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