shallit@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Jeff Shallit) (12/06/84)
> The premise that handguns do not deter crime is not valid. > > The "Wall Street Journal", Aug. 17, 1983, >page 1, has an article titlted "Can We Deny Citizens Both Guns >and Protection?" by Don B. Kates. Jr. > > The article discusses a court ruling that the police were not required >to protect citizens against criminals. They pointed out that in District >of Columbia, where the incident took place (three women were robbed, >terrorized, and repeatedly raped and police did not respond to any of >the calls), gun control is in effect. > > They say that in the five years before gun control went into effect >the murder rate had dropped almost 36%, in the five subsequent years it >rose 16%. > This, unfortunately, is false. I have a copy of the official District of Columbia report somewhere. It shows that murder rate DROPPED 25% after the ordinance went into effect. > . . . > > "The only homicide rate that fell was justifiable killing >of felons by citizens which dropped to virtually nothing." > > "Anti-gun lobbyists claim that such justifiable homicides >are rare, but this turns out to be based on 20-year-old artificially >truncated statictics from just two cities. Nationwide, 1981 FBI >statistics show that citizens justifiably kill 30% more criminals >than do police. Even this statistic substantially underrepresents >the phenomena: it counts only robbers and burglers killed, >excluding personal self-defense - for example a woman who kills >a boyfriend to keep him from beating her to death. The whole range of >1981 California statistics show citizens justifibly kill twice as many felons >as do police; in Chicago and Cleveland it is three times as many. > > . . . Again, this is blatantly false. There are so many statistics that deny this conclusion, it's hard to know where to start. For example, in Detroit in the early '60's there were only TWO recorded cases of a citizen preventing an assault with a handgun, while in the same year there were (something like, I can't remember the exact figure) 100 deaths caused by handguns. > " ... recall the Atlanta suburb that reacted to the Morton-Grove >Ill. handgun ban by requiring every sane, responsible, head of household >to keep a firearm. Compared to the preceding year, burglary rose >slightly in Morton-Grove, but fell 73% in the Atlanta suburb. This omits the interesting fact that there was one accidental shooting in the Georgia town, one suicide, and one murder. In Morton Grove, there have been NO gun deaths. Sorry to burst your bubble. > > ------ Wall Street Journal - Can We Deny Citizens Both Guns and Protection? > Don B. Kates, Jr. > August 17, 1983 > > I dislike ad hominem arguments as much as anyone, but I've read Kates' stuff many times before, and met him in person. He is a violent, maniacal, disturbed man who twists the facts and alters statistics to suit his purpose. When pressed, he admits that he is against ALL forms of legislation against gun control... not just anti-handgun legislation, but also bills that make cop-killer bullets illegal, etc. > One person that decides to shoot it out with police in society >the way it is right now wouldn't have much luck. On the other hand, >the Nazis had disarmed everyone and made it illegal to possess >weapons, which made it hard on the resistance at the time. If, by referendum >and other means, the bill of rights is so eroded in 10 years that some >religious group could try to force others to share their beliefs, the fact >that there are large groups of armed people in this country that disagree with >them might moderate their actions. What else could? The United States >is a wonderful place to live right now, but how long can this "utopia" >last? In many countries in this world the knock on the door means it is >all over. Historically governments have not been benevolent things, >or if they are benevolent for a time they do not remain that way. >Bullys are less likely to run roughshod over someone that might >kill them. > > Deterents are psychological. Rape did not go down in Orlando >because women were pasting large numbers of rapists left and right, >it went down because a rapist's chances of getting pasted increased >dramatically. Likewise, our right to arm ourselves is a deterant against >a police state, not because we would go around shooting police but because >we COULD. > Maybe your argument would seem more convincing if you learned to spell "deterrent" correctly. There is no "right" to arm oneself. The appropriate section of the bill of rights reads, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (I am quoting from memory, so it is possible that a word or two may be wrong here.) Read this sentence. Now read it again. Note the position of the comma. It implies that the right to keep and bear arms is RELATED to the necessity of civilian militia. The Supreme Court of the United States, on FIVE separate occasions, has ruled that this amendment does NOT relate to individual possession of handguns, bazookas, etc. LEARN THE LAW. Re: gun control. If you want to learn more about it, I suggest "Guns don't die, people do" by Pete Shields. /Jeff Shallit
