bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan) (06/18/86)
In article <340@valid.UUCP> gelfand@valid.UUCP (Brooks Gelfand) writes: >>[...Newspaper article (what! You BELIEVE what you read in the paper?)...] >> "Of firearm deaths in the home, 8 out of 10 were suicides and 1 out of 10 >> were criminal homicides, mostly during arguments or fights with family or >> friends, [...rest of the original article deleted...] >[...comments about suicides doing it anyway, without firearms...] > >To reduce the homicide rate in domestic disturbances, the Seattle Police >had (still have?) and innovative program. When called to a domestic >disturbance that involves one party striking the other, they lock up >the agressor overnight - no bail set until the next day. The homicide >rate was reported to have declined. >I would suggest that this type of solution to the homicide problem >might be more effective than a firearms ban. They still have it, and it has become an even more progressive program. Now, when called in to any domestic disturbance that involves any kind of violence, BOTH parties get locked up!! This prevents situations where one party accuses the other falsely to "get at" them. So, if you live in Seattle (King County), and get into a domestic dispute in which the police get called, YOU are going to jail (even if YOU called them). Good system.
pete@stc.co.uk (07/07/86)
Summary: Expires: Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Keywords: Xpath: ukc eagle In article <874@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes: >Does someone "absolutely need a gun"? Ask my friends. 1) Stabbed seven >times by burglars who broke into their house, and tried to rape his >wife. 2) Another couple, intruders smashed down their front door, raped >her, beat him up, stole everything they owned down to their wedding >pictures, and used their credit cards for months. (LAPD didn't even >run fingerprints -- they had "serious" crimes to pursue.) 3) One of >my wife's friends, who was gang-raped and a broken bottle stuffed into >her sexual organs. 4) My wife's boss, raped, kidnapped, and thrown into >a latrine. 5) One of my wife's schoolmates -- beaten to death with >roofing hammers (as was his sister, after she was raped). 6) Friend >in number one, robbed at gunpoint on the street. 7) Someone I went to >school with, who spent months with her jaw wired after a group of >teenagers stole her purse, then broke her jaw. 8) My ex-landlord's >daughter, murdered in Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. > >No, I guess there's really no need for self-defense. A counter-example: John Shorthouse, 5 years, shot at point-blank range by PC Brian Chester, 35 years, in Birmingham last year during a house search. The policeman was tried for manslaughter and acquitted last week. Justly, because he was not acting negligently. What does this show? That even a highly trained, mature, policeman can make a fatal mistake with a firearm. British policemen have to take special training courses before they are allowed to be issued with weapons. If such a mistake can be made by such a person, what about Tom, Dick or Harry (or Clayton E.)? What are you trying to prove? If you can show that there is a suppressed desire by the British people for the right to own firearms without restrictions, then run off to the library, look it up, and tell us all about it. My reading of public opinion; Left-wing, Right-wing and at all other angles reveals no such desire. But maybe you know better. If you are arguing that we are in some way less `free' because we have to show society a very good reason why we want to own firearms, well maybe we are. But your list of atrocities above shows that you are less `free' in a much more significant way. The sort of crimes you describe make *headlines* over here. They seem to be routine where you live. If you've let the genie out of the bottle and can't get it back in, you have my sympathy. But don't expect us to make the same mistakes as you. -- Peter Kendell <pete@stc.co.uk> ...!mcvax!ukc!stc!pete "Shot, shot, by both sides, They must have come, To a secret understanding."
karl@cbrma.UUCP (Karl Kleinpaste) (07/07/86)
abc@brl.arpa writes: > 4. Finally, the broad base of support for tax-reform legislation >is built, in part, upon the notion that it's time for 'special >interests' to stop dominating the law. The most frightening special >interest to me is the National Rifle Association. From a relatively >small fraction of the population, they're able to dictate their wishes >to a cowardly Congress which is afraid to offend. Yet, what is the NRA >more than a covert lobby for gun manufacturers? As a `special interest,' the NRA represents in excess of 3 million people who regularly renew their yearly dues (or 5-yearly, or whatever). Although the raw population fraction we represent may seem small (1.5%?), the fact that any group has anywhere near that kind of membership says something, particularly in view of the renewal rate. If you want something to stop the NRA, go form your own organization which is bigger than the NRA, support it better (good luck, you'll need it), and get some legislation passed. The recent act passed by Congress was evidence enough that the NRA does things that I and a whole lot of other people like. Congress is not being cowardly in this regard. It is rather that Congress seldom has a group so large behind the legislation being pushed. Yes, Congress is afraid to offend - that's because an awful lot of votes back home depend on whom they offend, and the NRA represents more votes than any other group in the fight. So the NRA wins on a very regular basis. That's what voting is about: a numbers game. We've got more people on our side than you have on yours. Lastly, it's not covert in the least. It's incredibly overt, right down to and including financial disclosures required by the Federal Elections Commission or whatever the bureaucratic arm is called that wants to know who contributes to whom. It's overt for both the manufacturer and the owner. We (the 3 million of us) like it. There is insufficient outcry against us. [Replies will reach me via mail only. There's no way I'm getting deeply into this discussion a third time in 3 years. Too time-consuming.] -- Karl Kleinpaste
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/07/86)
