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: <1872@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 14-Jan-85 03:28:56 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.1872
Posted: Mon Jan 14 03:28:56 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 16-Jan-85 04:41:22 EST
Lines: 140
Nf-ID: #R:alice:-322200:inmet:7800255:000:6740
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Jan  7 14:18:00 1985

>***** inmet:net.politics / nsc!myunive / 12:55 am  Jan  3, 1985
>In article <39@ucbcad.UUCP> faustus@ucbcad.UUCP writes:
> >Let me add some more:
> >
> >	7. How often do people actually succeed in defending themselves
> >	   from attacks with handguns?
> >	
> >	8. In those cases where they try and fail, how often is the
> >	   effect of the attack made significantly worse (by the attacker
> >	   getting mad, getting the gun, etc) ?
> >	
> >	9. Taking these two things into account, are handguns really 
> >	   effective ways of defending onesself?
> >
> >		Wayne
>
>	This point gets at the very essence of the problem with using guns
>to defend your property or your person.  First as more people get guns
>to defend themselves and their property more criminals will get guns as
>well.  

Why do you think so?  CRIMINALS are already highly motivated to 
get guns -- and they get all they want (remember the figures on
legal vs. illegal guns in NYC).  To argue that criminals will 
get more guns if people do without any support strikes me as silly.

>When someone is attacking you and both of you have guns, you are at
>a severe disadvantage because your attacker has the element of surprise.

Let's not oversimplify.  If you hear funny noises downstairs, YOU
know the layout of the house.  If somebody's breaking into your car and
you see them first, YOU have the element of surprise.  

>Also as most robbers do not want to be caught or seen, if you don't have a
>gun and they see that you are there, they are likely to run away where as
>if you do have a gun they might very well shoot at you in "self defence".

So?  Point the gun at them and tell them to beat it.  This example
strikes me as possible, but unlikely.  How is the thief to know you
have a gun? If you have one, how is it that he gets the chance to 
point his at you?

>The other problem is that around half of all murders are by 
>lovers, children, parents, spouses, or other people emotionally close to
>the victim in "hot blood"  which would not have been commited if a gun were
>not available.  

Proof, please.  If you can't muster any, shut up about this.  You wouldn't
believe how tiresome it gets to have one's constitutional rights
eroded by people using unsupported assertions about what might happen.

>Very few murders are actually commited in cold blood by
>actual criminal types.  Most occur in brawls or fights because one or more
>of the people involved have guns.  When people routinely carry guns it
>can even be used in "self defense" in a brawl to keep the other person from
>thinking of it first and using theirs.  Thus for 2 of the most common types
>of murders,  people having guns for use in self defense is a major contributing
>factor to the problem and totally useless as a defense.

Look, subway trains run some people and collide with others.  They are
thus instrumental in the two major causes of subway-track-related deaths.
Is this a good argument that we should get rid of subways?  No.
People buy guns for a variety of reasons.  Just as one seldom buys a car
with the idea in mind of wrecking it and killing a bunch of others,
most people do not buy guns with the specific idea that they'll start
on a killing spree.  They buy guns to protect themselves -- a legitimate
purpose.

If you were correct about guns being extraneous and dangerous, you'd
be able to convince people to get rid of guns -- it would be in their
own interest.  On the other hand, you seem to be trying to make it 
a thing controlled by the state -- a sign you aren't at all sure you
can convince people.

>
>	We can cut down on the number of criminals
>who have guns and make it alot easier to track those who use them.

No, we can't.  Listen -- we're talking a 12,000 mile coastline for the US.
We're talking small, easy to import items.  We're talking big money 
for the mafia.  Do you think the marijuana trade is much impeded
by being illegal?  No....

>We can require that all gun owners have a gun owners licence,
>just as we currently require drivers licenses for cars.   

Why should we?  As I understand it, a gun is a lot safer to own
than a car.  Further, cars are easy to spot.  Determining that
a gun was owned might require stop-and-search efforts, or 
arbitrary house-searches.  Or hadn't that occurred to you?

>This way guns
>used in a crime could easily be tracked down and people could be required
>to take certain classes and tests on gun safety just as they are for cars.

The murders committed in hot blood are not a problem -- as I understand
it, the hotblooded-murder-by-the-passionate-family-member-or-lover is
not difficult to solve -- and this is the only sort of crime that is
likely to be committed by people with a legal gun.

>People would be required to get a license before they could buy a gun and
>then once they bought a gun it would be registered just as a car is currently
>registered.  The licenses could be cross checked against drivers licenses
>to make sure the person is genuine and against criminal records to see if
>the person has commited a crime.  This would also make it easier to
>crack down in the resale of stolen guns, thus protecting the rights of
>legitimate gunowners.

Doing it for their own good, eh?  How generous of you. 
Of course, you've *COMPLETELY* missed the point -- the licenses would 
impede ONLY LEGITIMATE GUN OWNERS -- criminals would just buy guns
through illegal channels.

>	Currently in California, all that is required is that you sign
>a paper stating that you are not a felon.  There have been many cases of
>felons who have lied and bought guns anyway.
>	Although this plan would not cut down on the major uses of guns
>to kill people it would make it alot easier to track down who did commit
>a murder and to prove that that person committed the murder.  

Oh?  I don't see it.  "Yes, the gun was registered to me -- it was
stolen yesterday and I hadn't gotten around to reporting it because I
didn't realize it was missing."  Again, the crime-in-passion is not
that hard to trace.  In the real world, the killer (as I understand it)
is still standing there with the gun or has fled.  Either way, 
we're not talking locked-room mysteries here.  

>Through
>requiring education it would cut down on the number of accidental deaths
>caused by people mishandling guns.  By making it more difficult for criminals
>to buy guns it would cut down on the use of guns by criminals.

I don't hear any support for the notion that the black market in guns
will be much affected -- stolen guns will certainly be no harder
to get, and black market guns will be shipped in, just as pot is.

>If we license cars, only outlaws will drive without licenses.

Quite true -- and EXACTLY what happens.