mat@hou5d.UUCP (09/01/83)
One need only compare the numbers of people meeting violent ends in this country and in the rest of the civilized world to guess that banning handguns works. And that's all it is - a GUESS. Look at NYC. Toughest handgun laws in the nation. Many handgun deaths. Simply banning guns doesn't work; the bad guys will get them. The people who want to be violent will do so, whether they have a gun or not. Forcing people who buy guns to present VALID identification, (like a passport or a PHOTOGRAPHIC drivers license), forcing them to demonstrate that they can handle them properly, and demonstrating the violent damage from the gun COULD reduce the number of accidental and ``thoughtless'' deaths. Reducing the violence on TV could make people less comfortable with violence and less willing to use it. And executing people who use guns in a crime, whether the guns were fired or not, and executing them swiftly after a fair but FAST trial (say 30 days from arrest to execution) will reduce the number of people willing to use guns to violate each others rights. Mark Terribile
nrh@inmet.UUCP (09/06/83)
#R:tekecs:-195400:inmet:4000015:000:1507 inmet!nrh Sep 6 00:29:00 1983 ***** inmet:net.followup / amd70!eager / 9:39 pm Sep 1, 1983 I might add that one of the scariest developments of the past hundred years is the development of the handgun. Laws to regulate (not abridge) usually follow the development of a new item. Handguns were built by hand and were expensive in the 1850's. They are now cheap and machine made. [ Indeed. That sure changed things. I suppose the morality changes when something is available to the poor also.] The constitution doesn't mention handguns anywhere. It also doesn't mention airplanes, television, cars, and a host of other regulated items. The writers of the constituion left to the congress the right to regulate any number of area, handguns is one of them. [ As I recall, the ninth amendment states that the absence of mention of some right shall not be construed to mean that that right does not exist -- can somebody please supply the exact wording?] A question: Presumably the person who does not want gun control laws because they will "disarm" him is also against drivers licenses because they will abridge his "right" to vehicular homicide? [ Wonderful comparison. I don't think the two cases compare in just the way you've put it -- Nobody has the "right" to hurt somebody else with a car OR a gun. Certainly a Government prefers unarmed citizens because armed tax collectors, press gangs, and police are safer. That something increases the ease of government doesn't mean that it is a good thing.]
nrh@inmet.UUCP (09/08/83)
#R:tekecs:-195400:inmet:4000017:000:1074 inmet!nrh Sep 7 09:43:00 1983 ***** inmet:net.followup / nmtvax!hennessy / 10:54 pm Aug 31, 1983 "A well regulated militia, being essential to the well being of a state, the right to bear arms shall not be abridged." Well that's what it says. If you are in your state militia fine. If not then this does not apply to you. Why don't YOU read the constitution before bitching about your rights. [ I was surprised by this wording of the constitution, so I checked. The 1983 Information Please Almanac reports the second amendment as: "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." I also checked this wording, commas and all, with the Reference Department in the Boston Public Library, who got it from "Constitution of the United States, Analysis & Interpretation, Senate Document 92-82" Thanks so much for the suggestion that I read the constitution. Such advice is particularly useful when people misquote it in such a way as to support THEIR beliefs. - Nat Howard ]
davidl@tekid.UUCP (David Levadie) (09/08/83)
I haven't received any lengthy sociological dissertations in answer to the question which I posted on the net in response to ANOTHER letter like the one to which this message is a followup (whew!) so I am reposting the question. Maybe I will at least get a bowl of Quiche in the face. To wit: Why should I be restricted from owning ANY form of weaponry because someone ELSE(s) have (has) shown themself (themselves) to be irresponsible therewith? I demand to be judged on my own merits (demerits). From that standpoint I would support gun owner licensing, were it not for the fact that I have never encountered a government which did not somehow manage to abuse every form of regulatory power granted to or usurped by it. (Note - apropos of personal tactical nukes - they pollute, and are therefore not target-specific enough to qualify as a personal defense weapon.)