ryan@fremen.DEC (12/14/84)
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. Don Steiny made the claim that citizens kill more criminals than do police. This was subsequently refuted by Jeff Shallit, but it's irrelevant anyway. A more useful comparison would be between how many legal handgun killings (justifiable self-defense) and how many illegal handgun killings occur. The FBI (you know them - the liberal pinko gun-control fanatics:-) reports that in 1983 157 criminals were killed by citizens, and there were 22,000 handgun fatalities in all. That's a 140-1 ratio, folks. Oh, but of course > The number wounded, captured, or driven off is far more important. Well, if you're going to count this, don't forget to count the number of handgun crimes committed in which the criminal does not kill anyone. I don't have the stats on this (and they're probably harder to count, seeing as deaths do tend to attract more attention), but it is safe to say that handguns are used illegally far more often then they are used legally. Don goes on to suggest handguns are useful to keep the government in line, should government control end up in the hands of (his example) religious fanatics, or some other anti-democratic group. First of all, I think this is very unlikely scenario. With all its faults, our Constitution works. Watergate proved it. Secondly, I would think rifles (which I am not proposing be outlawed) would be more useful in such a situation. If you want to protect our freedom, I suggest you concentrate more on the First Amendment - that's the one that would have to be gutted before the American government could be perverted into a tyranny. About the amendment guaranteeing the "right to bear arms"; let's look at it in its historical context. The Founding Fathers were actually a pretty cynical bunch (you'll notice they didn't let the common people elect their President directly), and expected that it wouldn't be long before their newly-created government got out of hand. Therefore, they included in the Constitution the right to bear arms as part of an organized militia to keep the government in check. Fortunately, the experiment in creative government worked far better than expected (Libertarians and Communists are free to disagree). > In truth criminal acts will continue to go on in our world > until we address the problem of criminal behavior, not > something so meaningless as a neutral tool. Crime has > actually dropped in the last few years. A new gun > control act? Of course not. Merely a drop in the population > most likely to commit criminal acts. Treat diseases, not symptoms. > Robin D. Roberts Robin has a point here about crime prevention. However, the "neutral tool" in question is not meaningless. It is one which significantly increases the damage done in crime. Some crimes actually become impractical without guns (armed bank robbery, for instance). It's interesting to note that the "need" for handguns decreases as crime decreases (if there's no crime, there's no need for a gun). Something should certainly be done about the crime problem, but private ownership of guns is no answer. Oh, there is one use for a handgun besides self-defense, and that's for sport (target-shooting). This does not require private ownership of the guns; they can be owned by and stored at the facility at which they're used (which, needless to say, should be reasonably secure). There's no reason for a sportsman to have a gun at home. Perhaps I should explain where my feelings about gun control came from. In high school I was assigned a term paper assignment in which I had to defend some point of view. I decided to tackle the gun control issue. Although I leaned towards gun control, I had by no means settled the issue in my mind. I had the impression that my teacher was opposed to gun control, so I made sure I gave the anti-gun control point of view a fair shake. I found many distortions of facts and even a few outright lies on both sides, but found enough hard facts (government crime statistics, etc.) to support the opinion I am expressing here. The teacher (who never gave a report card grade above 88 or so that year) gave me an A for the paper (I admit, I may have misjudged his point of view). Please do not call my opinions ignorant, silly, or ridiculous or my "sayings" or concepts cute - they are not the product of uninformed speculation and are (at least:-) as valid as yours. Mike Ryan
jhull@spp2.UUCP (12/18/84)
