Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site unmvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!hoxna!houxm!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!unmvax!cliff From: cliff@unmvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: Re: handgun control Message-ID: <587@unmvax.UUCP> Date: Sun, 20-Jan-85 18:30:20 EST Article-I.D.: unmvax.587 Posted: Sun Jan 20 18:30:20 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 23-Jan-85 09:10:36 EST References: <1745@zehntel.UUCP> Organization: Univ. of New Mexico, Albuquerque Lines: 160 > Reasons for owning a gun: > 1) Self defense > 2) Hunting/Sport > 3) Collecting > 4) Crime > > Why not ban handguns? > Self defense : > con: I will be left defenseless if I am attacked. > pro: If you own a handgun AND it is used to shoot a > person there is an 80% chance it will be used to > shoot you or someone you know. (source Congressional > Committee reports circa 1978) > Think about this - do you think that the odds are > a good bet? truth: if *I* own a handgun and it is used to shoot a person the percentage chance that it will be used to shoot me or a person I know is unknown. Statistically a generic situation might yield the 80% figure, but you should know as well as I do that as you add qualifiers the statistics change... What are the statistics for women vs. men? how about age groups? left handed vs. right handed? Economic status? Membership in NRA? Membership in IRA? When you pin it down to a specific person statistics are no longer valid ... it's just like automobile accidents: the generic person might be x% probable to be the cause of a collision, while a person who has taken an automobile safety course will have x% and so on. BTW, isn't there also a statistic that says if you are injured in a violent crime that the odds are pretty great that it will have been by someone you know? Is there a reason you should not defend yourself from some- one you know? > Hunting/Sport : > con : Don't take away my toys. > pro : Handguns are not exactly the weapon of choice of > hunters due to inaccuracy and lack of power. > If you want a challenge (as was implied in > an earlier posting) use a bow and arrow, or > remove the sights or something. amateur : Clever of you to combine hunting and sport and then totally ignore the sporting aspect. There are many people that shoot handguns as sport from unorganized shooting of cans and bottles to organized target shoots. > Collecting : > con : Don't take away my toys. > pro : Prove to the authorities that your toy can't be > fired and you can keep it. It's dangerous to > fire an antique gun anyway unless its in perfect > condition. observation : Car collectors prefer to keep their cars in running condition. Stamp collectors will pay more money for stamps that are usable (i.e. uncancelled). I can't think of any collector that would prefer to have unusable objects as part of his/her collection even if there is no intent to use it. Do you really think many handgun crimes are comitted by serious collectors? Let me guess you also anticipate someone to mail you a postcard with an upside down Jenny on it. > Crime : > (No one is seriously suggesting that handguns should be > kept legal so that criminals can have them, are they? Criminals do not require that things are legal to enjoy the use of them. > ______________________________________________________________________________ > > Legalistic argument: > con: Banning handguns violates the constitution. > pro: Guess again Chucko. (oops, there's my bias showing) > A militia can be well armed with many other possible > weapons, and any other interpretation of the second > ammendment logically implies that I have a right to my > own private nuke to be used in event of an attack > against my country. Constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So at best the states can make the decision, although there is no reason to believe that the denial of the right to bear hand- guns has any Constitutional legality. > Alternate method argument: > con: criminals will just use knives, rifles, or some such weapon. > pro: A rifle is very difficult to conceal, a sawwed off shotgun > is still large, a knife is usually not as lethal (it is > at least possible to run from a knife). The plain fact > is that no weapon is as effective as a handgun from a > criminal's point of view. It's easy to conceal, and fairly > lethal. reality: There are many criminals and many crimes. The average criminal does not even use a weapon, which is not surprising because the average crime is non-violent. Even if you were to limit the crimes to ones during which people are killed you would find that the most effective instrument of death is the auto- mobile. Automobiles kill more people than bullets do and you can bet that in almost every automobile death someone is comitting a crime. It is very easy to raise all sorts of hell with everyday items. Molotov cocktails are pretty destructive. Botulin is not hard to create. However the biggest drawback to your line of thinking is quite simply put. Criminals do not have an aversion to breaking the law. Making handguns illegal will not deter their use by criminals. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Suggested method of implementing a ban: > 1) Ban handguns and all 'law abiding' owners will turn them in. You find me a law abiding person in this day and age. The laws are too ridiculous. There are *very* few people that obey them all. When was the last time *you* drove over 55 m.p.h.? > 2) Have yearly amnesties, say one week, when guns may be turned in > without fear of arrest. If someone is going to turn in a handgun at anytime (except after use of a crime) what is the point of prosecuting them? You have a situation that is hilarious: If you mess up the lives of someone you dislike, get a handgun and leave it on their porch. If the person has to wait a year to turn it in you can turn him in instead. It is as dumb as the marijuana possesion laws that inspired people to mail joints to random people with the message that once the letter has been opened the random recipient is immediately qualified to be sent to jail for a coons age. Of course marijuana is easily disposable (you burn it :-)... > 3) Perhaps offer a reward for any gun turned in to get peoples > greed motive in action. Huh? if the reward is less than the price of the gun it would still be a net loss. If it were more than the price of the gun you can bet that every year before the amnesty period people would be purchasing illegal handguns just so they could turn them in. 4) Since there are millions of handguns out there yet only less than 2% are used in crimes you would have to have a law that is >98% effective. Do you really think there could be such a law when it is clear that there is this much opposition to it? Have you ever read about (or lived through) prohibition? > > For your consideration, > Chris "I asked this guy and he said it made sense" Johnson --Cliff [Matthews] {purdue, cmcl2, ihnp4}!lanl!unmvax!cliff {csu-cs, pur-ee, convex, gatech, ucbvax}!unmvax!cliff 4744 Trumbull S.E. - Albuquerque NM 87108 - (505) 265-9143