jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (10/08/87)
In article <7428@reed.UUCP> wab@reed.UUCP (William Baker) writes: -NUT>From: jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (James Wilbur Lewis) -NUT>In article <7343@reed.UUCP> wab@reed.UUCP (William Baker) writes: -NUT>-Here we go again with the NRA propaganda. -NUT> -NUT>Sigh...time to drag out the standard rebuttals: - -Glad to see you are open minded. God knows you -wouldn't want to actually think about what I said. So anyone who disagrees with you is a NUT, huh? I don't think you're in a position to gripe about "open-mindedness" given the generally abusive tone of your posting. -NUT>-Yup, that's why Grandma has keeps a .44 magnum under her -NUT>-pillow...because she never knows when she'll get the urge -NUT>-for a little midnight target shooting. -NUT> -NUT>Or maybe she would prefer not to be raped, robbed, or have her head caved -NUT>in next time someone decides to break into her house. Good grief, -NUT>did you THINK about what you were saying when you wrote that? - -Typical I've-gotta-have-a-gun-to-defend-myself-from-the-muggers -paranoia. I'll deal with that below. Ok, well maybe YOU can explain why Grandma thinks she needs that weapon? She's going to rob a few liquor stores, right? -NUT> Require that handguns be kept at ranges. -NUT> -NUT>This is not going to make me happy AT ALL. A gun locked away at the -NUT>range isn't going to help me defend my home or my family when I NEED it. - -Pull your head out! I was talking about match shooters. You may have had match shooters in mind, but you certainly intended that ALL handguns be kept at ranges, right? My objection stands. -NUT> (about the King County handgun death study) -NUT>This study has been torn to shreds every time it's been posted to the -NUT>net. The statistics used in it are flat-out dishonest. For example, -NUT>the study includes suicides under shooting deaths. - -Well, let's ignore the facts, shall we? As I recall, the -study broke down as: - - 95% Accidental/domestic violence - 2% Hostile intruder (burglars, rapists, etc.) - 3% Other (suicides mostly) - -Probably you were reading some twisted NRA interpretation of -the study. The facts as I presented them were posted by none other than Tim Sevener, who is by no stretch of the imagination a "gun nut", an NRA supporter, or even sympathetic to my position. Can you cite a reference to the study so I can check the facts for myself? -As far as hanguns being used to just wound or capture -criminals, I doubt that this happened nearly as often as -shooting deaths. Who cares how often it succeeds? The point is, it's a perfectly valid reason for wanting to own a handgun. -As far as preventing crime, I really doubt this. The crime -rate in King County is pretty low. Then perhaps the study does not accurately reflect the motivation of a person living in Oakland or New York City who feels the need to own a handgun? Have YOU ever lived in a high-crime area? Had your apartment or house broken into while you were in it? (This happened to me a few months ago...) - However, you want statistical proof? "Statistical proof" is an oxymoron. But no, statistics don't have a damned thing to do with whether or not I should be able to own a weapon...it's what I DO with it that counts. -Plot the crime rate against per capita -handgun ownership and then against the rate of unemployment. -Which shows the correlation? The crime rate vs. -unemployment scale, of course. So if handgun ownership is only poorly correlated with the crime rate, then what's all the fuss about? - People steal because they -need the money and if they have a gun they will use it to -steal and maybe to kill to get rid of witnesses or just for -the hell of it. Remove the gun from this scenario and you -make robbery much more difficult. People who are so inclined will steal whether or not they have access to handguns. And don't kid yourself about the effectiveness of a ban; the criminals will be able to get them easily enough! -If there wasn't a gun in the house, an irate wife couldn't go get it to -shoot her philadering husband. Or a wife-beater. >Most guns are used to commit rape, not defend against it. "Most guns are used to commit rape." You didn't MEAN that, did you? No, you couldn't have.... The argument I think you intended to make is bogus anyway. It doesn't matter in the least what the proportion of weapons *actually used* in defense is; most people never find themselves in that kind of situation. That hardly makes it foolish to *prepare* for such an encounter by buying a gun; in fact, by not being prepared, you're adopting an "it won't happen to me" attitude. Suppose your home WAS broken into by an intruder who intended to do you harm. Would you truthfully feel prepared to defend yourself without a gun? Do you have a family? Are you willing to trust their lives to *your* judgement that wanting to own a handgun for self-defense is silly? -In your average suburb, which is where most of the people owning most of -the handguns live, the chance of being robbed or raped is pretty small. Gee, isn't that interesting....a negative correlation of handgun ownership with violent crime! - I had a run-in with some gang kids in Renton a few years ago and I -faced them down without problems. What would you have done, -pulled out your gun and started blazing away? Get real!) A "run-in"? With some "kids"? What did they do, call you names or give you dirty looks? If they were intent on violence, you wouldn't have lived to post about it. Why don't YOU "get real"...how do you propose to defend yourself against a REAL threat from a group of attackers? Fight them off? What about a woman who's not confident of being able to defend herself against a rapist....or just a small guy like me (5'8, 115 pounds) who wouldn't stand a chance in hell against even one attacker? -The point is, in Suburbia USA those handguns are being used -for us to shoot each other, not bad guys. Well, in case you haven't noticed, a lot of people on THIS side of the gun debate, including me, don't live in "Suburbia USA". Crime, to us, is not some abstract concept that we hear on the 6-o'clock news once in a while....we practically have to *wade* through it every day. Describing a desire for effective self-defense as "paranoia" as you have done shows a remarkable insensitivity to the perils some of us have to face. -NUT>Yes, that is what is wanted isn't it, the *abridging of freedom*. - -Yes, it is abridging freedom (and don't get holier than thou -with me on the issue of basic freedoms. I vote the straight -Libertarian ticket. Do you?) You? A Libertarian?! HAH! You sound more like a Fascist to me. REAL Libertarians object only to the initiation of force or fraud, and believe in leaving everyone else alone. Ownership or carrying of handguns per se constitutes neither force nor fraud, so if you insist on abridging my freedom to do so, you are either mistaken or lying about being sympathetic to Libertarianism. -NUT>:- Should we abridge the rights of a -NUT>:-few (handgun hunters and match shooters) for the sake of the -NUT> ^^^ -NUT>Few? What about the rest of the legitmate handguns owners, more -NUT>than one quarter of the U.S. population, 60 million people? - -Uh, do you have problems tying your shoes in the morning? -You seem to have a problem following my argument. Are you -saying that those 60 million handgun owners (what a -frightening thought) are all handgun hunters and match -shooters? Well, just what do YOU propose to do about those 60 million handgun owners? As long as they aren't match shooters, you think they should be allowed to keep their weapons at home? Or are you perfectly willing to abridge *their* freedom because you don't consider them "legitimate" handgun owners? Let's not misdirect the argument away from your true intent, which was originally an across-the-board restriction of handgun ownership! -Come on. The vast majority of those handguns are sitting in -bedside tables waiting to be used against burglars that will -never appear. Oh? I thought you said they were mostly used by rapists. Silly me. But tell me, what harm does a handgun do when it's sitting in a bedside table? -Unfortunately, the -vast majority of shootings in this country are accidental or -homicides. Obviously, the guns aren't being used just for -hunting, match shooting and self-defense. Maybe a majority of shootings are accidental or homicides, but the vast majority of *handguns owners* don't hurt anyone! So why do you want to restrict the freedom of 99% of the people involved to attempt to control the 1%, who won't be affected anyway because handguns will be readily available on the black market? The vast majority of *knifings* in this country are also, I suspect, homicides. Do you favor a ban on kitchen knives? Or what about Mace...if muggers started using it on their victims, would you argue for banning *that* too? -Handguns and sawed-off shotguns are. Handguns -and sawed-off or home defense shotguns are made for killing - ^^^^^^^^^^^^ -just one animal: Man. Evidently you are in favor of banning shotguns for home defense, as well! (Otherwise, why lump them in with handguns or sawed-off shotguns?) Look, sometimes it's NECESSARY to kill people. It's not a pretty thought, but sticking your head in the sand and insisting that the government interfere with the ability to do so is not going to make the problem go away! - I also have a basic right to -defend myself, but I don't have a basic right to own a -concealable firearm that is a threat to my fellow citizens -(as statistics show handguns are). Well, let's see. Automobiles are responsible for a staggering amount of death and injury to innocent people....the statistics are incontrovertible: cars are dangerous! They're a threat to my fellow citizens! The right to own a car, like the right to own a handgun, is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Better ban them! Oh, sure, there will be some paranoid wimps out there who think they'll never be able to manage a 10-mile commute to work...let 'em ride bikes, or take public transportation! Ban cars! Never mind that some people just enjoy driving...it's too dangerous. Personal