Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxi!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece
From: preece@uicsl.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: murder laws vs. handgun restrictions - (nf)
Message-ID: <3066@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 30-Sep-83 23:48:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.3066
Posted: Fri Sep 30 23:48:30 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 3-Oct-83 05:56:31 EDT
Lines: 28

#R:ccieng5:-15600:uicsl:4300084:000:1258
uicsl!preece    Sep 30 10:00:00 1983

	Of course not.  The point with the laws restricting handgun possession
	in NY is that they make the blanket ASSUMPTION that you are untrust-
	worthy and a danger to society.  Regardless of any evidence, agencies
	such as the NY Department of Mental Health must give permission
	(which I resent) in order for a pistol permit to be issued.

	...							The laws for
	handgun restrictions in NY do not accomplish anything of the sort.
	They simply restrict based on this assumption that you're
	fundamentally wrong, that government is somehow more intelligent than
	the average Joe, even though government is COMPOSED of average Joes.
	I don't believe it.
----------
But the law you object to specifically requires the testimony of some
average citizens who know you. If the state of New York insists on
allowing some people to own handguns, I think it's nice that they at
least require those people to convince someone (presumably one of those
average Joes the government is made of) that you are one of those people.

I agree with you, though, that the process really can't adequately
distinguish the safe from the unsafe. I would therefore assume that
everyone is unsafe, since that is the least dangerous course...

scott preece
pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece