Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site spp2.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwspp!spp2!jhull From: jhull@spp2.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: handgun control - (nf) Message-ID: <353@spp2.UUCP> Date: Wed, 9-Jan-85 21:23:30 EST Article-I.D.: spp2.353 Posted: Wed Jan 9 21:23:30 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 13-Jan-85 06:38:19 EST References: <245@gargoyle.UUCP> <> <259@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> Reply-To: jhull@spp2.UUCP (Jeff Hull) Organization: TRW, Redondo Beach CA Lines: 42 Summary: >In article <> renner@uiucdcs.UUCP writes: >> >>There are a great many things that do more harm than good in this country; >>...This is not the case with handguns. ... >>Obviously the great majority of handgun owners harm no one, else there >>would be many more than 22,000 handgun deaths each year. ... >>Handgun control, as distinct from handgun prohibition, is a different >>matter. Handgun control seeks to ensure that handgun owners know how to >>handle weapons safely, are of sound mind, and are not particularly disposed >>to violence. Handgun control will only pass when it is clear that the >>controls are not to be a first step towards a total ban. In article <259@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> shallit@gargoyle.UUCP (Jeff ) writes: >Sorry, but this is just nonsense. There are also thousands of people who >own submachine guns, and only a few get used. Does this mean that submachine >guns should be legal, since MOST submachine guns are not used to kill people? > Jeff, As you noted in your second sentence quoted above, thousands of people own submachine guns. They are legal [to own]. And you seem to realize that since you make no reference to the owners being criminals. You then proceed with the third sentence above which is nonsense. I see this kind of "logic" all to often in your otherwise excellent articles. Now, I'm sure some people out there are thinking, "You know what he meant." And I think I do. But in discussions like this one, it pays to be precise, which I know you can be. I think you meant, "Does this mean submachine guns should be uncontrolled and available to anyone, regardless of prior criminal record?" If I'm wrong, let me know. In the meantime, please don't ignore Scott's final statement which does relate to what you are saying and what I think you meant to say. If, as I think, he has shown an area where you are wrong, admit it and then go on to those areas where you are right and which you express so admirably. -- Blessed Be, Jeff Hull ihnp4!trwrb!trwspp!spp2!jhull 13817 Yukon Ave. Hawthorne, CA 90250