Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!topaz!josh From: josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: handgun control Message-ID: <130@topaz.ARPA> Date: Thu, 3-Jan-85 17:05:56 EST Article-I.D.: topaz.130 Posted: Thu Jan 3 17:05:56 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 7-Jan-85 02:20:06 EST References: <168@ttidcc.UUCP> <631@whuxlm.UUCP> <39@ucbcad.UUCP> <2141@nsc.UUCP> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 58 > re article from Jay Zelitzky: > > ... First as more people get guns > to defend themselves and their property more criminals will get guns as > well. Boloney. Most criminals who prefer to use guns have them already. A lot more people than you think have guns now-- there are guns in more than half of American households. Most people who don't have guns now, don't want them. > When someone is attacking you and both of you have guns, you are at > a severe disadvantage because your attacker has the element of surprise. Nice of you to be so concerned about the victim whom you seek to disarm. In fact, one is rarely attacked by someone who was completely unseen and unsuspected; and in a house breakin the victim gets the "drop" on the robber about as often as otherwise. If someone does surprise you, you merely surrender, gun untouched. > The other problem is that around half of all murders are by > lovers, children, parents, spouses, or other people emotionally close to > the victim in "hot blood" which would not have been commited if a gun were > not available. Not obvious. When the strict handgun controls went into effect in Massachusetts, handgun murders went down as a percentage, but the overall murder rate stayed the same. > We can cut down on the number of criminals > who have guns and make it alot easier to track those who use them. Think again, Hammurabi! Of the one to two million pistols in New York City (NYCPD estimate), about one thousand are licensed. Less than 1/10 of 1% effectiveness... > We can require that all gun owners have a gun owners licence, > just as we currently require drivers licenses for cars. This way guns > used in a crime could easily be tracked down and people could be required > to take certain classes and tests on gun safety just as they are for cars. Except for the 1000 people who have an illegal gun for each one who does it legally... However, this and the other licensing schemes miss the point entirely, and make your arguments inconsistent. If all you're after is licensing, the flames above about guns killing mostly in arguments and fights are pointless: the only difference would be that the arguers would have an extra piece of paper in their pocket. To use your own analogy: Cars are licensed in every state. It turns out that there are roughly the same number of cars as guns in America (ca. 150 million). Cars kill four times as many people each year as guns do. > If we license cars, only outlaws will drive without licenses. For what it's worth, this is substantially the case. --JoSH