In article <259@decwrl.UUCP> ryan@fremen.DEC writes: > > 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?" > The real problem here is comparing the harm done {actual==can be measured} with the good {much of which is potential, how do you measure it?}. Secondly, what weight is assigned to each item of harm or good? Who does the assigning? etc >A more useful comparison would be between >how many legal handgun killings (justifiable self-defense) and how >many illegal handgun killings occur. > A little clear thought will show that a fair comparison would be between 1. handgun killings by otherwise law-abiding citizens and 2. handgun killings by criminals & others not permitted handguns under present law. Perhaps domestic violence should also be excluded from this comparison or do you want the government protecting you from yourself. This last is a very sensitive subject. If you do want the government protecting you from yourself, I think you should announce this to the net so your debate may be viewed in that light. >but it is safe >to say that handguns are used illegally far more often then they are >used legally. > Safe but totally untrue. I suggest you research the number of gun clubs, shooting clubs, hunting clubs, trap shooting clubs, skeet shooting galleries, hunting trips, {gee, how long do I have to keep this up? (:-) } > Don goes on to suggest handguns are useful to keep the >government in line, ...First of all, I think this is very unlikely >scenario. > Yet, below, you acknowledge that our Founding Fathers did not agree with you and that the structure they built has worked very well. I suggest you look to the things we have changed {from what they built} to see why we have such an increase in crime {per captia} from those early days of our country. >Secondly, I would think rifles (which I am not proposing be outlawed) >would be more useful in such a situation. Of course, rifles would be more appropriate in this situation. And although you say you are not proposing outlawing of rifles, many prominent leaders of handgun control activity, such as Senator Edward Kennedy, have stated publically that banning of handguns is only the first step to outlawing all private posession of firearms. Note that not only do they want to prohibit private ownership of firearms, they want to prohibit "posession," meaning any access of any kind. Their stated goal is to remove from public knowledge all knowledge of the manufacture, use, repair, handling, etc of firearms of ALL kinds. Frankly, I'm frightened. When reasonable people, like yourself, allow themselves to be convinced "to let the camel get his nose in the tent" and ignore {or give too little weight to} the long term implications of what might otherwise be a desireable action, I fear for the continued stability of our country. >The Founding Fathers ... expected that it wouldn't be long >before their newly-created government got out of hand. > I don't know how you feel, but, in many areas, I feel our government is out of hand today. In most of those areas, my posession of firearms conveys no advantage. There is one area, however, wher it definitely does and a story from my recent past will show that it is no hypothetical argument. My wife and I, until recently, had a houseguest, a young, single mother with a 2 year old son. She got a traffic ticket for which she paid the fine. Due to some bureaucratic snafu, the fact that she paid was not properly recorded. In the middle of the night {after 9PM but before midnight}, the doorbell rang. Two men were standing on my porch, one at the door, the other "hiding" around the corner. {This behavior is directly due to civilian posession of firearms.} I checked their identification before letting them in and had my wife remain in the back of the house, in hearing, but out of sight. They asked for our houseguest, arrested her, and took her to prison, not city jail, not county jail, prison {Sybil Brand Institute}. She was not allowed to make any telephone calls either then or when she got to SBI. {She had agreed to call us as soon as she was booked. She would make her "one telephone call" to us. We never received a call and she later confirmed she was not allowed to make any. } I won't go into the incredible hassle it was to get her out or how much it cost in money and time. My points are these: if she had been living alone, no one would have known where she was or how to find her. Her son would have been taken, in the middle of the night, to the county home for abandoned children {please, imagine how he would have felt.} Being in jail, incommunicado, how could she have worked for her release? What might have happened with and to her son before she could have gotten things straightened out? {It took me all the next day and night to get her out - finished at 0830 the second morning after she was arrested.