stanwyck@ihuxr.UUCP (09/09/83)
David: I think the answer to your question has been answered several times, but I will attempt to reiterate it for you. The reason for regulating gun ownership is simply to ensure that the people who have the guns are trained in their use. Very few people actually want to do away with handguns altogether (although I think it might not be a bad idea), but rather they desire that guns be regulated just as cars are regulated. In order to be allowed to drive a car in public, you must show certain representitives of society that you know how to operate such vehicle is a safe manner. This is society's way of protecting the innocent from the incompetent. With guns, most of the argument I've heard reflects similar thinking - ownership and use of handguns should be regulated in a like manner. Set up a firearms registration bureau, with firearm use examiners. When you have shown them that you know how to safely possess and use a firearm, you will receive a licence, renewable every X years, to own your gun. If you ever use that gun in an anti-social manner, you can lose that license - just as you can lose your drivers license. Many of us feel that the handgun is not the problem. We see the problem as being the use of handguns by people who do not know how to use them, and as a result these people injure, yes, even kill innocent people. Does this now answer your question? Don Stanwyck : ihnp41ihuxr!stanwyck : 312-979-6667
nrh@inmet.UUCP (09/11/83)
#R:tekecs:-195400:inmet:4000018:000:1573
inmet!nrh Sep 10 14:42:00 1983
***** inmet:net.followup / omsvax!dps / 11:48 am Sep 8, 1983
England has handgun control. London has fewer murders than
any American city of comparable size or density. I don't
have the figures to hand, but as I recall the difference
is an order of magnitude. British authorities have no doubt
that there is a relation.
Also, some Canadian cities (perhaps the whole country) also
have handgun control. The Canadian city/cities in the
Great Lakes metropolitan area have fewer murders than the
American cities. Could there be a relation?
[ As I recall, Robert Heinlein's answer to this in "Expanded Universe"
is that SWITZERLAND, where people go armed to the teeth by LAW
has fewer armed murders per capita than the US also. One problem with
anecdotal evidence is that either once has chosen extreme case,
or somebody else has a contradicting anecdote.
Another answer to your question is that the problem of this
country is NOT to reduce deaths due to handguns. It is to
MINIMIZE such deaths, given the CONSTRAINT that its citizens
(still) have the right to bear arms.
A third answer to your question is that although perhaps you
and (certainly) I do not perceive and handgun as a particularly
desirable or useful thing to own, that doesn't mean we should
claim the right to prevent others from owning them. Because,
in your judgement, a handgun could ONLY be used in offense
doesn't mean that in FACT you are correct, and those who
own guns "for defense" are wrong.
- Nat Howard
]
leimkuhl@uiuccsb.UUCP (09/12/83)
#R:tekecs:-195400:uiuccsb:3200006:000:1853 uiuccsb!leimkuhl Sep 11 17:14:00 1983 Many people seem to think that the availability of handguns is not the real reason for the high murder rate in this country (it is high for a developed nation); Some think that if handguns were banned, people would find other ways to kill each other. The important point is that most handgun deaths in this country are the result of domestic disputes. Armed lunatics, muggers, and hired killers account for few of the more than 10,000 murders occurring in the US each year. It is in that instant when rage completely overwhelms the jealous lover that the trigger is more often squeezed. It is the drunken victim of some barroom breach of etiquette who might through twisted logic see death as just punishment for an insult. The handgun is an extremely lethal weapon (yes, even a .22). A knife is only lethal when persons are face-to-face, and the killer is either well trained or is completely deranged and can inflict consecutive multiple blows without the victim escaping. Likewise, no other easily obtainable weapon gives an attacker the power to do so much damage for so little physical and emotional effort--the handgun allows one to project death from the safe distance of a few feet, thus making murder clean as well as simple. As a boy I remember killing a squirrel with my air rifle. It took only a few seconds and little effort and seemed somewhat like shooting targets at the carnival. It was only when I saw and felt the dead animal that I realized my only accomplishment was the destruction of a small, pathetic creature. I'm certain I could not have killed that animal with my bare hands, or a knife, or a baseball bat. Most of us would agree that homicide in any form is a fowl act; handguns tend to make it more palatable, and so desensitive us. That makes us all less human. Ben Leimkuhler (uiucdcs!uiuccsb!leimkuhl)
bill@utastro.UUCP (09/14/83)
England has handgun control. London has fewer murders than
any American city of comparable size or density. I don't
have the figures to hand, but as I recall the difference
is an order of magnitude. British authorities have no doubt
that there is a relation.
