shallit@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Jeff Shallit) (02/28/85)
davidl@tekig5.UUCP (David Levadie) writes: >... Why should I submit to the SLIGHTEST inconvenience >because some two-bit jerk has a macho complex about guns and therefore >abuses them? WHY??? WHY??? Nobody on this braindamaged net will even >DISCUSS that question, even though SEVERAL people have asked it. It >must be just too mentally taxing to contemplate - it's easier to just >go about blathering statistics, and arguing fruitlessly about whether >or not "guns cause crime", etc., etc, etc... I can think of at least two reasons why. First, a considerable number of handguns later used in crimes have been stolen from otherwise "responsible" owners. In fact, Professor Mark Moore of Harvard University has estimated that as many as 225,000 handguns are stolen *each year*. A 1979 study by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms found that 50% of criminally used firearms were stolen. In fact, the odds that a handgun will be used to deter an intruder are *lower* than the odds that the handgun will be stolen. The second reason should be even more obvious. Your *individual* rights extend only to where they begin to infringe on others. If society determines that handguns are a societal menace, then your individual right to own one must be subjugated for the general good. Note that I am not necessarily concluding that handguns must be confiscated; but many dangerous materials and devices are regulated, and handguns should be among them. Jeff Shallit
karl@osu-eddie.UUCP (Karl Kleinpaste) (03/04/85)
---------- > davidl@tekig5.UUCP (David Levadie) writes: > >... Why should I submit to the SLIGHTEST inconvenience > >because some two-bit jerk has a macho complex about guns and therefore > >abuses them? WHY??? WHY??? Nobody on this braindamaged net will even > >DISCUSS that question, even though SEVERAL people have asked it. It > >must be just too mentally taxing to contemplate - it's easier to just > >go about blathering statistics, and arguing fruitlessly about whether > >or not "guns cause crime", etc., etc, etc... > > I can think of at least two reasons why. > > First, a considerable number of handguns later used in crimes have been > stolen from otherwise "responsible" owners. In fact, Professor Mark > Moore of Harvard University has estimated that as many as 225,000 > handguns are stolen *each year*. A 1979 study by the Bureau of > Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms found that 50% of criminally used > firearms were stolen. In fact, the odds that a handgun will be used > to deter an intruder are *lower* than the odds that the handgun will > be stolen. ---------- This will no doubt gain me the new enmity of several people on this network, but here's my response to the claim that lots (admittedly, LOTS) of firearms are stolen and later used in (other) criminal activities: I don't care. I mean that sincerely. The legislation which tries to address this question has never, ever once addressed the problem of the thief or the abuser of the firearm. They have only infringed on the ability of responsible gun owners to possess them. You may argue that, if they can be stolen so easily, the owners are not responsible; you might even have a point there. But it doesn't matter; *I* am responsible about them. I'll wager that if I give you 15 minutes in my home, you can't even find my firearms. (I understand that the average nighttime burglary lasts less than 15 minutes.) My point here is that *I* will not be infringed upon if what *I* am doing is perfectly safe and OK. Penalizing me for the lawlessness and dangerousness of others is nonsense. ---------- > The second reason should be even more obvious. Your *individual* rights > extend only to where they begin to infringe on others. If society > determines that handguns are a societal menace, then your individual > right to own one must be subjugated for the general good. Note that > I am not necessarily concluding that handguns must be confiscated; > but many dangerous materials and devices are regulated, and handguns > should be among them. ---------- Yes, it's obvious that my personal rights end where the rights of others are infringed. But my personal rights with respect to my firearms don't even *affect* others, much less infringe on their rights, for the simple reason that my firearms have nothing to do with anyone but my own family. Further, society (in the form of voters at polls in the US) has never agreed to have firearms confiscated. Hence, it must not consider them to be a "societal menace." You say that you don't "necessarily" conclude that handguns must be confiscated, but evidently that leaves the option open in the future. For that reason, and having seen the same attitude in many others, I will continue to fight any and all legislation which puts the force of law in opposition to my personal ownership of firearms in any way. Only when I see what I do injuring another will I begin to consider that such regulation is needed. -- Karl Kleinpaste @ Bell Labs, Columbus 614/860-5107 +==-> cbrma!kk @ Ohio State University 614/422-0915 osu-eddie!karl
jj@alice.UUCP (03/06/85)
Oh, Karl, but , but, but, but, you're insisting that people be PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for their own actions, and not liable for those of other people. On this net, that is near herisy, or perhaps blasphemy. :-[ Sigh. Just remember net rule #1) You are always guilty by association. and net rule #2) You are always associated with something that the opposing viewpoint knows you don't like. SERIOUSLY! The issue of firearms has been beaten to death multiple times. It's clearly an unresolvable issue, and one where each side (in general, there are a few reasonable sorts) insists on labeling the other side with some disreputable, emotionally linked, deliberately defamous group, insists on rehashing the same arguments, while denying that the other side has made any, and so on. Let's not start it up again, on the first day after I un-unsubscribed to net.politics. EDITORIAL---- The issue is the personal responsibility of the individual vs. the right of the government to assume all control, while leaving the ostensible responsibility with the individual. BAN AUTOMOBILES, THEY KILL PEOPLE! (Now let's see just who takes that seriously. I'm sure someone will, even with this disclaimer.) -- FESTINA LENTE "...other side, the other man's grass is always greener, some are ..." (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!alice!jj