> In article <850@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes: > > > >Our government trusts us (sort of) -- a shame your government doesn't > >trust you. > > > >Clayton E. Cramer > > How many Presidents did you say you had assassinated? > -- > Keith Dancey, UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!rlvd!kgd Fear is the only way to keep politicians even SLIGHTLY honest. Clayton E. Cramer
brian@sequent.UUCP (07/08/86)
I was up in Canada a while back and a guy staggered out of a bar and died almost literally at my feet with a knife in him. Good thing Canada outlaws handguns or he might have been shot. --Brian
boyter@ut-ngp.UUCP (Cpt Brian Boyter) (07/09/86)
In article <1980@sequent.UUCP>, brian@sequent.UUCP writes: > > I was up in Canada a while back and a guy staggered out of a bar and > died almost literally at my feet with a knife in him. Good thing Canada > outlaws handguns or he might have been shot. > In NYC yesterday, this guy gets on the Staten Island ferry with a sword with orders from God to kill people... He killed 2 and wounded 9.... Thank God there was an off-duty security guard on the boat WITH A HANDGUN to stop him.... A couple of weeks ago, a guy was attacked by 5 armed youths in NYC... He was lucky because he is a private detective and was able to kill his attackers because he HAD A HANDGUN.... If it had been you or I, we would be dead because NYC has the marvelous Sullivan laws which prevent honest citizens from having weapons even in there home... Cpt Brian Boyter now at the U of Texas ut-ngp!boyter Hook 'm Horns
mzal@pegasus.UUCP (Mike Zaleski) (07/11/86)
In article <3623@ut-ngp.UUCP>, boyter@ut-ngp.UUCP (Cpt Brian Boyter) writes: > A couple of weeks ago, a guy was attacked by 5 armed youths in NYC... > He was lucky because he is a private detective and was able to kill his > attackers because he HAD A HANDGUN.... If it had been you or I, > we would be dead because NYC has the marvelous Sullivan laws which > prevent honest citizens from having weapons even in there home... It is not illegal to have a weapon (handgun, rifle, or shotgun) in your home in New York City. A handgun permit costs $100 (I believe this is an annual cost), plus a $28 state police processing fee. The processing time is several months. You also have to make a special trip to an office in Manhattan to apply. Rifle and shotgun permits are less difficult to get, as I understand it. I was told that when I get a handgun permit, I could go to any police station and get a rifle/shotgun permit on the spot. There are also provisions for guns permits for businesses and to carry a weapon. The paperwork is more complex for these cases. -- "The Model Citizen" Mike^Z Zaleski@Rutgers [ allegra, ihnp4 ] phoenix!mzal
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/11/86)
> In article <874@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes: > >Does someone "absolutely need a gun"? Ask my friends. 1) Stabbed seven > >times by burglars who broke into their house, and tried to rape his > >wife. 2) Another couple, intruders smashed down their front door, raped > >her, beat him up, stole everything they owned down to their wedding > >pictures, and used their credit cards for months. (LAPD didn't even > >run fingerprints -- they had "serious" crimes to pursue.) 3) One of > >my wife's friends, who was gang-raped and a broken bottle stuffed into > >her sexual organs. 4) My wife's boss, raped, kidnapped, and thrown into > >a latrine. 5) One of my wife's schoolmates -- beaten to death with > >roofing hammers (as was his sister, after she was raped). 6) Friend > >in number one, robbed at gunpoint on the street. 7) Someone I went to > >school with, who spent months with her jaw wired after a group of > >teenagers stole her purse, then broke her jaw. 8) My ex-landlord's > >daughter, murdered in Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. > > > >No, I guess there's really no need for self-defense. > > A counter-example: John Shorthouse, 5 years, shot at > point-blank range by PC Brian Chester, 35 years, in > Birmingham last year during a house search. > > The policeman was tried for manslaughter and acquitted last > week. Justly, because he was not acting negligently. > > What does this show? That even a highly trained, > mature, policeman can make a fatal mistake with a firearm. > British policemen have to take special training courses > before they are allowed to be issued with weapons. > If such a mistake can be made by such a person, what about > Tom, Dick or Harry (or Clayton E.)? > However, a policeman with a firearm is likely to be put into situations every month where the question about whether to use that firearm will come up. A private citizen is unlikely to have such a situation more than once a lifetime. (Unless they live in New York City.) The hazards of a less adequately armed civilian are much less than the hazards of a less adequately armed police officer. I would also agree that train- ing in the legal use of a firearm is a valuable and useful thing. Many cities require completion of such a course before they issue a concealed weapon permit. Also, the circumstances a police officer will use a firearm under are significantly more demanding than a civilian. A civilian needs to protect his own life -- he chooses whether to risk his own life to protect someone else. A police officer's job is to risk his own life. This suggests that a police officer will be engaged in gun battles not only more frequently (see previous paragraph) but also at longer ranges. > What are you trying to prove? > That because of our high crime rates (which are NOT because of gun ownership) it is necessary for the general population to have access to deadly weapons. > If you can show that there is a suppressed desire by the > British people for the right to own firearms without > restrictions, then run off to the library, look it up, and > tell us all about it. My reading of public opinion; Left-wing, > Right-wing and at all other angles reveals no such desire. > But maybe you know better. > There's no desire in Britain because you have a very low crime rate. The low crime rate is why the population tolerated firearms restrictions adopted in the 1920s without argument. > If you are arguing that we are in some way less `free' > because we have to