} If I had chosen to protest this invasion of my home, what would have happened to me? If I had chosen to protest their removal of a guest {or a family member} from my home, what would have happened to me? If she and I had been alone {i.e., my wife not present}, what might have happened? If police agencies did not have to face an armed public, how much less restrained would their behavior be? Yes, I agree, the courts are the major line of defense of the citizen against the police, but there HAS to be some way of enforcing their decisions. The officers acknowledged to me that, had my wife not been present as a witness, they would not have answered my questions as they did, that they would not have checked the status of their warrant. {For those of you who have gotten this far, when they checked on the status of their warrant, they found out that she had paid the fine and had a court date set which had not yet come up. But, they said, we have this warrant so we have to take you in anyway. } Both officers acknowledged that they were taught to be polite by the department as way of reducing violent confrontation not because the "civilians" deserve it. None of this should be construed to reflect negatively on the officers involved or their department. It is a natural outgrowth of the situation in which they find themselves. But we are the ones who have to deal with it. > Robin has a point here about crime prevention. However, >the "neutral tool" in question is not meaningless. It is one which >significantly increases the damage done in crime. Some crimes actually >become impractical without guns (armed bank robbery, for instance). > It is interesting to note here the unannounced shift from "handguns" to "guns." Yet earlier, you state you are not proposing to outlaw all guns. How do you propose to keep people from shortening the barrels of shotguns and rifles so that they become "easy" to use in crime? What about robbing a bank using a bomb? You haven't thought this through very well. >interesting to note that the "need" for handguns decreases as crime >decreases (if there's no crime, there's no need for a gun). > Again, I call your attention to your equating of handguns with all guns, despite your protestations to the contrary. This is precisely why I find it so difficult to believe *anything* said by many gun control advocates. >Something should certainly be done about the crime problem, but private >ownership of guns is no answer. > Thank you for acknowledging that there is a crime problem and that we are entitled to do something about it. Clearly, private ownership of guns has not precluded a crime problem in this country. However, it has been noted, with some truth, that although God made all men equal, it was Col. Colt who gave men the means of enforcing it. It still remains that the gun {principally the handgun} is the only tool that permits a woman {or a small man} to win a violent argument with a larger opponent. {Yes! Flame me if you want about knives and karate and judo and 14 other Oriental words. I've studied aikido for years and, for anyone less than a master, these art forms are not the answer to self-defense questions. They take years of steady practice to learn properly while anyone can be taught to handle a handgun in a matter of days or weeks.} The heart of the problem remains that people in our society are taught that violence is an acceptable means of getting what they want. Until we change that, people will kill, mug, rob, vandalize, etc whether or not they have guns. When we change the lessons we teach our children, they won't kill people even if they do have guns. -- Blessed Be, jhull@spp2.UUCP Jeff Hull trwspp!spp2!jhull@trwrb.UUCP 13817 Yukon Ave. Hawthorne, CA 90250
franka@hercules.UUCP (Frank Adrian) (01/07/85)
If the members of HCI think that the NRA is made up of a bunch of lunatic gun nuts, and 70% of the American people support handgun control, why don't they get the 70% of the people to join the NRA for five years, saying nothing about the subject, take control of the organization, and thus, neutralize the threat? Sometimes political activists can be so dense. Don't overpower, subvert... Same as it ever was... Frank Adrian
rjc@snow.UUCP (R.caley) (01/12/85)
A simple question - can anyone tell me why they would want to own a gun?
There are 3 uses for a gun (hand or other)
i) A book end - They arn't very stable maybe a doorstop is closer
ii) Target shooting - This is a valid one and is done by a small number of
people,though video games are cheeper for a game of hand/eye
co-ordination.
iii) Killing things! - appart from the small number of people who kill to live
(either for food or to sell produce) this is odd - anyone who
gets their fun from killing things is in need of psyciatric
attention (to say the least).
NOTICE eating what you kill is not a justification of (iii) but needing the
food is (sorry to any vegitarians out there I see no moral
difference between killing a rabbit and killing a cabbage - both are
just as alive you can only pick on nutritional needs or personal
preference).
In conclution
1) Cabbages are cute (I never eat them).
2) Use beer bottles for book ends. :-)
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the beginning was a flame ...... "
Paul Kantner.
