alle@ihuxb.UUCP (10/25/83)
On Friday, October 21, 1983, here in Chicago, a judge was killed IN HIS COURT by a defendant at a post-divorce hearing. The defendant in the hearing killed the judge by shooting him in the head with a handgun he had concealed under a blanket (the defendant was a paraplegic in a wheel-chair). The defendant was, incidentally, an ex-policeman. Please tell me how the banning of handguns would have prevented this tragedy (I bring this up due to another anecdote from Chicago presented to the net regarding a handgun killing). This was a premeditated killing since the man had carefully concealed his handgun on his person prior to entering the court. Chicago has a very strict handgun registration law. Even if Chicago (or Illinois or the US or North America) had banned all handguns, this man would have been able to procure one certainly by illegal means. So no matter what, the judge (and the attorney for the plaintiff) would have ended up dead. This man planned to commit murder and all the handgun controls that can be devised could not have prevented him from doing this. Allen England at AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL ihnp4!ihuxb!alle
tjt@kobold.UUCP (T.J.Teixeira) (10/25/83)
Admittedly, strict handgun legislation will not be able to prevent
*all* handgun killings. However, this is not the appropriate standard
to apply. It should only be necessary that handgun legislation prevent
*some* killings in order for it to be effective.
If you take into account the possible legitimate uses of handguns for
self-defense, then you just have to prevent more killings by banning
handguns than might have been prevented if the victims not been
prevented from using a handgun.
Finally, to turn the original argument around, tell me how not banning
handguns would have prevented the tragedy reported by Allen England.
Could the judge have saved himself by having a gun concealed under his
robes? Presumably there were armed policeman in the court already
(this is just a conjecture). Would they have been able to prevent this
tragedy?
Sorry, stories like this are not an effective argument against
banning handguns.
--
Tom Teixeira, Massachusetts Computer Corporation. Littleton MA
...!{harpo,decvax,ucbcad,tektronix}!masscomp!tjt (617) 486-9581laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (10/27/83)
I do not understand your statement that Allan England's argument is not a good argument against banning handguns. do you agree that: 1: it will be possible to get a handgun even if they are banned? (remember that they are banned here, and I can get one) 2: banning handguns are a restriction of liberty? 3: banning them will create a lot of expensive work for the people (such as the police) who will get set to the task of catching handgun owners? if not, stop there, because we have some things to clear up. Now, to my mind there are very few things that are worth the cost of (2), but most anti-gun arguments I have read go: We Need to Ban Handguns to Save Lives. Well, what I am questioning is how many lives will be saved. If you ban handguns you do not stop the premeditated violence that Allan England was talking about. these people will still be able to get handguns. And there are lots of ways in which husbands and wives can kill each other even without handguns -- rifles, knives, fists even -- strangulation and electrocution are other good ways. you will cut down on the accidental shootings of the sort where a small boy pulls his father's loaded gun on his friend and shoots him by mistake, though he can still do this with his father's hunting rifle. and some people will get killed because they do not have a gun while their assailant does. This does not even mention the people who are going to be terrified at the thought of not having a gun available whenever they think they have an intruder. These people are not all wide-eyed loonies -- some of them just sleep better at night knowing that they have a gun in their overnight table just in case somebody decides to try to break into their home to rape them. Is it worth the cost? Always remember that unless omebody addresses the question of how to imporove the morality of a society that kills, human beings are going to find more and more ways to kill each other. Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
tjt@kobold.UUCP (T.J.Teixeira) (10/30/83)
utcsstat!laura asks:
do you agree that:
1: it will be possible to get a handgun even if they are banned?
(remember that they are banned here, and I can get one)
2: banning handguns are a restriction of liberty?
3: banning them will create a lot of expensive work for the people (such as
the police) who will get set to the task of catching handgun owners?
1) No doubt it will be possible to get a handgun even if they are
banned. It's possible to get lots of things that are illegal (drugs,
alcohol during Prohibition). However, making something illegal
*does* make it more difficult to obtain. If guns are more difficult
to obtain, fewer people will have guns, so fewer people will be
killed by guns.
2. Banning handguns is a restriction of liberty. All laws are a
restriction of liberty. However, your freedom to swing your hand should
end before it reaches my nose. You feel that very few things are
worth the cost of any restriction to liberty. The entire handgun
question is essentially deciding whether banning handguns is worth
that loss of liberty. Saving lives is certainly a justifiable
reason for restricting liberty.
3. Banning handguns may be expensive, but it is an expense I would not
object to.
Yes, I am aware of the tradeoffs that Laura mentions. I agree that we
should add them all up and consider if it is worth the cost.
However, arguments like Allen England's imply that it cannot be worth
the cost unless banning handguns is 100% effective in preventing deaths
caused by handguns.
I claim that banning handguns should only have to show a net profit in
lives and not effect 100% savings.
--
Tom Teixeira, Massachusetts Computer Corporation. Littleton MA
...!{harpo,decvax,ucbcad,tektronix}!masscomp!tjt (617) 486-9581