freedom does not justify putting Society at risk, especially where DRIVING is concerned. And even when they're not being used to kill innocent people, they pollute the environment....just say NO to cars! -Let's get it all clear again for those of you still muddled. Good, then I hope *you're* paying attention! -Handguns are primarily used for killing people, most often -for homicides and accidental shootings. Handguns are primarily NOT USED AT ALL...they just sit there waiting, as YOU pointed out, for an intruder that never arrives. - If we outlaw -handguns, we will significantly reduce shooting deaths in -this country. Right, just like Prohibition got rid of alcohol and the current drug laws have cured drug abuse. - We will also inconvenience a small number of -handgun hunters and match shooters. And a VAST number of people whose only wish is to be able to defend themselves against violent criminals who would continue to exist despite any restrictions you care to impose on handgun ownership. - We will not be taken over by -communists since we will retain the right to bear arms. I don't care about communists, it's the goddamned crypto-fascists masquerading as Libertarians who scare me shitless! - We will not necessarily be invoking an unconstitutional law -since the Constitution does not specifically mention handguns. It doesn't mention rifles or shotguns either. The second amendment speaks of the right to bear "arms", period. Last time I checked, handguns were "arms". As for the Constitution not mentioning handguns *specifically*....there are LOTS of things that aren't mentioned. That's why the ninth amendment is there. Or did you stop at two? -Why am I being so insulting this time around? Because you're a CLOWN, that's why! We rebutted your arguments calmly and civilly, and what do we get for our trouble? 300+ lines of abuse describing us as "nuts", "loonies", "maroons", "pinheads", and a total lack of evidence that you understood a single point that was raised! - If anyone but the pistol-packing loonies are interested in this discussion, - I invite intelligent mail about my statements. Yeah, and who's going to read it to you? -- Jim Lewis U.C. Berkeley
djo@pbhyc.UUCP (10/10/87)
In article <21198@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis) writes: >People who are so inclined will steal whether or not they have access >to handguns. And don't kid yourself about the effectiveness of a ban; >the criminals will be able to get them easily enough! An interesting argument. But if they're illegal, (a) they won't be manufactured on such a massive basis, and (b) *anyone* caught with one will be jailed. But the main counterargument is below.. > Look, sometimes it's NECESSARY to kill people. Oh? When? "When it's kill or be killed." That means someone else is trying to kill you ... unnecessarily. Screw that. >Well, let's see. Automobiles are responsible for a staggering amount >of death and injury to innocent people....the statistics are >incontrovertible: cars are dangerous! Uh.... Can you figure out a way to carry a concealed automobile? You're ignoring what your antagonist actually said, schmuck. >Personal >freedom does not justify putting Society at risk Absolutely right. It doesn't. That's why we have traffic laws, and should probably have much stricter ones (*especially* regarding DWUI). >just say NO to cars! I tried that, but they didn't listen. Cars is pretty stupid. >- If we outlaw >-handguns, we will significantly reduce shooting deaths in >-this country. > >Right, just like Prohibition got rid of alcohol and the current drug >laws have cured drug abuse. Actually... Consider this: 1) England has gun control. 2) There were about five gun related deaths in the entire COUNTRY last year. Therefore, 3) Either a) Gun control works, or b) the English couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. >It doesn't mention rifles or shotguns either. The second amendment >speaks of the right to bear "arms", period. Last time I checked, >handguns were "arms". As for the Constitution not mentioning handguns >*specifically*....there are LOTS of things that aren't mentioned. That's >why the ninth amendment is there. Or did you stop at two? According to a Supreme Court decision made about 60 years ago, long before the whole "gun control" debate became what it is today, the right to bear arms is a right held by the populace, but not by its members. The right for any individual or group to bear arms may be restricted by legislation at any time. You lovers-of-the-artificial-phallus like to ignore the first part of the Second Amendment: "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." The Supreme Court's interpretation of this -- which has legal validity, whereas mine, yours, and the NRA's do not -- is that the people-as-a-whole have the right to maintain and arm a well-regulated militia; individuals are not guaranteed the right to carry toys. This is the *only* amendment in the Bill of Rights where the Founders took care to specify their purpose in putting it there. We may reasonably believe that they wanted to clarify what it was *and*was*not* intended for -- and it was *not* intended to let paranoids keep guns in their homes. I hope this clarifies the issue. I apologize to any who may be offended by what they perceive as insults; I intended descriptive terms. Ignoring the burden of what you're arguing with *is* schmuckery; feeling you have to have the right to have a gun because you have to protect yourself from all the people who have guns because you insisted on keeping guns legal *is* paranoia, and guns *are* surrogate dicks. Happy October. The Roach
jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (10/10/87)
In article <826@pbhyc.UUCP> djo@pbhyc.UUCP (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes: -In article <21198@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis) writes: -> Look, sometimes it's NECESSARY to kill people. - -Oh? When? "When it's kill or be killed." That means someone else is -trying to kill you ... unnecessarily. Screw that. Sorry, no can parse. Wanna run that one by me again? I'm worried about the possibility (not farfetched, given that I live in Oakland) that some subhuman armed with a pipe wrench or a baseball bat might break into my apartment intending to cave my head in, and all you can say is "Screw that"? Nothing short of lethal force is going to do me a damned bit of good in that situation! ->- If we outlaw ->-handguns, we will significantly reduce shooting deaths in ->-this country. -> ->Right, just like Prohibition got rid of alcohol and the current drug ->laws have cured drug abuse. - -Actually... Consider this: - -1) England has gun control. -2) There were about five gun related deaths in the entire COUNTRY - last year. -Therefore, -3) Either - a) Gun control works, - or - b) the English couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. Or c) England has a much lower violent crime rate *across the board*, due to major sociological differences between Britain and the USA. The USA crime statistics include areas where *millions* of people live in overcrowded, economically depressed areas like Harlem, East Oakland, the Tenderloin, etc...how many British people live in comparable areas? A fair comparison would be to look at Britain versus North Dakota, Alaska, or some other sparsely-populated state, which closely approximates the economic and population density distribution of Britain. But then the comparison is not nearly as spectacular, so I'm not at all surprised that gun control advocates haven't made it... -According to a Supreme Court decision made about 60 years ago, long before -the whole "gun control" debate became what it is today, the right to bear -arms is a right held by the populace, but not by its members. The right -for any individual or group to bear arms may be restricted by legislation -at any time. Yes, for people like convicted felons. The burden of proof is (or should be...) on the State to show that any particular person is unfit to be allowed to posess a handgun. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all to claim that this right is held by the "populace", but by default not by individuals. -You lovers-of-the-artificial-phallus like to ignore the first part of the -Second Amendment: - -"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." - - [...] - -This is the *only* amendment in the Bill of Rights where the Founders took -care to specify their purpose in putting it there. We may reasonably -believe that they wanted to clarify what it was *and*was*not* intended -for -- and it was *not* intended to let paranoids keep guns in their homes. Please explain how the first clause of that amendment places ANY restrictions on what constitute valid reasons to exercise the right to bear arms. This is just one of many reasons, put in to emphasize that the right of the people to organize a militia seperate from the army is specifically protected. If the founders had foreseen the current paranoia on the part of gun control advocates, I have no doubts that they would have made a much broader statement. And while you're at it, you might take a crack at explaining how your gun-control agenda is consistent with the Constitutional mandate that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". Your characterization of people who want to keep guns for home defense as "paranoids" is absurd, given the fact that SOME of us are not so fortunate as to live in neighborhoods free of violent crime. -...and guns *are* surrogate dicks. Yeah, and for some people, posting to Usenet is a substitute for masturbation. It looks like you're shootin' blanks, bub! Not only do you have a painfully obvious case of WEAPON ENVY, but you show all the symptoms of *brain* envy! -- Jim Lewis U.C. Berkeley
ooblick@mit-eddie.UUCP (10/10/87)
