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!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!topaz!josh
From: josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: handgun control
Message-ID: <348@topaz.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 21-Jan-85 04:02:37 EST
Article-I.D.: topaz.348
Posted: Mon Jan 21 04:02:37 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 22-Jan-85 05:59:24 EST
References: <1745@zehntel.UUCP>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 78

Warning: this article is biased.  It is a reply to the "summary"
posted by Chris Johnson.  I promise you, however, that it is no more 
biased than the original...

> Reasons for owning a gun:
> 	1) Self defense
> 	2) Hunting/Sport 
> 	3) Collecting
> 	4) Crime
> 
> Why not ban handguns?
> 	Self defense :
> 		con: Stripping 50 million Americans of their chosen
			tools of self defense would require legal 
			enforcement measures at least as daunting as
			the crime they are defending against.
> 		pro: Policemen can use machine guns to face down
			the horrid gunowners.  Currently only criminals
			have machine guns, so we can leave them alone.
			House to house searches can be made; if we 
			declare martial law we won't need warrants.
> 	Hunting/Sport :
> 		con : If we take away their pistols, they may suspect
			the rest of our plans--they're not *totally*
			stupid.
> 		pro : Hunters are stupid louts who only have guns
			as phallic symbols.  They should be symbolically
			castrated.
> 	Collecting : 
> 		con : We should throw them a bone, so we can claim
			how fair and evenhanded we're being.
> 		pro : Someone might actually use an antique gun
			to protect himself, and that would be horrible.
> 	Crime : 
		Con : Giving the mob another area of government-
			supported monopoly would make us a laughingstock.
		Pro : Removing the last line of defense against crime
			would leave the people totally dependent on us.
			Total power would be only a step away.
> 
> 
> Legalistic argument:  
> 	con: Banning handguns violates the constitution.
> 	pro: Nahhh, the phrase "shall not be infringed" only means
		that we have to leave them some lip-service out,
		like joining a federally-controlled organization.
		Next we can use the same reasoning to show that 
		free speech actually means saying what your superior
		orders, in a federally-controlled organization...
> 
> Alternate method argument:
> 	con: Criminals are to stupid to saw off a shotgun.  This is
		proven by the fact that more of them use home-converted
		machine guns, rather than the far easier shotguns.
> 	pro: people shot with shotguns, rifles, and machine guns
		splash so much more spectacularly.  That's why so many
		of us media figures hate handguns!  And handguns so
		often don't kill anyway--it makes us look so stupid to
		say, "the subway killer, uh, gunman".  But the worst
		of all for us liberals:  If handguns weren't available,
		Reagan wouldn't be alive today!
> 
> Suggested method of implementing a ban: 
> 	1) Ban handguns and all 'law abiding' owners will turn them in.
	   We don't care about the criminals, anyway.
> 	2) Of course, when they see the law coming, the gunowners
	   will try to sell their soon-to-be worthless guns.
	   So we better make this an ex-post-facto law.
> 	3) Perhaps offer a reward for any gun turned in to get peoples 
	   greed motive in action.  Brother turned against brother!
	   Children turning in their parents to the Secret Police!
	   Ingsoc rides again!
> 
> For  your consideration,

:^),

--JoSH