davidl@tekig.UUCP (David Levadie) (12/22/84)
someone ELSE can't be trusted with them. Don't put restraints on the innocent for the acts of the guilty. By my observation, the people who want handgun control are generally the same ones who are against locking criminals up and throwing away the key, against allowing private citizens to defend themselves and/or their property with deadly force, and generally in favor of disallowing individual rights and turning over to the state the responsibility for anything they themselves are unable to deal with. Characteristically they have never owned a handgun, know nothing about them, are terrified of being attacked, and want their Mommy to protect them from any such eventuality...
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/24/84)
>By my observation, the people who want handgun control are generally >the same ones who are against locking criminals up and throwing away the >key, against allowing private citizens to defend themselves and/or their >property with deadly force, ... Dead right! And in a democracy, we SHOULD be against those things. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
jcp@brl-tgr.ARPA (Joe Pistritto <jcp>) (12/27/84)
Please explain to me why 'in a Democracy' we should be against: 1) Locking up criminals 2) Protecting personal property with deadly force (meaning a person's home, as opposed to, say, a car) -JCP-
myunive@nsc.UUCP (Jay Zelitzky) (12/30/84)
In article <6788@brl-tgr.ARPA> jcp@brl-tgr.ARPA (Joe Pistritto <jcp>) writes: >Please explain to me why 'in a Democracy' we should be against: > >2) Protecting personal property with deadly force (meaning a person's > home, as opposed to, say, a car) > > -JCP- I am tired of people confusing the meaning of Democracy. First we do not have a Democracy, we have a Republic. A Democracy would mean that everyone voted on all issues, a Republic means we elect representatives who decide for us. Second in spite of what the NRA or others might believe a Republic in no way guarantees the right of people to private property or to protect their private property. A Republic gives peope the right to elect their government. That is all. The only protection that the constitution puts on private property is that it may not be taken without due process of law. There is nothing in the idea of a republic or even the constitution of the United States that states that private property and the right to protect it is a basic right. One thing that is interesting about guns and crime is that the crime rate does appear to be related to the number of people that have guns to defend themselves against criminals, the more extensive ownership of guns is the higher the crime rate. This can be particularly seen in the American south where ownership of guns is rampant and the crime rate is the highest in the country. The American South also has far and away the highest homicide rates in the U. S.. It is interested that no one can give any examples of countries without gun control who have a low crime rate. One of the few countries which had no enforceable gun controll laws was Lebanon. Of course they had no gun control laws because they had no government but still we saw what happened to them. I renew the challenge for anyone to name a country without any gun controll laws that has a low crime rate. I would be interested in examples of other countries that don't have gun controll laws. I don't know of any off hand. Jay {hplabs,ihnp4,decwrl}!nsc!myunive
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/31/84)
>Please explain to me why 'in a Democracy' we should be against: > >1) Locking up criminals > >2) Protecting personal property with deadly force (meaning a person's > home, as opposed to, say, a car) > > -JCP- This is a question in the form of a misquote. The original said something like "locking up criminals and throwing away the key." If you need explanation as to why we should be opposed to the corrected form of (1), and to (2), your idea of democracy has little in common with mine. You hint at a world I wouldn't want to live in. (1) Presupposes that a person either IS or IS NOT a criminal. Until convicted ONCE, the person IS NOT. Thereafter s/he IS, and thereby loses all right to be treated as a person. (2) The death penalty for theft was abolished long ago in most jurisdictions. I prefer that it be imposed only after due consideration by a court and for the most serious of crimes (actually, I prefer it not to be imposed at all). I do not accept that any person has the right to condemn another to death for any reason other than personal self-protection, and then only if it is the only way to achieve that protection. In a democracy, arguments are handled by dsicussion, and if necessary arbitration, not by killing the opposition. In a democracy, people are considered to be still people, even though they may break the rules sometimes. Your democracy is not mine; but let's argue, not fight about it. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
ajlill@watrose.UUCP (ajlill) (01/01/85)