.......... mcvax!ukc!flame!ubu!snow!rjc
[ Any opinions in the above crawled in while I wasn't looking ]rjv@ihdev.UUCP (ron vaughn) (01/15/85)
i am posting this for a friend. if you want to reply to russ directly, please use the address given at the bottom of the letter. thanks, ron vaughn ================================================================== I hear alot of talk about guns having no purpose except to kill people. I would like to tell of some of the other reasons. One, is collecting pistols as art. To those who like to own and collect guns, they have an aesthetic beauty. Guns offer a unique combination of finish, crafts- manship, and technical ingenuity that is attractive to some. Guns are not only functional, but sometimes are also embellished with artwork in the form of engravings, and even when they are not, there is a subtle beauty in their simplicity. Also, there is collecting for investment, and collecting pistols as antiques. Another reason people own pistols is for sport. Both hunting and target shooting. It is legal to hunt with pistols in many states, and while there aren't many people doing it, this is a legitimate use of handguns. Another sporting use is for target practice. Target shooting with pistols is a discipline which takes alot of practice and concentration, and is similar in some aspects to archery. The obvious use (which one hears alot about on the net) is for self-defense. I understand that people who grew up in the city or were not exposed to guns may not understand these uses, but consider the case of me and my father. We both own a variety of long guns and handguns for all of the above reasons. My folks live in a rural area of Oklahoma on a small acreage where we have at times raised chickens and cows. If we were confronted with criminals it would take upwards of 30 minutes for a police officer to arrive, even IF he reacted immediately to the call AND our roads were in good shape (we live on dirt roads, which tend to get bad if it rains alot, which is also why we keep a good supply of fire extinguishers around). On a farm, pistols are useful to have around to dispatch snakes, coyotes and other vermin (which some could argue include rustlers, poachers, and other misc. criminals). When you are mending a fence or have your hands full feeding hay to the cattle, you may not be able to get quick access to a long gun when you need it. A handgun is powerful, portable, and right on your hip when you need it. Of course these are the very aspects that make it attractive to criminals, but they are also the very attributes that also make it useful for the police and for the outdoorsman. Both me and my father also enjoy target shooting. Not only does this provide practice for the time when you might need to use a handgun, but it is alot of fun as well. When I'm home, one of our favorite activities is go out in the back yard and shoot at old coffee cans. We also enjoy attending gun shows together, where we can view the beauty and diversity of guns and talk with all manner of collectors, hunters and outdoorsmen. Just think about this before you propose to ban or restrict the ownership of guns. You are talking about banning or restricting the tool that my father (who is a law-abiding citizen of these United States) uses for protection, recreation, sport, and keeps as an investment. A tool that he has chosen carefully and paid alot of money for, as well and spending a significant amount of time taking care of and learning to use properly. He wants to keep his guns. This is also why he is a member of the NRA, and why many other people are too. He may submit to registration if it is a national law, but I wouldn't try to take his guns away from him. You may get them barrel first. He (and I) take gun rights seriously. Replies to: Russell Spence ihnp4!ihlpm!russ AT&T Technologies Naperville, IL
phl@drusd.UUCP (LavettePH) (01/16/85)
A serviceable lethal pistol can be made from a piece of wood, a rubber band, a couple of nails, some wire and a piece of a car's radio antenna. How do you outlaw the zip gun? - Phil Lavette
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (01/17/85)
> Paul Kantner: > iii) Killing things! - appart from the small number of people who kill to > live (either for food or to sell produce) this is odd - anyone who > gets their fun from killing things is in need of psyciatric > attention (to say the least). > What a curious conceit! Killing other living things (to eat them, or to prevent their eating you) is one of the most pervasive behaviors of life on Earth. Beliefs to the contrary by some humans are more likely insane than the enjoyment of sport hunting by others. --JoSH
david@randvax.UUCP (David Shlapak) (01/18/85)