show society a very good reason why we > want to own firearms, well maybe we are. But your list of > atrocities above shows that you are less `free' in a much > more significant way. The sort of crimes you describe make > *headlines* over here. They seem to be routine where you > live. > Agreed. But the crime rate we have is not the result of firearms ownership. Firearms ownership is a result of the crime rate. > If you've let the genie out of the bottle and can't get it > back in, you have my sympathy. But don't expect us to make > the same mistakes as you. > -- > Peter Kendell <pete@stc.co.uk> > If firearms ownership were as widespread in Britain as it is in the U.S., I suspect that your burglary, unarmed robbery, and rape rates would be dramatically lower. I suspect that your murder rate might be slightly higher. Armed robbery rate would be higher -- how much I don't know. Overall, I think Britain would be better off -- but not dramatically. But unless your population is too dumb to behave rationally, I see no way you would be worse off. Clayton E. Cramer
gnome@oliveb.UUCP (07/11/86)
> In article <874@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes: > >Does someone "absolutely need a gun"? Ask my friends. 1) Stabbed seven > > -- examples or horrible things... > > > >No, I guess there's really no need for self-defense. > > A counter-example: John Shorthouse, 5 years, shot at > point-blank range by PC Brian Chester, 35 years, in > Birmingham last year during a house search. > > What does this show? That even a highly trained, > mature, policeman can make a fatal mistake with a firearm. > British policemen have to take special training courses > before they are allowed to be issued with weapons. > If such a mistake can be made by such a person, what about > Tom, Dick or Harry (or Clayton E.)? > What are you trying to prove? Sure, and you could make an equally fatal mistake with your car. So what does that prove? Have you taken the Bonderant driving classes for proffessional drivers? If you are going to hurl your 2500 pound machine at 55 mph without extensive formal training. > If you are arguing that we are in some way less `free' > because we have to show society a very good reason why we > want to own firearms, well maybe we are. But your list of > atrocities above shows that you are less `free' in a much > more significant way. The sort of crimes you describe make > *headlines* over here. They seem to be routine where you > live. > > If you've let the genie out of the bottle and can't get it > back in, you have my sympathy. But don't expect us to make > the same mistakes as you. > -- > Peter Kendell <pete@stc.co.uk> Since you have the "uk" in your address, I am assuming that you are in Great Britain somewhere. England has been around, with it's present social structures and police system for over a century. It hasn't needed to change because, up until recently, everything has been in a stable state for hundreds of years (including the conflicts and continuing violence in Ireland). In contrast, the US started-out as a frontier country, split many different ways by warring factions from other countries in Europe. Maybe that's why the culture developed the way it did here. Anyway, most of our big cities are built from the cultures of the worlds "wretched refuse". The ones that want to be free and "have their own space". The problem is that Americans can't tolerate the kind of super dense push-and-shove that you find on Hong Kong streets and London underground rush-hour subway trains. It doesn't mean that we don't have that here, it simply means that we, in general, don't function within it without being stressed. Now, take that concept and compare the crime rate for our densest areas as compared to the rural American towns. Instead of murder rates in the thousands, the rural areas mostly show up with numbers in the "high 0's" for many, many years running. What does this mean? It means that Remington and Winchester didn't "let the genie out of the box". In actuality, the genie had already existed because of the early years of this countries birth -- as a necessity. It is easy to say "we are safe and sound in our country", at the moment. But remember that there were no SWAT teams in residence at Heathrow two years ago, and that as long as time flows, things change. Most of the changes come in response to external factors. It will be interesting to see if, with the sedate "civility" of England's people, the environment in "Brazil" will come about in the U.K... (the movie BRAZIL, that is). Gary
raan@techunix.BITNET (Ran Ever-Hadani) (07/12/86)
Newsgroups: net.followup Subject: Re: Firearms ownership (was Re: Air raid on Libya) Summary: Expires: References: <157@unido.UUCP> <858@ihlpl.UUCP> <774@epistemi.UUCP> <279@valid.UUC <885@kontron.UUCP> Sender: Reply-To: raan@techunix.BITNET (Ran Ever-Hadani) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Technion CS, Israel Inst. Tech., Haifa Keywords: In article <885@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> >> How many Presidents did you say you had assassinated? >> -- >> Keith Dancey, > >Fear is the only way to keep politicians even SLIGHTLY honest. > >Clayton E. Cramer Does this mean citizens should be allowed to carry armed, so that politicians will become honest out of fear of assassination? -- Ran
geoff@suneast.uucp (Geoff Arnold) (07/14/86)