In article <2130@nsc.UUCP> myunive@nsc.UUCP (Jay Zelitzky) writes: > One thing that is interesting about guns and crime is that the >crime rate does appear to be related to the number of people that have >guns to defend themselves against criminals, the more extensive ownership >of guns is the higher the crime rate. This can be particularly seen in >the American south where ownership of guns is rampant and the crime rate is >the highest in the country. The American South also has far and away the highest >homicide rates in the U. S.. You seem to be implying that ownership of handguns leads to crime. (If not, I apologise, however this delusion seems to be rampant in supporters of handgun control). This is a completely unsupportable conclusion. And is in fact, counter-intuitive. One thing that has always bothered me is that those who support handgun control seem to think that it will magicly cut the crime rate. This is a bogus conclusion. It will make all honest, law-abiding citizens get rid of their handguns. But the people who commit crimes are CRIMINALS. They don't care about your law. If they want a gun, they will get one. Drug laws have not eliminated junkies, and similarly, handgun laws will not eliminate (or even slow down ) crime. In fact, you will just create a great new money-making enterprise for the Mob. -- Tony Lill 539 Grand Valley Dr. Cambridge, Ont., Canada 1-519-653-9735 {allegra,linus,decvax,utzoo}!watmath!watrose!ajlill
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (01/02/85)
> You seem to be implying that ownership of handguns leads to crime. >(If not, I apologise, however this delusion seems to be rampant in >supporters of handgun control). This is a completely unsupportable conclusion. >And is in fact, counter-intuitive. > >One thing that has always bothered me is that those who support handgun >control seem to think that it will magicly cut the crime rate. This is a >bogus conclusion. It will make all honest, law-abiding citizens get rid of >their handguns. But the people who commit crimes are CRIMINALS. They don't >care about your law. If they want a gun, they will get one. Drug laws have >not eliminated junkies, and similarly, handgun laws will not eliminate >(or even slow down ) crime. In fact, you will just create a great new >money-making enterprise for the Mob. > > >-- > Tony Lill > 539 Grand Valley Dr. > Cambridge, Ont., Canada I haven't seen anyone argue that owning handguns leads the owner to crime. The argument is usually that easy handgun ownership leads to more people being killed, (especially by guns). Your analogy between gun-control and drug-control leading to Mafia profits is improper. One of the leading problems in drug usage is that drugs are addicting. Are you claiming that once one owns a handgun, one has to have another every day/week/month? A lot of the pressure for people to use drugs comes from addicts who need to become pushers (or thieves) in order to support their habit. If drugs were legal, there would not be this pressure on non-addicts to become users. If handguns were illegal, there would be no pressure for owners to persuade others to become owners. You are lucky enough to live in a jurisdiction where handgun ownership IS illegal, and you are in much less danger of being killed than is someone in much of the US. Let them worry about their problem, and don't help them export it here! -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
shallit@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Jeff Shallit) (01/02/85)
In article <> ajlill@watrose.UUCP () writes: > > You seem to be implying that ownership of handguns leads to crime. >(If not, I apologise, however this delusion seems to be rampant in >supporters of handgun control). This is a completely unsupportable conclusion. >And is in fact, counter-intuitive. It's no delusion -- look at the statistics at the District of Columbia report that shows that the crime rate and homicide rate declined drastically after handgun control was instituted. Similar, though less dramatic results, were reported in Massachusetts after handgun control was instituted. > >One thing that has always bothered me is that those who support handgun >control seem to think that it will magicly cut the crime rate. This is a >bogus conclusion. It will make all honest, law-abiding citizens get rid of >their handguns. But the people who commit crimes are CRIMINALS. They don't >care about your law. If they want a gun, they will get one. Drug laws have >not eliminated junkies, and similarly, handgun laws will not eliminate >(or even slow down ) crime. In fact, you will just create a great new >money-making enterprise for the Mob. > One thing that has always bothered me about the gun nuts is that they are always bringing up the ``honest, law-abiding citizen'' ploy. The fact is that over 50% of handgun homicides occur between acquaintances, e. g. husband-wife, father-son, etc. The fact is that the people who really suffer from widespread handgun ownership is the honest, law-abiding citizen. It has been proven by several studies, including Zimring, that ownership of a gun in a home is 5 times more likely to kill a member of that household than to foil an intruder. So explain how a handgun is really a means of protection. Before you make such unsubstantiated claims, why not read the literature? /Jeff Shallit
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (01/03/85)
> One thing that has always bothered me is that those who support handgun > control seem to think that it will magicly cut the crime rate. This is a > bogus conclusion. It will make all honest, law-abiding citizens get rid of > their handguns. But the people who commit crimes are CRIMINALS. They don't > care about your law. If they want a gun, they will get one. Drug laws have > not eliminated junkies, and similarly, handgun laws will not eliminate > (or even slow down ) crime. In fact, you will just create a great new > money-making enterprise for the Mob. If nothing else, handgun control would cut back on accidental deaths, and homocides committed by people who are not criminals, but just have a bad temper. As for the argument, "If handguns are outlawed then only outlaws will have handguns", at least then we will be able to find the outlaws more easily, won't we? If posession of a handgun were a felony, then it would be a lot easier to convict people who have committed crimes with guns, especially if there isn't much evidence besides the gun. Wayne
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (01/04/85)
We still seem to be confused by what "democracy" and "republic" mean. Democracy means, simply, rule of the people. Any society which conducts polling in order to fill its offices, make its laws, etc., is a democracy. Some may be direct (i.e. having the people vote policy issues up or down) or indirect (i.e. representative, with elected officials determining policy). The ballot box is the distinguishing characteristic of democracy. A republic is any government which is ruled by law, rather than the whim of any group of people, except when that whim is unopposed by law. A judicial system is the hallmark of a republic. Most modern democracies are actually representative democratic republics, where policy decisions are made by elected officials restricted by a code of law. Ancient Athens (if we conveniently ignore its slaves) was a direct democratic republic. Ancient Israel was an undemocratic republic, where policy was made without requiring popular support, but demanding respect for law. The rise to power of the Nazis in Weimar Germany produced (for a short period) an unrepublican democracy (representative), where elected officials made policy without regard for law. Finally, there are many states which are neither democratic nor republican. David Rubin
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (01/04/85)
> As for the argument, "If handguns are outlawed then only outlaws > will have handguns", at least then we will be able to find the outlaws > more easily, won't we? Sure. All we have to do is to stop everyone and search all of their possessions. The ones with the guns are the outlaws. What? The consti- tution says we can't just search everyone? > If posession of a handgun were a felony, then it > would be a lot easier to convict people who have committed crimes with > guns, especially if there isn't much evidence besides the gun. > Wayne Well, considering that commission of a crime while in possession of a gun is ALREADY a felony, I really don't see how you draw this conclusion. Why not just enforce the laws already on the books, and toughen up the penalties for crimes involving guns? Plenty of things which are already illegal are laughingly easy to obtain. Why should illegal handguns be any different? -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Hey, my new .signature file really works!"
jca@abnji.UUCP (james armstrong) (01/10/85)
>In article <2130@nsc.UUCP> myunive@nsc.UUCP (Jay Zelitzky) writes: >> One thing that is interesting about guns and crime is that the >>crime rate does appear to be related to the number of people that have >>guns to defend themselves against criminals, the more extensive ownership >>of guns is the higher the crime rate. This can be particularly seen in >>the American south where ownership of guns is rampant and the crime rate is >>the highest in the country. The American South also has far and away the highest >>homicide rates in the U. S.. > > You seem to be implying that ownership of handguns leads to crime. >(If not, I apologise, however this delusion seems to be rampant in >supporters of handgun control). This is a completely unsupportable conclusion. >And is in fact, counter-intuitive. Actually, the way it sounded to me was that the availability of handguns leads to crime. Silly me to misunderstand! -- She dreams of 1969 Before the soldiers came When life was cheap on bread and wine And sharing meant no shame She is awakened by the screams Of rockets fired from nearby Yet still she wakes into a dream To beat the fear that she might die.