> > A serviceable lethal pistol can be made from a piece of wood, a rubber band, a > couple of nails, some wire and a piece of a car's radio antenna. > > How do you outlaw the zip gun? > > - Phil Lavette What's the lethal range of the zip gun, Phil? How many "rounds" can you get off in a crowded room before someone takes you down? What's the mortality rate among those shot with zip guns? Sheesh! The main thrust of the pro-gun people on this net appears to be "People will kill each other no matter what." Well, maybe true, maybe not. All I know is this: among industrialized countries, the U.S. has just about the highest murder rate. Now, either we're just an incredibly violent bunch of folks ("give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to fire away..."), or there's something really different about the way we do business over here that causes us to be more successful in turning the proverbial "urge to kill" into the act of homicide. The first candidate to leap to my mind is our laws (or, more precisely, LACK of laws) restricting ownership of firearms. Tell me, all you "right to bear arms" proponents, why do YOU think so many people kill each other here? Because EVERYONE doesn't have a private arsenal?? People do kill people...guns just make it easy. --- das
gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam) (01/20/85)
> anyone who > gets their fun from killing things is in need of psyciatric > attention (to say the least). Why? -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (01/21/85)
> > How do you outlaw the zip gun? > > What's the lethal range of the zip gun, Phil? How many "rounds" can you get > off in a crowded room before someone takes you down? What's the mortality > rate among those shot with zip guns? These would depend entirely on the particular instrument and the circumstances of its use.. I will admit that the zip gun is considerably more useful for surreptitious murder than self-defense. Think now... > Sheesh! The main thrust of the pro-gun people on this net appears to be > "People will kill each other no matter what." A distortion. As I tried to show in an earlier posting, the rate at which people kill each other is quite low compared to other causes of death. The argument is, if someone intends to kill beforehand, the kind of laws you're talking about won't make any difference. > All I know is this: among industrialized countries, the U.S. has just about > the highest murder rate. Now, either > we're just an incredibly violent bunch of folks ... Murder rates among ethnic groups in the US generally reflect fairly closely the rates of the same groups in their countries of origin. US murder rates by state vary from 1/5th to 3 times Canada's national rate, as an example. > ... The first candidate to leap to my mind is our laws (or, more > precisely, LACK of laws) restricting ownership of firearms. Funny thing. Perhaps your mind would like to leap with the idea that only about a tenth of violent crimes here result in prison sentences, whereas in the other countries you're talking about, it's more like half? --JoSH
phl@drusd.UUCP (LavettePH) (01/21/85)
>> >>A serviceable lethal pistol can be made from a piece of wood, a rubber band, a >>couple of nails, some wire and a piece of a car's radio antenna. >>How do you outlaw the zip gun? >> > What's the lethal range of the zip gun, Phil? How many "rounds" can you get > off in a crowded room before someone takes you down? What's the mortality > rate among those shot with zip guns? The lethal range is well over the normal muggor/muggee distance, Dave. Multiple barreled zip guns are not unheard of. At close range the mortality rate is no different from any other pistol of the same calibre and muzzle velocity. >............ The first candidate to leap to my mind is our laws (or, more >precisely, LACK of laws) restricting ownership of firearms. Tell me, all you >"right to bear arms" proponents, why do YOU think so many people kill each >other here? Because EVERYONE doesn't have a private arsenal?? An interesting item appeared in the ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS during the invest- igation of the murder of talk-show host, Alan Berg, by an alleged member of a right-wing Christian terrorist group. It was first thought he had been shot with an M-10 and there was the usual knee-jerk demand that all guns be registered and/or confiscated by a rather uninformed public that apparently didn't know that owning an unregistered automatic weapon has been illegal in this country since the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1934. This knee- jerk demand for more controls pretty much died off when the newspaper's research uncovered the fact that in the fifty years since the law was passed there has not been a single instance when a law abiding citizen committed a crime with an automatic weapon. There are perhaps several thousand privately owned machine- guns in the United States. Most of them are owned by legitimate collectors. Putting it another way, all crimes committed in this country with an automatic weapon were committed by a criminal with an illegally obtained weapon (Thefts from government armories are a major source.) who didn't bother to register it before he committed the crime. At least, that's the way it has been for the last fifty years. The law passed in 1934 to put an end to the excesses of the roaring twenties (Bonnie and Clyde, Pretty Boy Floyd, Machine-gun