>> If you've let the genie out of the bottle and can't get it >> back in, you have my sympathy. But don't expect us to make >> the same mistakes as you. >> -- >> Peter Kendell <pete@stc.co.uk> >> > >If firearms ownership were as widespread in Britain as it is in >the U.S., I suspect that your burglary, unarmed robbery, and rape rates >would be dramatically lower. Extremely unlikely. The majority of burglaries in England are of unoccupied dwellings - don't forget that a significantly higher percentage of women are in full time work. And the rape rate is so much lower, it's not statistically significant to try and compare and extrapolate with the U.S. > I suspect that your murder rate might be >slightly higher. How about manslaughters due to intrafamilial violence? How about accidental gunshot deaths? Both are at present VERY low compared with the U.S. > Armed robbery rate would be higher -- how much I >don't know. As in the U.S., a growing number proportion of robberies are drug related, to finance the perpetrators' habits. This group of criminals would probably acquire firearms at a much higher rate than the rest of the population, leading and accelerating the kind of patterns seen over here. >Overall, I think Britain would be better off -- but not >dramatically. But unless your population is too dumb to behave rationally, All populations include rational and irrational elements (including Usenet readers :-), and it's the irrational ones we have to worry about when we talk about free access to socially dangerous commodities such as drugs, guns, nuclear weapons...... >I see no way you would be worse off. > >Clayton E. Cramer Go on - TRY and think of some ways. Really - there IS a world out there which is NOT the kind of Dante's Inferno you seem to inhabit.... -- "disclaimo, disclaimas, disclaimat, disclaimamus, disclaimatis, disclamant" UUCP: {hplabs,ihnp4,nsc,pyramid,decwrl}!sun!suneast!hinode!geoff
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/14/86)
> In article <3623@ut-ngp.UUCP>, boyter@ut-ngp.UUCP (Cpt Brian Boyter) writes: > > > A couple of weeks ago, a guy was attacked by 5 armed youths in NYC... > > He was lucky because he is a private detective and was able to kill his > > attackers because he HAD A HANDGUN.... If it had been you or I, > > we would be dead because NYC has the marvelous Sullivan laws which > > prevent honest citizens from having weapons even in there home... > > It is not illegal to have a weapon (handgun, rifle, or shotgun) > in your home in New York City. A handgun permit costs $100 (I > believe this is an annual cost), plus a $28 state police processing > fee. The processing time is several months. You also have to make > a special trip to an office in Manhattan to apply. > > Rifle and shotgun permits are less difficult to get, as I understand > it. I was told that when I get a handgun permit, I could go to any > police station and get a rifle/shotgun permit on the spot. > > There are also provisions for guns permits for businesses and > to carry a weapon. The paperwork is more complex for these cases. > > -- "The Model Citizen" Mike^Z > Zaleski@Rutgers [ allegra, ihnp4 ] phoenix!mzal I read a couple years ago that New York City had less than 10,000 permits to own handguns. Permits are granted on a "need" basis, and few people are considered to have a need for a handgun. I've also read there are lawyers in New York City specialized JUST in getting ownership/concealed carry permits after being turned down initially. The Knapp Commission found back in the 1970s, when they were looking into police corruption that over half the concealed carry permits were issued as a result of bribery. Finally, after Bernhard Goetz was mugged for the first time, he applied for a permit. He was turned down. I don't think you really know what the situation in NYC really is. Clayton E. Cramer
singer@spar.UUCP (David Singer) (07/16/86)
There are two main problems with fire-arms control which have not really been touched on. The first is that fire-arms are a durable commodity. If you effectively control (for example) the supply of a consumable such as narcotics, then after a while there simply isn't any to be had. Alas, guns and ammunition last for a long time. There are now so many fire-arms in the USA that controlling their purchase now would have little immediate effect, and controlling ownership effectively un-enforcable. Perhaps tight control now would yield perceptible effect in say 50 years, but I doubt that the effect would be large enough to be significant. What politician is going to opt for measures which have such long pay-back periods? The second is the deep-seated conviction held by many residents of this country that force and violence are normal, moral ways of resolving major differences of opinion. This covers both individuals and government. (For example, the native indian 'problem' in the early years of this country was not solved by peaceful co-existence or by intermingling but by an attempt at systematic genocide; the major attempt at solving the Libyan problem was by bombing the place -- which I think is where we started in this discussion). Watch police serials on the TV -- when the situation starts getting out of hand, out come the fire-arms. Now this view is held by criminals too, so of course they carry weapons when indulged in nefarious pursuits -- after all, they have a difference of opinion with the rest of society. This attitude is really quite deep and is taught well to children, and I see no sign of it being replaced by more humane attitudes. Now it is possible that careful education and persuasion of the populace could change this attitude -- that violence is a good way to solve problems -- in, say, a generation or two (50 to 100 years). But again, what politician is going to start a program with such a long pay-back period? Personally I think it deplorable that a society should have such a belief so deep-seated and so much used. But unless one can see a way to solving both ownership and the attitudes which cause desire for ownership, I do not see the problem being solved. Removing violence from television or guns from store shelves are not by themselves complete solutions; and the lack of rapid solutions effectively means the lack of any solution in any country where politician's actions must have some effect within their term of office (no, I'm not anti-democracy). On the international stage, the problem is much worse. At least within the USA, there are other ways to resolve differences (e.g. the courts in the case of criminal actions). Internationally, nations still resolve major differences by seeing who can kill more of the other side -- a bizarre and inhumane system -- and there really are few effective alternatives (for example, the UN is crippled by special interests, particularly those on the security council). So, deplorable though the situation is, I challenge the view that domestic violence in the USA can be rapidly and significantly reduced by controlling fire-arms, or that international violence can be reduced through arms talks. If anyone has reason to be less pessimistic, I'm interested, but I'm not interested in further 'guns are good and beautiful VS. guns are nasty and dangerous' simplistic argument and mud-slinging...
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/17/86)
> >> If you've let the genie out of the bottle and can't get it > >> back in, you have my sympathy. But don't expect us to make > >> the same mistakes as you. > >> -- > >> Peter Kendell <pete@stc.co.uk> > >> > > > >If firearms ownership were as widespread in Britain as it is in > >the U.S., I suspect that your burglary, unarmed robbery, and rape rates > >would be dramatically lower. > > Extremely unlikely. The majority of burglaries in England are of unoccupied > dwellings - don't forget that a significantly higher percentage of women > are in full time work. And the rape rate is so much lower, it's not > statistically significant to try and compare and extrapolate with the U.S. > The majority of burglaries in the U.S. are of unoccupied dwellings as well. But when a burglar breaks into an occupied dwelling here, they know there is at least a possibility the occupants will kill the burglar. Doesn't sound like that's even a remote possibility in Britain. The rape rate is much lower, indeed, even though firearms are a factor in a very tiny fraction of rapes in America. I will agree with you on one thing though -- "it's not statistically significant to try and compare and extrapolate with the U.S." And that's true for all types of crime. > > I suspect that your murder rate might be > >slightly higher. > > How about manslaughters due to intrafamilial violence? How about > accidental gunshot deaths? Both are at present VERY low compared with the > U.S. > That's what I was talking about. Intrafamilial violence in the presence of firearms would doubtless result in more murders and manslaughters -- but also more criminals killed in self-defense. Remember, civilians kill THREE TIMES as many criminals in self-defense as the police do in America. Accidental gunshot deaths in the U.S. are VERY low -- less than two thousand a year, most of them hunting accidents. (I presume that Britons are allowed to hunt, and I presume they make mistakes, also.) > > Armed robbery rate would be higher -- how much I > >don't know. > > As in the U.S., a growing number proportion of robberies are drug related, > to finance the perpetrators' habits. This group of criminals would probably > acquire firearms at a much higher rate than the rest of the population, > leading and accelerating the kind of patterns seen over here. > My understanding is that criminal use of handguns has been on the rise for some years in Britain, in spite of the difficulties in obtaining them. Why keep honest people disarmed so that the criminals have the advantage? > >Overall, I think Britain would be better off -- but not > >dramatically. But unless your population is too dumb to behave rationally, > > All populations include rational and irrational elements (including > Usenet readers :-), and it's the irrational ones we have to worry about > when we talk about free access to socially dangerous commodities such as > drugs, guns, nuclear weapons...... > Elections, automobiles, ladders... > >I see no way you would be worse off. > > > >Clayton E. Cramer > > Go on - TRY and think of some ways. Really - there IS a world out there which > is NOT the kind of Dante's Inferno you seem to inhabit.... > -- But not because guns are not legally available -- because the population of Britain is more peaceful with ALL types of weapons than the population of the U.S. What's Britain's murder rate with knives? Blunt instruments? Strangulation? Poison? Lower than the U.S. rates by a comparable margin to the firearms murder rate. Firearms aren't the reason that Britain is so much less crime-besieged. Clayton E. Cramer
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/17/86)
> There are two main problems with fire-arms control which have not really > been touched on. > > The first is that fire-arms are a durable commodity. If you effectively > control (for example) the supply of a consumable such as narcotics, then after > a while there simply isn't any to be had. Alas, guns and ammunition last for > a long time. There are now so many fire-arms in the USA that controlling their > purchase now would have little immediate effect, and controlling ownership > effectively un-enforcable. Perhaps tight control now would yield perceptible > effect in say 50 years, but I doubt that the effect would be large enough > to be significant. What politician is going to opt for measures which have > such long pay-back periods? > A valid statement, but 50 years isn't the interval -- it's more like a 1000. Also, it is COMPLETELY impossible to prevent drugs from being imported into this country, and ALMOST completely impossible to prevent domestic production of drugs. And stopping drug importation and production is easy compared to firearms. > The second is the deep-seated conviction held by many residents of this country > that force and violence are normal, moral ways of resolving major differences > of opinion. This covers both individuals and government. (For example, > the native indian 'problem' in the early years of this country was not solved > by peaceful co-existence or by intermingling but by an attempt at systematic > genocide; the major attempt at solving the Libyan problem was by bombing the > place -- which I think is where we started in this discussion). > Watch police serials on the TV -- when the situation starts > getting out of hand, out come the fire-arms. Now this view is held by > criminals too, so of course they carry weapons when indulged in nefarious > pursuits -- after all, they have a difference of opinion with the rest of > society. This attitude is really quite deep and is taught well to > children, and I see no sign of it being replaced by more humane attitudes. > Most Americans believe in the use of force to deal with one particular type of problem: someone is threatening to kill you, or cause you great bodily harm, or rape you, and you have no alternative but to use deadly force. That's why our laws allow use of deadly force under those circum- stances. What's so strange about this? What's strange is to think that you can resolve such a problem non-violently. (Calling the police is NOT a non-violent solution -- it's just putting the violence into governmental hands.) > Now it is possible that careful education and persuasion of the populace > could change this attitude -- that violence is a good way to solve problems -- > in, say, a generation or two (50 to 100 years). But again, what politician > is going to start a program with such a long pay-back period? > Self-preservation is the strongest motivation I can think of, and it's true of people everywhere on this planet. "Careful education and per- suasion"? Brainwashing would be required. > So, deplorable though the situation is, I challenge the view that domestic > violence in the USA can be rapidly and significantly reduced by controlling > fire-arms, or that international violence can be reduced through arms > talks. If anyone has reason to be less pessimistic, I'm interested, > but I'm not interested in further 'guns are good and beautiful VS. guns > are nasty and dangerous' simplistic argument and mud-slinging... You can only persuade people to give up violent solutions for non- violent solutions when they don't feel personally threatened, and when they feel that their rights will be respected. The fundamental definitions of human rights are dramatically different between the Marxist and capitalist societies -- there's no way that Marxist and capitalist societies will agree on binding arbitration. Clayton E. Cramer
jmh@ukc.ac.uk (Jim Hague) (07/21/86)
Disclaimer - I haven't the time or inclination to go and gather facts on this, so the below must count only as opinion. Also my comments only apply to mainland Britain - Northern Ireland is obviously a different kettle of fish. Now read on .... In article <923@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes: >The majority of burglaries in the U.S. are of unoccupied dwellings as well. >But when a burglar breaks into an occupied dwelling here, they know there >is at least a possibility the occupants will kill the burglar. Doesn't >sound like that's even a remote possibility in Britain. True enough. The burglar killing the owner is also a very remote possibility. Personally speaking, if I ever find myself having to confront a burglar, I'd rather that neither of us were armed. Even if I came off worse, I think I'd regard my property of being of less importance than my life. >Accidental gunshot deaths in the U.S. are VERY low -- less than two thousand >a year, most of them hunting accidents. (I presume that Britons are allowed >to hunt, and I presume they make mistakes, also.) Hunting in the UK is not at all comparable to that in the US. Hunting with firearms over here is done by a tiny minority, and the weapon used is then almost invariably a shotgun. Hunting with rifles, it seems to me, is very rare indeed. The vast majority of the UK population do not hunt at all (the only people I know who hunt are foxhunters), and indeed have no wish to. The sporting use of rifles and pistols is confined (pace above comment) to target shooting. The reguations on rifle ownership are very strict. From memory, to own a rifle you must be a member of a licensed rifle club, which will have a secure armoury where the weapon and all ammunition must be kept and accounted for. Each application for a permit can be rejected by the police for any reason they see fit - I don't think there is any appeal. A shotgun licence is much easier to obtain, but I don't know the details. >My understanding is that criminal use of handguns has been on the rise for >some years in Britain, in spite of the difficulties in obtaining them. >Why keep honest people disarmed so that the criminals have the advantage? Again, true enough. However, a couple of points. Use of firearms during a robbery is confined almost exclusively to pre-planned robbery of a bank or Post Office. It is a very out of the ordinary mugging or robbery from the home that involves firearms. So, are those caught up in an armed robbery at more of a disadvantage because they are unarmed ? I don't think so - it seems to me that if the criminals work on the assumption that everybody is likely to be armed they are more likely to shoot somebody making a wrong move. By far the most common weapon used in an armed robbery is the shotgun. This is, coincidentally, by far the easiest weapon to obtain legally. In response to this the Government has been considering tightening up the laws on shotgun ownership. Note, I am *not* saying the shotguns used are legally registered ones, used by their owners, merely that the general availability of shotguns is much higher than other firearms. >But not because guns are not legally available -- because the population >of Britain is more peaceful with ALL types of weapons than the population >of the U.S. ..... Firearms aren't the reason that Britain is >so much less crime-besieged. Now, I'm far from convinced that making firearms generally available here would do anything to the crime rate other than increase it. The argument is that burglars, rapists and whoever are much less likely to ply their trade because they fear the victim may be armed. Given that US society is armed, it would therefore seem to me that the propensity of the average American to rob and main his/her fellow man must be astronomical. No. It seems to me much more likely that the crime rate is determined by factors other than the possible consequences to the criminal. In this case widespread ownership of firearms would at best make little impact, and at worst increase the amount of serious crime - a handgun can so easily promote a minor offence (e.g. a pub brawl) into a major one. Finally, the lifting of restrictions on firearm ownership would be a monumental political mistake for any Government of the UK. Reason ? Widespread ownership of firearms would necessitate the arming of the police as a matter of course. It is probably difficult to appreciate the impact this would have if you haven't been bought up in a society where the police are unarmed. The police themselves view such a move with extreme disfavour. I have heard it said that any party which dared to put a speed limit on the autobahns in Germany would be politically crippled for about 20 years - for me, at least, arming the British police forces would make a similar impact. -- Jim Hague UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!jmh Failure has gone to his TG: 72:MAG10135 head. - Wilson Mizner.
brian@sequent.UUCP (Brian Godfrey) (07/23/86)
>Accidental gunshot deaths in the U.S. are VERY low -- less than two thousand >a year, most of them hunting accidents. And most of them are alcohol related. A lot of city-boy hunters go out for the big manhood ritual (this does not apply to *all* hunters, many of whom are my friends). Part of the ritual is drinking lots of beer and playing with the guns. A bad combination. I live in the woods and usually keep my stereo going and make lots of other noise during hunting season. --Brian
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/23/86)
> Disclaimer - I haven't the time or inclination to go and gather > facts on this, so the below must count only as opinion. Also my > comments only apply to mainland Britain - Northern Ireland is > obviously a different kettle of fish. Now read on .... > > In article <923@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes: > > >The majority of burglaries in the U.S. are of unoccupied dwellings as well. > >But when a burglar breaks into an occupied dwelling here, they know there > >is at least a possibility the occupants will kill the burglar. Doesn't > >sound like that's even a remote possibility in Britain. > > True enough. The burglar killing the owner is also a very remote > possibility. > A lot of "burglar kills occupant" crimes here are done without a firearm. (Knives, strangulation, and blunt objects are a lot quieter.) > Personally speaking, if I ever find myself having to confront > a burglar, I'd rather that neither of us were armed. Even if I > came off worse, I think I'd regard my property of being of less > importance than my life. > You assume that all that's at risk is your property. It has become pretty common the last fifteen years for burglars breaking into an occupied dwelling to rape the occupants -- regardless of sex. (I have some friends to whom this happened.) I would prefer if confronting a burglar that HE be unarmed -- but I'm not at all willing to be unarmed when the burglar has a knife, or a baseball bat, or have to fight with three or four burglars at once. (Again, something that has happened to SEVERAL of my friends in different incidents.) > >Accidental gunshot deaths in the U.S. are VERY low -- less than two thousand > >a year, most of them hunting accidents. (I presume that Britons are allowed > >to hunt, and I presume they make mistakes, also.) > > Hunting in the UK is not at all comparable to that in the US. Hunting > with firearms over here is done by a tiny minority, and the weapon used > is then almost invariably a shotgun. Hunting with rifles, it seems to > me, is very rare indeed. The vast majority of the UK