Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!blt
From: blt@cbscc.UUCP (Brian L. Tymchak)
Newsgroups: net.auto
Subject: Re:violence on the roads
Message-ID: <4595@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 14-Jan-85 12:42:19 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.4595
Posted: Mon Jan 14 12:42:19 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 15-Jan-85 02:19:45 EST
References: <1210@shark.UUCP> Boy, you really did it!  Of all the topics of today's society
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus
Lines: 48

to bring up, gun control has to be the most volatile.  But, since 
you did it, I've got to say a few things.
   The proponents of gun control, not all, but certainly most of
the vocal majority, are, in my opinion, ignorant of the 
effects that removing handguns from the population that would
result. (I figure I'll hear about that one.  Also, before I go too
far, let me say that these opinions are my own, and so on.)  Now,
let me explain my basis for making such a statement.  Guns are a 
tool by which acts of crime have and will be committed.  No argument
there.  Gun control would at the very least require registration
and a permit to own a handgun.  At the very most, it will remove
handguns from the most of the people in our society.  Theory has it
that if the means are removed the desire and consequently the result
will be squelched.  I say that gun control will only treat a symptom.
If the desire to murder or otherwise assault is present, it will be done
with whatever is available.  Knives are much more common in any household,
and are used in more assaults than guns.  Shall we remove knives
from the society, or at the least, register them.  Of course not.
The technology needed to construct a weapon to kill is so prevalent
that any youngster could do it if so inclined.  Consider a case of gun
control that was institued in Britain.  It was made illegal to purchase
a handgun.  Murders committed by handguns dropped, but, murders 
committed by knives and other "crude" weapons increased by nearly 300%.
Britain actually showed an increase in the number of crimes committed
with a weapon.  Incidentally, I believe that handgun control in Britain
has since been dropped.  It has been some time since I've read the 
article, so I am a bit hazy on the details.  I'll try to dig it up
and reread it.  Anyhow, my point is that controlling guns is a
useless effort.  Crime, and especially violent crime, needs to be
stopped at the core of the problem, namely the attitudes of the people
in society and how those attitudes are developed.  Consider another
case:  I remember reading, rather recently, of a small town that passed
laws requiring everyone to own some form of a weapon, preferrably
a handgun.  Violent crime became non-existent and burglaries and related
crimes dropped dramatically.  If anyone can cite the town and where
I can get the literature, please let me know.
   Well, this is getting a little long and this isn't really the place
for such a discussion.  I'm all in favor of establishing a dialogue
on the subject, but only with those who can do so in a rational and
intellectual manner.  Emotional outbursts rarely contribute to
anything except wasted time.  For anyone out there who would like 
to take opposition, lend support to my views, or otherwise lend
their views, feel free to contact me through email.  This will
keep the gun issue out of net.auto.


                                     Brian L. Tymchak
                                     AT&T NS, Columbus