Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/26/83; site ihtnt.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxm!ihnp4!ihldt!ihtnt!rkj
From: rkj@ihtnt.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Handguns as a deterrent to crime
Message-ID: <1872@ihtnt.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 9-Sep-83 18:00:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihtnt.1872
Posted: Fri Sep  9 18:00:36 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 10-Sep-83 10:12:13 EDT
Organization: BTL Naperville, Il.
Lines: 69

The current discussions regarding firearms, particularly
handguns, has focussed on several issues, but primarily
whether the Constitution protects the right of citizens
to possess firearms.
I do not want to address the constitutional issues here, 
but merely to ask those desiring more restrictive gun
control laws (or even a complete ban) what good they
think that will do in the case of criminal use of guns.

Much energy is being expended over questions such as
"people can be killed with weapons other than guns",
"extreme control over handguns will not prevent criminals
from obtaining guns," etc.  Let's start at the beginning:
in this country we believe in innocence until proven guilt,
or, in the case of governmental intervention and regulation,
anything is legal unless forbidden, and rules regulating
something do not normally come about unless there is some
problem (or, in some cases, revenue to be raised).

In this country, there is definitely a problem with
guns.  A gun sitting in my closet or under my bed is
not a problem.  A big problem is that criminals use 
guns to commit crimes.  Let us start by punishing those
who misuse the guns with swift and consistent justice.
When we start taking the crime seriously by punishing
those who willfully misuse a gun (or any weapon) to 
commit a crime, then we can address the handgun issue.

Omsvax!dps exhibits the liberal attitude that has resulted in 
the negligence of our judicial system by protecting the criminal
rather than the victim when he states that in the case of a
homeowner protecting himself with a gun against an intruder, the
homeowner had better have a good lawyer to prove he was indeed 
threatened.  Once a person intrudes by breaking into a house,
he has given up all rights of protection in my book.  The state
of Louisianna has recognized this by recently changing the law
requiring the victim to prove he was threatened in the case of
breaking and entering.

Again, the victim is not the criminal.  Let's start by coming
down hard on those who commit the crime and then worry about
whether guns should be more controlled.

The Wall Street Journal Journal recently ran a column entitled
"Can We Deny Citizens Both Guns and Protection?"  Its basic
theme is that the police have a hard time defending the citizens
from criminals, especially in the home, and that the availability
of guns for protection is correlated with the incidence of crime.
Written, to my surprise, by a San Francisco civil liberties lawyer,
the article mentions that 1981 FBI statisticss show that citizens
justifiably kill 30% more criminals than do police.  He quotes
statisticss that support the theory that in any area where a criminal
may possibly be shot (by the intended victim), crime rates drop,
at least in the Atlanta suburb that passed an ordinance requiring
firearm possession as compared to Morton Grove, Illinois, which
has banned all handguns.  

I have tried to address only the question of the possession of
firearms as a deterrent to criminal attack in this article.
Other related issues, such as crimes of passion that may not
have occurred had a gun not been present, or the accidental
shooting by those untrained in the use of firearms have not
been addressed, but are certainly important.  (If crime could
be controlled, the level of fear would go down, and fewer untrained
people would be sleeping with a pistol under their pillow, which
would certainly reduce accidental shootings.)

Rick Janka
..ihnp4!ihtnt!rkj