Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttidcc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!regard
From: regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: net.legal,net.politics,net.flame
Subject: tom west's version
Message-ID: <375@ttidcc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 24-Apr-85 17:29:39 EST
Article-I.D.: ttidcc.375
Posted: Wed Apr 24 17:29:39 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Apr-85 21:32:12 EST
Organization: TTI, Santa Monica, CA.
Lines: 29
Xref: linus net.legal:1220 net.politics:7973 net.flame:8541



Tom, I'm afraid I have to second R Roberts on this one.  It's similar in
tone to discussions I've been having with another Canadian on the same
subject.  Canada blames the US for illegally imported weapons.  The
US blames Mexico, or other points south, for similar weapons.  Fact is
you can make a "Saturday Night special" in your garage with approx. $14
worth of materials.

Confiscating the weapons from "fanatic gun-toters" (and even from non-
fanatic, quiet, reserved gun-owners, who in 40 years of ownership have
never used their weapon) does not remove weapons from the hands of the
criminal.

_My_ guess, (which you are entitled to shoot down as you please), is that
if the  general populace were unarmed, and forced to remain unarmed, the
criminals would be scurrying for guns like MAD (and manufacturing them)
since even poor ones would give them an incredible edge.  It would become
incredibly easy for the mugger to avoid the cop on the corner and rob the
guy who lived mid-block, knowing that no one stood in his way.  Right now,
he has to worry about both the cop on the corner, and that the guy mid-
block might be armed.  Rather than the other way around.

But these are just guesses, after all.  We don't have control groups for
our hypotheses, and can only stand up for what we believe.   Please don't
make the common mistake that gun-ownership equates to gun-use.  This is
patently not true (as previous statistics have shown).

				A. Regard