Also, some Canadian cities (perhaps the whole country) also
have handgun control. The Canadian city/cities in the
Great Lakes metropolitan area have fewer murders than the
American cities. Could there be a relation?
[ As I recall, Robert Heinlein's answer to this in "Expanded Universe"
is that SWITZERLAND, where people go armed to the teeth by LAW
has fewer armed murders per capita than the US also. One problem with
anecdotal evidence is that either once has chosen extreme case,
or somebody else has a contradicting anecdote.
- Nat Howard
]
I fail to see how the Swiss law that requires citizens to posess
rifles for the defence of the country is relevant to the question
of handguns.
Bill Jefferys 8-%
Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (Snail)
ihnp4!kpno!utastro!bill (uucp)
utastro!bill@utexas-11 (ARPA)engels@ihuxs.UUCP (09/14/83)
In response to why davidl should have to suffer because others are irresponsible or whatever(which reminds me of the complaint that school age children have when they are punished as a group for a n individual's doing), let me present this: Why should I have to prove my age when purchasing liquor because other's would attempt to obtain it illegally(underage). Yet, by law, I can not purchase liquor without Identification of age. (Which is a pain in the rotunda and happens to me all the time although I am 7 years past the legal age.) Why should I have to present Identification when cashing a personal check, because others(not me!) have acted irresponsibly. Why doesn't the bank just take my word for it when I apply for a loan--rather than run a check? If I say I can drive, why do I have to prove it by taking a test? I If I say I know the school work, why do I have to prove it by taking a test and producing a diploma?? Whose to say whether you are a responsible gun owner? Me? You? or should some basic standards be set and applied as they are in non-life threatening situations.
davidl@tekid.UUCP (David Levadie) (09/15/83)
BRAVO! Somebody got the point. The real issue has nothing to do with gun control. So - Who among us has been socialized enough to vote for external control of individual activities and who has not? Choose sides.
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/16/83)
Ben Leimkuhler observes:
The important point is that most handgun deaths in this country
are the result of domestic disputes. Armed lunatics, muggers, and
hired killers account for few of the more than 10,000 murders
occurring in the US each year...
Sorry, Ben, your figures are out of date. It used to be true that most
murders were among friends, relatives, etc. More recent figures say
that's not the case any more -- the majority of murder victims are strangers
to their murderers these days. The precise cause of this is not known, but
there is one intriguing speculation: the change seems to have occurred
at about the same time and about the same rate as the liberalization of
divorce laws. I would speculate that an increased number of drug-related
crimes might also be a factor.
As for handguns... I go along with one of the less-popular views, to
the effect that any real solution will require both sides to give in a
bit. The anti-gun faction is going to have to admit that there is *no*
reason why a sane, honest, competent, responsible citizen should be
banned from owning handguns. (Note that if we are talking about a free
country, the proper question is not "should people be allowed to own
handguns", but "is there sufficient cause to ban handgun ownership".)
And the pro-gun faction is going to have to admit that not everybody
is a sane, honest, competent, responsible citizen, and that therefore
there is a real need for some sort of official certificate saying "it's
ok for this guy to own guns, we know he's not going to do anything stupid".
Note that I am not talking about a certificate that would be handed out
like candy, or something that would be based solely on character and
honesty -- the applicant should be required to prove that he knows how
to handle firearms properly and safely.
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henryctk@ecsvax.UUCP (09/17/83)
I'm sick and tired of these gun loving morons who want to arm themselves to the teeth. Lets take the lizards out and shoot 'em.
mark@hp-pcd.UUCP (09/17/83)
#R:tekecs:-195400:hp-kirk:7200005:000:1958
hp-kirk!mark Sep 14 12:54:00 1983
Mental exercise:
Suppose I am a teen-aged delinquent who is roaming the
streets some evening looking for something to do, and I happen to
wander past old Grandma Smith's house and the thought occurs to
me that it might be interesting to break in to old Grandma's home
and see what I can find. Police patrols in the area are a joke,
the neighbors are an apathic lot who keep to themselves and old
Grandma can barely get around the house let alone pose any
physical risk to my enterprise. I have a perfect opportunity to
have a little "fun" with almost no chance of getting caught.
