I give them a hand for good marketing technique. The NRA opposed the legislation banning it for a variety of reasons. Specifically, from Howard Pollock, NRA President, in "The President's Column" of the Dec 1984 *American Rifleman*: "'Why in the world would the NRA opposed the passage of federal legislation that outlawed the so-called 'cop killer' bullet?' The simple reason is that the legislation...contained such a broad definition of the metal-piercing ammunition sought to be controlled that it would have outlawed most conventional sports ammunition available to hunters and other sportsmen...Armor-piercing ammunition has been in existence for use in rifles for at least 70 years. [An NBC 'News Magazine' show] neglected to mention that not a single armor-clad police officer has ever had a bullet-resistant vest penetrated by armor-piercing ammunition. "Predictably, after the televised show...the sensational exploitation of the issue continued, despite the fact that law enforcement officials [such as the Fraternal Order of Police] across the nation voiced anger because the media was educating criminals on a subject that previously had never been a problem. [now let's get technical on exactly what was wanted in the legislation...] "The [legislation] was designed to ban the manufacture, importation or sale of all bullets capable of penetrating 18 layers of Kevlar (the synthetic fiber from which most police bullet-resistant vests are made) when fired from a handgun with a barrel length of 5" or less. "Hunting bullets for rifle or pistol, suitable for ordinary deer hunting and like-size animals, will generally penetrate a Kevlar vest..." That's why the NRA opposed it. Because it's a monumentally stupid definition of what constitutes "armor-piercing" ammunition. Ammunition suitable for hunting can be fired from certain .25 pistols, for example. There is no way to distinguish sufficiently between what is banned and what is not. This is a major objection to attempts at "gun control": the steps being attempted to control guns (a) treat a symptom, not a cause [especially in view of the fact that no police officer has ever been so injured] and (b) could potentially be used as a stepping stone to larger bans. It's similar to the attempts to ban "Saturday Night Specials." When you can create a definition of a SNS which doesn't include the .22 Smith&Wesson revolver hidden in a certain dark corner of one of my closets (I keep it there for safety reasons), then I'll listen to the suggestion. But not before. Disclaimer: I do not represent the NRA in any official capacity. My relationship with them is as a loyal, enthusiastic member. I am not even a voting member yet, having been a member less than the required 5 years. Errors in these statements and quotations are my own and the NRA is not responsible for them. -- From the badly beaten keyboards of him who speaks +-best address in textured Technicolor *TyPe* f-O-n-T-s... | | Karl Kleinpaste @ Bell Labs, Columbus 614/860-5107 +---> cbrma!kk @ Ohio State University 614/422-0915 osu-eddie!karl
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (01/05/85)
> > I'm prepared to argue, Lauri, that we'd see a lot more junkies on the > street if heroin was legal and could be purchased legally at K-marts > and "sporting goods" stores... > Go for it! It seems unlikely to me that this would be the case. Remember tobacco, is a *legal* drug and cocaine is an *illegal* drug. The use of cocaine is going *up* and the use of tobacco going *down*. If you want to make an analogy to drug use, the evidence would suggest that any program of regulation would be ineffective, expensive, encroach on personal liberties, and make the government look even more stupid. Further, you cannot site any statistics about drug use that would be meaningful From the San Francisco Chronicle, Saturday, November 24, 1984: *U.S. Raising Pot Traffic Figures* Washington Government experts said yesterday they are revising estimates of the size of U.S. marijuana traffic in view of the record 10,000 tons sized and destroyed in northern Mexico. The seizures, made on five farms in an isolated section of Chihuahua state, suggest a 70 percent increase in estimates that total U.S. consumption was 13,000 to 14,000 tons in 1982. Furthermore, the seizures add up to nearly eight times the 1300 tons that officials had calculated Mexico produced in 1983. "When we look at this 10,000 ton bust, the amount is staggering," said Jon R. Thomas, assistant secretary of state for international narcotics matters. "It's so big that we start out self- congradulating--but when we step back, we see we still don't know what it means." He continued, "We don't know how long they've been growing it and processing and selling it, or how much has been grown." The gap between official estimates and reality disclosed by the mexican raids is so great that officials are reviewing data to determine whether they have seriously understated the extent of marijuana use in this country. If so, there is intrest in whether the miscalculation results from failures in the survey techniques the government uses to determine how much Americans abuse [sic] all drugs. The data are compiled by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, a subsidiary of the National Health Service, on the basis of door-to- door samplings in which people are asked to fill out and mail in forms. The last survey, in which 5624 people were questioned, was made in 1982, Adams said, and its validity was reviewed last year. Another survey, set for next year, will be based on 8000 interviews, he said, but results will not become publically available until about six months after the field work is done. David Hoover of the Drug Enforcement Administration reported that marijuana price trends do not suggest oversupply. In 1982, he said, the DEA reported the street price of Mexican leaf at retail to be $40 to $50 per ounce, and in 1983 at $40 too $60 an ounce retail and $350 to #550 per pound wholesale. Los Angeles Times ----- In short, the argument that gun control would limit the use of guns the way that drug control limits the use of drugs is saying that gun control will not limit guns. -- scc!steiny Don Steiny - Personetics @ (408) 425-0382 109 Torrey Pine Terr. Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 ihnp4!pesnta -\ fortune!idsvax -> scc!steiny ucbvax!twg -/
mag@whuxlm.UUCP (Gray Michael A) (01/06/85)
> Well, if it IS nearly impossible to legally carry a handgun in New > York (which may or may not be true...I've heard conflicting stories > about this), True. Permits to legally carry handguns are almost unobtainable. > but it's easy to get one in, say, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, > or Connecticut (which, again, may or may not be the case), it seems like > a pretty simple job to acquire an "illegal" handgun in, Philly, and take > the traim back to Manhatan. > Why on earth would one bother? There are MILLIONS of illegal handguns available for sale in this country. Try this: go to any bar in upper Manhattan. Remark that you need a piece and have the money to pay for it. Wait about 15 minutes. You may need to wait 20 minutes. > That's the whole point of NATIONAL gun control...making it harder to > get a handgun anywhere. One of the most pernicious characteristics of > a handgun is its size; it's not at all difficult to carry one from > point A, where there are no or lax gun control laws, to point B, > where stricter regulations may exist. A national law could be quite > effective in preventing this traffic in semi-legal weaponry. > > Remember, most "illegal" handguns were legal at some point in their > travels... > > --- das As I said, there are millions of guns around. ANYBODY with money can get one if s/he wants to, easily, without traveling. If you stopped all manufacture, importation, and legal sale of all guns tomorrow, it would take 100 years before the supply started running low, by which time netnews would have long since published instructions for making a portable laser at home that was far more devastating than handguns! Sure, if you can't get guns, there might be fewer crimes committed with them. BUT YOU CAN GET THEM! You'll be able to for the forseeable future! I hate guns, I wouldn't own one, I wish they didn't exist! But, they are too easy to hide, too easy to make, and too popular in this culture to be gotten rid of. If you want to reduce handgun deaths, try another approach. Any really creative ideas out there, netters? Mike Gray, BTL, WH.
ee161anm@sdcc13.UUCP ({|stu) (01/07/85)
(quotes from previous postings at end of article for those who wish to read them) I don't know about all fire arms, but the M16 A-1 service rifle (which will soon be replaced with the M16 A-2 service rifle as the primary firearm for the US armed forces) uses a .22 round which is designed to "rotate" or "spin" upon impact (it hits at 3.250 ft/second). Although the round becomes disfigured upon impact, it does not shatter. It kind of bounces around inside the victim, and doesn't usually exit. Death is by no means automatic, and survival is actually more probable. Besides, except for sniping, shooting with this rifle rarely produces a hit. You kind of shoot in in general directions to make it more difficult for the enemy to shoot in your general direction. > > I suspect that many more victims would be seriously injured and maimed > > for life if knifing attacks were more common. When you consider the > > difference between being shot with a .22, where the bullet probably > > passes right though you and mainly causes a lot of bleeding, and having > > your stomach ripped open with a 8" knife... With higher caliber guns, > > of course, the damage is greater, but since most handguns are things > > like .22's and short .38's, it seems that the damage done would be much > > less. > > > > Wayne > > Since neither of us are presenting statistics, here is my intuition: Most > of the damage sustained by being shot would be by fragmentation of the > bullet itself. If the bullet fragments sufficiently, there is no > reason that it should pass right through you. Also, I would think that the > main damage caused by a knife is also bleeding. > > Greg
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (01/07/85)
David Shlapak writes: > Look at the numbers...most handgun murders are committed by non-criminals. Wrong! Last time I looked, murder was illegal, and anyone who commits one, with any kind of tool, is a criminal. All handgun murders are committed by criminals. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Hey, my new .signature file really works!"
rjw@ptsfc.UUCP (Rod Williams) (01/07/85)
Just read in the NY Times that Taiwan has made illegal POSSESSION of guns a capital offense! -- Rod Williams dual!ptsfa!ptsfc!rjw
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (01/08/85)
>... a pretty simple job to acquire an "illegal" handgun in, Philly, and take > the traim back to Manhatan. > > That's the whole point of NATIONAL gun control...making it harder to > get a handgun anywhere. One of the most pernicious characteristics of > a handgun is its size; it's not at all difficult to carry one from > point A, where there are no or lax gun control laws, to point B, > where stricter regulations may exist. A national law could be quite > effective in preventing this traffic in semi-legal weaponry. > > Remember, most "illegal" handguns were legal at some point in their > travels... > > --- das Wrong! You and the other prohibitionists seem to have the idea that passing a national registration act would cause all pistols to magically disappear. Remember that there are over 50 million of them floating around out there... First, for honesty's sake you should make it plain that you are talking about confiscation, not just registration/ licensing (cars are licensed, and there an awful lot of them around...). Then please remember that only 0.02 percent of handguns are used to kill... and try to think of a law that is more than 99.98% effective. --JoSH
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (01/08/85)
> ... > Look at the numbers...most handgun murders are committed by non-criminals. > ... > > --- das Wrong. The average murderer commits six violent crimes before killing (U. S. Senate study). 65 to 70% of the people arrested for murder have records -- AS DO 40-50% OF THE VICTIMS. The myth of "most murders are family squabbles and barfights" is generally supported on the basis of a 1980 FBI study showing that 51% of murderers were well-known to their victims--but most murders are an adjunct to the drug trade and other underworld activities where the parties involved are "business" associates. --JoSH
cjk@ccice2.UUCP (Chris Kreilick) (01/09/85)
> In article <> faustus@ucbcad.UUCP writes: > >It's much worse in > >most cases to be stabbed than shot, so maybe giving the criminals guns > >so that they don't have to use knives is a good idea... > > > > Wayne > > This is TOTALLY false. The Zimring report (sorry, don't have it at hand) > shows that you are 5 times more likely to die from a handgun attack > than from a knife attack. > /Jeff Jeff. The Guttenheimer report (don't have it at hand), pointed out that Wayne didn't say anything about being killed. P.S. Do you have any good recipes for onion soup? -- TBAOTN
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (01/09/85)
> > Just read in the NY Times that Taiwan has made illegal POSSESSION of > guns a capital offense! > -- > > Rod Williams > dual!ptsfa!ptsfc!rjw New York will be next, I'm sure. Well, gun controllers, how are you going to justify this one? It makes it fairly obvious that gun control is a political power play, I think... --JoSH
jhull@spp2.UUCP (01/10/85)
>In article <> renner@uiucdcs.UUCP writes: >> >>There are a great many things that do more harm than good in this country; >>...This is not the case with handguns. ... >>Obviously the great majority of handgun owners harm no one, else there >>would be many more than 22,000 handgun deaths each year. ... >>Handgun control, as distinct from handgun prohibition, is a different >>matter. Handgun control seeks to ensure that handgun owners know how to >>handle weapons safely, are of sound mind, and are not particularly disposed >>to violence. Handgun control will only pass when it is clear that the >>controls are not to be a first step towards a total ban. In article <259@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> shallit@gargoyle.UUCP (Jeff ) writes: >Sorry, but this is just nonsense. There are also thousands of people who >own submachine guns, and only a few get used. Does this mean that submachine >guns should be legal, since MOST submachine guns are not used to kill people? > Jeff, As you noted in your second sentence quoted above, thousands of people own submachine guns. They are legal [to own]. And you seem to realize that since you make no reference to the owners being criminals. You then proceed with the third sentence above which is nonsense. I see this kind of "logic" all to often in your otherwise excellent articles. Now, I'm sure some people out there are thinking, "You know what he meant." And I think I do. But in discussions like this one, it pays to be precise, which I know you can be. I think you meant, "Does this mean submachine guns should be uncontrolled and available to anyone, regardless of prior criminal record?" If I'm wrong, let me know. In the meantime, please don't ignore Scott's final statement which does relate to what you are saying and what I think you meant to say. If, as I think, he has shown an area where you are wrong, admit it and then go on to those areas where you are right and which you express so admirably. -- Blessed Be, Jeff Hull ihnp4!trwrb!trwspp!spp2!jhull 13817 Yukon Ave. Hawthorne, CA 90250
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (01/11/85)
[] >If all criminals were armed only with knives there would be a lot more >victims alive today. > tim sevener whuxl!orb Criminals *will not* obey a prohibition on guns; criminals will *manufacture* guns if they are otherwise unavailable. -- The above viewpoints are mine. They are unrelated to those of anyone else, including my cats and my employer. Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (01/11/85)
[] >From: josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) > > ... The SC generally dispenses beautiful words >in which to clothe the ugly prejudices of the times; and the government >will do anything it can get away with, "entitled" or not. > > ... > >--JoSH PERFECT! I have not seen a better empircal observation of what the Supreme Court really does! -- The above viewpoints are mine. They are unrelated to those of anyone else, including my cats and my employer. Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]
nrh@inmet.UUCP (01/14/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics / gargoyle!shallit / 3:18 am Jan 4, 1985 >In article <> ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) writes: >>To all those people wailing about how many people are killed >>by handguns and how much better everything would be if those >>guns were illegal: >> >> What fraction of the handguns used to commit crimes >> do you suppose are actually legally held? >> >>I know the answer for New York City: almost none. It is >>virtually impossible to get a handgun permit in New York. >>The fellow who shot the four punks on the subway, for instance, >>did so with an illegal gun: after he was mugged four years >>ago, he applied for a pistol permit but was turned down because >>he failed to demonstrate sufficient need for it. >> >>If enough people want something badly enough, making it illegal >>has about as much effect as closing your eyes and pretending >>it isn't there. >> >>If we really want to solve the crime problem, maybe we have to >>look a little deeper for the solution. > > You have listed at least one argument for effective NATIONAL >gun control. You can't tell me that if there were strictly enforced >registration policies; if illegal transfer of handguns made the >seller liable for the buyer's actions; and if it were easy for >police departments to request ownership information, that this >handgun madness wouldn't decrease significantly. Sorry, bub -- you can make laws, but you can't make them STRICTLY or FAIRLY enforced just by legislating. Propose legislation all you like, but have some realistic notion of how it would be acted on if enacted. In particular, I'm impressed by two things in this paragraph. The most important is that your only claim is that the "handgun madness" would "decrease significantly" if everything was structly enforced. Not much of a claim for the benefits of controls, even if pursued in a way superior to what would probably happen were such controls enacted. The other, and far more serious, is a lack of any admission that you are trying to cut down on people's freedom here, and an utter lack of understanding of WHY people own guns. > The NRA is agains all these (to me, reasonable) actions. Currently >it is becoming more and more difficult to trace ownership of a gun, >due in part to Reagan's attempt to dismantle the Handgun Control >Act of 1968. > > Look--you register your car, why not your gun? A handgun's only >valid purpose is to kill another person. I want those suckers >REGISTERED! Look -- you register your car, why not your sexual preferences? Why not the contents of your safe deposit box? Why not your travel intentions? Get it? The fact that one registers one thing doesn't justify registering another, unless they are somehow similar. Given all the "oh but cars kill people while being used for a constructive task and are therefore different from guns" I hear from gun control advocates, I'm surprised you would imply such similarity.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (01/14/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics / nsc!myunive / 12:55 am Jan 3, 1985 >In article <39@ucbcad.UUCP> faustus@ucbcad.UUCP writes: > >Let me add some more: > > > > 7. How often do people actually succeed in defending themselves > > from attacks with handguns? > > > > 8. In those cases where they try and fail, how often is the > > effect of the attack made significantly worse (by the attacker > > getting mad, getting the gun, etc) ? > > > > 9. Taking these two things into account, are handguns really > > effective ways of defending onesself? > > > > Wayne > > This point gets at the very essence of the problem with using guns >to defend your property or your person. First as more people get guns >to defend themselves and their property more criminals will get guns as >well. Why do you think so? CRIMINALS are already highly motivated to get guns -- and they get all they want (remember the figures on legal vs. illegal guns in NYC). To argue that criminals will get more guns if people do without any support strikes me as silly. >When someone is attacking you and both of you have guns, you are at >a severe disadvantage because your attacker has the element of surprise. Let's not oversimplify. If you hear funny noises downstairs, YOU know the layout of the house. If somebody's breaking into your car and you see them first, YOU have the element of surprise. >Also as most robbers do not want to be caught or seen, if you don't have a >gun and they see that you are there, they are likely to run away where as >if you do have a gun they might very well shoot at you in "self defence". So? Point the gun at them and tell them to beat it. This example strikes me as possible, but unlikely. How is the thief to know you have a gun? If you have one, how is it that he gets the chance to point his at you? >The other problem is that around half of all murders are by >lovers, children, parents, spouses, or other people emotionally close to >the victim in "hot blood" which would not have been commited if a gun were >not available. Proof, please. If you can't muster any, shut up about this. You wouldn't believe how tiresome it gets to have one's constitutional rights eroded by people using unsupported assertions about what might happen. >Very few murders are actually commited in cold blood by >actual criminal types. Most occur in brawls or fights because one or more >of the people involved have guns. When people routinely carry guns it >can even be used in "self defense" in a brawl to keep the other person from >thinking of it first and using theirs. Thus for 2 of the most common types >of murders, people having guns for use in self defense is a major contributing >factor to the problem and totally useless as a defense. Look, subway trains run some people and collide with others. They are thus instrumental in the two major causes of subway-track-related deaths. Is this a good argument that we should get rid of subways? No. People buy guns for a variety of reasons. Just as one seldom buys a car with the idea in mind of wrecking it and killing a bunch of others, most people do not buy guns with the specific idea that they'll start on a killing spree. They buy guns to protect themselves -- a legitimate purpose. If you were correct about guns being extraneous and dangerous, you'd be able to convince people to get rid of guns -- it would be in their own interest. On the other hand, you seem to be trying to make it a thing controlled by the state -- a sign you aren't at all sure you can convince people. > > We can cut down on the number of criminals >who have guns and make it alot easier to track those who use them. No, we can't. Listen -- we're talking a 12,000 mile coastline for the US. We're talking small, easy to import items. We're talking big money for the mafia. Do you think the marijuana trade is much impeded by being illegal? No.... >We can require that all gun owners have a gun owners licence, >just as we currently require drivers licenses for cars. Why should we? As I understand it, a gun is a lot safer to own than a car. Further, cars are easy to spot. Determining that a gun was owned might require stop-and-search efforts, or arbitrary house-searches. Or hadn't that occurred to you? >This way guns >used in a crime could easily be tracked down and people could be required >to take certain classes and tests on gun safety just as they are for cars. The murders committed in hot blood are not a problem -- as I understand it, the hotblooded-murder-by-the-passionate-family-member-or-lover is not difficult to solve -- and this is the only sort of crime that is likely to be committed by people with a legal gun. >People would be required to get a license before they could buy a gun and >then once they bought a gun it would be registered just as a car is currently >registered. The licenses could be cross checked against drivers licenses >to make sure the person is genuine and against criminal records to see if >the person has commited a crime. This would also make it easier to >crack down in the resale of stolen guns, thus protecting the rights of >legitimate gunowners. Doing it for their own good, eh? How generous of you. Of course, you've *COMPLETELY* missed the point -- the licenses would impede ONLY LEGITIMATE GUN OWNERS -- criminals would just buy guns through illegal channels. > Currently in California, all that is required is that you sign >a paper stating that you are not a felon. There have been many cases of >felons who have lied and bought guns anyway. > Although this plan would not cut down on the major uses of guns >to kill people it would make it alot easier to track down who did commit >a murder and to prove that that person committed the murder. Oh? I don't see it. "Yes, the gun was registered to me -- it was stolen yesterday and I hadn't gotten around to reporting it because I didn't realize it was missing." Again, the crime-in-passion is not that hard to trace. In the real world, the killer (as I understand it) is still standing there with the gun or has fled. Either way, we're not talking locked-room mysteries here. >Through >requiring education it would cut down on the number of accidental deaths >caused by people mishandling guns. By making it more difficult for criminals >to buy guns it would cut down on the use of guns by criminals. I don't hear any support for the notion that the black market in guns will be much affected -- stolen guns will certainly be no harder to get, and black market guns will be shipped in, just as pot is. >If we license cars, only outlaws will drive without licenses. Quite true -- and EXACTLY what happens.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (01/14/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics / randvax!david / 3:57 pm Jan 5, 1985 >> > > from randvax!rohn >> > > I'd be interested in answers from the control advocates to the following >> > > question: Assuming some sort of national handgun control is instituted, >> > > why do you think that that will prevent criminals from getting handguns >> > > illegally, just as most of them do now? >> > >> > from --- das (David Shlapak) >> > That's the whole point of NATIONAL gun control...making it harder to >> > get a handgun anywhere. One of the most pernicious characteristics of >> > a handgun is its size; it's not at all difficult to carry one from >> > point A, where there are no or lax gun control laws, to point B, >> > where stricter regulations may exist. A national law could be quite >> > effective in preventing this traffic in semi-legal weaponry. >> > >> > Remember, most "illegal" handguns were legal at some point in their >> > travels... >> >> I don't deny that nationally controlling handguns would make them harder >> to get. I'm just not yet convinced that criminals would have a *much* >> harder time getting them. Heroin is illegal everywhere in the US, but >> it does seem to turn up a lot, and from what I'm told, if you have the >> money, it isn't hard to get. Why would handguns be any different? (That >> wasn't meant as a rhetorical question...:-) ) >> >> >> Lauri > > I'm prepared to argue, Lauri, that we'd see a lot more junkies on the > street if heroin was legal and could be purchased legally at K-marts > and "sporting goods" stores... I'm GLAD you're prepared to argue it -- it shows you to be a person who does not comprehend in the slightest the logic of illegal drugs. England has made free heroin available to addicts. You must register for the drug, and as I understand it, it is supplied to you weekly. In all of England, there are an estimated 1500 heroin addicts. In the US, 0.6 percent of adults, or 816,000 are users of heroin (source: Information Please Almanac, 1985, pp 751 and 790). The 1500 addict in England figure means that they've got about 1/200th of the per capita heroin addiction that we do. Why? Well, one can argue cultural differences, but one CLEAR factor is that heroin is cheap and available there. In the US, heroin is a very expensive habit, and the simplest way for the addict to make money is to addict others and sell heroin to them. Failing that, of course, and lacking great wealth, he must steal a fair amount of stuff and fence it. The production cost of an average addict's daily dose of heroin is about the same as that of a loaf of bread -- so it would not be unreasonable for K-mart to sell it. So I'm delighted to hear that you're prepared to argue that freely-available heroin would cause more addicts to exist -- because it undermines the credibility of anything else you might say. > I used to keep a loaded gun (rifle, not handgun) by my bed, because I > lived in a bad neighborhood and felt I needed the protection. When > I moved "across the tracks" I first unloaded the gun, then got rid of > it entirely. I don't think guns are evil...they're instruments, > just like a jack handle, which is also lethal if misused. The problem > is, handguns are intended for one and only one purpose...the destruction > of human beings. Norman Mailer has a new word for us all, that I like very much. The word means: "An assertion that is repeated so often, particularly by the media, that it is widely accepted as a fact, even though the assertion is incorrect". Mailer's word for such an assertion is "factoid". Handguns are used to threaten human beings, to hunt animals, to display in museums, as sport devices for target-shooting. Acknowledge these, or fail to acknowledge them, and stand in the corner wearing a dunce cap. How often must it be said? They've other uses, for all that homicide is the most dramatic. Your assertion that they've no other uses (often heard on this net) is a factoid. > I DON'T believe possesion of handguns necessarily > should be outlawed, for all the reasons that you and others have been > bringing up (the same reason I don't think arms control is the best thing > since sliced bread....verifiability is a problem in both cases). > I DO think that national legislation severely restricting who can own > such weapons would go a long way towards easing the slaughter on our > streets...I mean, do you realize that more Americans are killed every > year by fellow Americans with guns than were ever killed in a similar > time span by Viet Cong and NVA with guns, mortars, artillery, etc? I believe the same may be said of automobiles -- and so what? We live in a violent country. Do you have some scientific reason to believe that such legislation would work? I know of none, but I'm willing to listen. > > Look at the numbers...most handgun murders are committed by non-criminals. > > > I'm realistic enough to know that gun control is not the entire answer > to the problem of violence in our society...in fact, I'm sufficiently > cynical to believe that there is no answer...if, however, stringent > national gun control can cut the number of needless deaths in half, > that's about 10,000 more mothers and fathers and husbands and wives > who will live to celebrate another Christmas than would otherwise be > the case. I think that's a worthwhile goal, even if it still means > that some "criminals" still have guns. Better none dead than 10,000, > but better 10,000 than 20,000. > A worthy hope. On the other hand, you've got the little problem of measurement here. Better 20,000 than 40,000, huh? What do you KNOW (What can you PROVE) of what would happen were the stringent controls imposed? How do you measure the degree of deterrence from criminals knowing that a given household is armed? Remember, you're the one trying to limit the freedom of individuals -- you're the one who'd better come up with some proof.
mike@erix.UUCP (Mike Williams) (01/14/85)
Many people in this debate have suggested that absence of gun control in the US is not responsible for the number of killings in the US. In other words, if people in the US didn't have guns there would be more murders with knives, clubs etc. The implication of this is that the US culture is more oriented to murders and violence than other Western countries. This is a generality which seems to me to be absurd. Could it be that the iresposible few in the US are more iresponsible than the equivalent in the Europe? If so why? Mike Williams
franka@hercules.UUCP (Frank Adrian) (01/15/85)
In article <1174@ut-ngp.UUCP> kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) writes: >[] >>From: josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) >> >> ... The SC generally dispenses beautiful words >>in which to clothe the ugly prejudices of the times; and the government >>will do anything it can get away with, "entitled" or not. >> >> ... >> >>--JoSH > >PERFECT! I have not seen a better empircal observation of what the >Supreme Court really does! > >-- > >Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" Well, Ken, I think that you are wrong in branding ONLY the SC as usurpers of freedoms. If you look at history, all three branches of government have done their fair share of robbing autonomy from citizens. The SC is visible only be cause it SEEMS to be the last resort. However, remember, any member or members of the SC can be impeached by the Congress. Since the Congress has not deigned to do this, it can be assumed that any judgement the SC passes has the implicit consent of the US Congress... Frank Adrian
peterb@pbear.UUCP (01/16/85)
/* Written 9:59 pm Jan 7, 1985 by sdcc13!ee161anm in pbear:net.politics */ >I don't know about all fire arms, but the M16 A-1 service rifle (which will >soon be replaced with the M16 A-2 service rifle as the primary firearm for >the US armed forces) uses a .22 round which is designed to "rotate" or >"spin" upon impact (it hits at 3.250 ft/second). Although the round >becomes >disfigured upon impact, it does not shatter. It kind of bounces around >inside the victim, and doesn't usually exit. Death is by no means >automatic, >and survival is actually more probable. Besides, except for sniping, >shooting with this rifle rarely produces a hit. You kind of shoot in in >general directions to make it more difficult for the enemy to shoot in your >general direction. Excuse me, but let me correct some points here. first the M16 A-2 is NOT .22 caliber. It uses the standard NATO round of 5.62 mm. This is equivilent to .217323 caliber (close, but not exact) Also, 3.250 ft/second is really slow, equivilent to 2.515 MPH. I could walk faster than that. You are saying that rarely does the rifle produce a hit?!? Come on, on the target range that rifle is accurate to 500 meters, or about a third of a mile. It is only in wartime that the ammunition is expended in suspect of a target, and then its usually FFE (fire for effect), the equvilent of using a case of 12 gauge shells to kill a bird suspected to be in a tree. This is why the figures are so low for hits/round. If used wisely and without the fear of getting hit first, that weapon makes a teriffic hit. Also the round does not "bounce" around. The newer NATO loads vary. some disintegrate and create a cone effect. some mushroom and lodge themselves. Otheres are jacketed and pass through cleanly. With these loads, death is more probable if the bullet enters a vital area such as upper chest, neck, head, etc... Peter Barada ...!ima!pbear!peterb
cjohnson@zehntel.UUCP (Chris Johnson) (01/16/85)
Reasons for owning a gun: 1) Self defense 2) Hunting/Sport 3) Collecting 4) Crime Why not ban handguns? Self defense : con: I will be left defenseless if I am attacked. pro: If you own a handgun AND it is used to shoot a person there is an 80% chance it will be used to shoot you or someone you know. (source Congressional Committee reports circa 1978) Think about this - do you think that the odds are a good bet? Hunting/Sport : con : Don't take away my toys. pro : Handguns are not exactly the weapon of choice of hunters due to inaccuracy and lack of power. If you want a challenge (as was implied in an earlier posting) use a bow and arrow, or remove the sights or something. Collecting : con : Don't take away my toys. pro : Prove to the authorities that your toy can't be fired and you can keep it. It's dangerous to fire an antique gun anyway unless its in perfect condition. Crime : (No one is seriously suggesting that handguns should be kept legal so that criminals can have them, are they? ______________________________________________________________________________ Legalistic argument: con: Banning handguns violates the constitution. pro: Guess again Chucko. (oops, there's my bias showing) A militia can be well armed with many other possible weapons, and any other interpretation of the second ammendment logically implies that I have a right to my own private nuke to be used in event of an attack against my country. Alternate method argument: con: criminals will just use knives, rifles, or some such weapon. pro: A rifle is very difficult to conceal, a sawwed off shotgun is still large, a knife is usually not as lethal (it is at least possible to run from a knife). The plain fact is that no weapon is as effective as a handgun from a criminal's point of view. It's easy to conceal, and fairly lethal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Suggested method of implementing a ban: 1) Ban handguns and all 'law abiding' owners will turn them in. 2) Have yearly amnesties, say one week, when guns may be turned in without fear of arrest. 3) Perhaps offer a reward for any gun turned in to get peoples greed motive in action. For your consideration, Chris "I asked this guy and he said it made sense" Johnson
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) (01/19/85)
> Many people in this debate have suggested that absence of gun control > in the US is not responsible for the number of killings in the US. In other > words, if people in the US didn't have guns there would be more murders > with knives, clubs etc. The implication of this is that the US culture > is more oriented to murders and violence than other Western countries. > > This is a generality which seems to me to be absurd. Could it be that > the iresposible few in the US are more iresponsible than the equivalent > in the Europe? If so why? > > Mike Williams Why? Because the U.S. is not Europe. Because the U.S. does not have a small, homogeneous population like your country does (relatively speaking, anyway). Actually, the most common crime is not murder or assault, but theft. And I think Sweden (you are in Sweden, aren't you? :-) has more of it than the U.S. Note: This posting does not imply that I am either for or against gun control. --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "Nice boy, but about as sharp as a sack of wet mice." - Foghorn Leghorn
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (01/20/85)
> Why not ban handguns? > Self defense : > con: I will be left defenseless if I am attacked. > pro: If you own a handgun AND it is used to shoot a > person there is an 80% chance it will be used to > shoot you or someone you know. (source Congressional > Committee reports circa 1978) > Think about this - do you think that the odds are > a good bet? Probably most of the people whose ownership of guns caused something bad to happen either had bad tempers, didn't know what they were doing (like the guy who shot himself in the head while answering the phone), or led lifestyles (like drug pushers) that things pretty dangerous for them in any case. If you look at how much of that 80% were people who were responsible, intelligent, and "law-abiding" people (like everybody reading this, of course...), I think it will give you better odds. In any case, people don't tend to be convinced by arguments that imply that they aren't any better than everybody else... Wayne
cliff@unmvax.UUCP (01/21/85)
> Reasons for owning a gun: > 1) Self defense > 2) Hunting/Sport > 3) Collecting > 4) Crime > > Why not ban handguns? > Self defense : > con: I will be left defenseless if I am attacked. > pro: If you own a handgun AND it is used to shoot a > person there is an 80% chance it will be used to > shoot you or someone you know. (source Congressional > Committee reports circa 1978) > Think about this - do you think that the odds are > a good bet? truth: if *I* own a handgun and it is used to shoot a person the percentage chance that it will be used to shoot me or a person I know is unknown. Statistically a generic situation might yield the 80% figure, but you should know as well as I do that as you add qualifiers the statistics change... What are the statistics for women vs. men? how about age groups? left handed vs. right handed? Economic status? Membership in NRA? Membership in IRA? When you pin it down to a specific person statistics are no longer valid ... it's just like automobile accidents: the generic person might be x% probable to be the cause of a collision, while a person who has taken an automobile safety course will have <x% probability except if the person is a drunkard in which case it will still be >x% and so on. BTW, isn't there also a statistic that says if you are injured in a violent crime that the odds are pretty great that it will have been by someone you know? Is there a reason you should not defend yourself from some- one you know? > Hunting/Sport : > con : Don't take away my toys. > pro : Handguns are not exactly the weapon of choice of > hunters due to inaccuracy and lack of power. > If you want a challenge (as was implied in > an earlier posting) use a bow and arrow, or > remove the sights or something. amateur : Clever of you to combine hunting and sport and then totally ignore the sporting aspect. There are many people that shoot handguns as sport from unorganized shooting of cans and bottles to organized target shoots. > Collecting : > con : Don't take away my toys. > pro : Prove to the authorities that your toy can't be > fired and you can keep it. It's dangerous to > fire an antique gun anyway unless its in perfect > condition. observation : Car collectors prefer to keep their cars in running condition. Stamp collectors will pay more money for stamps that are usable (i.e. uncancelled). I can't think of any collector that would prefer to have unusable objects as part of his/her collection even if there is no intent to use it. Do you really think many handgun crimes are comitted by serious collectors? Let me guess you also anticipate someone to mail you a postcard with an upside down Jenny on it. > Crime : > (No one is seriously suggesting that handguns should be > kept legal so that criminals can have them, are they? Criminals do not require that things are legal to enjoy the use of them. > ______________________________________________________________________________ > > Legalistic argument: > con: Banning handguns violates the constitution. > pro: Guess again Chucko. (oops, there's my bias showing) > A militia can be well armed with many other possible > weapons, and any other interpretation of the second > ammendment logically implies that I have a right to my > own private nuke to be used in event of an attack > against my country. Constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So at best the states can make the decision, although there is no reason to believe that the denial of the right to bear hand- guns has any Constitutional legality. > Alternate method argument: > con: criminals will just use knives, rifles, or some such weapon. > pro: A rifle is very difficult to conceal, a sawwed off shotgun > is still large, a knife is usually not as lethal (it is > at least possible to run from a knife). The plain fact > is that no weapon is as effective as a handgun from a > criminal's point of view. It's easy to conceal, and fairly > lethal. reality: There are many criminals and many crimes. The average criminal does not even use a weapon, which is not surprising because the average crime is non-violent. Even if you were to limit the crimes to ones during which people are killed you would find that the most effective instrument of death is the auto- mobile. Automobiles kill more people than bullets do and you can bet that in almost every automobile death someone is comitting a crime. It is very easy to raise all sorts of hell with everyday items. Molotov cocktails are pretty destructive. Botulin is not hard to create. However the biggest drawback to your line of thinking is quite simply put. Criminals do not have an aversion to breaking the law. Making handguns illegal will not deter their use by criminals. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Suggested method of implementing a ban: > 1) Ban handguns and all 'law abiding' owners will turn them in. You find me a law abiding person in this day and age. The laws are too ridiculous. There are *very* few people that obey them all. When was the last time *you* drove over 55 m.p.h.? > 2) Have yearly amnesties, say one week, when guns may be turned in > without fear of arrest. If someone is going to turn in a handgun at anytime (except after use of a crime) what is the point of prosecuting them? You have a situation that is hilarious: If you mess up the lives of someone you dislike, get a handgun and leave it on their porch. If the person has to wait a year to turn it in you can turn him in instead. It is as dumb as the marijuana possesion laws that inspired people to mail joints to random people with the message that once the letter has been opened the random recipient is immediately qualified to be sent to jail for a coons age. Of course marijuana is easily disposable (you burn it :-)... > 3) Perhaps offer a reward for any gun turned in to get peoples > greed motive in action. Huh? if the reward is less than the price of the gun it would still be a net loss. If it were more than the price of the gun you can bet that every year before the amnesty period people would be purchasing illegal handguns just so they could turn them in. 4) Since there are millions of handguns out there yet only less than 2% are used in crimes you would have to have a law that is >98% effective. Do you really think there could be such a law when it is clear that there is this much opposition to it? Have you ever read about (or lived through) prohibition? > > For your consideration, > Chris "I asked this guy and he said it made sense" Johnson --Cliff [Matthews] {purdue, cmcl2, ihnp4}!lanl!unmvax!cliff {csu-cs, pur-ee, convex, gatech, ucbvax}!unmvax!cliff 4744 Trumbull S.E. - Albuquerque NM 87108 - (505) 265-9143
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (01/21/85)
Warning: this article is biased. It is a reply to the "summary" posted by Chris Johnson. I promise you, however, that it is no more biased than the original... > Reasons for owning a gun: > 1) Self defense > 2) Hunting/Sport > 3) Collecting > 4) Crime > > Why not ban handguns? > Self defense : > con: Stripping 50 million Americans of their chosen tools of self defense would require legal enforcement measures at least as daunting as the crime they are defending against. > pro: Policemen can use machine guns to face down the horrid gunowners. Currently only criminals have machine guns, so we can leave them alone. House to house searches can be made; if we declare martial law we won't need warrants. > Hunting/Sport : > con : If we take away their pistols, they may suspect the rest of our plans--they're not *totally* stupid. > pro : Hunters are stupid louts who only have guns as phallic symbols. They should be symbolically castrated. > Collecting : > con : We should throw them a bone, so we can claim how fair and evenhanded we're being. > pro : Someone might actually use an antique gun to protect himself, and that would be horrible. > Crime : Con : Giving the mob another area of government- supported monopoly would make us a laughingstock. Pro : Removing the last line of defense against crime would leave the people totally dependent on us. Total power would be only a step away. > > > Legalistic argument: > con: Banning handguns violates the constitution. > pro: Nahhh, the phrase "shall not be infringed" only means that we have to leave them some lip-service out, like joining a federally-controlled organization. Next we can use the same reasoning to show that free speech actually means saying what your superior orders, in a federally-controlled organization... > > Alternate method argument: > con: Criminals are to stupid to saw off a shotgun. This is proven by the fact that more of them use home-converted machine guns, rather than the far easier shotguns. > pro: people shot with shotguns, rifles, and machine guns splash so much more spectacularly. That's why so many of us media figures hate handguns! And handguns so often don't kill anyway--it makes us look so stupid to say, "the subway killer, uh, gunman". But the worst of all for us liberals: If handguns weren't available, Reagan wouldn't be alive today! > > Suggested method of implementing a ban: > 1) Ban handguns and all 'law abiding' owners will turn them in. We don't care about the criminals, anyway. > 2) Of course, when they see the law coming, the gunowners will try to sell their soon-to-be worthless guns. So we better make this an ex-post-facto law. > 3) Perhaps offer a reward for any gun turned in to get peoples greed motive in action. Brother turned against brother! Children turning in their parents to the Secret Police! Ingsoc rides again! > > For your consideration, :^), --JoSH
shallit@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Jeff Shallit) (06/24/85)
In article <> steiny@idsvax.UUCP (Don Steiny) writes: > > Jeff, I and others have posted the articles many times. You >are correct, they are by Kates. The only comeback you ever have to >the articles is that you don't like Kates. That is called an "ad homimum >fallacy" and does not contribute to your side of the argument at all. No, Don. It's called an "ad hominem" argument. We would be more impressed with your knowledge of Latin if you consulted a dictionary before composing your articles. The point is that Kates *manufactures* statistics. I have argued against him in person in California--when confronted he could not produce the names of half of the studies he quotes so enthusiastically. >You somehow think that the number of handgun deaths is an argument >against handguns, but you have never posted any material that >addresses the issues he raises. For instance, what are >people who live in rural areas without police protection >supposed to do to defend themselves? False, Don. I *have* posted articles about this. A handgun is not an adequate means of defense. People who live in rural areas would be better advised to buy rifles and shotguns for self-protection, if they want a gun. >THE POLICE advise people >around here to get guns and learn how to use them. That may be true, Don. But the police chiefs I am acquainted with do NOT recommend handguns. They recommend shotguns. See the book by the police chief of San Jose. >Don't forget that Kates has said that violent crime INCREASES >in areas with strick gun control and he cites the statistics to >back himself up. Wrong again, Don. Look at Washington, D. C., where both the murder rate and crime rate went down by 25% after a strict gun control law was enacted there. Look at Massachusetts, where the homicide rate decreased by 20% after a gun control law enacted there. Look at Morton Grove, where there have been NO murders and NO suicides since the passage of its famous handgun ban (in the previous six years, there were four suicides and three homicides). Don, I don't doubt your sincerity. However, I am skeptical of the statistics cited by Kates, and you should be, too. Jeff Shallit University of Chicago
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/27/85)
> In article <> steiny@idsvax.UUCP (Don Steiny) writes: > > > >You somehow think that the number of handgun deaths is an argument > >against handguns, but you have never posted any material that > >addresses the issues he raises. For instance, what are > >people who live in rural areas without police protection > >supposed to do to defend themselves? > > False, Don. I *have* posted articles about this. A handgun is not > an adequate means of defense. People who live in rural areas would be > better advised to buy rifles and shotguns for self-protection, if they > want a gun. > Ever tried to carry a rifle or shotgun while working in the garden? Handguns are appropriate when you need your hands free. > >THE POLICE advise people > >around here to get guns and learn how to use them. > > That may be true, Don. But the police chiefs I am acquainted with > do NOT recommend handguns. They recommend shotguns. See the book by > the police chief of San Jose. > And there isn't a sheriff in the whole state of California who supported this last gun control measure; most of the police chiefs in California also opposed it. Police chief McNamara is quite unique. > >Don't forget that Kates has said that violent crime INCREASES > >in areas with strick gun control and he cites the statistics to > >back himself up. > > Wrong again, Don. Look at Washington, D. C., where both the murder > rate and crime rate went down by 25% after a strict gun control law > was enacted there. Look at Massachusetts, where the homicide rate > decreased by 20% after a gun control law enacted there. Look at > Morton Grove, where there have been NO murders and NO suicides since > the passage of its famous handgun ban (in the previous six years, > there were four suicides and three homicides). > What was happening to crime rates in the country as a whole during that same time? Crime rates throughout America are at the lowest rates since 1975; the examples you cited above start around the time that all crime rates in this country declined. (By the way, there were only a few handguns turned in Morton's Grove --- it couldn't have made that much difference.) > Jeff Shallit > University of Chicago I'm not even sure why gun control is an issue --- there is more chance of making marijuana and heroin disappear than handguns --- and there's no chance *at all* of making those two go away.
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (06/28/85)
In article <503@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> shallit@gargoyle.UUCP (Jeff ) writes: >>Don't forget that Kates has said that violent crime INCREASES >>in areas with strick gun control and he cites the statistics to >>back himself up. >Wrong again, Don. Look at Washington, D. C., where both the murder >rate and crime rate went down by 25% after a strict gun control law >was enacted there. Look at Massachusetts, where the homicide rate >decreased by 20% after a gun control law enacted there. Look at >Morton Grove, where there have been NO murders and NO suicides since >the passage of its famous handgun ban (in the previous six years, >there were four suicides and three homicides). The D.C. numbers are not nearly that conclusive. In fact, the rate began to drop BEFORE the law went into effect, and began to rise again, reaching a new peak in 1982. Th rate of accidental death hasn't appreciably changed. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/01/85)
In article <288@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >Ever tried to carry a rifle or shotgun while working in the garden? >Handguns are appropriate when you need your hands free. Hmmm. They must be IMPOSSIBLE in combat! If your life is *so* much in danger that you could be killed in you garden, I think you could manage to deal with the rifle (handguns are *really* hard to aim anyway.) >And there isn't a sheriff in the whole state of California who supported >this last gun control measure; most of the police chiefs in California >also opposed it. Police chief McNamara is quite unique. That's a lot of sheriffs. Are you sure? >> Wrong again, Don. Look at Washington, D. C., where both the murder >> rate and crime rate went down by 25% after a strict gun control law >> was enacted there. Look at Massachusetts, where the homicide rate >> decreased by 20% after a gun control law enacted there. >What was happening to crime rates in the country as a whole during that >same time? Who cares? If crimes rates increase, I will feel safer living in Massachusetts. >I'm not even sure why gun control is an issue --- there is more chance of >making marijuana and heroin disappear than handguns --- and there's no >chance *at all* of making those two go away. You're right about the latter, but the former statement is naive. Handgun shipments into the US are legal. So is domestic production. They could both be shut down sufficiently. Dope doesn't show up on X-rays. Guns do. Hashish doesn't trigger metal detectors. Guns do. Marajauna growers need a plot of dirt. Gunsmiths need precision tools. Putting the gun trade to a standstill is not a pipe dream for bleeding heart liberals. Tell me, if they can smuggle Levi's into Russia, how come they don't smuggle handguns, too? -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack. No one knows about it." -Rev. Wang Zeep
wjafyfe@watmath.UUCP (Andy Fyfe) (07/02/85)
The following is taken from the University of Waterloo Gazette,
26 June 1985 (Volume 25, Number 39).
Gun Control
"Armed Police Enhance Safety on Campuses" was the title of the
lead editorial in the Buffalo News the other day. The article
pointed out that the security officers at, for example, the
University of Buffalo have not carried guns since it was decided,
during the heyday of the 1960's radicalism, "that guns would only
exacerbate negative student attitudes toward authority and increase
the danger of violence in volatile situations." But that problem
is gone, and more recent experience of rape and armed violence
makes it necessary for UB security officers to start going armed,
the editorial said (and a campus committee has recommended the same
thing). Postscript: the security department at UW doesn't even
own any guns, says director Al Romenco, and he hopes it never will.
Andy Fyfe ...!{decvax, allegra, ihnp4, et. al}!watmath!wjafyfe
wjafyfe@waterloo.csnetbennet@gymble.UUCP (Tom Bennet) (07/09/85)
>From: csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) >Message-ID: <292@mit-vax.UUCP> > >>I'm not even sure why gun control is an issue --- there is more chance of >>making marijuana and heroin disappear than handguns --- and there's no >>chance *at all* of making those two go away. > >You're right about the latter, but the former statement is naive. >Handgun shipments into the US are legal. So is domestic production. They >could both be shut down sufficiently. Dope doesn't show up on X-rays. >Guns do. Hashish doesn't trigger metal detectors. Guns do. Marajauna >growers need a plot of dirt. Gunsmiths need precision tools. Putting the >gun trade to a standstill is not a pipe dream for bleeding heart >liberals. Tell me, if they can smuggle Levi's into Russia, how come >they don't smuggle handguns, too? How are X-rays going to distinguish smuggled guns in the middle of a large crate of automotive parts, especially when they've been disguised (placed inside something else perhaps)? Of course, we can always just hand-search all packages, crates, and automobiles entering the country; that will help unemployment as well. Where do you plan to put the metal detectors? Perhaps we could ring the entire US boarder with them. Oh yes, and cover the perimeter of the air space too. Of course, we'll have to ask all illegal aliens entering the country walk to through a detector. How precise a tool do you need to make a second-rate gun? How hard would it be to use a legit machine shop or small factory for a cover? Will it not be harder to find gun manufacturing inside a small building than to find a field of marijuana growing out in the open? Have not various illegal drugs been successfully manufactured in the US more than occasionally? Why don't they smuggle Russian calculators into the United States? Might be because 'cause there's no market for them. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A balanced diet is important: one must | Tom Bennet @ U of MD Comp Sci Dept occasionally change pizza places. | ..!ihnp4!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!bennet
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (07/09/85)
In article <292@mit-vax.UUCP> csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) writes: >Handgun shipments into the US are legal. So is domestic production. They >could both be shut down sufficiently. Dope doesn't show up on X-rays. >Guns do. Hashish doesn't trigger metal detectors. Guns do. Marajauna >growers need a plot of dirt. Gunsmiths need precision tools. Putting the >gun trade to a standstill is not a pipe dream for bleeding heart >liberals. Tell me, if they can smuggle Levi's into Russia, how come >they don't smuggle handguns, too? >Charles Forsythe I was surprised that 150 messages later than this in net.politics, no one had taken issue with this manifesto of flagrant ignorance. a) the use of guns (specifically handguns) in crime is a tiny percentage (~0.01%) of all handgun use in the US. The current black market is many times the volume needed to support criminal use. b) it is impossible to interdict the flow of small arms at any border across which there is any considerable traffic of private automobiles. c) a short, concealable weapon, quite suitable for holdups and murder, can be constructed from either rifle or shotgun in a few minutes with a hacksaw. d) consider that that there is in fact a model of the proposed prohibition, nationwide, namely that of submachine guns, since the 1930's. Nevertheless the current murder rate with them exceeds that of the '20s when they were legal and the hallmark of gang warfare. e) All the above aside, it is quite feasible for anyone who can fix a car to make a respectable autopistol in a common machine shop in a day, or in the basement in a week, using materials found in any hardware store. A zip gun, useless for defense but just the thing for murder, can be made by a technological illiterate like Mr. Forsythe in an hour. --JoSH
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/09/85)
