Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84 chuqui version 1.7 9/23/84; site nsc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!gatech!nsc!myunive
From: myunive@nsc.UUCP (Jay Zelitzky)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: handgun control
Message-ID: <2141@nsc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 3-Jan-85 00:55:01 EST
Article-I.D.: nsc.2141
Posted: Thu Jan  3 00:55:01 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 4-Jan-85 04:38:00 EST
References: <168@ttidcc.UUCP> <631@whuxlm.UUCP> <39@ucbcad.UUCP>
Reply-To: myunive@nsc.UUCP (Jay Zelitzky)
Organization: National Semiconductor, Sunnyvale
Lines: 61
Summary: 

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.  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.
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".
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.  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.

	We can cut down on the number of criminals
who have guns and make it alot easier to track those who use them.
We can require that all gun owners have a gun owners licence,
just as we currently require drivers licenses for cars.   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.
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.
	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.  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.

				Jay Zelitzky
				{hplabs,decwrl,ihnp4}!nsc!myunive

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