In article <826@pbhyc.UUCP> djo@pbhyc.UUCP (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes: >Actually... Consider this: >1) England has gun control. >2) There were about five gun related deaths in the entire COUNTRY > last year. >Therefore, >3) Either > a) Gun control works, > or > b) the English couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. Sorry, neither! Having lived in England for 2 years, I beg to differ with your reasoning. The British VOLUNTARILY gave up guns. There is no NRA in Britain with members screaming about constitutional rights. The British never considered it their "right" to carry the damn things. You must also realize that the rate of ALL crime in England is much lower than it is here. Why? Perhaps the mentality of people in general is a bit different. I really do not think crime is lower in England because most of the population doesn't have guns (by the way, they *do* have hunting shotguns and rifles...) Now don't get me wrong here. I dislike firearms. If handguns could be banned, I would be all for it. But as long as there are die hards out there who would never give up their guns regardless of the law, and as long as there are criminals who have no intention to follow laws in the first place, only law abiding citizens would give up their guns. And usually, their guns kill only their own families. [oooh, finally a REAL flame topic! please direct followups to alt.flame] Mikki Barry HASA - Handguns are silly aardvarks
djo@pbhyc.UUCP (10/12/87)
In article <21230@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis) writes: >-Oh? When? "When it's kill or be killed." That means someone else is >-trying to kill you ... unnecessarily. Screw that. > >Sorry, no can parse. Wanna run that one by me again? I'm worried about >the possibility (not farfetched, given that I live in Oakland) that some >subhuman armed with a pipe wrench or a baseball bat might break into my >apartment intending to cave my head in, and all you can say is "Screw that"? >Nothing short of lethal force is going to do me a damned bit of good in >that situation! Are you claiming that it's necessary for that "subhuman" to kill you? Horse shit. I've lived in some of Oakland's more exciting neighborhoods for about 20% of my life, fellah, places where screams are the music of the night; I've had my place broken into more than once. Your assumption that everyone who favors gun control lives in "safe" suburban neighborhoods (where I live now, incidentally -- and my home's been broken into *there,* too -- which gives us a clear idea how much contact with the reality of the suburbs you have) is ignorant. Your categorization of "subhumans" in Oakland is an inch short of racist. >Or c) England has a much lower violent crime rate *across the board*, >due to major sociological differences between Britain and the USA. >The USA crime statistics include areas where *millions* of people >live in overcrowded, economically depressed areas like Harlem, East >Oakland, the Tenderloin, etc...how many British people live in >comparable areas? A fair comparison would be to look at Britain >versus North Dakota, Alaska, or some other sparsely-populated >state, which closely approximates the economic and population density >distribution of Britain. But then the comparison is not nearly as >spectacular, so I'm not at all surprised that gun control advocates >haven't made it... Okay, look up the statistics on gun-related deaths in North Dakota. But I doubt you'll have the guts to post 'em. I won't -- because you won't believe me unless you look them up for yoursesf. You also show remarkable ignorance of the social realities of England in the 1980s. England has been in tremendous economic depression for quite some time, now, and is the home of a such charming national pastimes as terrace riots and paki-bashing. London is a much larger city than Oakland, or even San Francisco, and has its share of economically-motivated crimes -- which is to say nothing of depressed industrial cities such as Manchester and Liverpool. Shot yourself in the foot there, buddy. Ignorance will out. >-"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." >Please explain how the first clause of that amendment places ANY restrictions >on what constitute valid reasons to exercise the right to bear arms. I didn't say it placed restrictions. Read my lips. Look at the rest of the bill of rights; no reason is given for freedom of press, or speech, or assembly, or the dozen or so other rights elaborated there. But the second amendment begins with a specific reason for its existence -- almost as if the founding fathers were embarrassed by it, and felt a need to make an excuse. In constitutional law, as anyone but the veriest bozo knows, "original intent" of the founding fathers is considered of tremendous importance. The FF's actually considered it worthwhile to make their "intent" more explicit for the second amendment than in any other case -- to ignore this would be to undermine the basis of American democracy. Of course, you don't want that, do you? >And while you're at it, you might take a crack at explaining how your >gun-control agenda is consistent with the Constitutional mandate that >"the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". Very simply. It's completely consistent with the above interpretation which, as I pointed out, is not the interpretation of gun-control fanatics, but a Supreme Court of the 1920s. >Your