In article <2615@topaz.ARPA> josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) writes: >a) the use of guns (specifically handguns) in crime is a tiny percentage > (~0.01%) of all handgun use in the US. The current black market is > many times the volume needed to support criminal use. Maybe where you live. >e) All the above aside, it is quite feasible for anyone who can fix a car > to make a respectable autopistol in a common machine shop in a day, > or in the basement in a week, using materials found in any hardware store. > A zip gun, useless for defense but just the thing for murder, can be > made by a technological illiterate like Mr. Forsythe in an hour. >--JoSH Very good JoSH. I was never naive enough to think that we would be totally safe from terrorists and mobsters. Still, how many street punks conduct holdups with uzi's or zip guns. I won't keep you in suspense: not a drop in the bucket. While the sawed-off shotgun has been known to be popular, everyone I know who has been mugged (a great deal more than ~0.01% of my friends) has been mugged at pistol-point. Transmit some more statistics, JoSH. Maybe, if I hear them enough I'll stop believing my own experience and that of my aquaintances. My only possible response at this point is that I realize handguns, and guns in general, are so much a part of this country that most people couldn't imagine a world without them. Japan has some of the stricktest gun control laws in the world and the lowest murder-by-firearms rate to go with it. Perhaps JoSH can fly over and start a black market. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack. No one knows about it." -Rev. Wang Zeep
bill@persci.UUCP (07/13/85)
In article <343@mit-vax.UUCP> csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) writes: >In article <2615@topaz.ARPA> josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) writes: >>a) the use of guns (specifically handguns) in crime is a tiny percentage >> (~0.01%) of all handgun use in the US. The current black market is >> many times the volume needed to support criminal use. >Maybe where you live. He lives in the United States. What fairy-tale land are you living in? >[...] >My only possible response at this point is that I realize handguns, and >guns in general, are so much a part of this country that most people >couldn't imagine a world without them. Japan has some of the stricktest >gun control laws in the world and the lowest murder-by-firearms rate to >go with it. Perhaps JoSH can fly over and start a black market. >Charles Forsythe >CSDF@MIT-VAX >"The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack. > No one knows about it." > -Rev. Wang Zeep Perhaps Mr. Forsythe should study the social situation of Japan, particularly as regards criminals, as well as Japan's prison system, before he makes remarks like the above. Certainly the stuff is available (look at all the trouble at Narita (sp?) airport), it is just not acceptable *at all* to break the law there. There is no such thing as "completely rehabilitated" there. In fact, the stigma extends on down the generations. -- Bill Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!bill
eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) (07/14/85)
> a) the use of guns (specifically handguns) in crime is a tiny percentage > (~0.01%) of all handgun use in the US. The current black market is > many times the volume needed to support criminal use. > b) it is impossible to interdict the flow of small arms at any border > across which there is any considerable traffic of private automobiles. > c) a short, concealable weapon, quite suitable for holdups and murder, > can be constructed from either rifle or shotgun in a few minutes > with a hacksaw. > d) consider that that there is in fact a model of the proposed prohibition, > nationwide, namely that of submachine guns, since the 1930's. Nevertheless > the current murder rate with them exceeds that of the '20s when they > were legal and the hallmark of gang warfare. > e) All the above aside, it is quite feasible for anyone who can fix a car > to make a respectable autopistol in a common machine shop in a day, > or in the basement in a week, using materials found in any hardware store. > A zip gun, useless for defense but just the thing for murder, can be > made in an hour. [unnecessary childish flame against Mr. Forsythe deleted by the editor]. > > --JoSH Although I agree with all 5 of these arguments, I still want *some* handgun control. I believe many of you are missing the point. One must first decide which problem is being addressed. Stated rather generally, I believe handgun legislation is "aimed" at reducing second degree murder, and injuries related to these crimes. What is a second degree murderer like? They are considerably different from first degree murderers, hence the legal distinction. He (forgive the sexism, but they are statistically male anyways) is (was) rarely a major criminal, but he lacks self control. In the heat of the moment, driven by passion, sometimes clouded by alcohol, he hauls off and shoots the person he is arguing with; a person he knows well. Of course, since he has no training, his aim is unreliable, and he sometimes hits a bystander. Other scenarios, closer to my home, involve young gang members, who lose all perspective during a territorialistic fight, and whip out their guns. Still other murders result from robberies and burglaries. I believe these crimes represent a majority of murders in the US. Murder #1 also deserves our attention, but nobody is suggesting that gun control will help here. Yet I believe it will do no harm. If someone is planning to kill you, they can often get something better than a handgun anyways. Combined with the element of surprise, you rarely have a chance. A handgun up your sleeve wouldn't help. But let me return to murder #2. Handgun control assumes a significant number of these potential murderers are (relatively) law abiding citizens, who lack self control, or whatever. Thus, these people are not likely to go far out of their way to break the law (e.g. buy or manufacture illegal weaponry). They can carry knives for their security blankets, and when they wield them in a moment of passion, the victim still has a chance, and bystanders are relatively safe. Furthermore, these people couldn't afford black market handguns even if they were willing to break the law to obtain them. A lot of assumptions, I know, but I believe these are the relevant ones. Opponents of handgun control must refute these assumptions. Viewed in this light, the above arguments are red herrings. Surprisingly, I have seen very few statistics on the nature of second degree murderers, the weapons they use, why they had their weapons, etc. Are these people likely (or economically able) to buy black market guns? I don't know. I do know that something must be done. Aside from the obvious tragic loss of life, the victim is often the family breadwinner, forcing the survivers onto welfare programs. The (now serious) criminal occupies space in a jail, and consumes tax dollars, instead of producing them. The cost to our society is very high. -- Three of the most brilliant concepts are very counterintuitive: evolution, capitalism, and relativity. Despite our intuitions and biases, the evidence supports all three. Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
gene@batman.UUCP (Gene Mutschler) (07/15/85)
> > Gunsmiths need precision tools. The gunsmiths near the Khyber Pass in Pakistan would laugh about this one for a week. > > Putting the > >gun trade to a standstill is not a pipe dream for bleeding heart > >liberals. The mujahadeen (sp?) who buy those guns are probably glad that it IS a pipe dream. > > Tell me, if they can smuggle Levi's into Russia, how come > >they don't smuggle handguns, too? The mujahadeen are smarter than that--they smuggle rifles.
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/15/85)
In article <228@persci.UUCP> bill@persci.UUCP (Bill Swan) writes: >He lives in the United States. What fairy-tale land are you living in? I live in Cambridge, in the country of Massachusetts. People die when they're shot by muggers, here. Luckily, my country enacted gun control legislation a while back and not as many people get shot any more. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack. No one knows about it." -Rev. Wang Zeep
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/16/85)
In article <136@batman.UUCP> gene@batman.UUCP (Gene Mutschler) writes: >The gunsmiths near the Khyber Pass in Pakistan would laugh about this one >for a week. >The mujahadeen (sp?) who buy those guns are probably glad that it IS a >pipe dream. >The mujahadeen are smarter than that--they smuggle rifles. I'll remember all this important gun-control-related information when I move to Pakistan. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack. No one knows about it." -Rev. Wang Zeep