Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site kontron.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!pesnta!pertec!kontron!cramer From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.flame,net.legal Subject: Re: Re: Personal Defenses (Wrong, Robert.) Message-ID: <131@kontron.UUCP> Date: Fri, 26-Apr-85 12:25:52 EST Article-I.D.: kontron.131 Posted: Fri Apr 26 12:25:52 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 27-Apr-85 05:00:15 EST References: <1518@decwrl.UUCP> <420@utai.UUCP> <539@ihu1h.UUCP> <188@spar.UUCP> <161@weitek.UUCP> <189@spar.UUCP> <539@lll-crg.ARPA> Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA Lines: 56 Xref: watmath net.politics:8698 net.flame:9554 net.legal:1612 > > Theres a saying that the Democratic party operates on the assumption > > that people are stupid, while the Republican party is based on the > > assumption that people are lazy. The rationale for Jay and Robert's > > advocacy of a citizenry generally armed in public is based on the > > assumption that people are rational, and indeed most people are subject > > to at least occasional bouts of reason. > > > > But people do irrational things. They get angry. They get drunk. > > They get crazy. Sometimes they just make mistakes. Sometimes somebody > > gets hurt. And to the extent that people are armed, they hurt one another > > more severely. > > > > There are times when justice is best served by an cool-headed victim > > with a .44. But shootings over traffic accidents are already ceasing > > to be newsworthy in California. > > > > It is unfair to deny perfectly rational individuals like Robert > > their street pistols, but how can the institutions of a free > > society go about determining who is and who isn't rational? > > > > Baba > > This is a very good point. For once we have moved away from the issue > of whether citizens have the right to self defense to the issue of just who > should we trust with the responsibility of carring around deadly force on > a daily basis. Fortunately there is a ready solution that is already accepted > by society. For a criterion of who to allow weapons permits use the same > one used by selection of police officers. You might even do better than this > and make the selection process a factor of ten tighter. Let me know a couple of facts on the fire that are not generally known. (In fact, many people in Washington and Vermont aren't even aware of this.) In the State of Washington, state law *requires* a judge or chief of police to issue a concealed weapons permit to anyone who is legally allowed to own a handgun in the state. Now, I'm sure that most people don't in fact go out and get one --- but they could, and I'm sure that some people do, and the State of Washington isn't awash in accidental shootings. In fact, for the last year that I was able to easily find crime figures (1980), Washington had a much lower crime rate than California, where concealed weapons permits are issued (abusively) at the discretion of the chief of police or sheriff. (Yes, I know there are substantial differences between the two states, and since crime is a multi-factorial problem, you can't compare crime rates and claim that concealed weapons permits are the reason Washington has the lower crime rate.) Vermont doesn't even require a permit to carry a concealed weapon. There is no process for one to be issued, nor is there a prohibition against carrying concealed weapons. (Although I wouldn't be surprised if some of the cities might have ordinances, I can't find these ordinances in the admittedly incomplete Federal publication of State and local firearms laws.) Vermont has a much lower crime rate than some of its neighbors (like New York). Again, you can't directly compare the two states, but certainly the evidence so far is not persuasive that armed populations go around killing people by accident. Perhaps people aren't as stupid as certain over-educated elitists think.