renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (01/04/85)
>> I belive that firearm ownership should be regulated; after all, guns >> are nearly as dangerous as motor vehicles, and we require testing and >> licensing for these. I believe that the gun owners would consent to >> these laws if they thought the purpose was regulation and not a ban. I >> believe that without the consent of the gun owners, gun control laws >> will never be passed and enforced. I find it ironic that each time >> Jeff screams about the need for gun "control" he reduces the chance of >> any change. -- Scott Renner (renner@uiucdcs) > So, in other words, if I am for gun control, I should just keep my > mouth shut and hope that eventually some legislation gets enacted...by > magic? -- Jeff Shallit (shallit@gargoyle) If you are truly interested in handgun *control*, you should make it clear that you are not interested in handgun *prohibition*. Otherwise you only frighten the gun owners, increasing their opposition to *any* control laws, including reasonable ones. > Try reading the official statement of Handgun Control, Inc. It's been > the same for 15 years: to pass federal law for > 1) a waiting period and background check on handgun purchasers; > 2) a ban on production and sale of "Saturday Night Specials"--the > cheap, inaccurate, easily concealable guns that are the choice of > criminals; > 3) mandatory sentences for using a gun in a crime; > 4) mandatory handgun safety-training programs for handgun purchasers; and > 5) tighter requirements for handgun dealers and manufacturers. For the most part I agree with the things proposed above. I would like to hear specifics on what is meant by "waiting period," "background check," and "safety-training programs". A one-week waiting period is reasonable; a one-year period is not. The background check and training requirement should be such that a majority of adults can pass. If groups such as HCI are only interested in control, they should change their policy slightly. I think their official statement should read: HCI supports the right of private citizens to possess handguns, subject only to reasonable controls designed to promote public safety. We wish to enact federal laws guaranteeing this right, together with the following controls: ... The NRA would have a much harder time opposing such proposals. Gun owners would eventually come to support such laws, once they lose their fear of handgun confiscation. After all, they aren't in favor of thugs using guns or children shooting each other -- they just want to keep *their* guns. Of course, if HCI did anything like this, it would lose the support of handgun prohibitionists -- those people who want to take all handguns, and who view all control laws as a first step to this goal. But they would be a small loss. They are an obstacle to progress, just as the hard-liners controlling the NRA are an obstacle. Scott Renner {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner
nrh@inmet.UUCP (01/14/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics / gargoyle!shallit / 10:57 am Jan 3, 1985 >>> When are we going to get national handgun control? >>> -- Jeff Shallit (shallit@gargoyle) >> >>Probably never. There is a very large group of people who are very >>determined to hold onto their rifles, shotguns, and handguns. They will >>continue to oppose all handgun control laws -- even the mild ones, like >>registration -- because they believe that these are intended as a first >>step towards disarming them completely. >> >>It's easy to see why they believe this. They listen to the handgun control >>proponents. Most of these people talk about *control*, but it is clear >>that what they want is a handgun *ban*. Some go further, talking about >>how we should "melt all the guns," take away shotguns and rifles, trust the >>police to protect us, and live together in peace and harmony. >> >>I belive that firearm ownership should be regulated; after all, guns are >>nearly as dangerous as motor vehicles, and we require testing and licensing >>for these. I believe that the gun owners would consent to these laws if >>they thought the purpose was regulation and not a ban. I believe that >>without the consent of the gun owners, gun control laws will never be >>passed and enforced. I find it ironic that each time Jeff screams about >>the need for gun "control" he reduces the chance of any change. >> >>Scott Renner > >So, in other words, if I am for gun control, I should just keep my >mouth shut and hope that eventually some legislation gets enacted...by >magic? Nope, but if you mean handgun-only gun control, please do not feed us assumptions such as "if handguns are illegal, people will use knives, which are less dangerous and more messy", when they could clearly turn to rifles and sawed-off weapons. > >What nonsense! I have heard all this garbage before, when I was working >for Proposition 15 in California. Sometimes it amazes me that all the >gun nuts use the same lines of argument. This is the "what they REALLY >want is to ban ALL guns, including rifles" argument. Wasn't Teddy Kennedy quoted as saying this? Did he or did he not say it? >Try reading the official statement of Handgun Control, Inc. It's been >the same for 15 years: to pass federal law for 1) a waiting period >and background check on handgun purchasers; 2) a ban on production and sale >of "Saturday Night Specials"--the cheap, inaccurate, easily concealable >guns that are the choice of criminals; And, incidentally, of poor people for protection. >3) mandatory sentences for using a gun in a crime; >4) mandatory handgun safety-training programs for handgun purchasers; and >5) tighter requirements for handgun dealers and manufacturers. > >The fact is that the public WANTS handgun control. Evidence please -- in particular, voting records on referenda. I've no difficulty believing that SOME of the public wants it, but I'm interested in your notion that the public wants it, even though the NRA is clearly larger than Handgun Control, INC. (by your own figures). >The NRA doesn't--they even >removed their support for a ban on the cop-killer, armor-piercing bullets. >And they've got the money and the lobby in Washington to work for their >side. > >Handgun control WORKS--as evidenced by hard statistics in Massachusetts. What "hard statistics" are you talking about? Remember, there's a difference between the mandatory one-year jail sentence and "handgun control". >Institution of handgun control does NOT necessarily lead to regulation >of other types of guns--look at Canada, Switzerland, Sweden, and Australia. No, indeed, but in the future, let's keep it clear -- the argument that guns allow for more-violent behavior, and therefore handguns should be controlled makes little sense -- violent types would simply buy rifles, not knives, as their next-most-cost-effective means of doing violence.