Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Handguns: we're succumbing to mob ru - (nf)
Message-ID: <316@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 11-Sep-83 05:40:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.316
Posted: Sun Sep 11 05:40:10 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 11-Sep-83 16:13:22 EDT
Lines: 38

#R:tekecs:-195400:inmet:4000018:000:1573
inmet!nrh    Sep 10 14:42:00 1983

***** inmet:net.followup / omsvax!dps / 11:48 am  Sep  8, 1983
England has handgun control. London has fewer murders than
any American city of comparable size or density.  I don't
have the figures to hand, but as I recall the difference
is an order of magnitude.  British authorities have no doubt
that there is a relation.

Also, some Canadian cities (perhaps the whole country) also
have handgun control.  The Canadian city/cities in the
Great Lakes metropolitan area have fewer murders than the
American cities.   Could there be a relation?
 [  As I recall, Robert Heinlein's answer to this in "Expanded Universe"
    is that SWITZERLAND, where people go armed to the teeth by LAW
    has fewer armed murders per capita than the US also.  One problem with
    anecdotal evidence is that either once has chosen extreme case,
    or somebody else has a contradicting anecdote.

    Another answer to your question is that the problem of this
    country is NOT to reduce deaths due to handguns.  It is to 
    MINIMIZE such deaths, given the CONSTRAINT that its citizens
    (still) have the right to bear arms.  

    A third answer to your question is that although perhaps you
    and (certainly) I do not perceive and handgun as a particularly
    desirable or useful thing to own, that doesn't mean we should
    claim the right to prevent others from owning them.  Because,
    in your judgement, a handgun could ONLY be used in offense
    doesn't mean that in FACT you are correct, and those who
    own guns "for defense" are wrong.

					- Nat Howard

  ]