Kelley, etc.), didn't stop the excesses of the sixties and seventies (Weather Underground,etc.) and didn't save Alan Berg in 1984. In another instance, if my memory serves me, Patty Hearst was alleged to have committed seven or more violations of either the Gun Control Act of 1934 or the Gun Control Act of 1968 and was never prosecuted for a single one of them. Those charges were all dropped as part of her plea-bargain. In another instance, again if my memory is correct, the Casey bill which would have added a ten year sentence (consecutive, not concurrent) for any federal crime committed with any firearm and which had the full support of those in hunting, collecting and target-shooting community was defeated in the Congress fifteen or twenty years ago because the penalty was "too harsh". In a final instance, a few years ago some outraged citizens objected to a local police department's suggestion that the rifles and shotguns they had confiscated, but no longer needed for evidence, be auctioned off to raise funds for a local charity. The main objection was that the *guns* had committed crimes and should be destroyed! Aside from the outright repeal of the second amendment just what law is pro- posed that the pro-gun-control people feel the criminal element will obey, the prosecutors will enforce, the congress consider as not "too harsh" and will satisfy the public demand to punish the weapon? Do we really need yet another gun control act or do we need to resurrect the Casey bill and to pass laws outlawing plea-bargaining and concurrent sentencing of convicted criminals? Any clever twelve year old can make his own gun with a few hours work. How do you control the zip gun, Dave? - Phil Lavette
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (01/23/85)
> Funny thing. Perhaps your mind would like to leap with the idea that > only about a tenth of violent crimes here result in prison sentences, > whereas in the other countries you're talking about, it's more like half? > > --JoSH Funny thing; we have more prisoners per capita in the US than in any other ``civilized'' country in the world but one: the USSR. There is a reason why judges are reluctant to commit all but the very worst of criminals to prison: most medium-to-high security prisons are grossly overcrowded and understaffed already, and are such hell-holes and breeding grounds for crime that sending someone there is virtually certain to make a hardened criminal out of them. Forget all that you've seen on TV about the minimum-security ``country clubs'' they send white- collar crooks to. If you took an average man-on-the-street and put him in prison for a year or two, he'd either come out (1) crazy, or (2) a criminal. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
david@randvax.UUCP (David Shlapak) (01/23/85)
> Any clever twelve year old can make his own gun with a few hours work. > > How do you control the zip gun, Dave? > > - Phil Lavette Blah, blah, blah, blah-blah-blah-blah, blah... except on the "Rockford Files" and other such real-life adventures, I've never heard of anyone being killed by a "zip gun." Why do we need to control the "zip gun," Phil? --- das
david@randvax.UUCP (David Shlapak) (01/23/85)
> > Any clever twelve year old can make his own gun with a few hours work. > > > > How do you control the zip gun, Dave? > > > > - Phil Lavette > > Blah, blah, blah, blah-blah-blah-blah, blah... except on the "Rockford > Files" and other such real-life adventures, I've never heard of anyone > being killed by a "zip gun." > > Why do we need to control the "zip gun," Phil? > > --- das Note that the missing predicate to my argument is that, while no one (or at least damn few) folks are ever hurt by "zip guns", my newspaper is filled with stories of people getting greased by the beloved handgun. --- das
phl@drusd.UUCP (LavettePH) (01/25/85)
> > Blah, blah, blah, blah-blah-blah-blah, blah... except on the "Rockford > Files" and other such real-life adventures, I've never heard of anyone > being killed by a "zip gun." > > Why do we need to control the "zip gun," Phil? > > --- das > >Note that the missing predicate to my argument is that, while no one (or at >least damn few) folks are ever hurt by "zip guns", my newspaper is filled >with stories of people getting greased by the beloved handgun. > > --- das The fact that you never heard of them doesn't mean that they didn't exist. Abandon your TV long enough to research back into the evolution of the big city juvenile gang wars, etc., in the thirties, forties and fifties. Regular hand- guns were very hard for the young crowd to come up with in those days so they made their own. The radio,movie and newspaper people glorified the subject and they became a status symbol. We (and I include myself) all made them. We could hardly wait until the senior year in high school when we could take machine shop and turn out a barrel that would take pressures higher than the car antenna's one or two shot .22cal limit. Some of these weapons were unique and very soph- isticated in their design and probably many of