rkj@ihtnt.UUCP (09/10/83)
The current discussions regarding firearms, particularly handguns, has focussed on several issues, but primarily whether the Constitution protects the right of citizens to possess firearms. I do not want to address the constitutional issues here, but merely to ask those desiring more restrictive gun control laws (or even a complete ban) what good they think that will do in the case of criminal use of guns. Much energy is being expended over questions such as "people can be killed with weapons other than guns", "extreme control over handguns will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns," etc. Let's start at the beginning: in this country we believe in innocence until proven guilt, or, in the case of governmental intervention and regulation, anything is legal unless forbidden, and rules regulating something do not normally come about unless there is some problem (or, in some cases, revenue to be raised). In this country, there is definitely a problem with guns. A gun sitting in my closet or under my bed is not a problem. A big problem is that criminals use guns to commit crimes. Let us start by punishing those who misuse the guns with swift and consistent justice. When we start taking the crime seriously by punishing those who willfully misuse a gun (or any weapon) to commit a crime, then we can address the handgun issue. Omsvax!dps exhibits the liberal attitude that has resulted in the negligence of our judicial system by protecting the criminal rather than the victim when he states that in the case of a homeowner protecting himself with a gun against an intruder, the homeowner had better have a good lawyer to prove he was indeed threatened. Once a person intrudes by breaking into a house, he has given up all rights of protection in my book. The state of Louisianna has recognized this by recently changing the law requiring the victim to prove he was threatened in the case of breaking and entering. Again, the victim is not the criminal. Let's start by coming down hard on those who commit the crime and then worry about whether guns should be more controlled. The Wall Street Journal Journal recently ran a column entitled "Can We Deny Citizens Both Guns and Protection?" Its basic theme is that the police have a hard time defending the citizens from criminals, especially in the home, and that the availability of guns for protection is correlated with the incidence of crime. Written, to my surprise, by a San Francisco civil liberties lawyer, the article mentions that 1981 FBI statisticss show that citizens justifiably kill 30% more criminals than do police. He quotes statisticss that support the theory that in any area where a criminal may possibly be shot (by the intended victim), crime rates drop, at least in the Atlanta suburb that passed an ordinance requiring firearm possession as compared to Morton Grove, Illinois, which has banned all handguns. I have tried to address only the question of the possession of firearms as a deterrent to criminal attack in this article. Other related issues, such as crimes of passion that may not have occurred had a gun not been present, or the accidental shooting by those untrained in the use of firearms have not been addressed, but are certainly important. (If crime could be controlled, the level of fear would go down, and fewer untrained people would be sleeping with a pistol under their pillow, which would certainly reduce accidental shootings.) Rick Janka ..ihnp4!ihtnt!rkj
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (09/11/83)
===================== ... 1981 FBI statisticss show that citizens justifiably kill 30% more criminals than do police. ===================== Huh!!? Run that one by again, would you? What's the status of the death penalty without trial in the USA these days? Martin Taylor
cjh@ihuxr.UUCP (09/12/83)
Controling handguns to reduce crime will not substantialy reduce crime except in the cases of accidental shootings and crimes of 'passion'. Anyone who wants a gun can always get one as long as there are standing armies in the world. You can buy a rocket launcher, morter, sub-machine gun or hand grenage on the streets of almost any major city in america. If you remove the possibility of gun ownership from the people crime will possibly increase. Someone with a knife will attempt to rob anyone in the street if they know that there is a 90% chance the victim doesn't have a gun. They will have to be desperate to try if there is a 90% chance the intended victim has a gun. The criminal with a gun will try under either case. Guns are not a 'god' given right, but until human beings become 'civilized' they are necessary. I will give up my guns, knives and black jacks ONLY when everyone else does, C. J. Holzwarth ihuxr!cjh
ian@utcsstat.UUCP (Ian F. Darwin, Toronto, Canada <ian@utcsstat.uucp>) (09/13/83)
===================== ... 1981 FBI statisticss show that citizens justifiably kill 30% more criminals than do police. ===================== Huh!!? Run that one by again, would you? What's the status of the death penalty without trial in the USA these days? Martin Taylor Robert Heinlein once said something to the effect that the one crime universally punishable by capital punishment is stupidity, and that the punishment is inflicted automatically, by the universe at large, and without malice. If you get shot while trying to kill someone, that is regarded by civilised society as justifiable homicide. This is a legal defense against a charge of murder. There are a lot more non-police than police, so it is not surprising that there are many non-police shootings of criminals- in-the-act by non-police. This of course only holds in areas where the state has not abrogated unto itself a monopoly on the use of force.