population do > not hunt at all (the only people I know who hunt are foxhunters), > and indeed have no wish to. > Probably reflective of the considerably less wild nature of Britain compared to the U.S. It was quite a surprise to talk to some of my colleagues in West Germany and find out that you don't run into wild bears in the forest. > The sporting use of rifles and pistols is confined (pace above comment) > to target shooting. The reguations on rifle ownership are very strict. From > memory, to own a rifle you must be a member of a licensed rifle > club, which will have a secure armoury where the weapon and all > ammunition must be kept and accounted for. Each application for > a permit can be rejected by the police for any reason they see fit - > I don't think there is any appeal. A shotgun licence is much easier to > obtain, but I don't know the details. > Seems to be a police state. No appeal -- permits rejected for any reason they see fit. Sounds like a great way to supress rebellion by the population, if you chose to do so. > >My understanding is that criminal use of handguns has been on the rise for > >some years in Britain, in spite of the difficulties in obtaining them. > >Why keep honest people disarmed so that the criminals have the advantage? > > Again, true enough. However, a couple of points. > > Use of firearms during a robbery is confined almost exclusively to > pre-planned robbery of a bank or Post Office. It is a very out of the > ordinary mugging or robbery from the home that involves firearms. > So, are those caught up in an armed robbery at more of a disadvantage > because they are unarmed ? I don't think so - it seems to me that > if the criminals work on the assumption that everybody is likely to > be armed they are more likely to shoot somebody making a wrong move. > As long as murder is a more serious crime than armed robbery, criminals will be interested in reducing the seriousness of the crime charged in the event they get caught. (Of course, most criminals never expect to get caught -- in this country, that's a reasonable expectation, since our courts are not particularly interested in locking up criminals -- another major difference between the U.S. and Britain.) > >But not because guns are not legally available -- because the population > >of Britain is more peaceful with ALL types of weapons than the population > >of the U.S. ..... Firearms aren't the reason that Britain is > >so much less crime-besieged. > > Now, I'm far from convinced that making firearms generally available > here would do anything to the crime rate other than increase it. > The argument is that burglars, rapists and whoever are much less likely > to ply their trade because they fear the victim may be armed. Given that > US society is armed, it would therefore seem to me that the propensity > of the average American to rob and main his/her fellow man must be > astronomical. > The AVERAGE American has no propensity to rob and maim others. But there is a very tiny minority of the population that is completely without fear of the law, and completely unconcerned what suffering they induce in others. (This is even a minority of all criminals convicted of crimes. In California, more than half the violent felonies are committed by less than 30,000 people -- in a state of 25,000,000!) > No. It seems to me much more likely that the crime rate is determined > by factors other than the possible consequences to the criminal. In > this case widespread ownership of firearms would at best make little impact, > and at worst increase the amount of serious crime - a handgun can so > easily promote a minor offence (e.g. a pub brawl) into a major > one. > I used to get very angry at bad driving, and would (like lots of other Americans), express my irritation through gestures and language. I don't do that anymore -- because I came to the realization that LOTS of people carry guns in their cars (in violation of lots of laws). Now, most of those people are as rational and calm as I am, and would never try to kill someone for criticizing their driving skills -- but there are a few who might. An armed society is a polite society -- impoliteness MAY cause the one crazy in a 100,000 to threaten your life. > Finally, the lifting of restrictions on firearm ownership would be > a monumental political mistake for any Government of the UK. Reason ? > Widespread ownership of firearms would necessitate the arming of the > police as a matter of course. It is probably difficult to appreciate > the impact this would have if you haven't been bought up in a society > where the police are unarmed. The police themselves view such a move > with extreme disfavour. I have heard it said that any party which dared > to put a speed limit on the autobahns in Germany would be politically > crippled for about 20 years - for me, at least, arming the British police > forces would make a similar impact. > -- > Jim Hague UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!jmh Failure has gone to his Even in California, you'll find unarmed police officers in outlying areas. The sheriff of Humboldt County, CA, was shot to death about three years ago by a guy with a LONG history of crime and mental problems (for which no court ever locked him up). Why? The sheriff of Humboldt County seldom carried a gun on duty -- there wasn't any reason to do so. Our crime problems are concentrated in big cities -- I suspect that many rural counties in the U.S. are nearly as crime-free as Britain is. Clayton E. Cramer
brian@sequent.UUCP (Brian Godfrey) (07/24/86)
>Personally speaking, if I ever find myself having to confront >a burglar, I'd rather that neither of us were armed. Even if I >came off worse, I think I'd regard my property of being of less >importance than my life. I certainly wouldn't want to shoot a burglar in my house. Think of the mess! Blood and such splattered all over everything and soaked into the carpet. Just cleaning up after it would probably cost more than anything they could steal from me. But the rub lies not in what value the stolen goods have, but rather in that NOBODY violates my space. Home = castle and all that rot. So how to you stop him without shooting him? Greet him with a gun whose barrel is bigger around than his eyeballs can get when he sees it. We're talking .44 magnum or 12 gauge shotgun here. He'll probably be very co-operative and sit quietly waiting for the sheriff to arrive. Neither of those guns is a "weapon" in the sense that they were designed for killing humans. Both were designed as hunting arms. The .44 is totally impractical as a self defense weapon (Dirty Harry to the contrary) as it is big, unwieldy, kicks *hard* and only shoots one shot at a time. But it has a big hole in the barrel and I think that would impress someone standing in front of it. The 12 gauge is even bigger (a lot bigger) and, as everyone knows, is mainly intended for shooting birds. Mine has never killed anything that wasn't made out of clay. These are the kind of guns that most of us "armed" Americans possess. Sporting guns, not self defense guns. Shooting can actually be an enjoyable sport without killing - or even thinking about killing - anything. I suppose that is difficult for Europeans to understand due to their high population density, but here in North America there is plenty of room for legitimate shooting sports. Few Americans really select a gun for its self defense potential. Never-the-less when you hear someone breaking into your house, you grab what you've got. And what I've got is big. --Brian (PS - the .44 is for sale, incl reloading gear.)
ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) (07/24/86)
In article <943@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >[...] It has become >pretty common the last fifteen years for burglars breaking into an >occupied dwelling to rape the occupants -- regardless of sex. (I have >some friends to whom this happened.) > >I would prefer if confronting a burglar that HE be unarmed -- but I'm >not at all willing to be unarmed when the burglar has a knife, or a >baseball bat, or have to fight with three or four burglars at once. >(Again, something that has happened to SEVERAL of my friends in >different incidents.) *** Gadzooks, where do you live?? Your address header says Mountain View, California. I've lived there for years, as have a few of my friends, and never heard of things like this happening to anyone I know. I keep a 12 guage standing next to a few shells in my bedroom, but in the 4 years or so since I got it, I haven't had any cause (even suspicious noises, and I'm a *very* light sleeper) to pick it up. You must come from the bad side of New York or something. Ron -- -- Ronald O. Christian (Fujitsu America Inc., San Jose, Calif.) seismo!amdahl!fai!ronc -or- ihnp4!pesnta!fai!ronc Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: "If you are seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it."
kgd@rlvd.UUCP (Keith Dancey) (07/28/86)
In article <1980@sequent.UUCP> brian@sequent.UUCP (Brian Godfrey) writes: > > > I was up in Canada a while back and a guy staggered out of a bar and >died almost literally at my feet with a knife in him. Good thing Canada >outlaws handguns or he might have been shot. > Too right! And with the next bullet, so might have you!!! -- Keith Dancey, UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!rlvd!kgd Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX11 0QX JANET: K.DANCEY@uk.ac.rl Tel: (0235) 21900 ext 5716
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/28/86)
> In article <943@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > > >[...] It has become > >pretty common the last fifteen years for burglars breaking into an > >occupied dwelling to rape the occupants -- regardless of sex. (I have > >some friends to whom this happened.) > > > >I would prefer if confronting a burglar that HE be unarmed -- but I'm > >not at all willing to be unarmed when the burglar has a knife, or a > >baseball bat, or have to fight with three or four burglars at once. > >(Again, something that has happened to SEVERAL of my friends in > >different incidents.) > *** > > Gadzooks, where do you live?? Your address header says Mountain View, > California. I've lived there for years, as have a few of my friends, > and never heard of things like this happening to anyone I know. > > I keep a 12 guage standing next to a few shells in my bedroom, but in > the 4 years or so since I got it, I haven't had any cause (even suspicious > noises, and I'm a *very* light sleeper) to pick it up. You must come > from the bad side of New York or something. > > Ron Nope. Santa Monica. The GOOD side of Los Angeles. Clayton E. Cramer
phoenix@genat.UUCP (phoenix) (07/29/86)
In article <1990@sequent.UUCP> brian@sequent.UUCP (Brian Godfrey) writes: > Neither of those guns is a "weapon" in the sense that they were designed >for killing humans. Both were designed as hunting arms. The .44 is totally >impractical as a self defense weapon (Dirty Harry to the contrary) as it is >big, unwieldy, kicks *hard* and only shoots one shot at a time. But it has >a big hole in the barrel and I think that would impress someone standing in >front of it. The 12 gauge is even bigger (a lot bigger) and, as everyone >knows, is mainly intended for shooting birds. Mine has never killed anything >that wasn't made out of clay. > These are the kind of guns that most of us "armed" Americans possess. >Sporting guns, not self defense guns. Shooting can actually be an enjoyable >sport without killing - or even thinking about killing - anything. I suppose >that is difficult for Europeans to understand due to their high population >density, but here in North America there is plenty of room for legitimate >shooting sports. Few Americans really select a gun for its self defense >potential. Never-the-less when you hear someone breaking into your house, >you grab what you've got. And what I've got is big. I really don't think that population density is behind the drive for gun-control. Canada is on the same continent as the US and has a much lower pop/density; but we have *very* intense gun-control laws. To purchase *any* gun (shotgun, .22, etc.) you need a Fire-Arms Acquisition Certificate from the Federal Government, which is *not* issued until the RCMP have made an inspection of your record. Getting a hand-gun unless you can prove you are a collector is practically impossible. Any kind of auto is right out. (Unless you're a police officer; they can have any kind of toy they want.) -- The Phoenix (Neither Bright, Dark, nor Young) (Go pick on a mechanism your own size) ---"For the Eternal Space" --- (Lieut. Amuro Ray) ---"Beliving in a sign of Zeta Beyond the hard times from now."
ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) (07/29/86)
>> >[...] burglars breaking into an >> >occupied dwelling to rape the occupants -- regardless of sex. (I have >> >some friends to whom this happened.) >> >[...]have to fight with three or four burglars at once. >> >[...] happened to SEVERAL of my friends in different incidents.) >> *** >> >> Gadzooks, where do you live?? >> [...] >> You must come from the bad side of New York or something. >> >> Ron > >Nope. Santa Monica. The GOOD side of Los Angeles. > >Clayton E. Cramer *** Is there one? :-) But seriously, you must have awful unlucky friends, or they're doing something wrong. Like leaving their doors unlocked, exercising in front of the picture window, I don't know. Things like that don't happen to normal people with the frequency you imply. Even in Santa Monica. (Especially not in Mountain View.) The folks overseas must think we live in a combat zone. Not to say I don't believe in taking preventive measures, (like owning and knowing how to use a firearm) but hey, it's 8:15 A.M. and I haven't shot at anyone all day! :-) Make.... My..... Breakfast! Ron -- -- Ronald O. Christian (Fujitsu America Inc., San Jose, Calif.) seismo!amdahl!fai!ronc -or- ihnp4!pesnta!fai!ronc Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: "If you are seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it."