Now one of the things that prevents a lot more of this from
happening than actually does is that it occurs to me that old
Grandma just might have a gun and I decide that rummaging through
Grandma's house just isn't worth getting blown away for. Now
here is a case (that probably occurs quite frequently) where a
crime has been averted by the right of someone to own a gun.
This is independent of whether or not Grandma actually owns a gun
or how she feels about gun ownership. She benefits just the
same.
So much for the pro-gun ownership side of things. Another
aspect that must be considered is that maybe Grandma does own a
gun and maybe I'm a little less smart than the average delinquent
and decide to break-in anyway. Headlines next day: "Teen-age
boy killed by elderly lady". Now I am sure there are many of you
who feel I got what was coming to me, but I am equally sure many
of you feel this is a terrible miscarriage of justice that should
not be allowed in our society. None-the-less, the major point
that I am attempting to make here is that the right to own a gun
is something that you can benefit from even if you do not own
one; and conversely is something you can suffer from being
denied.
Points to ponder,
Mark Rowe
hplabs!hp-cvd!mark
Corvallis, Oregonian@utcsstat.UUCP (Ian F. Darwin, Toronto, Canada <ian@utcsstat.uucp>) (09/18/83)
"I fail to see how the Swiss law that requires citizens to posess rifles for the defense of the country is relevant to the question of handguns" -- Bill Jefferys, utastro!bill Well, it seems to me that the sub-question to which this refers is: "Does a gun in the hand prevent crimes in the bush?" or less prosaically, "Does arming the citizenry reduce the rate of violent crimes?" I believe that the answer is in the affirmative. Regardless of the "correct" answer to the question, it is clear that the introduction of the land of the Switzers into the discussion was not irrelevant.
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/18/83)
England has handgun control. London has fewer murders than
any American city of comparable size or density. I don't
have the figures to hand, but as I recall the difference
is an order of magnitude. British authorities have no doubt
that there is a relation.
Also, some Canadian cities (perhaps the whole country) also
have handgun control. The Canadian city/cities in the
Great Lakes metropolitan area have fewer murders than the
American cities. Could there be a relation?
Canada has quite strict handgun-control laws, and Canadian cities
generally do have lower murder rates than nearby American cities.
But don't forget two things:
1. Canadian cities have lower rates for *all kinds* of crime -- not
just handgun-related crimes -- than nearby American cities.
2. Many large American *cities* (e.g. Detroit) have quite severe handgun-
control laws. These have the predictable effect, to wit
making life difficult for honest collectors, target shooters,
etc. while having no noticeable effect on criminals.
It just ain't that simple, folks.
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henrymark@umcp-cs.UUCP (09/19/83)
The point is, of course, with regard to the irrelevant Swiss,
that rifles and handguns are very different animals. --
spoken: mark weiser
UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!mark
CSNet: mark@umcp-cs
ARPA: mark.umcp-cs@UDel-Relaynrh@inmet.UUCP (09/19/83)
#R:tekecs:-195400:inmet:4000023:000:3364
inmet!nrh Sep 18 16:02:00 1983
[ As I recall, Robert Heinlein's answer to this in "Expanded Universe"
is that SWITZERLAND, where people go armed to the teeth by LAW
has fewer armed murders per capita than the US also. One problem with
anecdotal evidence is that either once has chosen extreme case,
or somebody else has a contradicting anecdote.
- Nat Howard
]
I fail to see how the Swiss law that requires citizens to posess
rifles for the defence of the country is relevant to the question
of handguns.
Bill Jefferys 8-%
Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (Snail)
ihnp4!kpno!utastro!bill (uucp)
utastro!bill@utexas-11 (ARPA)
[ That's easy! Consider the oft-used argument that permitting
people to own guns permits their lethal use in situations that
would otherwise not result in deaths. The usual argument given
is that if guns were not permitted, killing people would be more
difficult, and require more emotional commitment than just
pulling a trigger.
I admit, rifles and handguns are very different in the sense
of how easy they are to carry around on the street, but
the "emotional outburst" scenario seems to depend more on
people who know each other, often living in the same home.
To avoid some quibbling about the frequency of this argument, or
the usefulness of refuting it, consider two quotes from this notes
string:
***** inmet:net.followup / omsvax!dps / 11:48 am Sep 8, 1983
...
Most deaths from handguns are not caused by professional
criminals, but by people with an emotional involvement with
their victims. Having a handgun readily available makes crimes
of passion easy.
...
***** inmet:net.followup / uiuccsb!leimkuhl / 10:32 pm Sep 11, 1983
The important point is that most handgun deaths in this country
are the result of domestic disputes. Armed lunatics, muggers,
and hired killers account for few of the more than 10,000
murders occurring in the US each year. It is in that instant
when rage completely overwhelms the jealous lover that the
trigger is more often squeezed. It is the drunken victim of
some barroom breach of etiquette who might through twisted
logic see death as just punishment for an insult.
The handgun is an extremely lethal weapon (yes, even a .22). A
knife is only lethal when persons are face-to-face, and the
killer is either well trained or is completely deranged and can
inflict consecutive multiple blows without the victim
escaping. Likewise, no other easily obtainable weapon gives an
attacker the power to do so much damage for so little physical
and emotional effort--the handgun allows one to project death
from the safe distance of a few feet, thus making murder clean
as well as simple.
I suggest the requirement that there be a gun in the house is
sufficient to make a gun available for those moments of emotional
overload. Further, I suggest that a rifle makes such a murder
almost as ""clean as well as simple" as a handgun (you have to
run downstairs get the rifle out of the cabinet and come back, rather than
simply drawing the handgun).
Finally, I admit I'm surprised. The Swiss law merely requires ownership
of rifles? What about handguns? Is one permitted to own them?
required to register them? Or what?
- Nat Howard
]bill@utastro.UUCP (09/20/83)
ideal for taking into banks, 7-11's etc., whose money you would like to appropriate; rifles are not. (3) Most crimes committed in the United States which involve firearms, involve handguns, not rifles. (4) The Swiss don't sling their rifles over their shoulders every time they leave the house (I think Nat's phrase "armed to the teeth" is mighty florid), so they are not usually in a position as citizens to intervene with their weapons to "reduce the rate of violent crime". (5) I believe that the reason the Swiss crime rate is so low is mainly sociological -- they are a small, homogeneous nation with history and traditions very different from those in the U. S.; therefore I do not think their experience is likely to be as relevant to the situation here as is Canada's. After all, Nat was responding to someone who pointed out that Canada, where handguns are uniformly much more difficult to obtain than in the U. S., has a significantly lower rate of gun-related crime. To the extent that this observation is true, and to the extent that Canada's experience has been more similar to that of the United States than has Switzerland's, I find the Canadian situation more relevant to the U.S. than that of Switzerland. Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (Snail) ihnp4!kpno!utastro!bill (uucp) utastro!bill@utexas-11 (ARPA)
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (09/23/83)
I think a comparison of Canadian and US gold-rush towns is appropriate here. The US West, and particularly places where there was a mining boom, tended to be a good place in which to get murdered. People protected what they had and some were a bit trigger-happy. On the other hand, Dawson City (Yukon Gold rush) had either 1 or 2 murders in its entire history. What was the difference? Mainly that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police set up a machine-gun post at the border (on the crest of a high pass) and forcibly disarmed everyone crossing into Canada. There were essentially no guns in Dawson except those owned by the 6 (count them, 6) policemen. Prospectors were not expecting to be ambushed, and neither did they expect to be killing their neighbours who happened to nose around at inopportune moments. (Reference Pierre Berton's book on the Klondike) Martin Taylor PS. The whole "opening" of the Canadian West was done under this relatively gun-free atmosphere, although there were guns in places like Fort Whisky, which was soon cleaned up, and during the Riel rebellions, which were organized and should be considered more as wars than as criminal uses of guns. Canada has no Wild West movies with shoot-em-up scenes, as a result.
engels@ihuxs.UUCP (SME) (09/28/83)
SUPPORT THE RIGHT TO ARM BEARS!