characterization of people who want to keep guns for home defense >as "paranoids" is absurd, given the fact that SOME of us are not so >fortunate as to live in neighborhoods free of violent crime. My characterization of people who want to keep guns for home defense is based on living in such neighborhoods for several years and observing the people around me. About a dozen people known to me within a block of my home kept guns; two of them in less than one year used them to shoot someone who was *not* breaking into their house. Most homocides with guns are not committed by housebreakers, or by people defending their homes, but by people who, in a moment of fury or depression, picked up the gun they kept to defend their homes and murdered their spouse, parent, lover, offspring, or next door neighbor. Keeping a gun in your home doesn't protect you from that sort of homocide; it makes you vulnerable to it. But the hate mail I've received from my first note on this subject -- including at least one death threat (another was so garbled I'm not sure) is my real argument for calling gun-owners paranoid. This argument is not new, and any sane person should be able to read either side without loss of temper. But in the two days since that article was posted, I have received: 1 definite death threat 1 possible death threat 3 articles calling me various unprintable names It makes me glad my address ain't in the phone book... >Yeah, and for some people, posting to Usenet is a substitute for masturbation. >It looks like you're shootin' blanks, bub! Not only do you have a painfully >obvious case of WEAPON ENVY, but you show all the symptoms of *brain* envy! Weapon envy? What paralogical process led you to such a conclusion? I could go down to my local gun shop and pick up a piece tomorrow if I were so inclined. And why should I envy the brain of a man incapable of grasping something so obvious? Pax, Roach
jimb@mas1.UUCP (10/13/87)
In article <827@pbhyc.UUCP> djo@pbhyc.UUCP (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes: >...I've had >my place broken into more than once. >-- and my home's been broken into *there,* too -- which gives >us a clear idea how much contact with the reality of the suburbs you have) amazing... most people have never had their homes broken into... the odds for this must be astronomical. Not that I don't believe you or anything... >My characterization of people who want to keep guns for home defense is >based on living in such neighborhoods for several years and observing the >people around me. About a dozen people known to me within a block of my >home kept guns; two of them in less than one year used them to shoot someone >who was *not* breaking into their house. > amazing... most people don't know 12 people within a block of their home, much less whether they have guns. You certainly are a social creature. And to think that two of them would use guns to shoot someone within a year... astronomical... Not that I dont' believe you or anything... >in the two days since that article was posted, I have received: > 1 definite death threat > 1 possible death threat > 3 articles calling me various unprintable names > amazing... death.threats over the net... You certainly do have your bad luck, I mean with multiple break-ins, violent neighbors, and death threats against you... odds must be astronomical. I mean I believe you, but what about the rest of this net.crowd??? -- "Just because I'm paranoid it doesn't mean nobody is out to get me!" - Jim Burke
roth@coldbeer.UUCP (10/13/87)
In article <826@pbhyc.UUCP>, djo@pbhyc.UUCP (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes: # In article <21198@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis) writes: # # Actually... Consider this: # # 1) England has gun control. # # 2) There were about five gun related deaths in the entire COUNTRY # last year. # # Therefore, # # 3) Either # a) Gun control works, # or # b) the English couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. Or you don't count the carnage in Northern Ireland where draconian laws haven't stopped people who hate each other from senseless slaughter. Or your statistic is only for the Kingdom of England and excludes Scotland, Wales, Nothern Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, etc. Must have been an off year for homicide in England last year. Maybe bombs and knives were more fashionable. -- work phone 1-301-984-3636 home phone 1-301-386-2138 {grebyn, decuac, paisano}!macom1!coldbeer!roth
was@pbhyf.UUCP (10/13/87)
> In article <21198@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis) writes: > > Actually... Consider this: > > 1) England has gun control. > > 2) There were about five gun related deaths in the entire COUNTRY > last year. > Yup, let's give credit where credit's due. Those English folks surely are benevolent, non-violent types.... Except at soccer games. Remember Belgium? 30+ Dead because of rowdy *English* fans. Having lived in Europe for many years, I know how dreaded these English soccer fans are. Usually the rioting would start on the passage over to the host country. The point is this, if a person insists on being violent, he'll find a way. Gun or no gun. Furthermore, who cares what you anti-gun nuts think anyway.... -- Joe Wasik - Pacific*Bell, 2600 Camino Ramon, Room 4e700ee, San Ramon, CA 94583 - {ihnp4,dual,lll-crg,qantel,pyramid,sun}!ptsfa!pbhyf!was "Anyone that goes to see a psychiatrist should have his head examined," - Archie Bunker
c160-as@zooey.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (10/14/87)
All this discussion about gun control has raised a few questions in my mind: Would a ban on handguns limit their availability to those who use them the most to kill? Would the number of handgun related deaths increase or decrease as the result of a handgun ban? In the United States as well? Would a ban on handguns tend to increase or decrease the number of violent crimes committed in the United States? Is the amount of fear mitigated by being able to own a handgun worth the potential harm that can be caused by one? (In the case of the automobile, society as a whole has decided that the convenience provided by a car outweighs the "amount of harm" that it has caused) Does a handgun actually protect? Will it actually prevent one from being mugged, raped, and robbed or will it just make one feel *confident* that they will be able to escape from any of the above unscaythed? I see these questions as central to the handgun ban issue and until both sides can agree on any of these questions I don't see much headway being made. :-) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- gsnyder@cory.Berkeley.Edu / Bring football back to Oakland! / Go Giants Go! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tr@wind.UUCP (10/15/87)
In article <4335@zen.berkeley.edu> gsnyder@cory writes:
$ All this discussion about gun control has raised a few questions
$ in my mind:
$
$ Would a ban on handguns limit their availability to those
$ who use them the most to kill?
Are most gun deaths caused by those who use guns the most to kill?
Or are they caused by people who use them once, i.e. not the serious
or professional murderers? This is a serious question.
$ Would the number of handgun related deaths increase or decrease as
$ the result of a handgun ban? In the United States as well?
See my previous question.
$ Does a handgun actually protect? Will it actually prevent one from
$ being mugged, raped, and robbed or will it just make one feel
$ *confident* that they will be able to escape from any of the above
$ unscaythed?
If that's the case, how can we justify carrying guns? Confidence of
protection without real protection doesn't sound very valuable to me.
$ I see these questions as central to the handgun ban issue and until
$ both sides can agree on any of these questions I don't see much
$ headway being made. :-)
Of course both sides don't agree. That's what makes the fact that
there ARE sides. In other words, since people disagree, people
disagree. Or did I miss your point? Were you saying that we have to
agree on what the questions are before we can start producing helpful
answers? If that's your point, I definitely agree!
Tom Reingold INTERNET: tr@bellcore.bellcore.com
Bell Communications Research UUCP: <backbone>!bellcore!tr
435 South St room 2L350 SOUNDNET: (201) 829-5119 [work]
Morristown, NJ 07960 (201) 287-2345 [home]howeird@well.UUCP (10/16/87)
Responding to your stats on England gun control: Listen you bozo, the reason for the whole flaming revolutionary war was to kick out the redcoats, who kept putting restrictions on the People. One of those restrictions was the right to have your own personal arsenal. English law prohibiting the rank and file from owning hand guns dates back to when England was a colonial power, and they didn't like the idea of the colonists pointing guns at the bureaucrats. So using their murder stats to back up an argument to ban handguns is pretty dumb.
zardoz@apple.UUCP (10/19/87)
In article <3117@bellcore.bellcore.com> tr@wind.UUCP (tom reingold) writes: >In article <4226@well.UUCP> howeird@well.UUCP (Howard Stateman) writes: >$ >$ [...] >$ Listen you bozo, the reason for the whole flaming revolutionary war was >$ to kick out the redcoats, who kept putting restrictions on the People. >$ One of those restrictions was the right to have your own personal arsenal. >$ English law prohibiting the rank and file from owning hand guns dates >$ back to when England was a colonial power, and they didn't like the >$ idea of the colonists pointing guns at the bureaucrats. >$ So using their murder stats to back up an argument to ban handguns is >$ pretty dumb. > >Good point, Howard. It is fundamentally wrong to restrict our >right to point a gun at a beaurocrat and the British haven't realized >it yet. Too bad for them. I, along with you and probably most of >the net, am very happy that we Americans can do it any day without >fear of prosecution. > In ancient scandinavia, a kind was *REQUIRED* to walk the length of his country once a year without protection. If he made it, he was king for another year. Ok, Ronnie, let's see you walk. == These ideas are mine. MINE!