Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!gargoyle!shallit
From: shallit@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Jeff Shallit)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Gun control
Message-ID: <244@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Dec-84 19:02:30 EST
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.244
Posted: Wed Dec  5 19:02:30 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Dec-84 06:34:56 EST
References: <128@decwrl.UUCP> <>
Reply-To: shallit@gargoyle.UUCP (Jeff )
Organization: U. Chicago - Computer Science
Lines: 114
Summary: 

>	The premise that handguns do not deter crime is not valid.
>
>	The "Wall Street Journal", Aug. 17, 1983, 
>page 1, has an article titlted "Can We Deny Citizens Both Guns
>and Protection?" by Don B. Kates. Jr.
>
>	The article discusses a court ruling that the police were not required
>to protect citizens against criminals.  They pointed out that in District
>of Columbia, where the incident took place (three women were robbed, 
>terrorized, and repeatedly raped and police did not respond to any of
>the calls), gun control is in effect. 
>
>	They say that in the five years before gun control went into effect
>the murder rate had dropped almost 36%, in the five subsequent years it
>rose 16%.  
>

	This, unfortunately, is false.  I have a copy of the official
District of Columbia report somewhere.  It shows that murder rate
DROPPED 25% after the ordinance went into effect.

>  . . .
>
>	"The only homicide rate that fell was justifiable killing
>of felons by citizens which dropped to virtually nothing."
>
>	"Anti-gun lobbyists claim that such justifiable homicides
>are rare, but this turns out to be based on 20-year-old artificially
>truncated statictics from just two cities.  Nationwide, 1981 FBI
>statistics show that citizens justifiably kill 30% more criminals
>than do police.  Even this statistic substantially underrepresents
>the phenomena: it counts only robbers and burglers killed,
>excluding personal self-defense - for example a woman who kills
>a boyfriend to keep him from beating her to death.  The whole range of
>1981 California statistics show citizens justifibly kill twice as many felons
>as do police; in Chicago and Cleveland it is three times as many.
>
> . . .

     Again, this is blatantly false.  There are so many statistics that deny
this conclusion, it's hard to know where to start.  For example, in Detroit
in the early '60's there were only TWO recorded cases of a citizen
preventing an assault with a handgun, while in the same year there were
(something like, I can't remember the exact figure) 100 deaths caused
by handguns.

>	" ... recall the Atlanta suburb that reacted to the Morton-Grove
>Ill. handgun ban by requiring every sane, responsible, head of household
>to keep a firearm.  Compared to the preceding year, burglary rose
>slightly in Morton-Grove, but fell 73% in the Atlanta suburb.

     This omits the interesting fact that there was one accidental shooting
in the Georgia town, one suicide, and one murder.  In Morton Grove, there
have been NO gun deaths.  Sorry to burst your bubble.

>
> ------ Wall Street Journal - Can We Deny Citizens Both Guns and Protection?
>	Don B. Kates, Jr.
>	August 17, 1983
>
>

     I dislike ad hominem arguments as much as anyone, but I've read Kates'
stuff many times before, and met him in person.  He is a violent,
maniacal, disturbed man who twists the facts and alters statistics to
suit his purpose.  When pressed, he admits that he is against ALL forms
of legislation against gun control... not just anti-handgun legislation,
but also bills that make cop-killer bullets illegal, etc.


>	One person that decides to shoot it out with police in society
>the way it is right now wouldn't have much luck.   On the other hand, 
>the Nazis had disarmed everyone and made it illegal to possess
>weapons, which made it hard on the resistance at the time.    If, by referendum
>and other means, the bill of rights is so eroded in 10 years that some
>religious group could try to force others to share their beliefs, the fact
>that there are large groups of armed people in this country that disagree with
>them might moderate their actions.  What else could?  The United States
>is a wonderful place to live right now, but how long can this "utopia"
>last?  In many countries in this world the knock on the door means it is
>all over.  Historically governments have not been benevolent things,
>or if they are benevolent for a time they do not remain that way.
>Bullys are less likely to run roughshod over someone that might
>kill them. 
>
>	Deterents are psychological.  Rape did not go down in Orlando
>because women were pasting large numbers of rapists left and right,
>it went down because a rapist's chances of getting pasted increased
>dramatically.  Likewise, our right to arm ourselves is a deterant against
>a police state, not because we would go around shooting police but because
>we COULD.  
>

	Maybe your argument would seem more convincing if you learned to
spell "deterrent" correctly.

     There is no "right" to arm oneself.  The appropriate section of the
bill of rights reads, "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 am quoting from memory, so it is possible that
a word or two may be wrong here.)

    Read this sentence.  Now read it again.  Note the position of the comma.
It implies that the right to keep and bear arms is RELATED to the
necessity of civilian militia.  The Supreme Court of the United States,
on FIVE separate occasions, has ruled that this amendment does NOT 
relate to individual possession of handguns, bazookas, etc.  LEARN THE
LAW.

    Re: gun control.  If you want to learn more about it, I suggest
"Guns don't die, people do" by Pete Shields.

/Jeff Shallit