us went on to rewarding careers as gunsmiths, machinists or mechanical engineers. Others weren't so lucky and wound up as statistics or in jail. I can't site you references because I didn't take notes along the way. I would suggest you take a look at some of the NY Times or Daily News archives for the period, visit a good police crime museum or wait until some of the better gang war movies show up on your TV. If you can't do that, try visualizing "Hill Street Blues" moved back in time and technology to that period. The gang war segments they show are not too far from reality. I understand the series is based on the "hill" district in Pittsburgh. If it is, you won't be too far off. I know. That's when and where I grew up. Since the term "zip gun" offends, I'll modify and ask you the question again. How do you control the home-made pistol? - Phil
david@randvax.UUCP (David Shlapak) (01/28/85)
> I can't site you references because I didn't take notes along the way. I would > suggest you take a look at some of the NY Times or Daily News archives for the > period, visit a good police crime museum or wait until some of the better gang > war movies show up on your TV. If you can't do that, try visualizing "Hill > Street Blues" moved back in time and technology to that period. The gang war > segments they show are not too far from reality. I understand the series is > based on the "hill" district in Pittsburgh. If it is, you won't be too far off. > I know. That's when and where I grew up. > -Phil Thanks for establishing that the "zip gun" (where did you get the idea that the term offended anyone?) was a way for one hood to kill another thirty years ago...now how about establishing that it's a significant problem today... it is, after all, today's handgun victim's that we can do something about... --- das
phl@drusd.UUCP (LavettePH) (02/01/85)
>Thanks for establishing that the "zip gun" (where did you get the idea that >the term offended anyone?) was a way for one hood to kill another thirty years >ago...now how about establishing that it's a significant problem today... >it is, after all, today's handgun victim's that we can do something about... > > --- das Thirty years ago - a problem due to the shortage of the real thing. We agree. Today - no problem due to the availability of the real thing. We agree again? Five or ten years hence - the problem returns again due to another shortage? Think about it a little. Let's assume that the fondest wishes of the most rabid gun-control types are realized and laws are passed that outlaw firearms entirely and permit ATF to conduct a house-to-house search and confiscate every firearm in the country. Since the private citizen is unarmed there will be no further need to arm the police. Now what do you intend to do when someone decides to do you or your family in with his home made pistol? If all you think you have to do is pass another gun control act to stop crime you are sadly mistaken. I know it's a cliche', but we all should be directing our efforts to controlling the criminal and trying to come up with a solution we all won't regret in a few years because, in our haste, we just added a band- aid to all the others we've been putting on a broken leg. Before you pass any law, ask yourself who is going to obey it. I know, another cliche'. The fact remains that whenever a sizeable minority feel that the major- ity has burdened them with a law that is senseless or too burdensome or too costly or discrimminates against their perception of their rights they simply ignore it and it becomes unenforceable. If you doubt me, try driving down I-25 at 55mph or read that stuff in the papers lately about marijuana being our sec- ond largest agricultural crop, second only to corn in value. Before we allow the heat of the moment stampede us into another useless gesture why don't we all start asking the right people why they are not enforcing the ones that we already have and that they are sworn to enforce? Sure we have to do something about today's victims. But why restrict the efforts to just hand gun victims? Why not *all* victims? By the way, I'm not including those four maggots in NYC as "victims". They made their decision to flirt with death the minute they decided to confront Mr. Goetz. - Phil
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (03/04/85)
** Several people have commented that the only use of handguns is for shooting people. Though others have pointed out that this is not true, what if it is? The articles from the Wall Street Journal I have been posting all show the same thing. Guns work as both a deterrent and as an equalizer. It is a postive aspect of handguns that they can be used against people. Most other animals get scared and run away if they know there are humans around anyway. The claim that handguns are only good for shooting people is not an argument against handguns in any way. -- scc!steiny Don Steiny - Personetics @ (408) 425-0382 ihnp4!pesnta -\ 109 Torrey Pine Terr. ucbvax!twg --> scc!steiny Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 fortune!idsvax -/