Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: handgun control Message-ID: <1873@inmet.UUCP> Date: Mon, 14-Jan-85 03:34:00 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.1873 Posted: Mon Jan 14 03:34:00 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 16-Jan-85 04:41:47 EST Lines: 110 Nf-ID: #R:alice:-322200:inmet:7800256:000:6093 Nf-From: inmet!nrh Jan 7 15:06:00 1985 >***** inmet:net.politics / randvax!david / 3:57 pm Jan 5, 1985 >> > > from randvax!rohn >> > > I'd be interested in answers from the control advocates to the following >> > > question: Assuming some sort of national handgun control is instituted, >> > > why do you think that that will prevent criminals from getting handguns >> > > illegally, just as most of them do now? >> > >> > from --- das (David Shlapak) >> > That's the whole point of NATIONAL gun control...making it harder to >> > get a handgun anywhere. One of the most pernicious characteristics of >> > a handgun is its size; it's not at all difficult to carry one from >> > point A, where there are no or lax gun control laws, to point B, >> > where stricter regulations may exist. A national law could be quite >> > effective in preventing this traffic in semi-legal weaponry. >> > >> > Remember, most "illegal" handguns were legal at some point in their >> > travels... >> >> I don't deny that nationally controlling handguns would make them harder >> to get. I'm just not yet convinced that criminals would have a *much* >> harder time getting them. Heroin is illegal everywhere in the US, but >> it does seem to turn up a lot, and from what I'm told, if you have the >> money, it isn't hard to get. Why would handguns be any different? (That >> wasn't meant as a rhetorical question...:-) ) >> >> >> Lauri > > I'm prepared to argue, Lauri, that we'd see a lot more junkies on the > street if heroin was legal and could be purchased legally at K-marts > and "sporting goods" stores... I'm GLAD you're prepared to argue it -- it shows you to be a person who does not comprehend in the slightest the logic of illegal drugs. England has made free heroin available to addicts. You must register for the drug, and as I understand it, it is supplied to you weekly. In all of England, there are an estimated 1500 heroin addicts. In the US, 0.6 percent of adults, or 816,000 are users of heroin (source: Information Please Almanac, 1985, pp 751 and 790). The 1500 addict in England figure means that they've got about 1/200th of the per capita heroin addiction that we do. Why? Well, one can argue cultural differences, but one CLEAR factor is that heroin is cheap and available there. In the US, heroin is a very expensive habit, and the simplest way for the addict to make money is to addict others and sell heroin to them. Failing that, of course, and lacking great wealth, he must steal a fair amount of stuff and fence it. The production cost of an average addict's daily dose of heroin is about the same as that of a loaf of bread -- so it would not be unreasonable for K-mart to sell it. So I'm delighted to hear that you're prepared to argue that freely-available heroin would cause more addicts to exist -- because it undermines the credibility of anything else you might say. > I used to keep a loaded gun (rifle, not handgun) by my bed, because I > lived in a bad neighborhood and felt I needed the protection. When > I moved "across the tracks" I first unloaded the gun, then got rid of > it entirely. I don't think guns are evil...they're instruments, > just like a jack handle, which is also lethal if misused. The problem > is, handguns are intended for one and only one purpose...the destruction > of human beings. Norman Mailer has a new word for us all, that I like very much. The word means: "An assertion that is repeated so often, particularly by the media, that it is widely accepted as a fact, even though the assertion is incorrect". Mailer's word for such an assertion is "factoid". Handguns are used to threaten human beings, to hunt animals, to display in museums, as sport devices for target-shooting. Acknowledge these, or fail to acknowledge them, and stand in the corner wearing a dunce cap. How often must it be said? They've other uses, for all that homicide is the most dramatic. Your assertion that they've no other uses (often heard on this net) is a factoid. > I DON'T believe possesion of handguns necessarily > should be outlawed, for all the reasons that you and others have been > bringing up (the same reason I don't think arms control is the best thing > since sliced bread....verifiability is a problem in both cases). > I DO think that national legislation severely restricting who can own > such weapons would go a long way towards easing the slaughter on our > streets...I mean, do you realize that more Americans are killed every > year by fellow Americans with guns than were ever killed in a similar > time span by Viet Cong and NVA with guns, mortars, artillery, etc? I believe the same may be said of automobiles -- and so what? We live in a violent country. Do you have some scientific reason to believe that such legislation would work? I know of none, but I'm willing to listen. > > Look at the numbers...most handgun murders are committed by non-criminals. > > > I'm realistic enough to know that gun control is not the entire answer > to the problem of violence in our society...in fact, I'm sufficiently > cynical to believe that there is no answer...if, however, stringent > national gun control can cut the number of needless deaths in half, > that's about 10,000 more mothers and fathers and husbands and wives > who will live to celebrate another Christmas than would otherwise be > the case. I think that's a worthwhile goal, even if it still means > that some "criminals" still have guns. Better none dead than 10,000, > but better 10,000 than 20,000. > A worthy hope. On the other hand, you've got the little problem of measurement here. Better 20,000 than 40,000, huh? What do you KNOW (What can you PROVE) of what would happen were the stringent controls imposed? How do you measure the degree of deterrence from criminals knowing that a given household is armed? Remember, you're the one trying to limit the freedom of individuals -- you're the one who'd better come up with some proof.