robertsb@ttidcb.UUCP (12/17/84)
On the subject of Gun Control, Mike Ryan writes: > 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 point Mr. Steiny has here is that handguns do indeed have a life-saving function. For those killings to have been legal the person involved would have had to be in FEAR FOR THEIR LIFE OR THE LIFE OF ANOTHER. >> 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. As a matter of FACT it is EASY to count the statistics if you don't ignore them. 300,000 Americans use a handgun EACH YEAR to either kill, wound, arrest or scare away an assailent or burgler. .03% of firearms are ever used in any crime. Thus you are attempting to control something where 99.97% are legally used. This clearly refutes YOUR argument. > 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 Not true, there have already been robberies using everything from mace to "stun guns" to bombs both real and mockup. Further notice here the big lie. Above he says he is only interested in controlling handguns but ALL of his crime control arguments require complete control of ALL firearms even if you blindly accept his logic. Thus we see that this truely is an assault on the entire 2nd amendment as a whole for they will INDEED next say that rifles and shotguns are to be controlled. >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. Private ownership of guns isn't suppose to be THE ANSWER, unlike the claims YOU have for gun control but it is a function of my right to defense of my life and liberty. Further without ANY effect of crime rates you wish to make my defense less efficient. You haven't the right to make me less safe and that is the only real effect of your proposals. > 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. The only effect you have here is to restrict law abiding citizens and we've already shown that as counter productive. >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 I'm sorry Mr. Ryan but they are the product of uninformed speculation because they don't conform to reality and they DO attempt to treat symptoms instead of diseases. Excuse me while a shoot down another ignorant argument: >From: mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) >> > There is a poster on my door. It reads <....> >> >> What a fascinating example of propaganda. What about the >> countrys that have low handgun death statistics but >> don't have handgun control? What about the overall crime >> rates in these countrys, and the differences between them. >> Are you over simplifying or did you just choose to ignore >> any statistics that didn't support your opinion. >> >Can YOU (Fader) list any countries that have no handgun control >AND low handgun death statistics?? The fact is that a hell of a lot >of people die of handgun shots in the US because there is a hell of a lot >of handguns in the US. Anti-handgun regulation people cannot escape that. > >Marcel Simon ..!mhuxr!mfs How about me Mr. Simon? First the poster IS blatant propaganda as it doesn't give populations from which we can derive rates, a more useful statistical FACT. Second it has a line of which I am quite fond ( I love using their OWN numbers to refute them. Tee Hee ). It quotes 24 handgun deaths in Israel. Have you been to Israel or spoken to a resident of Israel, Mr. Simon? The people their are armed to a much HIGHER degree than ourselves and rightfully so. Believe me it is a clear example of how little Handgun Control Inc. understands the issue for them to list that country. A closing FACT for you dear readers: FBI statistics reveal that handgun ownership has risen 28% between 1974 and 1981 and handgun homicide has DROPPED 7% over the same percent. A clear lack of correlation between handguns and crime. Treat diseases not symptoms !! -- Robin D. Roberts (213) 450 9111 x 2916 TTI Zone V4 aka Buskirk the Valerian 3100 Ocean Park Blvd Death to Tyrants ! Santa Monica, CA 90405 UUCP: ..!ucbvax!ihnp4!vortex!ttidca!ttidcb!robertsb or {cadovax,flick,philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex,wtux2}!ttidca!ttidcb!robertsb or ttidca!ttidcb!robertsb@RAND-UNIX.ARPA
shallit@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Jeff Shallit) (01/01/85)
In article <> robertsb@ttidcb.UUCP writes: > 300,000 Americans use a handgun EACH YEAR to either kill, wound, >arrest or scare away an assailent or burgler. I'd love to see where Roberts gets this statistic. It is in strong contradiction to statistics I have from the Justice Department. Also, please learn to spell "burglar" correctly. >Above he says he is only interested in controlling handguns but >ALL of his crime control arguments require complete control of ALL >firearms even if you blindly accept his logic. Thus we see that this truely >is an assault on the entire 2nd amendment as a whole for they will INDEED >next say that rifles and shotguns are to be controlled. I don't know who "they" are here, but as a strong advocate of handgun control, I am not in favor of the banning of rifles. The reason is that rifles have a legitimate hunting and sporting value, while most handguns are designed for precisely one thing: killing people. >Private ownership of guns isn't suppose to be THE ANSWER, unlike the claims >YOU have for gun control but it is a function of my right to defense of my >life and liberty. >Further without ANY effect of crime rates you wish to make my defense less >efficient. You haven't the right to make me less safe and that is the only >real effect of your proposals. What is this "right" nonsense? The government has the right to ban handgun ownership. Period. Look up the five Supreme Court decisions. >Second it has a line of which I am quite fond ( I love using their OWN >numbers to refute them. Tee Hee ). It quotes 24 handgun deaths in Israel. >Have you been to Israel or spoken to a resident of Israel, Mr. Simon? >The people their are armed to a much HIGHER degree than ourselves and >rightfully so. Believe me it is a clear example of how little Handgun >Control Inc. understands the issue for them to list that country. The fact is, Mr. Roberts, that YOU do not understand the problem. Handguns do not represent the majority of private guns in Israel. Rather, they are guns like rifles and automatic pistols. In fact, handguns are strongly controlled. A handgun is a small, easily concealable, deadly weapon whose only purpose is to kill people. They should be controlled or banned. /Jeff
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (01/03/85)
> Handguns do not represent the majority of private guns in Israel. > Rather, they are guns like rifles and automatic pistols. In fact, handguns > are strongly controlled. > > A handgun is a small, easily concealable, deadly weapon whose only > purpose is to kill people. They should be controlled or banned. > /Jeff How odd. According to /Jeff, an automatic pistol is not a handgun, and, even more odd, apparently he approves of owning an automatic pistol, but not a handgun. Three questions immediately come to mind: 1. What is the precise definition of a handgun? 2. What is the precise definition of an automatic pistol? 3. Why should these two weapons be treated differently, legally? Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (01/04/85)
> "/Jeff" writes: > I don't know who "they" are here, but as a strong advocate of handgun > control, I am not in favor of the banning of rifles. The reason is that > rifles have a legitimate hunting and sporting value, while most handguns are > designed for precisely one thing: killing people. This is an open admission of considerable ignorance. I know several people who own pistols and have used them a bit myself. No one I know has ever used one to kill anyone-- I sure haven't. The primary use pistols are put to is target shooting, a sport in itself just like dart throwing. Another fairly common use of pistols is hunting. Pistol hunting varies from rifle hunting in that you need to use more tracking and stealth, and you are more able to do that because you aren't lugging that bulky rifle along. Even if you did not know this, however, you see men openly using pistols every day--the police! They do not, as you seem to believe, carry them with the intention of killing people. They are used for the purposes of self-defense, the defense of other citizens, which is the cop's raison d'etre, and for the intimidation of armed criminals. Cops rarely shoot first (especially in theory). > What is this "right" nonsense? The government has the right to ban > handgun ownership. Period. Look up the five Supreme Court decisions. The "5 Supreme Court Decisions" are an awfully wobbly reed to lean on. Read the Senate Justice subcommittee's report on the subject. Since the second amendment explicitly refers to the "right", you are showing your prejudices a bit by calling it nonsense. > A handgun is a small, easily concealable, deadly weapon whose only > purpose is to kill people. They should be controlled or banned. Some handguns are easily concealable--detective snubbies and women's pocketbook '25s, for example. However, the very fact that these are not standard guns, helps to point out the fact that that is not the purpose of most pistols. The distinguishing characteristic of a standard handgun like a '38 special (as worn by most police) or a '45 (the standard military sidearm) is that they are easy to *carry*. They are usually worn in a holster and are anything but hidden. You (/Jeff) are merely repeating a lot of conventional wisdom without any real knowlege of the subject. --JoSH
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (01/04/85)
Woops-- I meant .25, .38, and .45, not '25 etc. --JoSH
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (01/04/85)
> Three questions immediately come to mind: > > 1. What is the precise definition of a handgun? > 2. What is the precise definition of an automatic pistol? > 3. Why should these two weapons be treated differently, legally? > -- Gary Samuelson (garys@bunker) (Feel free to correct me, folks; this is coming out of my head, not out of a book.) A handgun is designed to be fired while gripped in one or both hands. Other firearms, such as rifles and shotguns, have a stock which is placed against the shoulder. The term "automatic pistol," as commonly used, refers to a semi-automatic, or self-loading handgun. The recoil of each shot is used to work the slide, placing a new round in the chamber. These weapons fire one shot with each pull of the trigger. The other kind of handgun is the revolver. When Jeff was speaking of "automatic pistols," I believe he meant machine pistols, also known as submachine guns. These are weapons which can fire handgun ammunition in a fully-automatic fashion; that is, many rounds for each pull of the trigger. Submachine guns are more dangerous than handguns, and therefore should be under more strict controls. Scott Renner {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner