Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utcsstat.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsstat!laura
From: laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: BANG BANG You're dead
Message-ID: <1340@utcsstat.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 27-Oct-83 08:46:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: utcsstat.1340
Posted: Thu Oct 27 08:46:56 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Oct-83 10:16:17 EDT
References: <495@ubc-visi.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Toronto, Canada
Lines: 85

response to Marc Majka:

What I think that you are saying is that you and I are nice people and
don't go around shooting other people. This is true. It is also a very
nice thing. The question is: Are we nice people because our government
banned handguns, or are we nice people because we are nice people.

I think that we are nice people because we are nice people.

So now we are left with the deaths due to handguns in the United States.

There are several ways to look at this. The first, and the simplest is
to say that US Americans are not-nice people. I know a lot of Canadians
who feel that way. They thinkt hat Americans are all a buncj of dangerous
loonies with guns. I am sure that you know some of these people as well.
(If you don't I can send you some phone numbers. I have friends in Vancouver
who feel this way.)

Personally, i doubt this. it may be that I have friends and relatives in the
US and I am unwilling to admit that they are dangerous loonies, but if I
am wrong I am making a big mistake. In the meantime, however, I am going
to assume that US Americans are, on the whole, just as nice as Canadians
are.

(If they are not, it doesn't matter anyway. they will just find new ways
of killing each other.)

The next conclusion is that US Americans do not know how dangerous guns
are. They see thousands of shootings on tv and the heros always walk
away, so that guns become something that certain people routinely use
to settle disputes.

Well, the solution here is to change the public image that guns have.
I would rather see all the blood and gore on tv that really happens when
you shoot somebody. The tv executives claim that people would be too
horrified to watch the shows. To my mind this is a very good thing. I
would *like* people to be horrified at the sight of killing. I don't
understand why people don't WANT to let people experience that horror --
if tv is used to vicariously experience real life events. 

(Frankly, I do not have a tv and have not grown up in a house that has
one. I don't understand why people want to watch shows with violence in
them at all. I would much rather watch whatever is on public television.
But then, I don't understand the attraction of football games either,
though I like baseball games.)

the other thing to do is get violence off the tv entirely. find other things
to write shows about -- surely there is more to life than crime and
killing! With all the intersting people around who would love to be
interveiwed, wouldn't you think... (I also like the idea of presenting
computer (and non-computer) art over the tv. Screens have adequate (but
not great) resolution, after all.)

The complaint that you hear is that people have a right to see the world
in all its violence -- this is called realism. I generally counter with
"how realistic are the fight scenes and the shootings" and get told that
this is not an issue. I think that it is. Anyone who presents a bloody
murder where the site of the victim is not enough to make most people
I know throw up is not being realistic.

Also, you see more murders in California in a *week* on tv than they
have had for many years. This is hardly realistic. If I move to california
I do not think that getting shot will be one of my principal worries.
(And how come they can all drive their cars so fast all around town
any time of the day? Last time I was in LA there were TRAFFIC JAMS,
and the East-West survey here seems to indicate that there still are.
And when I forget that I am in a country that thinks 55mph is a reasonable
speed limit, I get a speeding ticket...)

So much for tv realism.

The third argument is that just having guns around makes people violent.
I have not heard a lot of evidence to back that one up, but it is the
best argument from my point of veiw. If guns make people violent then
I will join you in your attempt to ban them. Somehow I doubt this, though.

Do you see now why I am opposed to banning handguns? Banning them does not
address the real problem and only gives the illusion of safety, while
creating a new class of criminal and enhancing the government's power.
And the same organised crime that so enjoys the drug laws and loved
prohibition will love handgun reguation. (At least they are enjoying
it in Canada today...)

Laura Creighton
utzoo!utcsstat!laura