Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-fremen!ryan
From: ryan@fremen.DEC
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Gun control
Message-ID: <259@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 13-Dec-84 18:20:38 EST
Article-I.D.: decwrl.259
Posted: Thu Dec 13 18:20:38 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Dec-84 03:05:20 EST
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: DEC Engineering Network
Lines: 88


	Perhaps I didn't express myself as clearly as I could have
last time.  The basic premise we are arguing is "Should there be
strong control of handguns (in particular, a ban on private ownership
of handguns)?"  I'm considering this question to be equivalent to
"Do handguns cause more harm than good?"  If you disagree with this
extension, please tell me why you think that, assuming handguns do cause 
more harm than good, they should still be legal.

	Don Steiny made the claim that citizens kill more criminals
than do police.  This was subsequently refuted by Jeff Shallit, but
it's irrelevant anyway.  A more useful comparison would be between
how many legal handgun killings (justifiable self-defense) and how
many illegal handgun killings occur.  The FBI (you know them - the
liberal pinko gun-control fanatics:-) reports that in 1983 157 criminals
were killed by citizens, and there were 22,000 handgun fatalities in
all.  That's a 140-1 ratio, folks.  Oh, but of course 

> The number wounded, captured, or driven off is far more important.

Well, if you're going to count this, don't forget to count the number
of handgun crimes committed in which the criminal does not kill anyone.
I don't have the stats on this (and they're probably harder to count,
seeing as deaths do tend to attract more attention), but it is safe
to say that handguns are used illegally far more often then they are
used legally.

	Don goes on to suggest handguns are useful to keep the 
government in line, should government control end up in the hands
of (his example) religious fanatics, or some other anti-democratic
group.  First of all, I think this is very unlikely scenario.  With
all its faults, our Constitution works.  Watergate proved it.  
Secondly, I would think rifles (which I am not proposing be outlawed)
would be more useful in such a situation.  If you want to protect
our freedom, I suggest you concentrate more on the First Amendment -
that's the one that would have to be gutted before the American
government could be perverted into a tyranny.

	About the amendment guaranteeing the "right to bear arms"; let's
look at it in its historical context.  The Founding Fathers were actually
a pretty cynical bunch (you'll notice they didn't let the common people
elect their President directly), and expected that it wouldn't be long
before their newly-created government got out of hand.  Therefore, they
included in the Constitution the right to bear arms as part of an
organized militia to keep the government in check.  Fortunately, the
experiment in creative government worked far better than expected 
(Libertarians and Communists are free to disagree).

>	In truth criminal acts will continue to go on in our world
>	until we address the problem of criminal behavior, not
>	something so meaningless as a neutral tool. Crime has 
>	actually dropped in the last few years.  A new gun
>	control act?  Of course not.  Merely a drop in the population
>	most likely to commit criminal acts. Treat diseases, not symptoms.
>		Robin D. Roberts

	Robin has a point here about crime prevention.  However, 
the "neutral tool" in question is not meaningless.  It is one which 
significantly increases the damage done in crime.  Some crimes actually
become impractical without guns (armed bank robbery, for instance). It's
interesting to note that the "need" for handguns decreases as crime
decreases (if there's no crime, there's no need for a gun).
Something should certainly be done about the crime problem, but private
ownership of guns is no answer.

	Oh, there is one use for a handgun besides self-defense,
and that's for sport (target-shooting).  This does not require private
ownership of the guns; they can be owned by and stored at the
facility at which they're used (which, needless to say, should
be reasonably secure).  There's no reason for a sportsman to have
a gun at home.

	Perhaps I should explain where my feelings about gun control
came from.  In high school I was assigned a term paper assignment
in which I had to defend some point of view.  I decided to tackle
the gun control issue.  Although I leaned towards gun control, I
had by no means settled the issue in my mind.  I had the impression
that my teacher was opposed to gun control, so I made sure I gave
the anti-gun control point of view a fair shake.  I found many
distortions of facts and even a few outright lies on both sides,
but found enough hard facts (government crime statistics, etc.) to
support the opinion I am expressing here.  The teacher (who never
gave a report card grade above 88 or so that year) gave me an A
for the paper (I admit, I may have misjudged his point of view).
Please do not call my opinions ignorant, silly, or ridiculous or
my "sayings" or concepts cute - they are not the product of uninformed
speculation and are (at least:-) as valid as yours.
		Mike Ryan