regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (04/25/85)
Tom, I'm afraid I have to second R Roberts on this one. It's similar in tone to discussions I've been having with another Canadian on the same subject. Canada blames the US for illegally imported weapons. The US blames Mexico, or other points south, for similar weapons. Fact is you can make a "Saturday Night special" in your garage with approx. $14 worth of materials. Confiscating the weapons from "fanatic gun-toters" (and even from non- fanatic, quiet, reserved gun-owners, who in 40 years of ownership have never used their weapon) does not remove weapons from the hands of the criminal. _My_ guess, (which you are entitled to shoot down as you please), is that if the general populace were unarmed, and forced to remain unarmed, the criminals would be scurrying for guns like MAD (and manufacturing them) since even poor ones would give them an incredible edge. It would become incredibly easy for the mugger to avoid the cop on the corner and rob the guy who lived mid-block, knowing that no one stood in his way. Right now, he has to worry about both the cop on the corner, and that the guy mid- block might be armed. Rather than the other way around. But these are just guesses, after all. We don't have control groups for our hypotheses, and can only stand up for what we believe. Please don't make the common mistake that gun-ownership equates to gun-use. This is patently not true (as previous statistics have shown). A. Regard
west@utcsri.UUCP (Thomas L. West) (04/28/85)
Adrienne Regard writes: >Confiscating the weapons from "fanatic gun-toters" (and even from non- >fanatic, quiet, reserved gun-owners, who in 40 years of ownership have >never used their weapon) does not remove weapons from the hands of the >criminal. >Please don't >make the common mistake that gun-ownership equates to gun-use. This is >patently not true (as previous statistics have shown). Me: This is another marvellous case of the fact that the 2% of the population who aren't responsible tend to ruin life for the rest. I will admit that most handgun owners are fairly responsible. However, I wouldn't allow tacnukes to be sold on the basis that there is *always* going to be an irresponsible element in society, and we can decrease the grief he causes by decreasing the number of people he can kill in a short span of time. I do disagree that making handguns illegal would not decrease the number in criminal's hands. The states have some of the most liberal handgun laws in the world. Their criminals are also the best armed. Non-causal? I doubt it. I don't think that handguns are that easy to make, and the average hood has a hard time getting their (one? his? :-)) hands on one, if they are not available over the counter (within a state or two, anyway. I agree that non-country-wide handgun controls probably don't work.) You can't legislate out stupidity, so I prefer to minimize the damage that the stupid can do, within reason (= within what I will accept, of course). Err.., I have been replying to these things in net.flame. Due to the fact that this goes to the slightly more reasonable net.politics as well, I withdraw my gun-toting-fanatics and suchlike remarks. I have *rather* strong opinions on the issue, but it was unreasonable of me to slander the other side. My apologies. Tom West "Some men think...and some don't" -A. Regard (thanks!) { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsri!west